3 ms·

>"Are people who make $200k middle-class?' We have to distinguish what exactly we're asking. Do economists and social pundits classify $200k income as "middle

by jasode 7y ago

>"Are people who make $200k middle-class?' We have to distinguish what exactly we're asking. Do economists and social pundits classify $200k income as "middle class"? Clearly some don't. Some sort of meta survey would have to answer who considers them "upper class". However, do workers in America earning $200k as a salary from a job self identify themselves as "middle class"? Yes, they absolutely do. This is how many people (in America) self-identify their class: - lower class: living on welfare, food stamps, and federal subsidized housing; or including those struggling without any government assistance but working 2+ jobs to make ends meet - middle class: workers with jobs in between lower class and upper class - upper class: able to live off interest income of investments

welfare 7y ago
This is the best definition I've seen and I really buy into the logic. Instead of defining middle-class on it's own, it makes much more sense to define it's boundaries (lower, upper) and middle is what the name implies, in between two classes.
dustinmoris 7y ago
I like this definition, but I think our society cannot be meaningfully represented in 3 classes anymore. Someone might not be able to live off interest income alone, but they might own a small internet company which makes them a few million dollars a year. These people can walk into a shop and buy a Tesla with cash without even having to think about it twice, but they wouldn't be able to buy a £45 million penthouse apartment in Singapore like the Dyson guy did recently. I would certainly classify them as upper class, but then there is probably at least two more classes above them.
harryh 7y ago
A family of 4 making 60k a year that has to carefully budget all expenditures should VERY CLEARLY not be lumped together with a single dude in his 20s pulling in 200k a year at a tech job. That guy might not have quite the fancy apartment he wants but can pretty much pay for anything else he wants (a tesla, fancy vacations, every electronic gadget he wants). This whole thread is full of rich tech people trying to lump themselves in with people in far different economic circumstances because they are uncomfortable with the fact they they are rich. It's gross.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  As someone who has been in that lower income bracket and is now comfortably upper-middle/lower-upper class, yeah its' definitely way easier now than when I was working a factory job. It's certainly not easy. I can't buy a Tesla and don't make 200K, but we're not worrying most months about putting food on the table like we were when we had nothing. I don't know that I would call anyone who still has to work to make ends meet rich, we'd lose everything with a few months of me being unemployed because we still haven't made enough to pay off our pre-existing debt. Is that still rich in your eyes? I've never made 200k myself, but I do pretty well for the area I'm in.
- jasode 7y ago
  >they are uncomfortable with the fact they they are rich. The issue you're overlooking is that many $200k earners truly don't believe they are rich. It's not that they "secretly" think they're wealthy upper class and just want to lie to you. It's not unusual for an employee earning $200k as salary from FAANG to feel like it's a middle class living. However, if that same person earns $200k/year purely as capital gains interest income from US Treasury Bills and therefore never has to work at a job for the rest of his life, that's the magic threshold to feel "rich". I.e. "FU money" means "rich". (Yes, you can certainly disagree with those boundaries but I'm just trying to explain how people think.) It's the necessity of working at a job that makes them feel like they are in the "middle class". It doesn't matter if it's a white-collar office job instead of a blue-collar factory gig. They can't be "uncomfortable with being rich" if they don't think they're rich in the first place. I don't see how we can have productive discussions on social progress if we poison the well by slapping labels on $200k workers that they themselves don't actually believe.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I don't understand this argument. I agree that they don't believe they're rich, and they're not intentionally deceiving themselves. But they are also wrong.
    - viklove 7y ago
BonesJustice 7y ago
I tend to think of the classes in terms of standard of living according to one's access to certain tiers of goods and services, but the resulting class divisions end up being pretty similar to yours. --- Tier 1 (basic necessities) consists of goods and services that are essential for living in good health: food with adequate nutrition; shelter; access to health care; at least a basic education. That sort of thing. Tier 2 (basic extras) envelops those things which are not strictly necessary, but are reasonable expectations for living a fulfilling life: family vacations (nothing exotic, maybe ~once a year); access to a college-level education; at least a modest budget for entertainment; owning one's primary residence; enough savings to provide continued access to this tier of items post-retirement. Tier 3 (luxuries) are those things in excess of what an 'average' person would reasonably feel entitled to. In essence, they are the rewards for above-average financial success: more exotic vacations more often; luxury cars in the sub-exotic range; a home with custom fit and finish; 'basic' part-time hired help (lawn care, tutors, perhaps a nanny). Tier 4 (super-luxuries) are those things which an 'average' would see as unattainable, even in their best years: a sprawling mansion or luxury penthouse in the city; exotic cars; private or chartered jet service; full-time, on-site hired help (private chef, valet, that sort of thing). So how do these fit into the class structure? I tend to model it like this: Lower class people can only attain the basic necessities (tier 1) by working multiple jobs or excessive hours, and/or with social or government assistance. When spending responsibly, items in tier 2 are unattainable. Lower-middle class people can provide tier 1 items without assistance, but their access to tier 2 is limited or nonexistent. For example, maybe they can enjoy a family vacation every few years, but they are probably relegated to renting a home, and their retirement prospects are meager. Middle class people can, with responsible budgeting, provide everything in tier 1 and most of tier 2 without going into excessive debt. With responsible budgeting, they can continue to maintain this lifestyle through retirement. Upper-middle class people work for their salary or own small businesses. They never have to worry about tiers 1 and 2; those are covered. Their budget focuses on which tier 3 items they can reasonably afford. Assuming responsible financial planning, they can more or less maintain this standard of living through retirement (some modest concessions may be in order). When spending responsibly, the upper-middle class have little or no debt beyond a mortgage and student loans. There are a few ways to fall into the 'upper' class. If you're far from retirement age and don't have to work, yet your amassed wealth and investment income are sufficient to maintain an upper-middle class lifestyle, then I'd put you in the upper class bucket. If you have access to tier 4, you are upper-class regardless of whether you choose to work. If your concept of a 'budget' revolves around how much money you give away, or which foreign jurisdiction makes the best tax haven, you're probably in this group. --- Note that not having to work for a living is itself a luxury. In general, if you have the means to maintain the standard of living a certain class without working (and being far from a typical retirement age), then I would put you in the next higher class. For example, if you're 45 years old and could maintain a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without working, I'd say that makes you upper-middle class.
zeveb 7y ago
Your breakdown really is the best one I've seen, but I wonder if your lower class might be broken into two groups, stealing a bit from your middle class: - poverty: living on welfare, food stamps, and federal subsidized housing - lower class: hourly wages, working two jobs to make ends meet - middle class: salaried workers - upper class: live off of investment income

by jasode 7y ago

welfare 7y ago

This is the best definition I've seen and I really buy into the logic. Instead of defining middle-class on it's own, it makes much more sense to define it's boundaries (lower, upper) and middle is what the name implies, in between two classes.

dustinmoris 7y ago

I like this definition, but I think our society cannot be meaningfully represented in 3 classes anymore. Someone might not be able to live off interest income alone, but they might own a small internet company which makes them a few million dollars a year. These people can walk into a shop and buy a Tesla with cash without even having to think about it twice, but they wouldn't be able to buy a £45 million penthouse apartment in Singapore like the Dyson guy did recently. I would certainly classify them as upper class, but then there is probably at least two more classes above them.

harryh 7y ago

A family of 4 making 60k a year that has to carefully budget all expenditures should VERY CLEARLY not be lumped together with a single dude in his 20s pulling in 200k a year at a tech job. That guy might not have quite the fancy apartment he wants but can pretty much pay for anything else he wants (a tesla, fancy vacations, every electronic gadget he wants). This whole thread is full of rich tech people trying to lump themselves in with people in far different economic circumstances because they are uncomfortable with the fact they they are rich. It's gross.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
As someone who has been in that lower income bracket and is now comfortably upper-middle/lower-upper class, yeah its' definitely way easier now than when I was working a factory job. It's certainly not easy. I can't buy a Tesla and don't make 200K, but we're not worrying most months about putting food on the table like we were when we had nothing. I don't know that I would call anyone who still has to work to make ends meet rich, we'd lose everything with a few months of me being unemployed because we still haven't made enough to pay off our pre-existing debt. Is that still rich in your eyes? I've never made 200k myself, but I do pretty well for the area I'm in.
jasode 7y ago
>they are uncomfortable with the fact they they are rich. The issue you're overlooking is that many $200k earners truly don't believe they are rich. It's not that they "secretly" think they're wealthy upper class and just want to lie to you. It's not unusual for an employee earning $200k as salary from FAANG to feel like it's a middle class living. However, if that same person earns $200k/year purely as capital gains interest income from US Treasury Bills and therefore never has to work at a job for the rest of his life, that's the magic threshold to feel "rich". I.e. "FU money" means "rich". (Yes, you can certainly disagree with those boundaries but I'm just trying to explain how people think.) It's the necessity of working at a job that makes them feel like they are in the "middle class". It doesn't matter if it's a white-collar office job instead of a blue-collar factory gig. They can't be "uncomfortable with being rich" if they don't think they're rich in the first place. I don't see how we can have productive discussions on social progress if we poison the well by slapping labels on $200k workers that they themselves don't actually believe.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I don't understand this argument. I agree that they don't believe they're rich, and they're not intentionally deceiving themselves. But they are also wrong.
  - viklove 7y ago

BonesJustice 7y ago

I tend to think of the classes in terms of standard of living according to one's access to certain tiers of goods and services, but the resulting class divisions end up being pretty similar to yours. --- Tier 1 (basic necessities) consists of goods and services that are essential for living in good health: food with adequate nutrition; shelter; access to health care; at least a basic education. That sort of thing. Tier 2 (basic extras) envelops those things which are not strictly necessary, but are reasonable expectations for living a fulfilling life: family vacations (nothing exotic, maybe ~once a year); access to a college-level education; at least a modest budget for entertainment; owning one's primary residence; enough savings to provide continued access to this tier of items post-retirement. Tier 3 (luxuries) are those things in excess of what an 'average' person would reasonably feel entitled to. In essence, they are the rewards for above-average financial success: more exotic vacations more often; luxury cars in the sub-exotic range; a home with custom fit and finish; 'basic' part-time hired help (lawn care, tutors, perhaps a nanny). Tier 4 (super-luxuries) are those things which an 'average' would see as unattainable, even in their best years: a sprawling mansion or luxury penthouse in the city; exotic cars; private or chartered jet service; full-time, on-site hired help (private chef, valet, that sort of thing). So how do these fit into the class structure? I tend to model it like this: Lower class people can only attain the basic necessities (tier 1) by working multiple jobs or excessive hours, and/or with social or government assistance. When spending responsibly, items in tier 2 are unattainable. Lower-middle class people can provide tier 1 items without assistance, but their access to tier 2 is limited or nonexistent. For example, maybe they can enjoy a family vacation every few years, but they are probably relegated to renting a home, and their retirement prospects are meager. Middle class people can, with responsible budgeting, provide everything in tier 1 and most of tier 2 without going into excessive debt. With responsible budgeting, they can continue to maintain this lifestyle through retirement. Upper-middle class people work for their salary or own small businesses. They never have to worry about tiers 1 and 2; those are covered. Their budget focuses on which tier 3 items they can reasonably afford. Assuming responsible financial planning, they can more or less maintain this standard of living through retirement (some modest concessions may be in order). When spending responsibly, the upper-middle class have little or no debt beyond a mortgage and student loans. There are a few ways to fall into the 'upper' class. If you're far from retirement age and don't have to work, yet your amassed wealth and investment income are sufficient to maintain an upper-middle class lifestyle, then I'd put you in the upper class bucket. If you have access to tier 4, you are upper-class regardless of whether you choose to work. If your concept of a 'budget' revolves around how much money you give away, or which foreign jurisdiction makes the best tax haven, you're probably in this group. --- Note that not having to work for a living is itself a luxury. In general, if you have the means to maintain the standard of living a certain class without working (and being far from a typical retirement age), then I would put you in the next higher class. For example, if you're 45 years old and could maintain a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without working, I'd say that makes you upper-middle class.

zeveb 7y ago

Your breakdown really is the best one I've seen, but I wonder if your lower class might be broken into two groups, stealing a bit from your middle class: - poverty: living on welfare, food stamps, and federal subsidized housing - lower class: hourly wages, working two jobs to make ends meet - middle class: salaried workers - upper class: live off of investment income