4 ms·

Of note is that "upper class" in this context is questionably defined as being in the top 10 percent of earners. I think this is misleading because I don't see

by Udo 7y ago

Of note is that "upper class" in this context is questionably defined as being in the top 10 percent of earners. I think this is misleading because I don't see someone making 3.5k as a single or 5.1k as a couple necessarily enjoying an upper class lifestyle. It's enough for a mortgage in a middle-class neighborhood and maybe a lease on one nice car (or two middle-tier cars). I have no idea what percent of the population is actually upper class, but they usually outright own multiple houses and luxury cars, and most importantly, a significant stack of wealth that is not necessarily bound in everyday living.

esotericn 7y ago
As was discussed on a previous post, the top 10% by wealth is a far more interesting definition. If you have a 40-hour earned income job you are almost certainly not upper class.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  Statistically 90-th percentile is more interesting. Practically calling 90-th percentile the "upper class" is whitewashing the extreme difference between the lifestyle historically associated with the upper class and the middle class.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Agreed. It strikes me that people like to deny the fact that the upper class is actually a very small group indeed. It's not about just having a slightly bigger house or car or whatever, the entire lifestyle is fundamentally different.
zaarn 7y ago
The 5.1k is after taxes and insurances, equates to about 100k per year in US terms.
otabdeveloper4 7y ago
Class isn't about wealth or consumption. "Upper class" means those who are rentiers, as opposed to those who have to sell their labor or body to others. Some CEO's are quite rich but still not "upper class", because at the end of the day they're still employers who sell their time to the highest bidder.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Do you not find it concerning that someone at the 90th income percentile in one of the richest countries in the world, in stuck in a socio-economic system where they have to be in significant debt to be able to obtain two fundamental human rights - shelter and transport? Either something is wrong with the social system which is making individuals to spend so much. Or something is wrong with the economic system, which is not providing enough income. Or something else wrong?
- Udo 7y ago
  In short, yes, I do find it concerning. Germany at least has a social safety net (as opposed to, say, the US), but making use of it is often dehumanizing and complex by design. Of course owning a nice house and an upscale car is a few rungs removed from having basic shelter and transport. One of the middle class problems I do see is that owning your daily stuff (like a house and a car) - and hence gaining some measure of independence - is increasingly difficult, even for relatively high earners. I think another poster here got it right when they said that being upper class ultimately means being a rentier instead of a rentee.
- majewsky 7y ago
  > they have to be in significant debt to be able to obtain two fundamental human rights - shelter and transport The fallacy in this argument is assuming that if you cannot buy your own house and car, there is literally no other way to obtain shelter and transport. I live in a big German city, though not quite in the city center. (My commute into the city center is 20 minutes by tram.) My monthly expenses for shelter and transport (not counting long-distance trips) come out to 500 € in total. With other non-negotiable expenses (food and insurances), this goes up to about 750 €. Rounding up a bit because there are always unexpected bills, a salary of 1000 € is the minimum that I need to live comfortably, if slightly frugally.
wreath 7y ago
> I think this is misleading because I don't see someone making 3.5k as a single or 5.1k as a couple necessarily enjoying an upper class lifestyle Exactly. Good luck buying a 3 room apartment in Berlin (outside the ring-bahn!!) even with 5.1k net without dramatically changing your lifestyle.

by Udo 7y ago

esotericn 7y ago

As was discussed on a previous post, the top 10% by wealth is a far more interesting definition. If you have a 40-hour earned income job you are almost certainly not upper class.

heavenlyblue 7y ago
Statistically 90-th percentile is more interesting. Practically calling 90-th percentile the "upper class" is whitewashing the extreme difference between the lifestyle historically associated with the upper class and the middle class.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Agreed. It strikes me that people like to deny the fact that the upper class is actually a very small group indeed. It's not about just having a slightly bigger house or car or whatever, the entire lifestyle is fundamentally different.

zaarn 7y ago

The 5.1k is after taxes and insurances, equates to about 100k per year in US terms.

otabdeveloper4 7y ago

Class isn't about wealth or consumption. "Upper class" means those who are rentiers, as opposed to those who have to sell their labor or body to others. Some CEO's are quite rich but still not "upper class", because at the end of the day they're still employers who sell their time to the highest bidder.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

Do you not find it concerning that someone at the 90th income percentile in one of the richest countries in the world, in stuck in a socio-economic system where they have to be in significant debt to be able to obtain two fundamental human rights - shelter and transport? Either something is wrong with the social system which is making individuals to spend so much. Or something is wrong with the economic system, which is not providing enough income. Or something else wrong?

Udo 7y ago
In short, yes, I do find it concerning. Germany at least has a social safety net (as opposed to, say, the US), but making use of it is often dehumanizing and complex by design. Of course owning a nice house and an upscale car is a few rungs removed from having basic shelter and transport. One of the middle class problems I do see is that owning your daily stuff (like a house and a car) - and hence gaining some measure of independence - is increasingly difficult, even for relatively high earners. I think another poster here got it right when they said that being upper class ultimately means being a rentier instead of a rentee.
majewsky 7y ago
> they have to be in significant debt to be able to obtain two fundamental human rights - shelter and transport The fallacy in this argument is assuming that if you cannot buy your own house and car, there is literally no other way to obtain shelter and transport. I live in a big German city, though not quite in the city center. (My commute into the city center is 20 minutes by tram.) My monthly expenses for shelter and transport (not counting long-distance trips) come out to 500 € in total. With other non-negotiable expenses (food and insurances), this goes up to about 750 €. Rounding up a bit because there are always unexpected bills, a salary of 1000 € is the minimum that I need to live comfortably, if slightly frugally.

wreath 7y ago

> I think this is misleading because I don't see someone making 3.5k as a single or 5.1k as a couple necessarily enjoying an upper class lifestyle Exactly. Good luck buying a 3 room apartment in Berlin (outside the ring-bahn!!) even with 5.1k net without dramatically changing your lifestyle.