4 ms·

You can’t call a top 1% person in income upper middle class imho and I think the definition of millionaire is tied to having more then a million net worth not w

by dbish 5y ago

You can’t call a top 1% person in income upper middle class imho and I think the definition of millionaire is tied to having more then a million net worth not whether you can lose it, but that’s where indepdently wealthy or similar definitions may come into play. If I have say a million or two, vs. someone who makes 50k/yr and worth maybe 100-200k, are we all middle class? What does it mean to define a middle class at this point then? It started with the middle 50% who have similar financial and social lives, but if it’s that wide, I’m unsure it’s a useful label. Everyone likes to call themselves middle class, but that seems wrong other then to say you’re a small millionaire vs. someone with real power in the > 100mm net worth category. The label does matter when we talk about the middle class being squeezed for example, and we know that’s not happening to tech execs or even software engineers in demand who start at 6 gigs, but to folks who work hard to break 6 figs in their career and see it as breaking into the upper middle class.

akiselev 5y ago
> Everyone likes to call themselves middle class, but that seems wrong other then to say you’re a small millionaire vs. someone with real power in the > 100mm net worth category. The label does matter when we talk about the middle class being squeezed for example, and we know that’s not happening to tech execs or even software engineers in demand who start at 6 gigs, but to folks who work hard to break 6 figs in their career and see it as breaking into the upper middle class. Not to get too soap boxy, but that's exactly how the upperclasses have used divide and conquer to hold onto disproportional political power. It seems "wrong" to you, but imagine we went back to the tax rates set in the Revenue Act of 1942 with brackets adjusted for inflation: a family with a single tech exec or engineer making 6 or 7 figures a year can live well within their means and still have to drastically cut back on their quality of life under those tax rates. Someone with a hundred million dollars of productive assets probably wouldn't notice a change in QoL at all, unless they measure it by yacht-foot or jet-seat.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by dbish 5y ago

akiselev 5y ago

> Everyone likes to call themselves middle class, but that seems wrong other then to say you’re a small millionaire vs. someone with real power in the > 100mm net worth category. The label does matter when we talk about the middle class being squeezed for example, and we know that’s not happening to tech execs or even software engineers in demand who start at 6 gigs, but to folks who work hard to break 6 figs in their career and see it as breaking into the upper middle class. Not to get too soap boxy, but that's exactly how the upperclasses have used divide and conquer to hold onto disproportional political power. It seems "wrong" to you, but imagine we went back to the tax rates set in the Revenue Act of 1942 with brackets adjusted for inflation: a family with a single tech exec or engineer making 6 or 7 figures a year can live well within their means and still have to drastically cut back on their quality of life under those tax rates. Someone with a hundred million dollars of productive assets probably wouldn't notice a change in QoL at all, unless they measure it by yacht-foot or jet-seat.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]