5 ms·

I don't know why people keep thinking class is about personal income. Edit: this is relevant because their evidence that the middle class is shrinking comes in

I don't know why people keep thinking class is about personal income. Edit: this is relevant because their evidence that the middle class is shrinking comes in the form of a drop in the share of total income earned that accrues to the middle quintile, from 17% to 15%. That's an interesting result, but it doesn't really say anything interesting about the "middle class". In my book, if you have to go into work every day or you can't pay the mortgage, you're middle class. You have a job, you have secured debt, you own your home, and your income comes from employment. I will bet you that a much larger span of that spectrum, up to and including most of the top 5%, meet that description. Those at the top might be "upper middle" and enjoy a lifestyle that others envy, but that doesn't make them upper class.

knieveltech 15y ago
Probably because class is about personal income.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  It's not that simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
- kemiller 15y ago
  No, it's not. It's certainly not about which evenly-spaced quintile you're in. It's about HOW you make your money, and what you spend it on. Consider: do you really think everyone making 88K or more should be considered "upper class"?
  - knieveltech 15y ago
    I fail to see the relevance of how one makes one's money to the class discussion and 88k is an arbitrary number. The classic "American Dream" lifestyle is typically defined as home ownership, two cars in the garage, three squares a day and sufficient disposable income to be able to comfortably afford to raise children and save for retirement. So, assuming this works as a definition of "middle class", anyone not capable of all of the previous due solely to financial constraints is therefore "lower class". Based on my experience, $120k annual household income in a low cost of living area barely squeaks over the bar if you use this metric. $175-$200k annual household income seems more realistic to me given the retirement clause. Where the line gets drawn for "upper class" is harder to define, but I think we can all agree an upper class exists.
sedev 15y ago
The picture is even bleaker if you look at wealth instead of income - bleak to the point of 'hmm, I wonder how long we have before a violent kill-the-rich outbreak like those at the tail end of the 19th century?'

knieveltech 15y ago

Probably because class is about personal income.

mkr-hn 15y ago
It's not that simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
kemiller 15y ago
No, it's not. It's certainly not about which evenly-spaced quintile you're in. It's about HOW you make your money, and what you spend it on. Consider: do you really think everyone making 88K or more should be considered "upper class"?
- knieveltech 15y ago
  I fail to see the relevance of how one makes one's money to the class discussion and 88k is an arbitrary number. The classic "American Dream" lifestyle is typically defined as home ownership, two cars in the garage, three squares a day and sufficient disposable income to be able to comfortably afford to raise children and save for retirement. So, assuming this works as a definition of "middle class", anyone not capable of all of the previous due solely to financial constraints is therefore "lower class". Based on my experience, $120k annual household income in a low cost of living area barely squeaks over the bar if you use this metric. $175-$200k annual household income seems more realistic to me given the retirement clause. Where the line gets drawn for "upper class" is harder to define, but I think we can all agree an upper class exists.

sedev 15y ago

The picture is even bleaker if you look at wealth instead of income - bleak to the point of 'hmm, I wonder how long we have before a violent kill-the-rich outbreak like those at the tail end of the 19th century?'