3 ms·

You make a great point, but would you agree with the following?: There are tons of Finance jobs paying around 80-100k in NY. That salary, in that city, puts yo

by antr 13y ago

You make a great point, but would you agree with the following?: There are tons of Finance jobs paying around 80-100k in NY. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class. Is this now (perceived as) middle class?

dalke 13y ago
"Is this now (perceived as) middle class?" Umm, yes? It's the upper middle class, or the professional class if you prefer a different way of categorizing members of the middle class. Now, there are many alternative models of the US class system, some of which would say that a finance job is in the working class - a well-paid worker, but still working class. However, it seems your complaint was based on the salary, not the type of job. I need a little help to understand your statement. Do you consider a "finance job paying around 80-100k in NY" to be working class? Blue collar? Upper class? Capitalist class? Blue bloods?
jcnnghm 13y ago
I'd agree with that, with the qualification that $80-100k may actually be a bit low. In the United States overall, the upper quintile of income starts at about $102k [1], so an income between $80 and $100k would place you in the upper-middle class. However, it's important to keep in mind that the cost of living in San Francisco or New York is much higher than average. Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,795 [2] in San Francisco, that alone is over $33k a year. The SF cost of living index is 161.3 and the Manhattan cost of living index is 223.9. In other words, $100k in Manhattan is equivalent to about $45k in an average place in the US, firmly in the middle quintile. The Living Wage Project suggests it takes at least $100k to be effectively middle class in New York [3]. It's really not a perception thing, it's reality. 1: US Census 2011 Household Income Table HINC-05 2: http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/ http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/ 3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/cities-high-cost-of-living_n_1236841.html#s644530&title=4_San_Francisco http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/cities-high-cost-of...
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  The numbers from the census are household income. The average household has nearly 2 workers.
cenhyperion 13y ago
Yes. That's definitely middle class. Especially living in an expensive area like San Francisco.
stretchwithme 13y ago
Its quite the middle class. Especially if you avail yourself of public transport and live out in Queens half an hour away. Yes, its a great hardship to have to take the train. But thousands of people do it and have quite a comfortable life at 80 to 100K.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
For the location, it indeed affords you what everyone thinks of as a middle-class lifestyle. This is a pretty sad indication of how bad urban development policies have gotten.

by antr 13y ago

dalke 13y ago

"Is this now (perceived as) middle class?" Umm, yes? It's the upper middle class, or the professional class if you prefer a different way of categorizing members of the middle class. Now, there are many alternative models of the US class system, some of which would say that a finance job is in the working class - a well-paid worker, but still working class. However, it seems your complaint was based on the salary, not the type of job. I need a little help to understand your statement. Do you consider a "finance job paying around 80-100k in NY" to be working class? Blue collar? Upper class? Capitalist class? Blue bloods?

jcnnghm 13y ago

I'd agree with that, with the qualification that $80-100k may actually be a bit low. In the United States overall, the upper quintile of income starts at about $102k [1], so an income between $80 and $100k would place you in the upper-middle class. However, it's important to keep in mind that the cost of living in San Francisco or New York is much higher than average. Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,795 [2] in San Francisco, that alone is over $33k a year. The SF cost of living index is 161.3 and the Manhattan cost of living index is 223.9. In other words, $100k in Manhattan is equivalent to about $45k in an average place in the US, firmly in the middle quintile. The Living Wage Project suggests it takes at least $100k to be effectively middle class in New York [3]. It's really not a perception thing, it's reality. 1: US Census 2011 Household Income Table HINC-05 2: http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/ http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/ 3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/cities-high-cost-of-living_n_1236841.html#s644530&title=4_San_Francisco http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/cities-high-cost-of...

rgbrenner 13y ago
The numbers from the census are household income. The average household has nearly 2 workers.

cenhyperion 13y ago

Yes. That's definitely middle class. Especially living in an expensive area like San Francisco.

stretchwithme 13y ago

Its quite the middle class. Especially if you avail yourself of public transport and live out in Queens half an hour away. Yes, its a great hardship to have to take the train. But thousands of people do it and have quite a comfortable life at 80 to 100K.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

For the location, it indeed affords you what everyone thinks of as a middle-class lifestyle. This is a pretty sad indication of how bad urban development policies have gotten.