3 ms·

I think the disconnect is that these people have an Upper Class salary nationally (the student linked at the top), but choose (and I stress the word choose) to

by howeyc 12y ago

I think the disconnect is that these people have an Upper Class salary nationally (the student linked at the top), but choose (and I stress the word choose) to live a middle class lifestyle locally. For instance, with that upper class salary they could likely get a home outside the city with a pool, park a couple expensive bmw cars out front and go on expensive vacations, buy the latest toys, etc. Or, they can live close to work/coast/lake/whatever and be house-rich, but poor everywhere else. Middle-class people don't have such an option. Their salary leads to outskirt/suburb house without pool, without bmw, etc. And no option to live close to what they desire. People in the bracket sniffing the upper-class usually buy token "I'm rich" status items (designer clothes/phones/etc) which they can't really afford except maybe sporadically. Poor people are worse off, they live in location with an x-block radius they rarely leave.

scott_s 12y ago
This NY Times piece explores this topic further: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/upshot/letter-from-the-editor-whos-really-middle-class.html?abt=0002&abg=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/upshot/letter-from-the-edi... A key quote, which almost doesn't need context: "But here’s the thing: Being able to afford those things is pretty good definition of affluence in modern American society."
- r00fus 12y ago
  That quote (and article) doesn't jibe with the definition of affluence, at least according to various dictionaries [1] (e.g. "great wealth", "property", "abundance of wealth"). Not having much left over is not having an abundance. The definition of affluence seems to presume various sources of passive income. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=affluence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=affluence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
rayiner 12y ago
People whose families make $150-$250k are usually professionals whose jobs are tied to expensive cities, and can't practically live somewhere cheap.
rhino369 12y ago
While this is something to this, you also can't separate cost of living from salary comparisons. People making a lot, but having to spend a lot, working in the Bay area, NYC, DC, LA, etc. etc., don't have the options of keeping their salary and moving to a Cleveland suburb for the lower cost of living. Even if there were enough jobs for people do it, they wouldn't pay enough. They are essentially getting a premium salary because they have to pay a premium COL. It's not really a choice because the premium salary only comes if you work on the premium area. So it's not really accurate to call a developer who make 130k in Palo Alto "upper class" and call a developer who makes 70k in Arlington Heights, IL middle class. They probably lead similar lifestyles.
- chaqke 12y ago
  This is true, but the developer in Palo Alto has the option to scale back her lifestyle and bank a lot of cash, whereas the developer in Arlington Heights will bank much less cash if he scales back his lifestyle. Not arguing, just adding more "shape to that curve" :-)

by howeyc 12y ago

scott_s 12y ago

This NY Times piece explores this topic further: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/upshot/letter-from-the-editor-whos-really-middle-class.html?abt=0002&abg=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/upshot/letter-from-the-edi... A key quote, which almost doesn't need context: "But here’s the thing: Being able to afford those things is pretty good definition of affluence in modern American society."

r00fus 12y ago
That quote (and article) doesn't jibe with the definition of affluence, at least according to various dictionaries [1] (e.g. "great wealth", "property", "abundance of wealth"). Not having much left over is not having an abundance. The definition of affluence seems to presume various sources of passive income. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=affluence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=affluence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

rayiner 12y ago

People whose families make $150-$250k are usually professionals whose jobs are tied to expensive cities, and can't practically live somewhere cheap.

rhino369 12y ago

While this is something to this, you also can't separate cost of living from salary comparisons. People making a lot, but having to spend a lot, working in the Bay area, NYC, DC, LA, etc. etc., don't have the options of keeping their salary and moving to a Cleveland suburb for the lower cost of living. Even if there were enough jobs for people do it, they wouldn't pay enough. They are essentially getting a premium salary because they have to pay a premium COL. It's not really a choice because the premium salary only comes if you work on the premium area. So it's not really accurate to call a developer who make 130k in Palo Alto "upper class" and call a developer who makes 70k in Arlington Heights, IL middle class. They probably lead similar lifestyles.

chaqke 12y ago
This is true, but the developer in Palo Alto has the option to scale back her lifestyle and bank a lot of cash, whereas the developer in Arlington Heights will bank much less cash if he scales back his lifestyle. Not arguing, just adding more "shape to that curve" :-)