Who is the middle class???

[luvmyhalo]

Thank you for all your replies. It''s interesting that a term that is thrown around so often can be sooooo confusing to MOST people! It appears that politicians use the term assuming that most Americans think of themselves as middle class. They say, "We''re going to do A, B & C to help the middle class." And what they''re really doing is making potential voters think that they will do things to help them when it usually just means, "Vote for me and I''ll see what I can do."

 

[LuckyTexan]

I keep hearing under $250,000 household income...

I''ve always thought middle class was like... people who work for a living, pay taxes, buy houses etc...

So if you''re not a famous rapper or OJ''s lawyer... and you can''t get foodstamps cuz you make too much... you''re likely a ''middle class'' American.

Me? I say I''m middle class... I''m REALLY hoping we don''t ever breach the $250,000 mark. Taxes above that... you may as well NOT make the money!

 

[partgypsy]

This is a really good question! I always assumed it had to do with falling within a certain income bracket (someone posted 30K-80K) but it seems everyone has a different opinion. I guess it would be somewhat arbitrary, but have to make a decision somewhere. I think it''s funny there are people out there making 200K and think they are middle class. I wish!

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 10/14/2008 4:07:33 PM
Author: part gypsy
This is a really good question! I always assumed it had to do with falling within a certain income bracket (someone posted 30K-80K) but it seems everyone has a different opinion. I guess it would be somewhat arbitrary, but have to make a decision somewhere. I think it's funny there are people out there making 200K and think they are middle class. I wish!

OK, then what are they - in Southern California for example? Fixer-upper 2 bedroom houses start at 700K, public schools are terrible and private schools and good daycare tuitions rival those of sending your kid to UCLA. Hubby and I have no debt - make between 100K and 200K, are still priced out of home ownership, and are sadly realizing that we may not be able to afford to raise a family (we have no relatives here to help out with childcare).

 

[brooklyngirl]

I really don''t think you can use an absolute number figure to determine who is middle class.

Perhaps middle america, where you can get a started house for 100K, 250k per year is certainly above the middle class, but if you go to places like NYC, you can''t buy a home making 250k -- perhaps you can buy a very small apartment, but 250k in NYC isn''t such big money.

A dollar just not worth the same in every part of the country, and that has to be taken into account.

 

[katamari]

Can I just point out, again, that only the top 5% of families (not individuals, families) earn more than $200,000 in a year. Regardless of whether or not it is harder for that family in one location or another does not subtract from the fact that they are still earning more than 95% of all Americans and therefore no where near the middle.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/14/2008 4:47:42 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 10/14/2008 4:07:33 PM
Author: part gypsy
I think it''s funny there are people out there making 200K and think they are middle class. I wish!

OK, then what are they - in Southern California for example? Fixer-upper 2 bedroom houses start at 700K, public schools are terrible and private schools and good daycare tuitions rival those of sending your kid to UCLA. Hubby and I have no debt - make between 100K and 200K, are still priced out of home ownership, and are sadly realizing that we may not be able to afford to raise a family (we have no relatives here to help out with childcare).

People generally choose to live in high-cost-of-living areas because of comparably higher salaries. Why should the government subsidize people''s choice of hometown??

If the basics of life are unaffordable where folks are ... feel free to do as all my friends who used to live in NYC did ... move elsewhere! My husband has a four hour RT commute into the city almost every day. There are tough choices to be made. Life isn''t a cake walk for many of us. But, honestly, just HAVING a job these days is pretty darn good.

 

[UCLABelle]

I agree with Deco to a degree---I do not think the government should subsidize; however, I was under the impression that despite the higher salary in certain metro areas, and the high cost of living, they are disproportionate compared to other areas: http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html

Eventually I believe this will be corrected (it is in the process, with the housing market decline, hitting many areas that were out of reach for those that lived and worked there).

Also, Deco that is a great sacrifice your husband makes--I personally would not commute more than I do now---2 hours a day; to me it isn't worth a beautiful larger home elsewhere and keeping my salary for working in LA. I am too big of a fan of "me" time

Finally, I believe people live in high-cost areas for LOTS of reasons, not all of which are higher salaries (I know you said "generally"). For example, Southern California, and California in general has GREAT weather, beautiful landscape (minus certain places such as Downtown LA), etc. And I have family (all of them) here....so I did not pick to live in a high-cost area for salary. In fact, I was offered the EXACT same salary at UPenn in Philly as I was at UCI.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/15/2008 12:22:21 AM
Author: UCLABelle
I believe people live in high-cost areas for LOTS of reasons, not all of which are higher salaries (I know you said ''generally''). For example, Southern California, and California in general has GREAT weather, beautiful landscape (minus certain places such as Downtown LA), etc.

That''s a great point too ... and even more reason why subsidies shouldn''t come from the gov''t. Who is going to legislate cost-of-living/other benefits of different locations?

And UCLABelle, goodness knows I appreciate the sacrifice DH makes to help support our wee house. I wish it was huge & beautiful! But we''re grateful to own a home (with a fixed mortgage!) at all in times like these.

 

[UCLABelle]

Well a "wee house" is a home nonetheless! I still get bummed that I bought last year, and our place went down by $60K in a year, but at least we have s nice (but a "very wee" condo) that we call home. In times like these, I tell my husband it is just like "hunkering down for the winter". Keep doing our jobs, stop crazy spending (although, my ring projects, etc. do not help!), and hope for the best.

 

[isaku5]

Date: 10/15/2008 12:45:19 AM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/15/2008 12:22:21 AM
Author: UCLABelle
I believe people live in high-cost areas for LOTS of reasons, not all of which are higher salaries (I know you said ''generally''). For example, Southern California, and California in general has GREAT weather, beautiful landscape (minus certain places such as Downtown LA), etc.

That''s a great point too ... and even more reason why subsidies shouldn''t come from the gov''t. Who is going to legislate cost-of-living/other benefits of different locations?

And UCLABelle, goodness knows I appreciate the sacrifice DH makes to help support our wee house. I wish it was huge & beautiful! But we''re grateful to own a home (with a fixed mortgage!) at all in times like these.

Deco, I beg to differ on your "wee" house assessment. If that stunningly lovely home that you posted a picture of a while back is your idea of a "wee" house, many of us live in homes that are "weer"

. Btw, I hope you didn''t paint your beauty purple.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 10/14/2008 11:31:12 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/14/2008 4:47:42 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 10/14/2008 4:07:33 PM
Author: part gypsy
I think it''s funny there are people out there making 200K and think they are middle class. I wish!

OK, then what are they - in Southern California for example? Fixer-upper 2 bedroom houses start at 700K, public schools are terrible and private schools and good daycare tuitions rival those of sending your kid to UCLA. Hubby and I have no debt - make between 100K and 200K, are still priced out of home ownership, and are sadly realizing that we may not be able to afford to raise a family (we have no relatives here to help out with childcare).

People generally choose to live in high-cost-of-living areas because of comparably higher salaries. Why should the government subsidize people''s choice of hometown??

If the basics of life are unaffordable where folks are ... feel free to do as all my friends who used to live in NYC did ... move elsewhere! My husband has a four hour RT commute into the city almost every day. There are tough choices to be made. Life isn''t a cake walk for many of us. But, honestly, just HAVING a job these days is pretty darn good.

I am not saying that goverment should subsidize people''s choices of hometowns. All I am saying is that there is no "across the board" distinction of middle class. Los Angeles, the Bay area and NYC each have there own individual economies with social strata that is unique to the rest of America. We make six figures - but we are really lower middle class where we live.

8 years ago, cute starter homes on my street were selling for 350K. Because everybody and their brother jumped on the "flip this house" bandwagon, those homes are now priced at 1M. In the absence of a "mortgage crisis bailout" I believe the market will correct itself. We''re just waiting . . .

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/15/2008 11:27:11 AM
Author: LAJennifer
8 years ago, cute starter homes on my street were selling for 350K. Because everybody and their brother jumped on the ''flip this house'' bandwagon, those homes are now priced at 1M. In the absence of a ''mortgage crisis bailout'' I believe the market will correct itself. We''re just waiting . . .

So true ... I was thinking about this last night. People want to blame the mortgage/financial crisis on irresponsible stupid poor people who were too dumb & greedy to realize they can''t afford to buy a house & are now being foreclosed on ...

BUT THEY ARE FORGETTING the greedy professional house FLIPPERS who were SLY & able to manipulate looser lending rules to creatively finance a bunch of irresponsible projects in the hopes of personal gain. THESE are the people who have LITTLE to NO attachment to the properties themselves .. no pride of ownership ... and so easily walk away once they are upside down in their mortgages. And how many of these characters are the "small business owners" McCain is so sure will be hurt by, um, no further tax CUTS???

Maddening!

 

[jewelerman]

you can still be worth millions and have...no class...

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 10/12/2008 10:12:23 PM
Author: jewelerman
It varies from state to state....according to university of Utah data ...if you make $35,000 you are middle class...at 45,000 you are starting the climb to upper middle class...

See, I do not see $35,000 as middle class, but still in the working class category. In the school district my kids are in, that yearly salary qualifies a family with two kids for free/reduced school lunches! I would think a middle class family can afford to buy or provide sack lunches for their kids.

My dh and I are in the upper middle class, yet, I'm not sporting new diamonds and we are getting by, but not getting ahead.

Things are simply too expensive these days and we're trying to stick to a budget so we can have savings. We don't eat out anymore and our main "treat" when we go out is a few microbrews and a movie.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 10/15/2008 11:36:01 AM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/15/2008 11:27:11 AM
Author: LAJennifer
8 years ago, cute starter homes on my street were selling for 350K. Because everybody and their brother jumped on the ''flip this house'' bandwagon, those homes are now priced at 1M. In the absence of a ''mortgage crisis bailout'' I believe the market will correct itself. We''re just waiting . . .

So true ... I was thinking about this last night. People want to blame the mortgage/financial crisis on irresponsible stupid poor people who were too dumb & greedy to realize they can''t afford to buy a house & are now being foreclosed on ...

BUT THEY ARE FORGETTING the greedy professional house FLIPPERS who were SLY & able to manipulate looser lending rules to creatively finance a bunch of irresponsible projects in the hopes of personal gain. THESE are the people who have LITTLE to NO attachment to the properties themselves .. no pride of ownership ... and so easily walk away once they are upside down in their mortgages. And how many of these characters are the ''small business owners'' McCain is so sure will be hurt by, um, no further tax CUTS???

Maddening!

Deco - completely agree.

 

[Haven]

Date: 10/14/2008 11:14:06 PM
Author: katamari
Can I just point out, again, that only the top 5% of families (not individuals, families) earn more than $200,000 in a year. Regardless of whether or not it is harder for that family in one location or another does not subtract from the fact that they are still earning more than 95% of all Americans and therefore no where near the middle.

I believe you, kata, but this boggles my mind. How can the top 5% of families earn only 200K+? I wonder if the majority of this top 5% earns MUCH more than 200K?
That is not a lot of money in a metropolitan or near-metropolitan area.

 

[Haven]

Date: 10/15/2008 11:38:53 AM
Author: jewelerman
you can still be worth millions and have...no class...

ITA, Jewelerman.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/15/2008 2:23:28 PM
Author: Haven

Date: 10/14/2008 11:14:06 PM

Author: katamari

Can I just point out, again, that only the top 5% of families (not individuals, families) earn more than $200,000 in a year. Regardless of whether or not it is harder for that family in one location or another does not subtract from the fact that they are still earning more than 95% of all Americans and therefore no where near the middle.

I believe you, kata, but this boggles my mind. How can the top 5% of families earn only 200K+? I wonder if the majority of this top 5% earns MUCH more than 200K?

That is not a lot of money in a metropolitan or near-metropolitan area.

The 5% number is pretty close to true I assume...as this top category only shows 100K plus.

And only about 1.5% of the population earns more than 250K, so if that is you, count your lucky blessings.

Here's the income distribution, divided for people and households, for 2005 (but recorded in 06 I believe) from the US census.

 

[Haven]

Neatfreak--I agree with you that people choose to spend their money in very different ways. In fact, I see evidence of this all the time. However, to me I think that affects their class standing. For example--if my family earns 100K per year and saves enough to purchase rental properties and other investments over time we are building our wealth, which, in my opinion, is a factor of upper middle class America. On the flip side, if we earn 100K per year and spend every single dime we make on our current lifestyle, and do not accumulate any wealth beyond our primary residence, we are just solidifying our place in middle class America. It's just a different perspective, I suppose.

But, in general, I consider the upper middle class to be populated with families who have real wealth. If a family's lifestyle would drastically change if they lost their income, I just don't see them as belonging to the upper middle class. I could be wrong, or have a different view than many, but that's just how I see it.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/15/2008 2:37:12 PM
Author: Haven

Date: 10/15/2008 11:46:07 AM

Author: MC

Date: 10/12/2008 10:12:23 PM

Author: jewelerman

It varies from state to state....according to university of Utah data ...if you make $35,000 you are middle class...at 45,000 you are starting the climb to upper middle class...

See, I do not see $35,000 as middle class, but still in the working class category. In the school district my kids are in, that yearly salary qualifies a family with two kids for free/reduced school lunches! I would think a middle class family can afford to buy or provide sack lunches for their kids.


My dh and I are in the upper middle class, yet, I'm not sporting new diamonds and we are getting by, but not getting ahead.

Things are simply too expensive these days and we're trying to stick to a budget so we can have savings. We don't eat out anymore and our main 'treat' when we go out is a few microbrews and a movie.

THIS is why I think it takes far more than salary to define socioeconomic status, because MC--how could you possibly be considered upper middle class if you are only getting by?


IMO, a family that earns 200K a year and has to spend it all on neccessities is so very different from a family that earns 200K a year and has a significant amount left over to invest, purchase new assets, and use as play money.


Likewise, the family that only earns 80K a year but lives modestly and socks a lot away into savings and investments is also quite different (socioeconomically) from the family that earns 80K a year and is house poor because they purchased a too-big house and possibly some brand new cars they had to buy on loan.


I'm still craving a definition that is more well-rounded, I suppose.

This is not directed at MC AT ALL, but there are MANY people who consider themselves "just getting by" and make lots of money. Why? Because they make choices about WHERE to live, WHAT to consume, and HOW BIG of a house to have. Just because you make those choices to extend yourself and therefore are "just getting by" doesn't mean that you still aren't upper middle class...

One of the biggest choices we can make is where we live. And by "where" I mean not only city and state but also neighborhood. Those choices then impact what else we can purchase with our money.

It's all about our personal choices and perspective on it.

 

[Haven]

Thanks, Neatfreak. I didn''t doubt the figures, but I''m still shocked by them.

What''s more shocking is that my school district starts brand new teachers right out of college (so, BA ONLY, no master''s) at a salary of 45K. On this year''s salary schedule you reach 50K at year 3 with only a BA, which means that:

Potentially, two 25-year-old teachers who both work in my district (or a surrounding one) would, if living together, earn a combined income in the top 17% of the US population. That''s crazy. We are teachers! We notoriously make very little, yet in view of the nation''s average income, a family of two teachers here would be in the top 17% of earners. That''s crazy.

This information (and the discussion-at-large) is just further evidence of how much one''s perspective is shaped by one''s environment. As I see it, this isn''t a large income. We complain around here all the time about not making very much. The statistics that Neatfreak posted, however, seem to say that we are in a pretty good position. How eye-opening.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/15/2008 2:39:50 PM
Author: neatfreak
there are MANY people who consider themselves ''just getting by'' and make lots of money. Why? Because they make choices about WHERE to live, WHAT to consume, and HOW BIG of a house to have. Just because you make those choices to extend yourself and therefore are ''just getting by'' doesn''t mean that you still aren''t upper middle class...

One of the biggest choices we can make is where we live. And by ''where'' I mean not only city and state but also neighborhood. Those choices then impact what else we can purchase with our money.

It''s all about our personal choices and perspective on it.

I have to bold the whole darn thing because I agree totally. There is such a warped perspective of wealth in the world & wealth in this country & our own tiny environments influence our thinking to such a preposterously self-centered extent. We all want to think that SO MANY FOLKS are doing "better" than we are without realizing that 99.5% of the world would switch places with us in a FLASH. I hope this particular age of MORE MORE MORE is dunzo & that we all could appreciate what we have a bit more & empathize with those who have less a LOT more.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/15/2008 2:52:49 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/15/2008 2:39:50 PM

Author: neatfreak

there are MANY people who consider themselves 'just getting by' and make lots of money. Why? Because they make choices about WHERE to live, WHAT to consume, and HOW BIG of a house to have. Just because you make those choices to extend yourself and therefore are 'just getting by' doesn't mean that you still aren't upper middle class...


One of the biggest choices we can make is where we live. And by 'where' I mean not only city and state but also neighborhood. Those choices then impact what else we can purchase with our money.


It's all about our personal choices and perspective on it.

I have to bold the whole darn thing because I agree totally. There is such a warped perspective of wealth in the world & wealth in this country & our own tiny environments influence our thinking to such a preposterously self-centered extent. We all want to think that SO MANY FOLKS are doing 'better' than we are without realizing that 99.5% of the world would switch places with us in a FLASH. I hope this particular age of MORE MORE MORE is dunzo & that we all could appreciate what we have a bit more & empathize with those who have less a LOT more.

Agreed...and anyone who doesn't understand consumer choice should take a basic Econ 101 class. It's the basis of the entire class essentially-understanding the concept of "restraints" on our income and that we make choices within our constraints.

It certainly changes the perspective IMO when you think about making choices within your constraints.

 

[Haven]

Date: 10/15/2008 2:52:49 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/15/2008 2:39:50 PM
Author: neatfreak
there are MANY people who consider themselves ''just getting by'' and make lots of money. Why? Because they make choices about WHERE to live, WHAT to consume, and HOW BIG of a house to have. Just because you make those choices to extend yourself and therefore are ''just getting by'' doesn''t mean that you still aren''t upper middle class...

One of the biggest choices we can make is where we live. And by ''where'' I mean not only city and state but also neighborhood. Those choices then impact what else we can purchase with our money.

It''s all about our personal choices and perspective on it.

I have to bold the whole darn thing because I agree totally. There is such a warped perspective of wealth in the world & wealth in this country & our own tiny environments influence our thinking to such a preposterously self-centered extent. We all want to think that SO MANY FOLKS are doing ''better'' than we are without realizing that 99.5% of the world would switch places with us in a FLASH. I hope this particular age of MORE MORE MORE is dunzo & that we all could appreciate what we have a bit more & empathize with those who have less a LOT more.

I agree with all of this, too, except for the bit that a family just getting by is upper middle class. I suppose it''s an issue of defintion and the term upper middle class. To me, if you live either above your means, or right up to the very last bit of your means (and therefore have nothing left to save or invest and are just getting by) then I just don''t see that as upper middle class BECAUSE your lifestyle depends entire upon your current income. You are not building the wealth or security to sustain your lifestyle (which is likely a bit flashier than it could be) should something happen to your income. Instead, you are keeping up a lifestyle RIGHT NOW.

Deco--DH and I have gone had so many discussions about this MORE MORE MORE mentality over the last year or so. We decided to buy a house on just my income (which is significantly smaller than his) because a) I wanted a small, cozy home, and b) we wanted the security of knowing we could live off of one income. DH had some issues with this for a while because all of his friends buy the biggest, newest, flashiest of everything, and in comparison our home is quite small and modest. And although he loves our 50-year-old house and we entertain in it on a regular basis, he still has temporary pangs of regret when we see his friends'' gigantic, oversized McMansions.

I think it has a lot to do with how you were raised. My parents raised us girls in a tiny home with fewer bedrooms than people, and only one full bathroom. I''m the first one in my family to drive a new car, despite the fact that my parents could have upgraded our home and their cars. I like living below our means, and I come from a family that does the same.

I suppose my response to MC''s post comes from a lifetime of seeing families (and I know this doesn''t describe you, MC) live what I call inflated lifestyles--they have the huge homes, the new cars, bling, designer clothes, etc. However they don''t have the savings to pay for their kids'' college educations when the time comes. They APPEAR to be upper middle class families, but I just don''t see it.

Sorry for the length, I''m clearly having a hard time articulating my ideas today.

 

[Haven]

Neatfreak--You wrote "Agreed...and anyone who doesn''t understand consumer choice should take a basic Econ 101 class"

I understand consumer choice. What I don''t understand is how consumers who make choices to live beyond their means could be considered upper middle class when in the long run they are not doing a thing to secure their lifestyle.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/15/2008 3:10:22 PM
Author: Haven
What I don''t understand is how consumers who make choices to live beyond their means could be considered upper middle class when in the long run they are not doing a thing to secure their lifestyle.

I see what you''re saying but I still think they''d still generally be considered "upper middle class" if their income was $200k, no matter the outflow -- they just, sadly, have a much higher likelihood of one day being at "poverty level" due to the short-sighted/frivolous choices they are making with their CURRENT income.

It would be interesting to see how our current "class" system would be shaken up if they were determined by NET WORTH.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 10/15/2008 3:26:36 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/15/2008 3:10:22 PM
Author: Haven
What I don''t understand is how consumers who make choices to live beyond their means could be considered upper middle class when in the long run they are not doing a thing to secure their lifestyle.

I see what you''re saying but I still think they''d still generally be considered ''upper middle class'' if their income was $200k, no matter the outflow -- they just, sadly, have a much higher likelihood of one day being at ''poverty level'' due to the short-sighted/frivolous choices they are making with their CURRENT income.

It would be interesting to see how our current ''class'' system would be shaken up if they were determined by NET WORTH.

That - I would love to see.

 

[Haven]

Date: 10/15/2008 3:26:36 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 10/15/2008 3:10:22 PM
Author: Haven
What I don't understand is how consumers who make choices to live beyond their means could be considered upper middle class when in the long run they are not doing a thing to secure their lifestyle.

I see what you're saying but I still think they'd still generally be considered 'upper middle class' if their income was $200k, no matter the outflow -- they just, sadly, have a much higher likelihood of one day being at 'poverty level' due to the short-sighted/frivolous choices they are making with their CURRENT income.

It would be interesting to see how our current 'class' system would be shaken up if they were determined by NET WORTH.

Deco--You hit it spot on, I think I take issue with considering a family UMC when their "status" as UMC is so fragile due to their choices. I also suppose that I would be more comfortable including net worth in the definition, as well.
However, that considered, I do see how they could be considered UMC for the time being.

Thanks for putting up with all of my long-winded responses. I'll process my thoughts before I post them next time.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/15/2008 3:30:03 PM
Author: Haven
I''ll process my thoughts before I post them next time.

I know you''re joking but don''t be silly!! I wouldn''t have guessed that you were *sensing* that people''s NET WORTHS should be the real arbiter of class status if you hadn''t pushed back on the definition of UMC. I think you have an excellent point ... and it helps explain why there are so many varied perceptions about the definitions.