31% of millionaires think they're middle class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

'Did you mean muddle class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

What is the official definition and what is the source of the definition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

Yes, that’s the modern definition, and when people came up with it being “middle class” became associated with a certain kind of lifestyle that could be bought with that income. It seems we are reverting to the historical norm now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

'Did you mean muddle class?

PP here- obviously not, but it seems to fit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

This. This is not a math question so much as a “what can you afford and what can I not afford?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all relative but many of you are correct- you can't afford the things that you think you are entitled to. I grew up in the 80s and my parents were upper middle class but they encouraged us to go in-state or go where we got the most merit aid. All 3 of us did that and got undergrad degrees with no debt. My parents had a mortgage and needed to save for retirement. Nothing wrong with it.

This is the problem though--the 5k my parents paid a semester for tuition for an in-state school in the 1990s, isn't 5k anymore. So a state school doesn't make it affordable necessarily.

Almost every state has schools that are $25-35K, all in. So instead of the $10K per year your parents put in, let's say $20K from parents (from savings and cash flow). If kid works summers, breaks and PT while in college (10 hours/week) they can earn 10K (or more). Take the $5.5K in federal loans and you are there for most state schools.

So for UMC that is doable and for MC that is likely also doable, might just need a bit more in parent loans if parents cannot pay $20K/year.
And many state schools (outside the top flagships) will offer a bit of merit for good students, so $2-4K in merit at minimum. Or find private schools that are more affordable. It is possible for MC/UMC to do college with only $80K or less from parents total over 4 years.

Or live in a state like GA, AL, FL (among others) which give free tuition to kids with high scores. I have a family member going to Ga Tech for about $15,000 a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

Yes, that’s the modern definition, and when people came up with it being “middle class” became associated with a certain kind of lifestyle that could be bought with that income. It seems we are reverting to the historical norm now.

I read a great deal of 19th century history, particularly British, and in Britain up through the 1960s "middle class" really meant the approx the top 15% of society just underneath the top 1%, and that included everyone from the wealthy upper middle class mill owners to lower middle class shopkeepers. The rest of the 85% were working class to poor. Which is why when the British middle classes were described in manners and lifestyle they always came across as comparable to upper middle class in the United States. Aka "the middle classes with their private schools and clubs and..." so forth.

And it does seem like the modern economy in the US is reverting slowly to this older 19th century European understanding of the class system. Funnily enough, I googled and today a 100k salary puts you in the 86th percentile. For a single it is a salary allowing you to afford a modest property, max your retirement, live decently comfortable, be able to take a trip and splurge every now and then, and still put aside something for rainy days. Which is what people would have thought as middle class. But it's the 86th percentile! And there's a very good argument to be made that this is really the threshold for becoming middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

What is the official definition and what is the source of the definition?

there is no official definition but it isnt based on a feeling of what you can afford after you spend it all. and it has never been and will never be multiples of 100,000 plus bonuses.
Brookings has it encompass a very wide swath https://www.brookings.edu/articles/there-are-many-definitions-of-middle-class-heres-ours/ but CBO doesnt seem to take into account location/COL from my readings
the pew research center has a calculator that takes those factors into account https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
in general it is been working class/poor and the wealthy. you are wealthy making 400k, 300, 200k. regardless of your location in the US and household size- by any calculator or measure. its intellectual dishonesty to state otherwise.
Just to show you how insane this discussion is:
200k in San Francisco with a household size of 15 people is middle class. 3 person household in San Fran is Upper on the same income. A 4-5 household on that income is middle class but Upper middle class.
I can understand that it is difficult to look around you and see wealth and think that you are somehow relatively impoverished but it isnt factual. Its a feeling. Even in the wealthiest areas of the US, a 200k income for 3 people is Upper not middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

What is the official definition and what is the source of the definition?

there is no official definition but it isnt based on a feeling of what you can afford after you spend it all. and it has never been and will never be multiples of 100,000 plus bonuses.
Brookings has it encompass a very wide swath https://www.brookings.edu/articles/there-are-many-definitions-of-middle-class-heres-ours/ but CBO doesnt seem to take into account location/COL from my readings
the pew research center has a calculator that takes those factors into account https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
in general it is been working class/poor and the wealthy. you are wealthy making 400k, 300, 200k. regardless of your location in the US and household size- by any calculator or measure. its intellectual dishonesty to state otherwise.
Just to show you how insane this discussion is:
200k in San Francisco with a household size of 15 people is middle class. 3 person household in San Fran is Upper on the same income. A 4-5 household on that income is middle class but Upper middle class.
I can understand that it is difficult to look around you and see wealth and think that you are somehow relatively impoverished but it isnt factual. Its a feeling. Even in the wealthiest areas of the US, a 200k income for 3 people is Upper not middle class.

Your argument is falling into the trap of basing middle class by average income of society. In reality it is not. Take a developing country, the average income may be, say, 5000 a year. But the middle classes make much more. Middle class is not average. The challenge with the US is we're leaving behind average to a different structure for defining class due to the rising K shape nature of the modern economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all relative but many of you are correct- you can't afford the things that you think you are entitled to. I grew up in the 80s and my parents were upper middle class but they encouraged us to go in-state or go where we got the most merit aid. All 3 of us did that and got undergrad degrees with no debt. My parents had a mortgage and needed to save for retirement. Nothing wrong with it.

This is the problem though--the 5k my parents paid a semester for tuition for an in-state school in the 1990s, isn't 5k anymore. So a state school doesn't make it affordable necessarily.

Almost every state has schools that are $25-35K, all in. So instead of the $10K per year your parents put in, let's say $20K from parents (from savings and cash flow). If kid works summers, breaks and PT while in college (10 hours/week) they can earn 10K (or more). Take the $5.5K in federal loans and you are there for most state schools.

So for UMC that is doable and for MC that is likely also doable, might just need a bit more in parent loans if parents cannot pay $20K/year.
And many state schools (outside the top flagships) will offer a bit of merit for good students, so $2-4K in merit at minimum. Or find private schools that are more affordable. It is possible for MC/UMC to do college with only $80K or less from parents total over 4 years.

Or live in a state like GA, AL, FL (among others) which give free tuition to kids with high scores. I have a family member going to Ga Tech for about $15,000 a year.

+1

Or if your kids are "college ready" in HS, have them do DE and get their AA while in HS. Most places this only costs books and lab fees, and of course transportation to the CC campus for classes. But for a smart kid who is organized and ready for AP courses, they could do junior and senior year and earn their AA for less than $2K total. Then they need 2-2.5 years typically for their four year degree (engineering might take 2.5 to 3 if not well planned AA degree). But then you only have 2 years of college costs.

Fact is there are affordable ways to get a degree. It will not be a T50 school for very many people, but there are excellent schools out there that can be affordable, even to the donut hold/UMC/MC families. You just have to seek it out and make affordability a key factor in the decision process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

What is the official definition and what is the source of the definition?

there is no official definition but it isnt based on a feeling of what you can afford after you spend it all. and it has never been and will never be multiples of 100,000 plus bonuses.
Brookings has it encompass a very wide swath https://www.brookings.edu/articles/there-are-many-definitions-of-middle-class-heres-ours/ but CBO doesnt seem to take into account location/COL from my readings
the pew research center has a calculator that takes those factors into account https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
in general it is been working class/poor and the wealthy. you are wealthy making 400k, 300, 200k. regardless of your location in the US and household size- by any calculator or measure. its intellectual dishonesty to state otherwise.
Just to show you how insane this discussion is:
200k in San Francisco with a household size of 15 people is middle class. 3 person household in San Fran is Upper on the same income. A 4-5 household on that income is middle class but Upper middle class.
I can understand that it is difficult to look around you and see wealth and think that you are somehow relatively impoverished but it isnt factual. Its a feeling. Even in the wealthiest areas of the US, a 200k income for 3 people is Upper not middle class.

Your argument is falling into the trap of basing middle class by average income of society. In reality it is not. Take a developing country, the average income may be, say, 5000 a year. But the middle classes make much more. Middle class is not average. The challenge with the US is we're leaving behind average to a different structure for defining class due to the rising K shape nature of the modern economy.

Thank you for explaining how brookings, pew and CBO are all improperly defining middle class in the US based on the average income in Nepal. Have you thought about working for a think tank and sharing your wisdom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

What is the official definition and what is the source of the definition?

there is no official definition but it isnt based on a feeling of what you can afford after you spend it all. and it has never been and will never be multiples of 100,000 plus bonuses.
Brookings has it encompass a very wide swath https://www.brookings.edu/articles/there-are-many-definitions-of-middle-class-heres-ours/ but CBO doesnt seem to take into account location/COL from my readings
the pew research center has a calculator that takes those factors into account https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
in general it is been working class/poor and the wealthy. you are wealthy making 400k, 300, 200k. regardless of your location in the US and household size- by any calculator or measure. its intellectual dishonesty to state otherwise.
Just to show you how insane this discussion is:
200k in San Francisco with a household size of 15 people is middle class. 3 person household in San Fran is Upper on the same income. A 4-5 household on that income is middle class but Upper middle class.
I can understand that it is difficult to look around you and see wealth and think that you are somehow relatively impoverished but it isnt factual. Its a feeling. Even in the wealthiest areas of the US, a 200k income for 3 people is Upper not middle class.

Your argument is falling into the trap of basing middle class by average income of society. In reality it is not. Take a developing country, the average income may be, say, 5000 a year. But the middle classes make much more. Middle class is not average. The challenge with the US is we're leaving behind average to a different structure for defining class due to the rising K shape nature of the modern economy.

Thank you for explaining how brookings, pew and CBO are all improperly defining middle class in the US based on the average income in Nepal. Have you thought about working for a think tank and sharing your wisdom?

DP but you are insanely defensive and also incorrect. Your own post states that there is no official definition, yet you are basically claiming there is an official definition.

Fundamentally, you are equating middle income with middle class, and they are not the same. As a poster further up this reply chain explained, middle class is basically the professional class that is not wealthy (i.e. they still have to work for a living) but they have far nicer lifestyles and prestigious positions than the working class and the impoverished. MOST people are working class, and those people are the ones who muddy the waters by defining themselves as middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millionaires ARE muddle class- they’re not poor, and they’re not phenomenally rich either. Up until the 1950s “middle class” meant something very different from “median income”. For most of human history, there were the aristocrats, the poor who worked the land, and a very small educated or tradesman class in the middle.

It’s the “middle class” that doesn’t realize they are actually poor or working class. If you can’t afford property, healthcare, education of some sort, and to not work for some period of your life, you’re not middle class, you’re working class. The fact that you have TVs, cars, and cheap food you bought on credit means nothing, really.

middle class has a definition. A monetary one based on X% above the median income in an area considering for household size.
It's not a feeling. And its not most of these posters.

What is the official definition and what is the source of the definition?

there is no official definition but it isnt based on a feeling of what you can afford after you spend it all. and it has never been and will never be multiples of 100,000 plus bonuses.
Brookings has it encompass a very wide swath https://www.brookings.edu/articles/there-are-many-definitions-of-middle-class-heres-ours/ but CBO doesnt seem to take into account location/COL from my readings
the pew research center has a calculator that takes those factors into account https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
in general it is been working class/poor and the wealthy. you are wealthy making 400k, 300, 200k. regardless of your location in the US and household size- by any calculator or measure. its intellectual dishonesty to state otherwise.
Just to show you how insane this discussion is:
200k in San Francisco with a household size of 15 people is middle class. 3 person household in San Fran is Upper on the same income. A 4-5 household on that income is middle class but Upper middle class.
I can understand that it is difficult to look around you and see wealth and think that you are somehow relatively impoverished but it isnt factual. Its a feeling. Even in the wealthiest areas of the US, a 200k income for 3 people is Upper not middle class.

Your argument is falling into the trap of basing middle class by average income of society. In reality it is not. Take a developing country, the average income may be, say, 5000 a year. But the middle classes make much more. Middle class is not average. The challenge with the US is we're leaving behind average to a different structure for defining class due to the rising K shape nature of the modern economy.

Thank you for explaining how brookings, pew and CBO are all improperly defining middle class in the US based on the average income in Nepal. Have you thought about working for a think tank and sharing your wisdom?

DP but you are insanely defensive and also incorrect. Your own post states that there is no official definition, yet you are basically claiming there is an official definition.

Fundamentally, you are equating middle income with middle class, and they are not the same. As a poster further up this reply chain explained, middle class is basically the professional class that is not wealthy (i.e. they still have to work for a living) but they have far nicer lifestyles and prestigious positions than the working class and the impoverished. MOST people are working class, and those people are the ones who muddy the waters by defining themselves as middle class.

im the PP who posted about the definitions but not the reply you replied to.
Im interested to see what you positions/occupations you would put in the following stratums:
impoverished
working class
middle class
wealthy

[Anonymous]

What's wrong with millionaires being humble?