Who or What Do You Consider to be "Middle Class"?

[Anonymous]

I know how fortunate my family is to have an income over $250K, and honestly, I feel like we're very well off. However, we live as if we made $50-60K. We have a nice house, small, but in a great neighborhood, with a mortgage that is well under what we can really afford. We never buy new cars, unless one of our cars break down. Neither of us are shopaholics. We take nice vacations, maybe an extravagant one every 3 years, the others spent at the beach. We're patient when it comes to purchasing, and only buy with cash. We save, save, save and invest. So yes, I feel and know we have a good life, but we're very careful and choose to be careful. You can make $400K a year, and be poor, lets face it. You can be so far in debt, you can't see the light of day. Being rich is relative.

[Anonymous]

Median incomes in metro areas are always higher and you get less for your $$ in terms of housing size, commute costs, grocery costs and general prices. (You get more in terms of job opportunities, more things to do etc). I think one of the problems in this area is that so many people grew up or came from areas with much lower living costs so their expectations are different.

I have friends and family in CA who have lived there their entire lives and really just expect that making $200K means an 1800 sq ft house, Costco, used cars, and coupon clipping. If you are coming from the middle of the country, you have this expection that middle class means a 3000 sq ft house without a commute that ads $50 a week in gas costs.

People in Nebraska and Michigan really don't spend $20K a year on private school, most go to public school or a much,much cheaper private school. You don't see too many $35-40K nannies out there either which seems to be the norm here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know how fortunate my family is to have an income over $250K, and honestly, I feel like we're very well off. However, we live as if we made $50-60K. We have a nice house, small, but in a great neighborhood, with a mortgage that is well under what we can really afford. We never buy new cars, unless one of our cars break down. Neither of us are shopaholics. We take nice vacations, maybe an extravagant one every 3 years, the others spent at the beach. We're patient when it comes to purchasing, and only buy with cash. We save, save, save and invest. So yes, I feel and know we have a good life, but we're very careful and choose to be careful. You can make $400K a year, and be poor, lets face it. You can be so far in debt, you can't see the light of day. Being rich is relative.

Living like you make 50-60K means that you are able to save $190-200K a year? If that is the case, that is fantastic. Kudos to you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's remarkable to me that my family just at the top end of the scale (i.e., just a bit north of $223K), but we certainly don't feel wealthy. Middle class neighborhood, daycare, max out 401Ks, and regular Target runs. I'm not suggesting that we feel like we're scaping by, but we're not taking lavish vacations, buying $60K cars, or even investing in other income producing ventures because there just isn't enough cash to do so.

This is us too although depending on the year (DH is in sales) we would usually fall closer to $200 K. The idea that we'd be considered "wealthy" should baffle anyone that sees me driving up in my 1996 used VW sedan to my small 1980's siding-covered townhouse in our Glenmont (read: certainly not schwanky; schools are a bit iffy) neighborhood. We're far from poor, but we're certainly FAR from rich too.

Hmmmm... well, maybe it is for folks like you all that the term "upper middle class" was invented?

Just for comparison:

DH is a librarian at the top of his pay scale (about $80,000) and I am a stay at home mom. We are both college educated (my profession is school teacher). Just for comparison here, Target runs are out of my general budget. We get hand-me-downs, or shop for clothes at the thrift store. We live in Prince George's County. I babysit a little to help pay for my son's private school, which is $5,000 a year (and it is a real strecth for us to pay that... don't know if we can continue.) We own one car, which I drive. DH walks to the metro.

I feel we are solidly middle class, at least for the DC area. We do't have that fear of not knowing where our next meal is coming from; we aren't literally waiting to cash a paycheck and buying groceries with it. We have some cusion, we have some savings, and DH has union benefits.

[Anonymous]

"Middle class" is not a useful term in the United States because of our social history. Our social and political structure replaced a static class system with a somewhat more plastic capitalist system. In old Europe, upper class equalled landed gentry. People of leisure who inherited vast wealth and managed family estates were upper class. Having a trade was not. And this class system remained the same even if you achieved great financial success. If a lucky person "in trade" could marry a house-poor aristocrat, they could buy their way into the "upper class." Bill Gates would not have been upper class until he found a dutchess to marry, annd then his kids might be upper class. Or if the queen gave him a title in exchange for his financing a war.

In the United States, the term "upper class" still carries a distasteful ring because we got rid of that-- even if social class has become more difficult to transcend as the gap between rich and poor widens. No one wants to acknowledge themselves as "upper class" even if they're at the top of the economic structure. That is because culturally, we all tend to consume similar media, and live somewhat similar lifestyles (go to a job every day, often with a fierce commute, juggle family and job).

Middle class has become synonymous with working/not gentry/not celebrities. That's why people who are in the bottom 3d of income will still sometimes call themselves middle class, or lower middle class, when by some standards they are poor.

So middle class is somewhat meaningless here.

But.

I really doubt that a person earning $250k lives in a truly middle-of-the-road neighborhood. Sure, neighborhoods in DC where homes run $700k or more often look like lovely parts of PG or Silver Spring-- same cute brick colonials, Honda Accords, and baby strollers. But the $700k house comes with very different schools and services, which is part of why you bought it. It probably also comes with an easier commute thanks to Metro access or proximity. Its residents overwhelmingly have health insurance and are confident that their children will be prepared for college. Their jobs are less likely to be outsourced or to cease entirely.

If you make $250k or anywhere near it, ask yourself: does my secretary, assistant, medical assistant/technician, nanny, or preschool teacher think of me as well off?

If you make $250k or anywhere near it, don't think about your currently non-ostentatious life. Turn it around and ask yourself: could I live in my current house if my family made $90k? Could I have the same schools for my children? Would my beach vacation be a stretch? Could I put away retirement savings and college savings? Would I be in a job that gave me paid sick leave to deal with ear infections and doctor's appointments?

Upper class is an unattractive word for Americans. If you can't stomach it, try "well off." Because we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Middle class" is not a useful term in the United States because of our social history. Our social and political structure replaced a static class system with a somewhat more plastic capitalist system. In old Europe, upper class equalled landed gentry. People of leisure who inherited vast wealth and managed family estates were upper class. Having a trade was not. And this class system remained the same even if you achieved great financial success. If a lucky person "in trade" could marry a house-poor aristocrat, they could buy their way into the "upper class." Bill Gates would not have been upper class until he found a dutchess to marry, annd then his kids might be upper class. Or if the queen gave him a title in exchange for his financing a war.

In the United States, the term "upper class" still carries a distasteful ring because we got rid of that-- even if social class has become more difficult to transcend as the gap between rich and poor widens. No one wants to acknowledge themselves as "upper class" even if they're at the top of the economic structure. That is because culturally, we all tend to consume similar media, and live somewhat similar lifestyles (go to a job every day, often with a fierce commute, juggle family and job).

Middle class has become synonymous with working/not gentry/not celebrities. That's why people who are in the bottom 3d of income will still sometimes call themselves middle class, or lower middle class, when by some standards they are poor.

So middle class is somewhat meaningless here.

But.

I really doubt that a person earning $250k lives in a truly middle-of-the-road neighborhood. Sure, neighborhoods in DC where homes run $700k or more often look like lovely parts of PG or Silver Spring-- same cute brick colonials, Honda Accords, and baby strollers. But the $700k house comes with very different schools and services, which is part of why you bought it. It probably also comes with an easier commute thanks to Metro access or proximity. Its residents overwhelmingly have health insurance and are confident that their children will be prepared for college. Their jobs are less likely to be outsourced or to cease entirely.

If you make $250k or anywhere near it, ask yourself: does my secretary, assistant, medical assistant/technician, nanny, or preschool teacher think of me as well off?

If you make $250k or anywhere near it, don't think about your currently non-ostentatious life. Turn it around and ask yourself: could I live in my current house if my family made $90k? Could I have the same schools for my children? Would my beach vacation be a stretch? Could I put away retirement savings and college savings? Would I be in a job that gave me paid sick leave to deal with ear infections and doctor's appointments?

Upper class is an unattractive word for Americans. If you can't stomach it, try "well off." Because we are.

Brava PP, very well written. I could not have said it better myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know how fortunate my family is to have an income over $250K, and honestly, I feel like we're very well off. However, we live as if we made $50-60K. We have a nice house, small, but in a great neighborhood, with a mortgage that is well under what we can really afford. We never buy new cars, unless one of our cars break down. Neither of us are shopaholics. We take nice vacations, maybe an extravagant one every 3 years, the others spent at the beach. We're patient when it comes to purchasing, and only buy with cash. We save, save, save and invest. So yes, I feel and know we have a good life, but we're very careful and choose to be careful. You can make $400K a year, and be poor, lets face it. You can be so far in debt, you can't see the light of day. Being rich is relative.

It is indeed relative. I *actually* make $63K. I am also a single parent, FWIW. Living in the DC metro area on $63K, with utmost responsible behavior financially, means I send my son to a school where 25% of his class will not graduate. It means I am still making payments on the '97 Civic I bought used. It means I do not make much of a dent in my debt, and I cannot save much, if anything, most months. I put away money in a college account monthly, I have a 401K at work that I make absolutely minimal contributions to, and I have no savings otherwise. I do not buy clothes if I can help it. My work pants have all been re-hemmed by hand several times over. I cook at home because I have to. Sometimes I charge my groceries. I go camping on my vacations, or stay with relatives and friends. HALF my income goes to shelter. I own my home, but I'm an oddity in this respect at this income level, and rent isn't any cheaper in terms of cash flow out of my bank account. We do not go to movies. We do not buy things we can't get away without owning. We do not have cable television. We do not have anyone other than me cleaning our house, trimming our bushes, doing our laundry, removing the hair from my legs, or giving anyone haircuts.

However, if I were in another part of the country, I would be living a *very* comfortable existance with considerably more wiggle room. I feel fortunate to make what I do. I am college-educated and a hard worker in a highly skilled profession.

I think I know where some of the vitriol in the other thread on this topic comes from. Sometimes the privilege expressed on this board is a little hard for folks like me to swallow, even when it's not intended to sting (and it usually isn't).

[Anonymous]

Our family makes around $100K (to support 2 adults, one child), and until recently were living in a nice 2BR rented apt in Vienna. I consider ourselves Middle Class, which I guess is confirmed by the stats of the median salary in the area. Yes, a $250K family probably has the same "savings" at the end of the month as us, but are paying a high mortgage for a relatively nice house (not a McMansion) that I would nevertheless be envious of, would be paying for private schools/nanny for the kid(s), and would have had a nicer vacation, and a few more "extras" that do not fit into our Middle Class budget. $250K is not "rich", but definitely Upper Middle Class in my book. While seeing all the McMansionites can make one "feel" Middle Class, that is not the same thing as actually "being" Middle Class.

To the PP who said that you can make $400K and be "poor", I think not. Making bad choices and spending beyond your means is not the same thing as "poor". Unless "poor" and "stupid" are listed as synonyms in your thesaurus.

[Anonymous]

I've been thinking about this and my conclusion is that there is a wide range of middle class - but in general, it includes people who work and are able to pay their own way in life. Someone who doesn't depend on wefare programs to make it through. Might also include people who are college educated. If someone is paying thier rent and bills, has a phone, puts food on the table, clothes on their backs, and gas in their cars, I would say "middle class." Lower middle class might mean no frills in life, and upper middle class means nicer neighborhoods, private schools, and vacation every year. Obviously the lines blend from "upper middle class" to "wealthy", but who cares. If it makes you feel more down to earth to count yourself in the middle class even if you're making $300K a year, good for you.

For the poster who makes $250 but "lives like $50-$60K", I just don't believe it. Bravo to the single mom who wrote back and said what it is actually like to live off of $65K, or the other family who makes $80K. I think it's easy to forget what frugality is really all about. Being able to shop at Target, get Starbucks, pay to have someone cut your hair, watch your kids, or paint your toenails, or spend a weekend at the beach -- those are all frills that come with having a more upper-middle class type of income.

I grew up in a family where the household income topped out around $30K (this when I graduated from highschool in 1992). Five kids in the family, too. I definitely considered my family "middle class" because my mother was able to stay home, we always had good food to eat, all bills were paid on time and we all went to college. Granted, all clothes were second hand and vacation consisted of a week at grandma's house each summer (if the car could make it there). Still middle class in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

PP I agree with most of what you have written -- but I think people who are "working class" are also people who are able to work and put food on the table. They just don't have jobs that carry much security at all, and their jobs generally do not require a college degree.

This is as opposed to people who are not really working at all -- the so called "underclass" I guess; those who are supported by government programs if not their own family.

The ironic thing is that many of the hallmarks of a "working class" job -- day to day employment that can be taken away at a moment's notice, lack of benefits like health insurance and retirement -- can also be found in some jobs that used to be considered "upper class" -- like university professor (or "college lecturer), or other professional jobs which require advanced degrees but which do not offer much secure employment (contract employees).

I know that the idea of an economic class is just a social construct, but they are terms most of use and have some vague idea at least of what we mean. In my mind, the difference between the different classes isn't so much what your income is or what your educations level is (though those factors do play into it). It is more how secure you feel in being able to feed, clothe and house yourself to a minimum standard of decency, on a day to day basis.

[Anonymous]

Technically I believe that Socio-Economic Status is based on income, education, and the status of one's job. So that some people with jobs that don't pay very much are considered middle class (e.g. a minister with a divinity degree) whereas a waiter at an expensive restaurant might make good money but would not be considered to have as high an SES as a minister.

But this is not my area so those who know more about this please feel free to elaborate and/or correct.