If you make <36,000 or >81,000, You Aren't Middle Class. Or "Upper" Middle Class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truth. We make ~100k and we're well aware that we're rich compared to most in the US, and even most in DC, seeing as the median HHI here (the most precise definition of "middle" that exists) is 73k, or 30k less than we make.

The median HHI in the DC metro area is $93k, the highest in the country. Basicallyl, you have a median HHI.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/09/21/the-dc-area-has-the-highest-median-income-in-the-us-again/

The same article points to the DC median being 75k, which is what I was referring to with 73k. I don't care about the DC "metro" area, which includes Alexandria and Arlington. However, in either case, our income is above the median HHI. We have more than most in DC and we have far, far more than most in the US. I'm not going to pretend most people have what we do simply because some have more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am an educated, professional, middle-aged woman earning $100,000 who was repeatedly called, among other things, (1) way below average, a) a loser, c) a failure in my career, and d) practically eligible for welfare right here on a DCUM forum. Nice to see reality intrude.

The median HHI in the DC metro area is $93k. You're basically making the median income. You're average.

Stupid post, as the "DC metro area" is an irrelevant construct for people who don't live in Arlington or Alexandria. The DC median is 73-75k, and for an entire household. 100k is a lot more than that for HHI, and that's even before acknowledging the fact that it's a very high percentage for an individual.

And of course, none of this changes the fact that, as noted above, anything above 81k is above longer middle class in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am an educated, professional, middle-aged woman earning $100,000 who was repeatedly called, among other things, (1) way below average, a) a loser, c) a failure in my career, and d) practically eligible for welfare right here on a DCUM forum. Nice to see reality intrude.

Yup. There are many here who can't stand not making as much as whoever they envy, so they lash out by calling everyone else poor. It's kind of ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:31K - 81K is middle-to-upper class in Atlanta. It's struggling in D.C.

+1 And in Silicon Valley where I'm from, that's poverty level.

OP - you really need to look at COL, too. If I can rent a 1br apt in the midwest for $1000 and make $81K, I'm doing well. In SV, the 1br could be as high as $3k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:31K - 81K is middle-to-upper class in Atlanta. It's struggling in D.C.

+1 And in Silicon Valley where I'm from, that's poverty level.

OP - you really need to look at COL, too. If I can rent a 1br apt in the midwest for $1000 and make $81K, I'm doing well. In SV, the 1br could be as high as $3k.

Who held the gun to your head and forced you to live in Silicon Valley? Because the median in California is 64k, which, again, falls right in that middle class range above. Placing yourself in a microniche doesn't change what the overall trends are.

[Anonymous]

Guys, I make 200k but live in San Francisco so I need food stamps.

Or, you know, I could make 100k elsewhere in California, but then I wouldn't be able to say I lived in San Francisco.

#poorlife

[Anonymous]

You don't necessarily get one-third of people in each class. Lower and upper class could be 10 percent of the population, and middle class could be 80...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't necessarily get one-third of people in each class. Lower and upper class could be 10 percent of the population, and middle class could be 80...

By the most natural definition of middle when talking about lower, middle, and upper--3 equal portions--you do. Due to our country's infatuation with pretending not to be rich, though, you see perverse definitions of middle class that include the "middle" 98% of households (making only the top and bottom 1% upper and lower classes). That's nonsense, even if that's the kind of nonsense that makes people with 500k incomes sleep at night while murmuring to themselves how middle class they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't necessarily get one-third of people in each class. Lower and upper class could be 10 percent of the population, and middle class could be 80...

True, and while the middle class has been shrinking, it is because the upper class is expanding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_term=.4c00f81b304d

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't necessarily get one-third of people in each class. Lower and upper class could be 10 percent of the population, and middle class could be 80...

By the most natural definition of middle when talking about lower, middle, and upper--3 equal portions--you do. Due to our country's infatuation with pretending not to be rich, though, you see perverse definitions of middle class that include the "middle" 98% of households (making only the top and bottom 1% upper and lower classes). That's nonsense, even if that's the kind of nonsense that makes people with 500k incomes sleep at night while murmuring to themselves how middle class they are.

No. Income distribution is most naturally a bell curve. In that case, the ends would be no more than 25% and the middle no less than 50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't necessarily get one-third of people in each class. Lower and upper class could be 10 percent of the population, and middle class could be 80...

By the most natural definition of middle when talking about lower, middle, and upper--3 equal portions--you do. Due to our country's infatuation with pretending not to be rich, though, you see perverse definitions of middle class that include the "middle" 98% of households (making only the top and bottom 1% upper and lower classes). That's nonsense, even if that's the kind of nonsense that makes people with 500k incomes sleep at night while murmuring to themselves how middle class they are.

No. Income distribution is most naturally a bell curve. In that case, the ends would be no more than 25% and the middle no less than 50%.

Even with that metric, it only takes $75,000 to be in the top 25%. If we want to get more exclusive, and call upper-income households those in the top 10%, we're still talking about only $125,000. All these people earning $500k+ and insisting they're in the middle class are delusional.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/05/01/youd-need-to-earn-this-much-to-be-in-the-top-1-5-1.aspx

[Anonymous]

Cost of living plays a huge role in this. For the same consumer basket (your weekly grocery cart, for example, plus utilities, housing etc.) you pay a lot less in some parts of the country and a lot more in others.

[Anonymous]

What we really see on DCUM is people who have zero understanding of what middle class means. It means you can afford life's necessities. It doesn't mean that you can live lavishly with no budget and do whatever you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cost of living plays a huge role in this. For the same consumer basket (your weekly grocery cart, for example, plus utilities, housing etc.) you pay a lot less in some parts of the country and a lot more in others.

There are COL adjusters for every part of the country. I live in Illinois. We make 100k a year and live like kings here. In DC, that's equivalent to 168k. It's not middle class in Illinois and it's not middle class in DC either. http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't necessarily get one-third of people in each class. Lower and upper class could be 10 percent of the population, and middle class could be 80...

By the most natural definition of middle when talking about lower, middle, and upper--3 equal portions--you do. Due to our country's infatuation with pretending not to be rich, though, you see perverse definitions of middle class that include the "middle" 98% of households (making only the top and bottom 1% upper and lower classes). That's nonsense, even if that's the kind of nonsense that makes people with 500k incomes sleep at night while murmuring to themselves how middle class they are.

No. Income distribution is most naturally a bell curve. In that case, the ends would be no more than 25% and the middle no less than 50%.

Whether you use a 25% cutoff for upper class or 33%, it doesn't change the fact that a 6-figure household income is *not* middle class. http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/index.html

With 25% cutoffs instead of 33%, middle class spans 28-98k. People making 200k, 300k, 400k, 500k, 600k, 700k (all actual HHIs described as middle class in this subforum) are no less foolish for calling themselves middle or upper middle class.