What is Middle Class....Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you seem to not understand that even though folks around here make more money, we have much higher living expenses. Our HHI is $180 and we live in DC. Mortgage is $1,800 and we have two kids in daycare at a neighborhood place run in a church basement for $2,400/month, which is pretty cheap for two kids under two in D.C.

My older sister and her family live in rural Indiana. Her HHI is $55k. Their mortgage is $300. Until recently they had two kids in daycare as well and that was by far heir biggest expense at $500/month.

Point is, our basic living expenses eat up a much larger portion of our income than what my sister's family does, even though we make several times what she does.

So many people here seem not to understand that choosing to live in a major city is an expensive lifestyle choice. Most people living in rural America realize that the mere ability to live within a major city is outside of their budget... living in a city is not a middle class lifestyle (at least not if it comes with all the other things people seem to be associating with "middle class"). I grew up in the rural Midwest and knew many people who commuted 90 miles to the nearest city for work every day because they did not see it as financially feasible to live closer. Living in a city, then calling yourself middle class despite having an income in the top 5% of the country ($214,462 or above) is like choosing to buy a mansion then complaining about not being able to afford a "middle class car" because of your mortgage. There is nothing wrong with living in a city, it gives access to a lot of great amenities, culture, educational opportunities, white collar jobs, short commutes, etc that rural America does not have. But it comes at a cost. If you make over $100-150k you are not middle class even if you choose to live in a high cost of living area (That being said, since so many people do live in the city with much lower incomes, I'm pretty sure it's elitist to consider yourself middle class at a $300k HHI even if just comparing yourself to the locals).

Yes, this! The high-income people are just not getting it. It's like talking to a wall.

These complainers could take that $250,000 HHI, still keeping their DC jobs, and move out 45 minutes where housing is half the price, and other expenses are significantly lower as well. That's what people in the real middle class do - they can't afford the city life. But it is only because these high earners have so much money coming in that they can afford to live in a major city in the first place.

It's as if I moved to Manhattan making $400.000' and then started complaining that my rent is $5000 for a little apartment - and that I'm really a middle class guy like the rest of America, once you factor in my higher living expenses. BUT....I could move out to Bethpage, LI and live like a king. The people in Bethpage (I just picked an example of a real middle to lower-middle income town) will see him as a 1 percenter, and correctly so.

But the underlying point is that when these upper-income people keep insisting how it's a middle-class lifestyle on $350,000 in the city, they are coming across as out-of-touch snobs to the majority of people who can't afford the city at all, and in fact are just getting by on 25% of that income.

+1. You nailed it on the head! We're early 40s with 2 kids, and our HHI is $375k (and has been around that amount for about the last 5 years). No debt, besides our mortgage ($2,800 per month). Our net worth is just under $3 million. We live in Upper NW, and although I don't feel wealthy (no mansion or private jet to our vacation home on MV), I know that we are wealthy. We have options in just about every aspect of our lives (where we live, childrens' education, international travel, healthcare, food, etc). Why is this a debate?

You choose bad housing and crap schools.

Really? My entire family is happy with Oyster (especially my bilingual--soon to be trilingual children). They will attend a private high school in DC. We are also very happy with our single family detached home in Woodley Park. If we weren't, we would move...to any neighborhood we want. That's because we have options.

You're an idiot. Why would you provide so much identifying information? Do you really think the struggling people in flyover, or anywhere for that matter, really give a damn that you think that you're wealthy? Are they going to applaud your "honesty?" How does it help them? To a person making 20k in Kansas, someone else making 50k in DC still looks wealthier on paper even if they have the same lifestyle. They will resent the townie for making more, but still whining and being generally "out of touch." This thread is merely provocative and designed to incite class warfare, just like the endless wohm vs. sahm debates. OP, are you writing an article or book about out of touch assholes in dc who got the Republicans elected? What got them elected was the cunning of their party and the bumbling incompetence of the Democrats.

No, I'm not writing a book. I'm explaining that when upper-income families worry about $3 million not being enough in retirement or putting down families earning $200K as not being able to afford a middle-class life, they are demonstrating the very out-of-touch thinking that has infuriated the largest voting bloc in the country - lower-middle and working class - and causing these families to throw up their hands at the delusional thinking in Washington, DC.

Also, it wasn't me you addressed as an idiot, but she didn't post too much identifying information. You really think she's the only family in Woodley Park with bilingual children?

....also, in case I wasn't clear enough (OP again), your calling someone you know nothing about an "idiot" and accusing them of choosing "crap schools" shows that you are one of the elitists causing the problem.

Aw are you upset that I offended your anonymous internet buddy? Stop belaboring your point. This and the fact you can't keep facts or posters straight shows that you are mentally slow. One doesn't need to know you personally to correctly ascertain this. You constantly mention the largest bloc being frustrated with "liberal elites," but you fail to understand that half of eligible voters didn't even vote this election. If Democrats had given us even a half decent candidate, moderate and sane, they would have won. America, rich and poor, is fed up with Washington so get out with your class warfare BS.

OP. So now not only am I accused of almost qualifying for welfare because as a single income I bring in only $100,000....now I'm mentally slow, to boot. You are demonstrating my point.

NP. Oh my GOD you DO "almost quality for welfare" IF you had a large family (4,5,6 kids) AND live in a high COL area where the dept of HHS has determined that someone making your salary is not quite enough for such a large family! That is not incorrect, out of touch, elitist, or any of the other BS you say people are under. It's just a statement of fact, and actually it shows how "in touch" certain local governments are with the costs associated with living in their jurisdictions. This is a GOOD thing.

You have got some mental issues with YOUR income being at 100k if the above is some kind of problem for you!

I think the issue is your trying to convince a single woman with a six-figure salary and no dependents that she's almost ready for welfare - only now you've moved the goalposts and say you mean, if she had six kids. You seem to tske some perverse joy in telling educated professionals that a salary of $100,000 is "poor" - and is indicative of mental issues (or anger) of your own. An individual (not family) in that range can afford household help, international travel, season tickets to the theater, upscale dining, and a host of other upper-middle class accoutrements. Welfare? Hardly!

But it's true that a family with a combined income of $100,000 in the DC area will have a financial challenge with six kids. But why should responsible people who limited themselves to the one or two they could afford have to pay for people who can't afford to support their own kids? That's a whole other issue, though.

[Anonymous]

I think the issue is your trying to convince a single woman with a six-figure salary and no dependents that she's almost ready for welfare - only now you've moved the goalposts and say you mean, if she had six kids. You seem to tske some perverse joy in telling educated professionals that a salary of $100,000 is "poor" - and is indicative of mental issues (or anger) of your own. An individual (not family) in that range can afford household help, international travel, season tickets to the theater, upscale dining, and a host of other upper-middle class accoutrements. Welfare? Hardly!

But it's true that a family with a combined income of $100,000 in the DC area will have a financial challenge with six kids. But why should responsible people who limited themselves to the one or two they could afford have to pay for people who can't afford to support their own kids? That's a whole other issue, though.

OP, no one cares. So you got trolled a few times and now you attribute this to everyone. You are not a very intelligent person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think the issue is your trying to convince a single woman with a six-figure salary and no dependents that she's almost ready for welfare - only now you've moved the goalposts and say you mean, if she had six kids. You seem to tske some perverse joy in telling educated professionals that a salary of $100,000 is "poor" - and is indicative of mental issues (or anger) of your own. An individual (not family) in that range can afford household help, international travel, season tickets to the theater, upscale dining, and a host of other upper-middle class accoutrements. Welfare? Hardly!

But it's true that a family with a combined income of $100,000 in the DC area will have a financial challenge with six kids. But why should responsible people who limited themselves to the one or two they could afford have to pay for people who can't afford to support their own kids? That's a whole other issue, though.

OP, no one cares. So you got trolled a few times and now you attribute this to everyone. You are not a very intelligent person.

And you're not a very nice one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You can define middle class but hhi or by lifestyle. That's where the confusion is. Both answers are correct

No they are not. People seem to want to define middle class lifestyle by some nostalgic view of the '50s. The "middle" can't afford all of the things people are suggesting should be part of this lifestyle: short-ish commute, 4 BR house, 2 cars, vacations, savings for college & retirement, etc. Calling these things a "middle-class" lifestyle when they are out of reach for 90% of the country is part of the problem OP is getting at.

You can argue that the majority of Americans *should* be able to afford these things, but the reality is that a tiny fraction in either DC or Peoria can. That's why they are angry and looking for change. Burying your head in the sand and complaining that DC is expensive doesn't change this.

[Anonymous]

Whew. What a thread.

One poster brought up the fact that a woman with six kids (so a family of seven) making $100,000 could qualify for government assistance - and another poster said that in no way is that type of money eligible for government assistance. (I am neither poster.) So, I was curious and looked it up. One program, for food stamps, shows that if a family of seven has an income less than $48,000 (about), they'll qualify for snap. Couldn't find anywhere that gives food stamps to families making 100k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whew. What a thread.

One poster brought up the fact that a woman with six kids (so a family of seven) making $100,000 could qualify for government assistance - and another poster said that in no way is that type of money eligible for government assistance. (I am neither poster.) So, I was curious and looked it up. One program, for food stamps, shows that if a family of seven has an income less than $48,000 (about), they'll qualify for snap. Couldn't find anywhere that gives food stamps to families making 100k.

Oops. Forgot the link.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whew. What a thread.

One poster brought up the fact that a woman with six kids (so a family of seven) making $100,000 could qualify for government assistance - and another poster said that in no way is that type of money eligible for government assistance. (I am neither poster.) So, I was curious and looked it up. One program, for food stamps, shows that if a family of seven has an income less than $48,000 (about), they'll qualify for snap. Couldn't find anywhere that gives food stamps to families making 100k.

This is by jurisdiction. And not all government aid comes in the form of SNAP. Various forms of aid/subsidy/programs have higher or lower income limits depending on what it is. For example, subsidized housing in FFX. And, to note, there are different programs with different levels of qualifying income for that too. I believe I've seen income cut offs in the 80ks for larger families. So yes, CLOSE to 100k but not quite.

And, I don't live in Cali, but HUD there have qualified 100k as "lower income" however I do not know whether this designation means you qualify for subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can define middle class but hhi or by lifestyle. That's where the confusion is. Both answers are correct

No they are not. People seem to want to define middle class lifestyle by some nostalgic view of the '50s. The "middle" can't afford all of the things people are suggesting should be part of this lifestyle: short-ish commute, 4 BR house, 2 cars, vacations, savings for college & retirement, etc. Calling these things a "middle-class" lifestyle when they are out of reach for 90% of the country is part of the problem OP is getting at.

You can argue that the majority of Americans *should* be able to afford these things, but the reality is that a tiny fraction in either DC or Peoria can. That's why they are angry and looking for change. Burying your head in the sand and complaining that DC is expensive doesn't change this.

+ 1. The fact that people earning these upper-level incomes - with the two cars, a city house, vacations, investing for college and retirement, and so on - don't understand that they are living high above everyone else IS having their heads in the sand. That's what's getting people angry. They don't appreciate how good they have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is your trying to convince a single woman with a six-figure salary and no dependents that she's almost ready for welfare - only now you've moved the goalposts and say you mean, if she had six kids. You seem to tske some perverse joy in telling educated professionals that a salary of $100,000 is "poor" - and is indicative of mental issues (or anger) of your own. An individual (not family) in that range can afford household help, international travel, season tickets to the theater, upscale dining, and a host of other upper-middle class accoutrements. Welfare? Hardly!

So true. I had a colleague who in her upper 20s made about $100K, rented a small apartment within a walking distance from the office and traveled internationally every long weekend (to Costa Rica, Mexico, etc.) and spent 2-3 weeks in Europe visiting various countries every summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whew. What a thread.

One poster brought up the fact that a woman with six kids (so a family of seven) making $100,000 could qualify for government assistance - and another poster said that in no way is that type of money eligible for government assistance. (I am neither poster.) So, I was curious and looked it up. One program, for food stamps, shows that if a family of seven has an income less than $48,000 (about), they'll qualify for snap. Couldn't find anywhere that gives food stamps to families making 100k.

This is by jurisdiction. And not all government aid comes in the form of SNAP. Various forms of aid/subsidy/programs have higher or lower income limits depending on what it is. For example, subsidized housing in FFX. And, to note, there are different programs with different levels of qualifying income for that too. I believe I've seen income cut offs in the 80ks for larger families. So yes, CLOSE to 100k but not quite.

And, I don't live in Cali, but HUD there have qualified 100k as "lower income" however I do not know whether this designation means you qualify for subsidies.

PP. That's interesting. But I'm guessing it's for a pretty large family, and maybe in San Francisco.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is your trying to convince a single woman with a six-figure salary and no dependents that she's almost ready for welfare - only now you've moved the goalposts and say you mean, if she had six kids. You seem to tske some perverse joy in telling educated professionals that a salary of $100,000 is "poor" - and is indicative of mental issues (or anger) of your own. An individual (not family) in that range can afford household help, international travel, season tickets to the theater, upscale dining, and a host of other upper-middle class accoutrements. Welfare? Hardly!

So true. I had a colleague who in her upper 20s made about $100K, rented a small apartment within a walking distance from the office and traveled internationally every long weekend (to Costa Rica, Mexico, etc.) and spent 2-3 weeks in Europe visiting various countries every summer.

+ 1 Someone I know is a GS 13, final step (so maybe $120K?) and went in with his sister last year to buy a condo in Ocean City. He's single, about 40. They alternate weeks all summer, and he just takes his laptop with him and telecommutes during his beach weeks. Some people live really nicely on $100k, $120K, but the difference is no kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You can argue that the majority of Americans *should* be able to afford these things, but the reality is that a tiny fraction in either DC or Peoria can. That's why they are angry and looking for change. Burying your head in the sand and complaining that DC is expensive doesn't change this.

+ 1. The fact that people earning these upper-level incomes - with the two cars, a city house, vacations, investing for college and retirement, and so on - don't understand that they are living high above everyone else IS having their heads in the sand. That's what's getting people angry. They don't appreciate how good they have it.
I very much appreciate, primarily because I came from a country where a $1K monthly income was considered a huge success. However, I can see how it might be difficult to appreciate if a person spent their whole life among the families who made no less than $200K. In their circle, a $300K income is normal and average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can define middle class but hhi or by lifestyle. That's where the confusion is. Both answers are correct

No they are not. People seem to want to define middle class lifestyle by some nostalgic view of the '50s. The "middle" can't afford all of the things people are suggesting should be part of this lifestyle: short-ish commute, 4 BR house, 2 cars, vacations, savings for college & retirement, etc. Calling these things a "middle-class" lifestyle when they are out of reach for 90% of the country is part of the problem OP is getting at.

You can argue that the majority of Americans *should* be able to afford these things, but the reality is that a tiny fraction in either DC or Peoria can. That's why they are angry and looking for change. Burying your head in the sand and complaining that DC is expensive doesn't change this.

+ 1. The fact that people earning these upper-level incomes - with the two cars, a city house, vacations, investing for college and retirement, and so on - don't understand that they are living high above everyone else IS having their heads in the sand. That's what's getting people angry. They don't appreciate how good they have it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can argue that the majority of Americans *should* be able to afford these things, but the reality is that a tiny fraction in either DC or Peoria can. That's why they are angry and looking for change. Burying your head in the sand and complaining that DC is expensive doesn't change this.

+ 1. The fact that people earning these upper-level incomes - with the two cars, a city house, vacations, investing for college and retirement, and so on - don't understand that they are living high above everyone else IS having their heads in the sand. That's what's getting people angry. They don't appreciate how good they have it.

I very much appreciate, primarily because I came from a country where a $1K monthly income was considered a huge success. However, I can see how it might be difficult to appreciate if a person spent their whole life among the families who made no less than $200K. In their circle, a $300K income is normal and average.

I don't know. I'm the first PP above. I grew up with a 7-figure HHI, but I can still understand this. It's about not wanting to understand the experiences of people around you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can argue that the majority of Americans *should* be able to afford these things, but the reality is that a tiny fraction in either DC or Peoria can. That's why they are angry and looking for change. Burying your head in the sand and complaining that DC is expensive doesn't change this.

+ 1. The fact that people earning these upper-level incomes - with the two cars, a city house, vacations, investing for college and retirement, and so on - don't understand that they are living high above everyone else IS having their heads in the sand. That's what's getting people angry. They don't appreciate how good they have it.

I very much appreciate, primarily because I came from a country where a $1K monthly income was considered a huge success. However, I can see how it might be difficult to appreciate if a person spent their whole life among the families who made no less than $200K. In their circle, a $300K income is normal and average.

I don't know. I'm the first PP above. I grew up with a 7-figure HHI, but I can still understand this. It's about not wanting to understand the experiences of people around you.

Same here. (I'm the poster below, who agreed with you.) I didn't grow up in a 7-figure HH, but it certainly qualified as upper-middle class - and I knew it, even by age 12 or 13. I knew that most kids did not have a large color TV in their (big) bedroom, a family membership in a nice tennis/pool club, vacations to interesting and often international destinations, season tickets to the Redskins (this is when they were at their height!), and so on. I appreciated what my parents were able to provide and knew very well that I was living better than 90% of kids my age.