What is Middle Class....Really?

[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.

The traditional Middle Class was aspirational and not the majority. The average income family couldn't afford to keep up with the Middle Class and can't now.

Most would consider Upper Middle (i.e., wealthy and working for it) to be as good as it could get without winning the lottery.

People have unrealistic understanding about their class and many try to emulate the class or more above with disastrous financial consequences.

[Anonymous]

This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

A poster some pages back brought up another element to all this: When upper-income parents (say, $300 to $400K and up) tell their kids that they are living a regular, middle-class lifestyle, it does set up for a challenging "standard" - a level that some children, once they're grown, do not achieve. If a child is led to believe that the lifestyle provided by a $350,000 income - a nice house in the city, upscale cars, fancy restaurants, international vacations, private schools, etc. - is your run-of-the-mill middle-class life, how will they feel if they go to college and study a field they enjoy that tops out at around $80,000 or $90,000? (I'm thinking teachers, but there are many fields like that.) Will they be made to feel like failures because they can have to live in the suburbs to buy an equivalent house to the one they grew up in, and can't really afford the annual trip to Paris or London (although who'd want to go now)?

I think it's important that we transmit to our children that we are indeed living a life that most people cannot afford, and that we are unusual in that regard. Because I see problems related to this all the time. Kids grow up in really nice houses and then are either resentful or depressed when they are not at the same level as their parents. Friends of mine have subsidized their college-educated children (after paying the full tuition, so there are no loans) in luxury apartments their first few years in the workforce because "that's what the kids are used to."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yours is the new form of bragging: I am/was super rich, but I am also VERY socially conscious.

Gag me with a spoon. (By the way, I grew up dirt poor and am not rich now either)

[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.

In DC you can get subsidy for 80 k hhi

https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/rent-and-income-program-limits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In DC you can get subsidy for 80 k hhi

https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/rent-and-income-program-limits

Do you work for HUD? You seem knowledgeable. Two questions/comments:

- If says the Median Income for DC is $108,000. Is that a median individual salary, or a household income with two working parents?
- It shows eligibility for assistance in the $80,000 range, but it seems that's only for families of 6, 7, of more. Makes sense, since $80,000 for a single person is an entirely different situation that a couple with five kids.

Thanks, very interesting.

[Anonymous]

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.

while i despise "woo is me, i make only 300k" people as much as the next guy, what is missing from your picture is jobs. most people can't find an adequate job in bethpage IL. or are you suggesting that they wait tables?

i am an immigrant and i do strongly prefer cities regardless of everything else but my impression is that most americans, even DCUM characters, prefer to live in suburbs. the main reason they feel those suburbs must be close to cities is that that's where their jobs so they don't want to spend more than 2 hours commuting. i don't think most DCUM would object to living in an exhurb provided their commute is manageable.

so to some extent it is a luxury but it is also somewhat of a forced choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

A poster some pages back brought up another element to all this: When upper-income parents (say, $300 to $400K and up) tell their kids that they are living a regular, middle-class lifestyle, it does set up for a challenging "standard" - a level that some children, once they're grown, do not achieve. If a child is led to believe that the lifestyle provided by a $350,000 income - a nice house in the city, upscale cars, fancy restaurants, international vacations, private schools, etc. - is your run-of-the-mill middle-class life, how will they feel if they go to college and study a field they enjoy that tops out at around $80,000 or $90,000? (I'm thinking teachers, but there are many fields like that.) Will they be made to feel like failures because they can have to live in the suburbs to buy an equivalent house to the one they grew up in, and can't really afford the annual trip to Paris or London (although who'd want to go now)?

I think it's important that we transmit to our children that we are indeed living a life that most people cannot afford, and that we are unusual in that regard. Because I see problems related to this all the time. Kids grow up in really nice houses and then are either resentful or depressed when they are not at the same level as their parents. Friends of mine have subsidized their college-educated children (after paying the full tuition, so there are no loans) in luxury apartments their first few years in the workforce because "that's what the kids are used to."

Yes, I wonder about this too.
I live in AU Park where we and almost all of our neighbors make in the $300-400K range. And we're generally all the first generation of our families to have this money...i.e. there isn't a lot of generational family money in this neighborhood. Just smart people who did well in school and ended up in reasonably high paying jobs. Anyway, not all of us will have successful kids. And not all of us who have successful kids will have kids who go into high paying fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

A poster some pages back brought up another element to all this: When upper-income parents (say, $300 to $400K and up) tell their kids that they are living a regular, middle-class lifestyle, it does set up for a challenging "standard" - a level that some children, once they're grown, do not achieve. If a child is led to believe that the lifestyle provided by a $350,000 income - a nice house in the city, upscale cars, fancy restaurants, international vacations, private schools, etc. - is your run-of-the-mill middle-class life, how will they feel if they go to college and study a field they enjoy that tops out at around $80,000 or $90,000? (I'm thinking teachers, but there are many fields like that.) Will they be made to feel like failures because they can have to live in the suburbs to buy an equivalent house to the one they grew up in, and can't really afford the annual trip to Paris or London (although who'd want to go now)?

I think it's important that we transmit to our children that we are indeed living a life that most people cannot afford, and that we are unusual in that regard. Because I see problems related to this all the time. Kids grow up in really nice houses and then are either resentful or depressed when they are not at the same level as their parents. Friends of mine have subsidized their college-educated children (after paying the full tuition, so there are no loans) in luxury apartments their first few years in the workforce because "that's what the kids are used to."

Yes, I wonder about this too.
I live in AU Park where we and almost all of our neighbors make in the $300-400K range. And we're generally all the first generation of our families to have this money...i.e. there isn't a lot of generational family money in this neighborhood. Just smart people who did well in school and ended up in reasonably high paying jobs. Anyway, not all of us will have successful kids. And not all of us who have successful kids will have kids who go into high paying fields.

but all those kids will inherit those houses and more. that should help especially with buying their own houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

A poster some pages back brought up another element to all this: When upper-income parents (say, $300 to $400K and up) tell their kids that they are living a regular, middle-class lifestyle, it does set up for a challenging "standard" - a level that some children, once they're grown, do not achieve. If a child is led to believe that the lifestyle provided by a $350,000 income - a nice house in the city, upscale cars, fancy restaurants, international vacations, private schools, etc. - is your run-of-the-mill middle-class life, how will they feel if they go to college and study a field they enjoy that tops out at around $80,000 or $90,000? (I'm thinking teachers, but there are many fields like that.) Will they be made to feel like failures because they can have to live in the suburbs to buy an equivalent house to the one they grew up in, and can't really afford the annual trip to Paris or London (although who'd want to go now)?

I think it's important that we transmit to our children that we are indeed living a life that most people cannot afford, and that we are unusual in that regard. Because I see problems related to this all the time. Kids grow up in really nice houses and then are either resentful or depressed when they are not at the same level as their parents. Friends of mine have subsidized their college-educated children (after paying the full tuition, so there are no loans) in luxury apartments their first few years in the workforce because "that's what the kids are used to."

Yes, I wonder about this too.
I live in AU Park where we and almost all of our neighbors make in the $300-400K range. And we're generally all the first generation of our families to have this money...i.e. there isn't a lot of generational family money in this neighborhood. Just smart people who did well in school and ended up in reasonably high paying jobs. Anyway, not all of us will have successful kids. And not all of us who have successful kids will have kids who go into high paying fields.

but all those kids will inherit those houses and more. that should help especially with buying their own houses.

Even assuming they inherit, it could be at age 50 or later. I'm sure they'd want to buy a house long before then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:but all those kids will inherit those houses and more. that should help especially with buying their own houses.

You just moved the kids from upper middle to upper class if the wealth transfer is large enough.

The thing people don't realize is that large inheritences are rare. They're rare because it's tough to save large amounts based on earned income.

Remember that those making $350k per year while working need to save 25x that to sustain it in retirement. If you want to pass it along, then you need to save more. Moving your kids into the Upper Class with substantial inherited wealth is hard.

Even if you don't talk about class, it's hard for someone earning at the 1% level to achieve 1% wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but all those kids will inherit those houses and more. that should help especially with buying their own houses.

You just moved the kids from upper middle to upper class if the wealth transfer is large enough.

The thing people don't realize is that large inheritences are rare. They're rare because it's tough to save large amounts based on earned income.

Remember that those making $350k per year while working need to save 25x that to sustain it in retirement. If you want to pass it along, then you need to save more. Moving your kids into the Upper Class with substantial inherited wealth is hard.

Even if you don't talk about class, it's hard for someone earning at the 1% level to achieve 1% wealth.

I am talking about keeping the kids in the same class not moving them up. This was the issue discussed above.

Most people who live in million dollar homes will be able to give their children 500k+ (todays dolars and prices).That will help those children move close to where they were as kids. Even id they are 50 at that point that will put them roughly in the same place. It is absurd to expect that children will have the same standard as their 30 years older parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yours is the new form of bragging: I am/was super rich, but I am also VERY socially conscious.

Gag me with a spoon. (By the way, I grew up dirt poor and am not rich now either)

+1. For all their sanctimony, I'm sure these same people give little or nothing to charity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

A poster some pages back brought up another element to all this: When upper-income parents (say, $300 to $400K and up) tell their kids that they are living a regular, middle-class lifestyle, it does set up for a challenging "standard" - a level that some children, once they're grown, do not achieve. If a child is led to believe that the lifestyle provided by a $350,000 income - a nice house in the city, upscale cars, fancy restaurants, international vacations, private schools, etc. - is your run-of-the-mill middle-class life, how will they feel if they go to college and study a field they enjoy that tops out at around $80,000 or $90,000? (I'm thinking teachers, but there are many fields like that.) Will they be made to feel like failures because they can have to live in the suburbs to buy an equivalent house to the one they grew up in, and can't really afford the annual trip to Paris or London (although who'd want to go now)?

I think it's important that we transmit to our children that we are indeed living a life that most people cannot afford, and that we are unusual in that regard. Because I see problems related to this all the time. Kids grow up in really nice houses and then are either resentful or depressed when they are not at the same level as their parents. Friends of mine have subsidized their college-educated children (after paying the full tuition, so there are no loans) in luxury apartments their first few years in the workforce because "that's what the kids are used to."

Yes, I wonder about this too.
I live in AU Park where we and almost all of our neighbors make in the $300-400K range. And we're generally all the first generation of our families to have this money...i.e. there isn't a lot of generational family money in this neighborhood. Just smart people who did well in school and ended up in reasonably high paying jobs. Anyway, not all of us will have successful kids. And not all of us who have successful kids will have kids who go into high paying fields.

If you are making that much, you should be able to help your children with the downpayment - at least that's what I'm going to do. I recognize that I'm making more than 97% of US residents and am willing to share my high income with the kids. I set up the investment accounts in the kids' names and contribute a certain amount every month - in addition to their college funds. When they grow up, they can use the money as a downpayment. Their colleges will be paid for in full as well. Therefore they are getting a privileged start in life, no matter if they make only $60k later.

[Anonymous]

"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.


while i despise "woo is me, i make only 300k" people as much as the next guy, what is missing from your picture is jobs. most people can't find an adequate job in bethpage IL. or are you suggesting that they wait tables?

i am an immigrant and i do strongly prefer cities regardless of everything else but my impression is that most americans, even DCUM characters, prefer to live in suburbs. the main reason they feel those suburbs must be close to cities is that that's where their jobs so they don't want to spend more than 2 hours commuting. i don't think most DCUM would object to living in an exhurb provided their commute is manageable.

so to some extent it is a luxury but it is also somewhat of a forced choice."

+1
Ideally I would much prefer to live in a small town or exurb with a little downtown area. But the small town where I am from has much fewer job options and the kind of work I have experience in does not exist there.

So we live here in a suburb with a tolerable (under an hour) commute and good (8s) schools. We're finding a job no problem I - like I think many other DC transplants - would happily move back to my smallish town in another state.

It is partly because of this dynamic - that many here have specialized jobs that do not pick up and move easily - that so many of us do not feel like we are "choosing" to live here as a luxury.

[Anonymous]

^^^^Please speak for yourself. I'm from Los Angeles, and I could have easily chosen to relocate there after graduate school on the east coast. I chose to live in DC (proper), and I am very happy with that choice. The nature of my work does not confine me to this city.