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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yup. Nor does it mean that you know at least one family richer than yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think the chumps who keep trying to push the upper limit of "middle class" into the top 10% and beyond of HHI do so because it helps quell their envy at those who make more. "It's okay that we only went to Europe once this summer after putting 100k into our retirement funds; we're middle class!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are we talking about a single person or a family? Well, you can speak for Illinois, but nobody with a family of 4 is living like a king in DC on $168K. Between housing, groceries and daycare, you'd be lucky to be able to fund your 401K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are we talking about a single person or a family? Well, you can speak for Illinois, but nobody with a family of 4 is living like a king in DC on $168K. Between housing, groceries and daycare, you'd be lucky to be able to fund your 401K.

Speak for yourself. We're happy and want for nothing at 150k here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are we talking about a single person or a family? Well, you can speak for Illinois, but nobody with a family of 4 is living like a king in DC on $168K. Between housing, groceries and daycare, you'd be lucky to be able to fund your 401K.

Daycare is temporary, and there are alternatives like SAH parenting--I know; we just finished 2 years of SAH. Groceries are highly flexible. Housing can be solved by simply moving farther away from the most expensive parts of a city. None of this is magic, but it does require making sacrifices. Living like a king to me doesn't mean flying around in my private helicopter while eating caviar; it simply means being able to afford anything we *need* while being able to spend money on fun within the borders of our income. If your definition requires more income than you have, then no, you'll never feel like a king, but perpetually like a pauper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are we talking about a single person or a family? Well, you can speak for Illinois, but nobody with a family of 4 is living like a king in DC on $168K. Between housing, groceries and daycare, you'd be lucky to be able to fund your 401K.

Middle class =\= being able to afford everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are we talking about a single person or a family? Well, you can speak for Illinois, but nobody with a family of 4 is living like a king in DC on $168K. Between housing, groceries and daycare, you'd be lucky to be able to fund your 401K.

Daycare is temporary, and there are alternatives like SAH parenting--I know; we just finished 2 years of SAH. Groceries are highly flexible. Housing can be solved by simply moving farther away from the most expensive parts of a city. None of this is magic, but it does require making sacrifices. Living like a king to me doesn't mean flying around in my private helicopter while eating caviar; it simply means being able to afford anything we *need* while being able to spend money on fun within the borders of our income. If your definition requires more income than you have, then no, you'll never feel like a king, but perpetually like a pauper.

So forgoing two years of salary is cheaper than daycare? Maybe you don't make much but most of us it is more expensive even at $50k/year job

Moving further away costs a LOT in fuel, time, and health (hours in the car) -- additionally exurbs have seen stagnation while close in suburbs have appreciated sharply.

So your only worthwhile suggestion is groceries, which probably means shopping st multiple stores and cutting coupons and spending loads of time , probably better to get s tutoring job or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

LOL please.

You can get government assistance in dc

[Anonymous]

Class is more than just income. There is assets, and there is safety net.

As an example, early in my career, while still in grad school (maybe before my career), I had 8K annual income. I lived in a dump. But, I was clearly better off than many of my fellow students. Why? I had a safety net. I would not go hungry.

I like to think of it as comfort:

Poor: do not know what they will eat tomorrow or where they will sleep next month. No Car/really old car.

LMC: are one paycheck away from disaster. Meaning, loosing the house/appt. They do not shop at the end of the pay periods. No savings; vacations are rare. One problem (medical, car, etc) away from disaster. Maybe no insurance. They can buy the essentials, but not the wants. They drive a really old car.

MC: Living paycheck to paycheck. They spend each paycheck, but, with a safetynet. Insured. All the bills are up to date; Limited savings, but could get by in other ways (credit?). Probably 6 mo away from disaster. Vacations are limited, maybe a week at the beach. Or they save up for a trip to disney. They can buy a decent car (Honda, Toyota), and may, but may decide to use the money elsewhere.

UMC: Don't really worry about pay day. They always have money left over. They buy what they need, and can afford higher quality on consumables (e.g., food). Going to Disney is no big deal. Well funded retirement. They do not worry about the cost of medical care (good insurance). They can buy almost any car for sale. Typically drive near luxury to luxury cars (Merd, BWM, Lexus, Infinity, Tesla), but may drive lower cars if they do not see the value.

UC: They do not have to work. Can live off the money they have. They buy what they want. They may not have insurance because they do not need it, but probably do to protect themselves.

Under my definition, I am between MC and UMC. I note paydays, but they don't really matter that much. We get everything we need and much of what we want; I do not worry about the health bills; but I am not as liquid as I would like to be. We drive Subarus.

We live in a older house in an inner suburb with great schools. The house is worth nothing; the lot, 700K.

HHI: 200K (I make 180; DW makes 20).
Retirement Savings: 1 mil
Non-liquid assets: 500K
Liquid assets: ~30K

Age: Mid 50's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

LOL please.

You can get government assistance in dc

A single can get government assistance on $81K? Taxpayers should not be funding those who make an above-average salary. If DC housing is too expensive, they can move to suburbs and take the bus/Metro in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are we talking about a single person or a family? Well, you can speak for Illinois, but nobody with a family of 4 is living like a king in DC on $168K. Between housing, groceries and daycare, you'd be lucky to be able to fund your 401K.

Middle class =\= being able to afford everything.

Link for this definition? Or you're just making this up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are we talking about a single person or a family? Well, you can speak for Illinois, but nobody with a family of 4 is living like a king in DC on $168K. Between housing, groceries and daycare, you'd be lucky to be able to fund your 401K.

Daycare is temporary, and there are alternatives like SAH parenting--I know; we just finished 2 years of SAH. Groceries are highly flexible. Housing can be solved by simply moving farther away from the most expensive parts of a city. None of this is magic, but it does require making sacrifices. Living like a king to me doesn't mean flying around in my private helicopter while eating caviar; it simply means being able to afford anything we *need* while being able to spend money on fun within the borders of our income. If your definition requires more income than you have, then no, you'll never feel like a king, but perpetually like a pauper.

I am the PP you've responded to. SAH is not a viable option for everybody. People may not be able to afford their mortgage, healthcare and saving for retirement and college on one salary. People may have jobs in the field that's not easy to re-enter, or in positions do not come up frequently. Or in this area - feds with the older version of the pension plan that's a lot more advantageous than the one currently offered. You forego not just your salary, but also raises, 401K matches and years of pensionable service in some jobs.

SAH is not free, as one of PPs mentioned. Your opportunity costs may outweigh the seemingly "free" option. Even if you run the numbers and they work out that SAH is better - you still need a significant amount of emergency fund (some financial planners say ~6 mo of all expenses) saved. Because when only one person is working (and it requires to live far out, clip coupons, etc. in order for the family to pull it off), if the working spouse suddenly loses their job it can be a total financial ruin w/o emergency savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Tell that to the poster on the first page railing against people who "stuff tens of thousands of dollars into retirement each year." There are no pensions any more, Congress is going to have to cut Social Security to keep it solvent, health care and long term care costs keep going up, and people are living longer. I certainly consider saving a ton to live on when I'm older to be one of "life's necessities." And maybe saving for college isn't an absolute necessity but I have two kids and state school for both of them will probably exceed $200,000 and I don't want them to start adulthood in debt. By the time we save all that money, we're not paying for private school or going to Europe every year (or ever), despite our well-above median income.

I thought middle class meant you could afford a decent house with decent schools and send your kids to college and retire when you're 65. Around here, that takes way more than $100K a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

LOL please.

You can get government assistance in dc

A single can get government assistance on $81K? Taxpayers should not be funding those who make an above-average salary. If DC housing is too expensive, they can move to suburbs and take the bus/Metro in.

Rent in most of the close-in suburbs is MORE than it is in Southeast DC, genius. Even if there were enough housing units and transportation infrastructure in the suburbs to absorb that many more low-income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Tell that to the poster on the first page railing against people who "stuff tens of thousands of dollars into retirement each year." There are no pensions any more, Congress is going to have to cut Social Security to keep it solvent, health care and long term care costs keep going up, and people are living longer. I certainly consider saving a ton to live on when I'm older to be one of "life's necessities." And maybe saving for college isn't an absolute necessity but I have two kids and state school for both of them will probably exceed $200,000 and I don't want them to start adulthood in debt. By the time we save all that money, we're not paying for private school or going to Europe every year (or ever), despite our well-above median income.

I thought middle class meant you could afford a decent house with decent schools and send your kids to college and retire when you're 65. Around here, that takes way more than $100K a year.

You're conflating societal failures with mathematical percentiles. We refuse to fund SS adequately because we continue to elect people who (serve corporations that) are only interested in privatizing it. We refuse to switch to universal health care for the same reason. We refuse to short circuit the unlimited loan->unlimited college pricing circuit for the same reason. And people aren't really living longer--the wealthiest are while the poorest are actually living shorter lives. All of these issues are due to our refusal to embrace humanistic, socialistic principles out of a mixture of brainwashing, greed, racism, and a generally uneducated population. But none of these issues change the mathematical definitions of what it means to be middle class. By the same measure, 70 years ago, white families in the middle class (because remember, minority families were specifically excluded from the GI bill and other benefits that created the middle class) lived in 950 sq. ft homes with 4 children. Today the new median home size is around 2700 sq. ft while the fertility rate is 2 kids. There were zero international vacations, zero private schools, and next to zero college educations (certainly not for female children). You'd be screaming bloody murder if you were asked to live a life like that today. Your scale of reference is what's changed, but that doesn't mean the income range of middle class has. You just want things that our society has collectively decided not to pay for anymore.