Can we stop referring to households making $200 or 300K a year as "middle class"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difficulty here is that most people look to the people a bit above them in income as our reference point and thus feel we are't that well off because we aren't as well off as "them". We don't spend much time looking at the lives of people who are below us in income and thus appreciating what we have that they don't. I'd classify most of my ILs as more working class and all it takes is a weekend visit to them to realize how affluent/upper-whatever-you-want-to-call-it my home (an improved, 2200 sq ft Arlington cape cod) and lifestyle really is. It's all in your perspective.

Totally know what you mean here. Our HHI is below the amount being argued about ($150k) but even with the higher COL in DC I am under no illusions that we are on the same economic level as my parents, who make less than half of that in a much more affordable area (the exact amount I don't know). They analyze spending decisions I don't even think twice about, weren't able to save much for our college educations, and God only knows how much they have (or don't have) saved for retirement. Puts it all in perspective, and makes this thread so incredibly silly to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only difference between someone making 100k and 300k in the DC area is the size of their house. Everything else is pretty much the same middle class lifestyle.

No it's not. Do you have any common sense at all? I'm done even trying to explain it to you, total waste of time.

I agree it's a waste of time to continue to argue. The poster making ~300k will never get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only difference between someone making 100k and 300k in the DC area is the size of their house. Everything else is pretty much the same middle class lifestyle.

How can someone so stupid even earn 300K??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difficulty here is that most people look to the people a bit above them in income as our reference point and thus feel we are't that well off because we aren't as well off as "them". We don't spend much time looking at the lives of people who are below us in income and thus appreciating what we have that they don't. I'd classify most of my ILs as more working class and all it takes is a weekend visit to them to realize how affluent/upper-whatever-you-want-to-call-it my home (an improved, 2200 sq ft Arlington cape cod) and lifestyle really is. It's all in your perspective.

That's not a correct characterization of the sentiments expressed in this thread. We are not saying "look at those making $400k to $500k, they are are so much better off!". We are saying "don't label us as rich or upper class, because our life style is only marginally better than someone making $100k-$200k".

What is your definition of marginal? When I look at the people I know who make double what I make (200K to my 100K), I see really substantial differences in lifestyle? Ferrari? No. Car that's significantly newer than the 10 year average of cars on the road now? Yes. I see differences in the kinds of housing and the amenities available in the houses, in the length of commute, in the amount of choice they have for things like childcare and school and extracurricular. I also see a lifestyle where budget is a factor, but for day to day purchases it's not the most important factor. Finally, I see a safety net that is much more robust than I have. Those aren't marginal, they're enormous differences from where I sit.

[Anonymous]

When you add up all these little, modest things: a bit better house in a close-in suburb with desirable schools, newer cars, larger retirement and college savings, the ability to travel and frequent the theatre and dine at nice restaurants from time to time - these little, modest things really aren't so little or modest after all.

[Anonymous]

Middle class income has the widest range, especially in a HCOL area. I don't consider someone upper class in this area until over 450k.

[Anonymous]

We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sorry I meant 350k, to add we were hit with more taxes so our take home definitely didn't double

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only difference between someone making 100k and 300k in the DC area is the size of their house. Everything else is pretty much the same middle class lifestyle.

How can someone so stupid even earn 300K??

you mad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sounds like a silly choice to me but YMMV

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sounds like a silly choice to me but YMMV

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sounds like a silly choice to me but YMMV

Sounds ok to me, would it be better to buy a new car

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sorry I meant 350k, to add we were hit with more taxes so our take home definitely didn't double

Well, you could have stayed in the old house and increase your disposable income. It was a matter of choice that you had. Middle class doesn't get to make that choice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is not the only expensive spot in the country, you idiots.

No kidding. DC is one of the most prosperous and vibrant metro areas in the country. And it's not as if $300,000 a year goes further in Manhattan or Westchester County, Chicago's North Shore, the Bay Area, L.A.'s West Side, etc.

So what if it "goes further" in Omaha, Dallas or Phoenix? These cities lack DC's opportunities and cultural amenities and DC's high price is largely because affluent people disproportionately live in it. And either way, in no region in the country is $300,000 not a very high income.

Guess what. You are not entitled to living well in an area where "affluent people disproportionately live." These cultural amenities you are talking about are luxuries that you can afford, because you are way above this country's "middle."

I realize that "middle class" is a concept made up by polititians in order to appeal to broader bases. Heck, everybody wants to be middle class! The poors get to say they made it, and the rich get to say they deserve lower taxes. Win-win for the polititians, lose-lose for the sheeple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sorry I meant 350k, to add we were hit with more taxes so our take home definitely didn't double

Your disposable income increased. Your choice to move to a larger house means you chose to dispose of your income that way.