What's upper middle class in the DC metro area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're upper middle class. Our earned income is about $435,000 a year. We don't look like it, because we live in a 20 year old house that's paid for and drive cars that cost less than $25,000 each, and send our kids to public school, but we are undoubtedly upper middle class.

you are rich, not middle class.

Again, why? It takes two adults working 50+ hours a week, 50 weeks a year, to earn this income.

So if a family has two adults working 60+ hours a week 52 weeks a year to earn $80,000 would you consider them really rich? People with HHI over $400k are rich/wealthy/whatever euphemism you want even in DC-- the idea that if you work for your income you can't be rich is just silly.

To me, rich is my friend who SAH and who just bought a $2.5 million house. Rich is my other friend, who with her DH makes about $1.3 million a year. Two working stiffs who have grad degrees are not 'rich' in the DC metro area. If one of us SAH, we'd have $200,000 in income, which would be in the lower reaches of upper middle class to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're upper middle class. Our earned income is about $435,000 a year. We don't look like it, because we live in a 20 year old house that's paid for and drive cars that cost less than $25,000 each, and send our kids to public school, but we are undoubtedly upper middle class.

you are rich, not middle class.

Again, why? It takes two adults working 50+ hours a week, 50 weeks a year, to earn this income.

So if a family has two adults working 60+ hours a week 52 weeks a year to earn $80,000 would you consider them really rich? People with HHI over $400k are rich/wealthy/whatever euphemism you want even in DC-- the idea that if you work for your income you can't be rich is just silly.

To me, rich is my friend who SAH and who just bought a $2.5 million house. Rich is my other friend, who with her DH makes about $1.3 million a year. Two working stiffs who have grad degrees are not 'rich' in the DC metro area. If one of us SAH, we'd have $200,000 in income, which would be in the lower reaches of upper middle class to me.

Sure, and I bet your friend who makes $1 million a year thinks she isn't rich because she has to fly commercial on her vacations, instead of a private jet (or at least first class). But the fact that you can point to people who make more than you doesn't mean that you're not rich. If one of you could be laid off and you could maintain an upper middle class lifestyle then you are rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're upper middle class. Our earned income is about $435,000 a year. We don't look like it, because we live in a 20 year old house that's paid for and drive cars that cost less than $25,000 each, and send our kids to public school, but we are undoubtedly upper middle class.

you are rich, not middle class.

Again, why? It takes two adults working 50+ hours a week, 50 weeks a year, to earn this income.

So if a family has two adults working 60+ hours a week 52 weeks a year to earn $80,000 would you consider them really rich? People with HHI over $400k are rich/wealthy/whatever euphemism you want even in DC-- the idea that if you work for your income you can't be rich is just silly.

To me, rich is my friend who SAH and who just bought a $2.5 million house. Rich is my other friend, who with her DH makes about $1.3 million a year. Two working stiffs who have grad degrees are not 'rich' in the DC metro area. If one of us SAH, we'd have $200,000 in income, which would be in the lower reaches of upper middle class to me.

Sure, and I bet your friend who makes $1 million a year thinks she isn't rich because she has to fly commercial on her vacations, instead of a private jet (or at least first class). But the fact that you can point to people who make more than you doesn't mean that you're not rich. If one of you could be laid off and you could maintain an upper middle class lifestyle then you are rich.

So every family in the DC metro area that has one GS-15 in it, and no other income, is rich? That's about $160,000 right there. I reject that.

[Anonymous]

no, that is not rich. but $450K in income is rich.

not super rich, but rich. certainly higher than upper middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're upper middle class. Our earned income is about $435,000 a year. We don't look like it, because we live in a 20 year old house that's paid for and drive cars that cost less than $25,000 each, and send our kids to public school, but we are undoubtedly upper middle class.

you are rich, not middle class.

Again, why? It takes two adults working 50+ hours a week, 50 weeks a year, to earn this income.

So if a family has two adults working 60+ hours a week 52 weeks a year to earn $80,000 would you consider them really rich? People with HHI over $400k are rich/wealthy/whatever euphemism you want even in DC-- the idea that if you work for your income you can't be rich is just silly.

To me, rich is my friend who SAH and who just bought a $2.5 million house. Rich is my other friend, who with her DH makes about $1.3 million a year. Two working stiffs who have grad degrees are not 'rich' in the DC metro area. If one of us SAH, we'd have $200,000 in income, which would be in the lower reaches of upper middle class to me.

Sure, and I bet your friend who makes $1 million a year thinks she isn't rich because she has to fly commercial on her vacations, instead of a private jet (or at least first class). But the fact that you can point to people who make more than you doesn't mean that you're not rich. If one of you could be laid off and you could maintain an upper middle class lifestyle then you are rich.

So every family in the DC metro area that has one GS-15 in it, and no other income, is rich? That's about $160,000 right there. I reject that.

I didn't say that, did I? I said if you have enough money that you could lose half of your income and still have 200k annually, then you are rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no, that is not rich. but $450K in income is rich.

not super rich, but rich. certainly higher than upper middle class.

Rich is not the same as class. I'd agree that $450 K is rich, but not necessarily upper class. UC means inherited wealth, fancy education, life of privilege. UMC can be rich, but professional, educated class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're upper middle class. Our earned income is about $435,000 a year. We don't look like it, because we live in a 20 year old house that's paid for and drive cars that cost less than $25,000 each, and send our kids to public school, but we are undoubtedly upper middle class.

We make more than this and also would consider ourselves upper middle. Part of it is that we make more because we have two working parents. No inheritance. Growing savings based on our earnings. Certainly watch our spending quite closely. We live well but nothing like real rich people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're upper middle class. Our earned income is about $435,000 a year. We don't look like it, because we live in a 20 year old house that's paid for and drive cars that cost less than $25,000 each, and send our kids to public school, but we are undoubtedly upper middle class.

We make more than this and also would consider ourselves upper middle. Part of it is that we make more because we have two working parents. No inheritance. Growing savings based on our earnings. Certainly watch our spending quite closely. We live well but nothing like real rich people.

dude, you are rich. doesn't mean you are lighting cigars with $100 bills, but you are rich. get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, PP, I'm the person you quoted and I agree. Under DCUM's definition, any time you have two lawyers in a household, that household will be 'rich.' It just doesn't work that way, especially if you take into account only annual income, and not debt or net worth.

[Anonymous]

so the top 1% in HHI in the USA, the richest and most powerful country in the history of civilization, is not rich? Got it. Please take a six month sabbatical from Hogan & Hartson and see how the other 90% of the planet lives and get back to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're upper middle class. Our earned income is about $435,000 a year. We don't look like it, because we live in a 20 year old house that's paid for and drive cars that cost less than $25,000 each, and send our kids to public school, but we are undoubtedly upper middle class.

We make more than this and also would consider ourselves upper middle. Part of it is that we make more because we have two working parents. No inheritance. Growing savings based on our earnings. Certainly watch our spending quite closely. We live well but nothing like real rich people.

dude, you are rich. doesn't mean you are lighting cigars with $100 bills, but you are rich. get over yourself.

I agree. Also, if you have 500k in annual income, you should be able to pay off your student loans within a few years, so I don't buy the "need to look at debt" thing-- did you know the median net worth in the country for people 35-44 is 50k, and for 45-54 it's under 100k? certainly not saying anyone with more than 50k or a 100k in assets is rich, but you need some perspective.

[Anonymous]

I would say around $400k from an income perspective does pass a threshold beyond "upper middle class". You don't need to call it rich, but I think the term "middle class" starts to sound ridiculous when describing a household income level enjoyed by 1.5% of Americans (e.g. $250k+). Fine, adjust for the fact that higher earners are concentrated in the DC metro area which has a median HHI of around $105k. Still, at $400k+, if 95-97% of people around you consume in the same region and make less than you, then where does the word "middle" come into any picture, esp when we are talking income. The discussion here seems about income, we can have a whole other discussion about what "net worth" is "rich," which also can be backed up by census data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no, that is not rich. but $450K in income is rich.

not super rich, but rich. certainly higher than upper middle class.

Rich is not the same as class. I'd agree that $450 K is rich, but not necessarily upper class. UC means inherited wealth, fancy education, life of privilege. UMC can be rich, but professional, educated class.

The question isn't about "upper class." It's about "upper middle class."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no, that is not rich. but $450K in income is rich.

not super rich, but rich. certainly higher than upper middle class.

Rich is not the same as class. I'd agree that $450 K is rich, but not necessarily upper class. UC means inherited wealth, fancy education, life of privilege. UMC can be rich, but professional, educated class.

The question isn't about "upper class." It's about "upper middle class."

What is higher than "upper middle class"? PP is talking about upper class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no, that is not rich. but $450K in income is rich.

not super rich, but rich. certainly higher than upper middle class.

Rich is not the same as class. I'd agree that $450 K is rich, but not necessarily upper class. UC means inherited wealth, fancy education, life of privilege. UMC can be rich, but professional, educated class.

The question isn't about "upper class." It's about "upper middle class."

I was referring to this PP reference to upper class.