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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All of these suggestions are worthwhile; you just don't find them worth making in your life situation. So live with your choices, but don't pretend there aren't others. No one is forcing you to live in your current circumstances, right?

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nailed it. As long as our society doesn't value paying for things like caring for the elderly, funding cradle to grave health care, or providing affordable college educations, hand-wringing about how poor you feel on your upper class but not super rich income is meaningless. Our society doesn't value these things or it would be paying for them. Without change, 4 year college costs will soon be what medical school costs today (~300k), social security will only keep seniors at the poverty line, and health care premiums will easily top 50k a year. Being a 1%er won't protect any of you from these changes--are you then going to start insisting that being a 1%er is "middle class"? Don't be foolish. The societal definition of middle class will soon no longer include a college education, vacations beyond the camping kind, or anything beyond poverty wages in retirement. This is what we've chosen to prioritize because we fundamentally don't want to share resources. Not even your DC money will protect you from this in the end. Welcome to your cake, now eat it.

[Anonymous]

^ Sad but true. Just a quick skim of threads in this subforum shows how toxic a "dog eat dog" mentality can be. In the end, it's impossible to work and invest enough to protect yourself and everyone you love from a society that doesn't value the common good. While you're busy patting yourself on the back for your 10 million dollar Vanguard fund, someone can come along and shoot you dead out of desperation from living in a society that abandoned them. Or this could happen to your spouse, or your kids, or their kids...the only solution is to create a society that cares for everyone, without endless selfish concern trolling over who "deserves" to live safe, dignified lives.

[Anonymous]

This seems about right.

Anonymous wrote: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:

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.

Nailed it. As long as our society doesn't value paying for things like caring for the elderly, funding cradle to grave health care, or providing affordable college educations, hand-wringing about how poor you feel on your upper class but not super rich income is meaningless. Our society doesn't value these things or it would be paying for them. Without change, 4 year college costs will soon be what medical school costs today (~300k), social security will only keep seniors at the poverty line, and health care premiums will easily top 50k a year. Being a 1%er won't protect any of you from these changes--are you then going to start insisting that being a 1%er is "middle class"? Don't be foolish. The societal definition of middle class will soon no longer include a college education, vacations beyond the camping kind, or anything beyond poverty wages in retirement. This is what we've chosen to prioritize because we fundamentally don't want to share resources. Not even your DC money will protect you from this in the end. Welcome to your cake, now eat it.

This is why there is a difference between middle class and middle income. If only the 1% can afford college and health insurance....there is no middle class. Some people may be in the middle of an income scale, but they aren't middle class. I still believe that having enough income to save/pay for retirement, health insurance, a 30-year mortgage on a starter home, and college should put you in the middle class. COL differences between the income band will vary by region.

[Anonymous]

Middle class is a lifestyle