|
700k 4.5M 5 |
Same. Our net worth is in our home equity and retirement accounts, so I feel fortunate but don’t feel like we have money to spend on fancy things. |
You're labor, not bourgeoisie, but you're still rich. |
| Whenever this conversation comes up I think about how in England (or the entire commonwealth I suppose), upper class refers to people in possession of peerage and such. People who earned their wealth are pretty much still considered middle class, so this serves as a reminder to me that if you’re working for your living, your finances are closer to somebody who is homeless than they are to, say, the average person in the top .01%. |
“Rich” can mean a lot of things, but when you’re talking about what constitutes upper middle class, there is just UMC and then UC. |
You're making a high income but unless it's translating into savings, you're not wealthy. In this area, a lot of this income goes to mortgages, childcare, and house maintenance expenses because working professionals don't have time to do these things themselves. They've outsourced functions that may have been handled by one spouse in previous generations. Moreover, a lot of these higher paying jobs are no longer as secure. They come with massive time commitments and amounts of stress to produce (and continually produce) and a narrowing pyramid of advancement. You're one job loss, bad year of sales or being passed over for partner from falling down the social ladder unless you're in a growth industry like tech. I think two career Feds making a combined $250-$350K in relatively prestigious positions are a heckofa lot closer to being UMC than a non-equity junior law firm partner trying to grasp at that elusive brass ring. |
You are thinking of the distinction between one car vs two cars as being the UMC/UC cut off (which is itself odd as most UMC families can afford two cars and are likely to have a lifestyle requiring two cars). I am drawing a distinction between needing to work for money, and not needing to work for money as being the boundary between UMC and UC. As others have said, most of those in the professional class (like DH and I - lawyer/consultant) consider ourselves UMC. You don't have to agree, but clearly a majority of people similarly situated feel the same way we do. And I don't have time for multiple vacations a year, btw - I have to bill. |
I agree with this, and I don’t see any UMC people complaining about how poor they are (although yes we do tend to be out of touch). This is just about definitions and the definition of UMC is where we fit. I would also call us “working rich.” |
| I'm UMC because of my SES, particularly my educational level, not because of my income or net worth. |
How did you amass so much wealth on your income? Seems like you have done a really good job saving. Also, are you single or do you have wife/kids? |
Grey Gardens types. You see these adjunct professors loading up their 30-year-old Volvos and Saabs outside of Trader Joe's. They don't have a pot to piss in, but they're desperate to think of themselves as UMC. |
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between labor and bourgeoisie. Also, historically, bourgeoisie is exactly what we are (though I do not aspire to the traditional provincialism and small mindedness associated with the term!). It distinguished the merchant class from the nobility and the proletariat. |
|
HHI: $425K
NW: $4M 4 Age:48/46 |
|
We consider ourselves lower upper middle class.
375 HHI 3 M in savings 1 kid |
I've used that term; I love it. |