Anonymous wrote:
80k is tough to live on in DC metro area if you have a family and want to buy. It's a great HHI for somewhere more rural, but here, it's peanuts. Interesting you think that this "teacher" took that comment as a slight instead of, say, thinking to herself, "you know, teachers ARE underpaid around here." You know, because everyone knows teachers tend to be underpaid.

But OP's point is that statistics bear out that a lot of/most people *are* living on that amount. And they can't all be unicorn outliers who inherited a house or whatever. A few years ago, I worked with a GS-9 who was supporting a wife and kid on his income. I wouldn't want to do it, but a lot of people do it.

I agree with OP that it's to our peril to pretend that $100K is barely scraping by...even if it means that housing is out of reach in some cities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, and trying to get this back on track after the tangent above....

Let me explain more. The Democrats are being seen now as the party of the upper-middle class and the Republicans are seen more as helping out those with middle and working class incomes - a complete 180 - in terms of their voting patterns.. But because so many people are highly compensated (in cities, at least), they are losing track of just what middle income constitutes, and in doing so, unknowingly alienate those voters.

For example, I was at a Democratic fundraiser and there were a group of us chatting. One man remarked how how teachers earn only $80,000, and said "who can live on that?" The assumption was that we all earned much more. But one person in the group, previously all smiles and chatty, got very quiet, and within a minute she walked away. (She wasn't that young, either, maybe 40.) it just came out sounding so, well....snobby.

I feel it is possible that she did not earn $80,000, and the man's remark showed this lack of awareness. It is that type of insensitivity that I believe makes middle income earners feel "invisible" and perhaps why some of them voted for Trump.

80k is tough to live on in DC metro area if you have a family and want to buy. It's a great HHI for somewhere more rural, but here, it's peanuts. Interesting you think that this "teacher" took that comment as a slight instead of, say, thinking to herself, "you know, teachers ARE underpaid around here." You know, because everyone knows teachers tend to be underpaid.

But she wasn't a teacher. She was in a different field. That's the point....plenty of people earning $80,000. The guy at the fundraiser just assumed that since she wasn't a teacher, she earned more.

Anonymous wrote:OP here, and trying to get this back on track after the tangent above....

Let me explain more. The Democrats are being seen now as the party of the upper-middle class and the Republicans are seen more as helping out those with middle and working class incomes - a complete 180 - in terms of their voting patterns.. But because so many people are highly compensated (in cities, at least), they are losing track of just what middle income constitutes, and in doing so, unknowingly alienate those voters.

For example, I was at a Democratic fundraiser and there were a group of us chatting. One man remarked how how teachers earn only $80,000, and said "who can live on that?" The assumption was that we all earned much more. But one person in the group, previously all smiles and chatty, got very quiet, and within a minute she walked away. (She wasn't that young, either, maybe 40.) it just came out sounding so, well....snobby.

I feel it is possible that she did not earn $80,000, and the man's remark showed this lack of awareness. It is that type of insensitivity that I believe makes middle income earners feel "invisible" and perhaps why some of them voted for Trump.

80k is tough to live on in DC metro area if you have a family and want to buy. It's a great HHI for somewhere more rural, but here, it's peanuts. Interesting you think that this "teacher" took that comment as a slight instead of, say, thinking to herself, "you know, teachers ARE underpaid around here." You know, because everyone knows teachers tend to be underpaid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

YOU are the "person" who feels slighted that people here have accused you of being (God forbid), lower class, middle class, poor. You just can't stand that some of us DC yuppies think of your 100k salary as "low." And then you go on a rant about how you support Trump because all the rich liberals think of you as low class. You, old lady, are cray.

I'm not PP, but you're sorely lacking in critical thinking skills if that's what you pulled from her post.

PP was referring to another thread that OP has basically admitted she was in.

Anonymous wrote:OP here, and trying to get this back on track after the tangent above....

Let me explain more. The Democrats are being seen now as the party of the upper-middle class and the Republicans are seen more as helping out those with middle and working class incomes - a complete 180 - in terms of their voting patterns.. But because so many people are highly compensated (in cities, at least), they are losing track of just what middle income constitutes, and in doing so, unknowingly alienate those voters.

For example, I was at a Democratic fundraiser and there were a group of us chatting. One man remarked how how teachers earn only $80,000, and said "who can live on that?" The assumption was that wFe all earned much more. But one person in the group, previously all smiles and chatty, got very quiet, and within a minute she walked away. (She wasn't that young, either, maybe 40.) it just came out sounding so, well....snobby.

I feel it is possible that she did not earn $80,000, and the man's remark showed this lack of awareness. It is that type of insensitivity that I believe makes middle income earners feel "invisible" and perhaps why some of them voted for Trump.

What an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

YOU are the "person" who feels slighted that people here have accused you of being (God forbid), lower class, middle class, poor. You just can't stand that some of us DC yuppies think of your 100k salary as "low." And then you go on a rant about how you support Trump because all the rich liberals think of you as low class. You, old lady, are cray.

I'm not PP, but you're sorely lacking in critical thinking skills if that's what you pulled from her post.

Anonymous wrote:I think assuming class = income = standard of living is really problematic, and I don't trust a lot of numbers about mean/median incomes because there are too many variables. For example, my brother and 2 of my cousins, all in their 30s, each earn less than 20k a year. My brother just doesn't work steadily, and is subsidized by parents/girlfriend, but lives a comfortable middle class lifestyle. One cousin is a perpetual Phd student, and travels internationally all the time, while another one gets grants for social justice projects, and is subsidized by parents. She has student loans which she just does not pay. If you tried to figure out the average income in our family, these folks would make it look very low. But none of them are actually working full time, or trying to maximize income, and all are receiving some type of subsidy for housing. Surveys of average incomes in cities are going to be skewed by similar stories - folks who inherited a house and thus easily live on 30k a year, people subsidized by a university or church, or people who live with someone receiving a pension or disability. Just going by people I know there are lots of people whose income doesn't match their true expenditures or lifestyle. I would love to see data on HHI in D.C. area that only looked at people who paid all expenses out of income earned from their jobs. I think that would give you a more accurate picture of what income is middle class in this area.

OP here. That would be interesting data, but I doubt it exists. It would remove some of these outliers you mention.

I think assuming class = income = standard of living is really problematic, and I don't trust a lot of numbers about mean/median incomes because there are too many variables. For example, my brother and 2 of my cousins, all in their 30s, each earn less than 20k a year. My brother just doesn't work steadily, and is subsidized by parents/girlfriend, but lives a comfortable middle class lifestyle. One cousin is a perpetual Phd student, and travels internationally all the time, while another one gets grants for social justice projects, and is subsidized by parents. She has student loans which she just does not pay. If you tried to figure out the average income in our family, these folks would make it look very low. But none of them are actually working full time, or trying to maximize income, and all are receiving some type of subsidy for housing. Surveys of average incomes in cities are going to be skewed by similar stories - folks who inherited a house and thus easily live on 30k a year, people subsidized by a university or church, or people who live with someone receiving a pension or disability. Just going by people I know there are lots of people whose income doesn't match their true expenditures or lifestyle. I would love to see data on HHI in D.C. area that only looked at people who paid all expenses out of income earned from their jobs. I think that would give you a more accurate picture of what income is middle class in this area.

OP here, and trying to get this back on track after the tangent above....

Let me explain more. The Democrats are being seen now as the party of the upper-middle class and the Republicans are seen more as helping out those with middle and working class incomes - a complete 180 - in terms of their voting patterns.. But because so many people are highly compensated (in cities, at least), they are losing track of just what middle income constitutes, and in doing so, unknowingly alienate those voters.

For example, I was at a Democratic fundraiser and there were a group of us chatting. One man remarked how how teachers earn only $80,000, and said "who can live on that?" The assumption was that we all earned much more. But one person in the group, previously all smiles and chatty, got very quiet, and within a minute she walked away. (She wasn't that young, either, maybe 40.) it just came out sounding so, well....snobby.

I feel it is possible that she did not earn $80,000, and the man's remark showed this lack of awareness. It is that type of insensitivity that I believe makes middle income earners feel "invisible" and perhaps why some of them voted for Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

YOU are the "person" who feels slighted that people here have accused you of being (God forbid), lower class, middle class, poor. You just can't stand that some of us DC yuppies think of your 100k salary as "low." And then you go on a rant about how you support Trump because all the rich liberals think of you as low class. You, old lady, are cray.

Now I know you're off. I absolutely did not vote for Trump!

My mistake. Perhaps you merely surmised that because everyone has the same chip on their shoulder as you, and the thought of being regarded "middle class" on as high of an income as yours is enough to drive them to vote for Trump.

One word: counseling.

You know, I'm the OP and I have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously there's an issue, but whatever....

I know the thread where I ran into these issues of yours surrounding your obsession with your 100k HHI being considered "low" by some of the DCUM posters. Who knows, maybe it was another poster who mentioned Trump. After a while, all th DCUM crazy runs together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

YOU are the "person" who feels slighted that people here have accused you of being (God forbid), lower class, middle class, poor. You just can't stand that some of us DC yuppies think of your 100k salary as "low." And then you go on a rant about how you support Trump because all the rich liberals think of you as low class. You, old lady, are cray.

Now I know you're off. I absolutely did not vote for Trump!

My mistake. Perhaps you merely surmised that because everyone has the same chip on their shoulder as you, and the thought of being regarded "middle class" on as high of an income as yours is enough to drive them to vote for Trump.

One word: counseling.

You know, I'm the OP and I have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously there's an issue, but whatever....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

YOU are the "person" who feels slighted that people here have accused you of being (God forbid), lower class, middle class, poor. You just can't stand that some of us DC yuppies think of your 100k salary as "low." And then you go on a rant about how you support Trump because all the rich liberals think of you as low class. You, old lady, are cray.

Now I know you're off. I absolutely did not vote for Trump!

My mistake. Perhaps you merely surmised that because everyone has the same chip on their shoulder as you, and the thought of being regarded "middle class" on as high of an income as yours is enough to drive them to vote for Trump.

One word: counseling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said it there, I'll say it here.

Are you the elderly lady moron who keeps harassing people on DCUM because you think we look down on you for your 100k salary? GTFO!

It was HUD that concluded that low 100k in an area of SF was "lower income." HUD. Why don't you call their branch in SF and complain? Send some links and charts.

No, I'm not elderly, and, in all modesty, certainly not a moron! It's just that I've seen a number of threads on this topic by people who seem frustrated. Today, for example, was someone (not me) who said plenty of people with grad degrees only earn around $60k, and people jumped on her (or him). I think it's true - lots of teachers with masters earn that, or less.

My purpose in bringing this topic up is that people who are truly average income (I think it's around $55k, household) get frustrated when they hear people say that $300k is middle class, and I believe that frustration showed up on Election Day. I think it's a good start for those of us who are affluent (I have a net worth in the 7 figures) realize that we are indeed above average, financially speaking, and show more understanding for the average family getting by on $75,000 in the suburbs of big cities or $50,000 in rural areas.

But I'm looking for polite debate. No need for GTFO stuff. (Or I'll just stop engaging.)

YOU are the "person" who feels slighted that people here have accused you of being (God forbid), lower class, middle class, poor. You just can't stand that some of us DC yuppies think of your 100k salary as "low." And then you go on a rant about how you support Trump because all the rich liberals think of you as low class. You, old lady, are cray.

Now I know you're off. I absolutely did not vote for Trump!

I think my cousin is middle class. No college, but a decent salary and bonus doing sales. I'd say about $100,000 a year. (here) Wife can stay at home, but she mostly stays home because daycare would be too expensive. They live in a suburb, and not an expensive one. Their local public schools are not great, but not horrible.

Anonymous wrote:Middle income is not the same as middle class. The overlap between the two has to do with how the income is generated.

Here's one way to think about it (Class: A Guide Through the American Status System):

The Top Class (out of sight)
Wealth through inheritance alone. Multi-generational.

The Upper Class
They often inherit a good amount of money, but they earn it too doing some slight and attractive type of work.

The Upper-Middle Class
They earn large amounts of money through things like investment banking, medicine, big law, etc. If they stop working, their income stops.

The Middle Class
Corporate white collar workers.

The Proletarian Class

A person making $100,000 is likely middle class, even if that's well above the median income.

OP. That's interesting, except you left off the description of proletariat. I assume that would be lower-middle class, or even working class. Sounds like an interesting book.

I'd assume that the majority of people (voters) are probably lower-middle to middle. That was traditionally the demographic that went for the Democrats, but it really switched this last election. Now it's more of the upper-middle to upper going Democrat, and that's the problem. UMC and up are only 15% of the electorate. (But now I'm wading into politics. Oh-oh!)