Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You are upper class, although it's possible you are "new money," depending on your grandparents' situation.

She's upper middle class unless she's living on passive income.

Disagree, we don't not know if she COULD live on passive income, only that she and DH earn in top 1%.
I made a distinction above between upper class and "new money," when I should have made the distinction between upper-lower (new money) and upper-upper (which you cannot earn your way into). If the poster's parents went to the Dalton School and Deerfield (as examples), it's likely she's upper-upper.

I'm the PP OP is responding to. It's interesting, because I would put us both in UMC (while recognizing DH and I are extremely well off). The reason for this is we both have to work for a living...though, theoretically, if my parents believed in providing inheritances early we could live a decent lifestyle off of passive income (not as nice as our current lifestyle, though).

I think the question about "new money" gets at one of the more difficult aspects of defining class in the US. My parents are immigrants, while DH has one ancestor who came over the the Mayflower (as an indentured servant). The rest of his ancestors still immigrated at least 3 generations ago, though. My parents come from fairly well-off families, landed, in their country of origin, but both of my grandfathers were younger siblings meaning they did not inherit the bulk of their familial wealth (think Mathew Crowley but not in Europe). One was a doctor, the other an engineer turned extremely high level government official. My parents did not come to the US for economic opportunity so much as better training, but they ended up staying here and becoming wealthier than they likely would have if they returned. My mom's siblings benefit from passive income, living lifestyles their professions (college professor, political activist) could never possibly support. So, class-wise, given this background with grandparents who straddled UMC and UC in my parents' birth country, what does that make me? I think it still makes me UMC, but I know that in my parents' culture my tastes are "higher brow" than my friends' whose parents come from less well-off backgrounds in the same country but earn similarly to my parents.

While I know that OP didn't mean it this way, part of the problem with class and the somewhat pejorative "new money" is that it explicitly leaves out a majority of Americans who either were denied the opportunity to build generational wealth or just don't have that history here in the US. A wealth African-American person is pretty much guaranteed to be "new money"...what does that mean for their SES?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You are upper class, although it's possible you are "new money," depending on your grandparents' situation.

She's upper middle class unless she's living on passive income.

Disagree, we don't not know if she COULD live on passive income, only that she and DH earn in top 1%.

I made a distinction above between upper class and "new money," when I should have made the distinction between upper-lower (new money) and upper-upper (which you cannot earn your way into). If the poster's parents went to the Dalton School and Deerfield (as examples), it's likely she's upper-upper.

Makes sense.

BTW, for readers unfamiliar with real wealth, here's a hierarchy:

https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-hierarchy-of-the-rich-in-the-united-states/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You are upper class, although it's possible you are "new money," depending on your grandparents' situation.

She's upper middle class unless she's living on passive income.

Disagree, we don't not know if she COULD live on passive income, only that she and DH earn in top 1%.

I made a distinction above between upper class and "new money," when I should have made the distinction between upper-lower (new money) and upper-upper (which you cannot earn your way into). If the poster's parents went to the Dalton School and Deerfield (as examples), it's likely she's upper-upper.

Anonymous wrote: You are upper class, although it's possible you are "new money," depending on your grandparents' situation.

She's upper middle class unless she's living on passive income.

Anonymous wrote:Wtf? Sean Spicer's mom was a professor at Brown and his dad was an insurance agent. I hardly see how the child of an Ivy League professor is a prole. It shows that clueless people can arise at all SES levels.

She's not a professor according to Brown's website and Sean Spicer's Wikipedia entry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

Different PP who hasn't posted in a while. You seem to lack some basic reading comprehension...which seems to be the norm for DCUM discussions related to MC. It's not about what income level and lifestyle makes each person comfortable. You simply cannot use that as the gauge for what constitutes MC...for reasons that should be so obvious I won't bother to explain.

There has to be some shared definition of MC that can be used for broader discussions about society and policy. The DCUM definition seems to only apply to top 5% income earners, even in the DC area, which should perhaps make people pause and reconsider the value of their definition.

Anyway, full confession time. DH and I both have PhDs but now work in tech-related industries, pulling in a HHI of $600K in our late 30s. All of my degrees are HYPS, my parents and FIL are all MDs, and I watch a ton of TV. Neither of us drives a luxury car, we have original artwork on our walls, worn passed-down rugs on our hardwood floors, and the only printed magazines you'll find around our house are In Style (subscribed to) or outdated copies of Economist, Atlantic, or Foreign Affairs that I might have picked up to read on an airplane. You tell me what my SES class is.

You are upper class, although it's possible you are "new money," depending on your grandparents' situation.

Now my turn.

- My parents have grad degrees, as do I.
- I too have original artwork on my walls (although some are limited edition lithographs.) I admit to wall-to-wall carpeting, because even though I know it screams "lower-middle," I feel it's more homey and I like it. I also own a luxury car, but it's old.
- I have traveled extensively throughout five continents, and am taking an evening class on the history of a specific country, simply for my own education. I read Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Affairs.
- I have some gorgeous furniture handed down from my grandparents, circa 1950. I also have inherited some important jewelry from grandmother.
- The entire back wall of my family room is a built-in bookcase, packed to the gills. Mostly non-fiction.
- I can be found having dinner at the Capital Grille, or happily slumming it at TGIFs.
- I watch TV every evening, mostly news but sometime movies. Never sitcoms.

Now here's the kicker: I earn approximately $100,000 (slightly over).

Am I lower or working class, as some snobby DCUMers have claimed? (I'm the OP, in case there weren't enough clues.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

+1. I really don't know why OP is twisting herself into knots trying to get us to admit we're out of touch and she is umc. I am 32 and our HHI is close to 7 figures now, so yeah, OP's salary, to me, is low, especially for someone in their 50's. That's my opinion but why do you care OP? Sounds like you have a good life.

We pull in 7 figures each month. Frankly, you sound like you haven't amounted to much in life.

Lol, even if that were true, I certainly don't care. Take note, OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:living in a city is not a middle class lifestyle (at least not if it comes with all the other things people seem to be associating with "middle class"). I grew up in the rural Midwest and knew many people who commuted 90 miles to the nearest city for work every day because they did not see it as financially feasible to live closer. Living in a city, then calling yourself middle class despite having an income in the top 5% of the country ($214,462 or above) is like choosing to buy a mansion then complaining about not being able to afford a "middle class car" because of your mortgage. There is nothing wrong with living in a city, it gives access to a lot of great amenities, culture, educational opportunities, white collar jobs, short commutes, etc that rural America does not have. But it comes at a cost. If you make over $100-150k you are not middle class even if you choose to live in a high cost of living area.

If you're unable to separate income from class, then I can't argue. If you're willing to do a little research on social class, then we can debate.

Living in a city is almost a prerequisite to being middle class. Being a millionaire farmer means being a prole, despite the wealth. Being a well known professor at Georgetown is upper middle class (assuming that the person doesn't ignore the social cues).

Sean Spicer is SES and showed his prole upbringing by not knowing how a suit should fit or appropriate colors and styles. He's getting educated on how to look and act upper middle class.

A firefighter married to an executive secretary are not middle class, even if their HHI is well over $100k.
Maybe reading Pride and Prejudice and reflecting on how little class has changed behind the scenes would help..

Wtf? Sean Spicer's mom was a professor at Brown and his dad was an insurance agent. I hardly see how the child of an Ivy League professor is a prole. It shows that clueless people can arise at all SES levels.

Middle class is a lifestyle not an income

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

+1. I really don't know why OP is twisting herself into knots trying to get us to admit we're out of touch and she is umc. I am 32 and our HHI is close to 7 figures now, so yeah, OP's salary, to me, is low, especially for someone in their 50's. That's my opinion but why do you care OP? Sounds like you have a good life.

We pull in 7 figures each month. Frankly, you sound like you haven't amounted to much in life.

I think what the OP was originally getting at is that people around here earn so much beyond the average - the top 2% or 3%, really - that they are completely out of touch, and think $100,000 is a low salary (someone even called that "poor") - and that it is the anger with that out-of-touch thinking that reverberated throughout the country and resulted in the uprising of the working class.

That so many DCUM readers, rather than acknowledge this, kept insisting that $100,000 is a low salary proved the OP's point. There were several examples of people living very comfortably on $100k, with international travel and maids and whatnot, yet others (the out-of-touch crowd) still said those people were not upper-middle class. (Didn't someone say a $100k salary almost qualified for welfare? SO out-of-touch!)

So many of you still do not understand the OP's point, and I can only imagine if she is annoyed at being called poor, or unsuccessful, or whatever it was, how infuriating it is for the lower-middle, who combined as a couple pull in maybe $60,000 or $70,000. They're fed up with that elitist attitude, and it definitely showed up at the polls.

Nailed it. The fact that so many people here refuse to acknowledge that mots households (never mind individuals) in DC aren't making 100k a year (the median HHI is 93k) shows how little high salaries have to do with intelligence.

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

Different PP who hasn't posted in a while. You seem to lack some basic reading comprehension...which seems to be the norm for DCUM discussions related to MC. It's not about what income level and lifestyle makes each person comfortable. You simply cannot use that as the gauge for what constitutes MC...for reasons that should be so obvious I won't bother to explain.

There has to be some shared definition of MC that can be used for broader discussions about society and policy. The DCUM definition seems to only apply to top 5% income earners, even in the DC area, which should perhaps make people pause and reconsider the value of their definition.

Anyway, full confession time. DH and I both have PhDs but now work in tech-related industries, pulling in a HHI of $600K in our late 30s. All of my degrees are HYPS, my parents and FIL are all MDs, and I watch a ton of TV. Neither of us drives a luxury car, we have original artwork on our walls, worn passed-down rugs on our hardwood floors, and the only printed magazines you'll find around our house are In Style (subscribed to) or outdated copies of Economist, Atlantic, or Foreign Affairs that I might have picked up to read on an airplane. You tell me what my SES class is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

+1. I really don't know why OP is twisting herself into knots trying to get us to admit we're out of touch and she is umc. I am 32 and our HHI is close to 7 figures now, so yeah, OP's salary, to me, is low, especially for someone in their 50's. That's my opinion but why do you care OP? Sounds like you have a good life.

We pull in 7 figures each month. Frankly, you sound like you haven't amounted to much in life.

I think what the OP was originally getting at is that people around here earn so much beyond the average - the top 2% or 3%, really - that they are completely out of touch, and think $100,000 is a low salary (someone even called that "poor") - and that it is the anger with that out-of-touch thinking that reverberated throughout the country and resulted in the uprising of the working class.

That so many DCUM readers, rather than acknowledge this, kept insisting that $100,000 is a low salary proved the OP's point. There were several examples of people living very comfortably on $100k, with international travel and maids and whatnot, yet others (the out-of-touch crowd) still said those people were not upper-middle class. (Didn't someone say a $100k salary almost qualified for welfare? SO out-of-touch!)

So many of you still do not understand the OP's point, and I can only imagine if she is annoyed at being called poor, or unsuccessful, or whatever it was, how infuriating it is for the lower-middle, who combined as a couple pull in maybe $60,000 or $70,000. They're fed up with that elitist attitude, and it definitely showed up at the polls.

As someone who makes somewhere between 3M and 5M a year depending on a number of international factors, I have far more respect for the folks who make 100k and appreciate it than for the various slugs who trumpet their 200-500k salaries while looking down on people who make less. And I know who I'm far more likely to take under my wing for new business ventures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

+1. I really don't know why OP is twisting herself into knots trying to get us to admit we're out of touch and she is umc. I am 32 and our HHI is close to 7 figures now, so yeah, OP's salary, to me, is low, especially for someone in their 50's. That's my opinion but why do you care OP? Sounds like you have a good life.

We pull in 7 figures each month. Frankly, you sound like you haven't amounted to much in life.

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

That's introducing a new element - of course some people will be happy with $100k and others not. The discussion was whether someone earning $100,000 was stuck in the lower-middle class or could afford an upper-middle class lifestyle, and it seems they can, depending on how one defines upper-middle class lifestyle. But we've seen people in that income range have house cleaners, gardeners, travel internationally, max out retirement savings, etc., and I classify that as upper-middle.

There are also other factors to consider, such as whether one has worked steadily throughout the years. I, for example, left the rat race and age 33 and re-entered at 48, and was glad to get an offer near $100,000 after that absence.