
Ask YC: Are the terms Lower, Middle, Upper-middle and Upper class too subjective to mean anything? - falsestprophet
Apparently, everyone thinks they are middle class. I suppose this could be true for n-2 people. But, that isn't terribly meaningful.<p>What income levels do you think these terms should reflect? To what degree is it meaningful to adjust for cost of living?
======
pchristensen
The way I think of them are:

Lower class - you scrimp on needs like food, safe housing, medical care,
education, insurance. In other words, you have to "sell" your personal
security to make ends meet

Middle class - you scrimp on wants like travel, bigger/newer housing, smaller
TV, keep your cell phone for a couple years, buy a 2 year old car instead of
brand new, etc.

Upper class - harder to pin down because wants are effectively unlimited. I'd
say if you won't settle for the "default" choices, you're probably upper
class. If you have to live in Atherton instead of Sunnyvale, you're probably
upper class. If you drive a Lexus instead of a Toyota, you're probably upper
class. If you shop at Whole Foods because the grocery store isn't good enough,
you're probably upper class. If you wouldn't consider a top state school like
UVigrinia, the UCs, or UMichigan, because you need to go to an Ivy, you're
probably upper class.

I was going to say something about Mac vs PC, which outside of hackers might
be an indication of upper classism, but remembered that for hackers, the best
computer for you is a business expense and a productivity investment.

~~~
dcurtis
I would hardly consider someone who drives a Lexus as upper class.

Porsche, BMW, Mercedes.

~~~
pchristensen
I used Lexus vs Toyota b/c they're basically the same car plus some extra
plush and a slanted L. It was an example of paying a higher price just to
signal wealth. Certainly not as ostentatious as a Maybach or a McLaren.

~~~
dcurtis
Interesting. I would say Lexus is a signal of higher middle class wealth
though, more than upper class.

Clearly, this is an opinion.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
I think that choice of vehicle is extremely dependent upon location as well.
It's definitely a cultural as well as financial choice. I've lived around the
country and each area has its own distribution of cars, independent of the
financial status of the residents.

------
dfranke
The problem with the lower, middle, upper hierarchy is that it doesn't
correspond to anything meaningful about one's lifestyle, or at least hasn't
since it still meant serf, merchant, and nobility. How about a more meaningful
set of labels?

Welfare class: Those unwilling or unable to sustain themselves without
government or family (other than spouse) support.

Working class: Those dependent on employment to maintain their chosen standard
of living.

Independent class: Those able to earn their income directly in order to
achieve their chosen standard of living. Freelance consultants, entrepreneurs,
etc.

Investment class: Those who can achieve their chosen standard of living
entirely from investment income.

~~~
rms
This works, except both working class and independent class each cover the
full income spectrum of the traditional lower, middle, and upper class.

~~~
dfranke
For the most part that's by design. After further consideration, though, I
have to add the caveat that this system only makes sense in first-world
economies. It doesn't make much sense to put a subsistence farmer in the
second-highest of four classes.

------
pg
I think there are two separate hierarchies, one based on wealth (desperate,
nervous, coasting) and one on education (reads nothing, reads _Time_ , reads
_The Economist_ ). Hundreds of years ago the two hierarchies were tied
together because only the rich could afford education. In the 20th century
they drifted apart. The interesting question is whether they will converge
again, pushed from the opposite direction-- i.e. not because wealth causes
education, but because education causes wealth.

~~~
ivankirigin
No, they won't converge. It will get easier to live comfortably. With less
effort required to live, fewer people will seek out education.

~~~
__
Do more people forgo education today than did in the past?

~~~
pchristensen
More people go to college now than ever. It's getting easier to live
comfortably _if_ you're educated. If you're not, it's getting harder and
harder.

~~~
ivankirigin
Educated != went to college, I'm afraid. Economics professors would probably
be mortified by the number of economics grads that don't bother reading the
economist.

Getting harder and harder if you didn't go to college?

Have you ever been to a best buy? It's getting easier and easier for someone
of meager standing to have an entertainment center that only the rich could
afford two decades ago.

------
showerst
Generally when you want to discuss income breakdowns in scientific terms you
use income Quartiles (or quintiles, etc). By defining locality and timeframe
(top quintile of americans? californians? residents of 90210? in 1990? 2008?)
you can easily scale in a way that people still understand.

People have strongly differing concepts of class, whereas (most) everyone
knows what the lowest 25% of earners look like in thier community.

The concepts are still valid, it's just a matter of narrowing the terms.

Edit: If you're discussing income in many countries (esp the US) it may be
wise to split off the top 1% or 0.5%, as they tend to make so much that it
strongly influences the averages.

------
rms
As far as I am concerned, there is no middle class anymore. It left when
America stopped manufacturing. There are three official classes now, with as
many subdivisions as you want.

Working class -- People who don't have an education and have to work shitty
jobs.

Professional class -- People with college degrees, especially professional
degrees demanded by the market.

Ruling class -- the elite, media owning class.

I prefer to call these classes lower, upper, and uber-capitalist,
respectively.

~~~
Hexstream
What about a guy with no diploma that shoots his company to the stars and
makes billions?

Steve Jobs doesn't have a diploma, IIRC. And he's not as much an exception as
you'd think (on that particular aspect).

~~~
rms
Steve Jobs is an uber-capitalist, of course. He is the largest shareholder in
the world's third largest media company. Even without the media ownership, a
billion dollars pegs you as a solid uber-capitalist.

------
rsheridan6
Class isn't just about income. It's also a cultural thing, reflected in your
grammar, clothes, mannerisms, etc. A plumber whose vocabulary includes "ain't"
and makes $40,000 is not of the same social class as an assistant professor
with the same salary.

------
anaphoric
Having lived most of my life in the US with its large gulf between the rich
and the poor and in Sweden, which really is much more egalitarian, I have to
say I prefer a society with more equality.

I was making a lot of money before I left the States in 2000, but I always
found it to be an "embarrassment of riches" in front of friends and
acquaintances who were not doing as well, but who were arguably contributing
more to society (I am thinking of a Nurse friend and a elementary teacher
friend of mine).

Large salary differences are a drag. At one level I feel a bit sorry for the
grossly overpaid executive. If they have a moral sense they must tie their
minds up in knots to justify their pay to themselves. The good thing is that
most of them, once the 'win' and prove what they set out to prove, do become
philanthropic to one degree or another. The problem is that sometimes that
philanthropy does not extend beyond their immediate families. :-)

------
aristus
In the original sense of the term, nearly all of us are in the middle class:
town-dwelling people who can choose where they work. The alternatives were the
ruling class and the peasant class they held in thrall.

------
nextmoveone
I denote classes (in South Florida) by household income as follows:

Lower <80k

Middle > 80k but < 225k

Upper > 225k

~~~
carpal
<80k household income as lower class? That's insane. Maybe in the upscale
districts of the biggest cities, but everywhere else 60k/year is solidly
middle class. In the rural areas of Florida, 60k/year might even be considered
Upper Class.

~~~
nextmoveone
I am also thinking of household as having at least 4 people, if not 5 to
support and 3 family members income. So mommy makes 25-35k daddy makes 25-35k
and bobby/sally(the kid) makes 5-8k.

That's just my personal definition of lower income seeing as how places even
in bad parts of downtown are about 800-1000 per month for 2 bedroom. Add 300
more for 1 more bedroom.

------
Xichekolas
Lower Class = bottom 20% of incomes

Middle Class = 20%ile-80%ile of incomes

Upper Class = top 20% of incomes

Rich = top 5% of incomes

All the terms are inherently relative to each other. Of course the actual
(rather meaningless) values of those incomes varies with location and time.
Lower class Americans transported to India or even back to 1930s America start
to look very much like Upper class.

~~~
Xichekolas
Just to follow up, from this document:
<http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf> in Table 1 on Page 3

Lower Class = Under $23,700/yr

Middle Class = $23,700 to $99,502/yr

Upper Class = Above $99,502/yr

This is a national average in America. Obviously places like the bay area and
the Mississippi delta are going to vary a lot.

For another look at it, check out this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Quintiles)

(Note that my guess at rich being the top 5% means $157,176/yr and up
according to that wiki article.)

