
Everybody Thinks They're Middle-Class - MichaelAO
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/middle-class/
======
jasode
It's really not strange nor contradictory. Most people probably think of
"middle class" like this:

\- lower class: on welfare & food stamps

\- middle class: have a job, must work for a living

\- upper class: not having to work and living off interest payments of wealth
investments

Therefore, the middle class covers the wide spectrum of $9/hr Starbucks
baristas and $500k white shoe lawyers. For "lower class", most people use the
label "poor". For "upper class", most people use the label "rich".

(I'm guessing Bloomberg was attempting to give an insight similar to the
mathematical contradiction of _" everybody thinks they're an above-average
driver"_. However, they misunderstood how people self-identify themselves as
"middle class".)

~~~
Karellen
I heard it was:

\- lower class: your name is on your shirt

\- middle class: your name is on your office door

\- upper class: your name is on the building

:-)

~~~
jondubois
I think that's the best description. Today with all the propaganda around
'open workspaces', white collar workers have been forced back into the lower
class (in spite of getting higher salaries).

Your class is more related to your self-esteem than your income.

In one of the companies I worked for as a contractor, I had my own office and
it felt great.

When I was younger, I briefly worked in a telemarketing call center for the
equivalent of $20K per year. Then many years later (after I finished uni), I
was earning $200K per year in a different company (as a software engineer in
an open workspace).

The $200K workplace didn't boost my self-esteem much more than than the $20k
workplace.

~~~
dpark
> _Today with all the propaganda around 'open workspaces', white collar
> workers have been forced back into the lower class._

This is the epitome of pampered engineer BS. You aren't lower class because
you don't have a private office.

$200k/year and lower class? You can afford to buy your own private office for
much less than that.

~~~
leurfete
I agree that it sounds ludicrous to claim that one can be 'lower class' at
$200k/year, however, I think there's a charitable way to read this position.

Perhaps their point is that autonomy is a better indicator of class than
salary. Just like 'stupid is as stupid does,' 'class is as class does.'

Being able to afford your own office means nothing if you can't actually use
it because you spend 8-10 hours a day trapped in an environment that you find
degrading.

The barrier to class mobility in this case is mental. The engineer has traded
autonomy for cash.

My own opinion is that one becomes upper class when they can choose not to
work. If your living expenses are $20k/year and you make that from returns on
passive investments, congratulations, you're a part of the leisure class.

If your expenses are $190k/year and you earn a salary of $200k/year you're a
part of the lower/precariat class.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
If your expenses are $190k/year and you earn a salary of $200k/year you are an
upper-middle class person with poor judgement. Lifestyle inflation does not
make someone lower class.

------
leurfete
I believe that Paul Fussell's "Class" makes the best accounting of the
[American] class system. In it there are nine levels:

-

Top Out of Sight:

Billionaires and multi-millionaires. The people so wealthy they can afford
exclusive levels of privacy. We never hear about them because they don't want
us to.

Upper Class:

Millionaires, inherited wealth. Those who don't have to work. They refer to
tuxes as "dinner jackets."

Upper Middle:

Wealthy surgeons and lawyers, etc. Professionals who couldn't be described as
middle class. I suspect this is the class to which I, an engineer, am supposed
to aspire.

Middle Class:

The great American majority, sort of.

High Proletarian (or "prole"):

Skilled workers but manual labor. Electricians, plumbers, etc. Probably not
familiar with the term "proletarian."

Middle Prole:

Unskilled manual labor. Waitresses, painters. (In other words, my mom and
dad!)

Low Prole:

Non-skilled of a lower level than mid prole. I suspect these people ask "Would
you like fries with that, sir?" as a career.

Destitute:

Working and non-working poor.

Bottom Out of Sight:

Street people, the most destitute in society. "Out of sight" because they have
no voice, influence or voter impact. (They don't vote.)

[http://www.wesclark.com/am/class.html](http://www.wesclark.com/am/class.html)

~~~
harryh
This is a good list. I wonder how many Americans (out of ~320M total) fall
into each level?

------
pfarnsworth
My wife and I combined make well above the limit for 1%-er range, yet we both
feel middle class, although upper middle class is probably more accurate.

We both work extremely hard, from 9-10 hrs a day in the office and 2-3 hrs at
night, most nights. We barely have time to see the kids during the week, and
the weekends are filled assuaging our guilt by spending it with them, unless
we have to work.

We have a modest house in the SF Bay Area, with an unmodest mortgage, and a
savings that is miniscule compared to our costs and isn't growing. I have my
Honda Accord that I paid off years ago, and my wife leases a Lexus SUV. We are
the prototypical house-poor Bay Area family, and if one of us loses our job,
we're pretty fucked. Neither of us has any sort of insurance besides whatever
is provided by our companies.

The two "luxuries" we have are a weekly house cleaner, and a top notch
babysitter once a week, which is why I think upper middle class is apt.

We don't feel "upper class", and we definitely don't feel rich. We know rich
people, though, with live-in nannies, rented out Gary Dankos for special
events, got box suites at the Super Bowl, etc.

~~~
graeme
1% in the US is about $200,000. So, you have a household income of $400,000
and are struggling?

I'm curious, what are your main expenses?

~~~
whamlastxmas
Probably $6000-10,000 a month in mortgage payments. And he said combined
they're 1%. So after tax, probably more than half of his money going to
mortgage.

~~~
xapata
That still doesn't add up in my mind. A 1%-er household would have $240k+
post-tax annual income, more if they're deducting hefty mortgage interest
payments.

    
    
        $100 in food daily ~ $36k
        $500 weekly domestic help ~ $25k
        $500 monthly utilities ~ $6k
        $2k monthly transportation ~ $24k
        $2k monthly misc ~ $24k
        $10,000 monthly mortgage ~ $120k
    

That hits around $235k post-tax. I think that's a nice lifestyle. Eating out
less would allow for different "fun" activities.

Oh, I guess I forgot savings. Doh! I'd aim for savings about 10% annual pre-
tax income for a household bringing in $400k+ pre-tax. I'm not sure how much
of the mortgage principal payments I'd count towards that amount.

~~~
pfarnsworth
Private school for two children is ~$4000/month.

~~~
xapata
Well, I guess we're not eating out every day anymore.

------
Maarten88
So some dude did some inteviews some day in some shopping mall and came to the
conclusion that "everybody thinks they're middle class"

While 4 days ago there was an opinion piece on gallup.com quoting research
that 51% of americans now say they're middle class[1], a long-time (not all-
time) low.

I'll take the Gallup research, and dismiss piece this as fabrication and
factoids.

[http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/195680/invisible-
amer...](http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/195680/invisible-
american.aspx)

------
jedberg
My definitions:

Wealthy -- I don't have to work to maintain my lifestyle.

Poor -- I can't afford basic necessities even when I work.

Middle-class -- everyone else.

Now for sure there is some variation on middle-class (upper/lower/truly
middle) and that's basically a function of disposable income.

But this definition at least accounts for variation in regional cost of living
and even adjusts for personal lifestyle choices. Your middle class might be my
wealthy because my lifestyle is cheaper.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
These are American definitions and not European ones, where working class are
people who work for someone else for a living, while the middle class works
for themselves. I guess it depends if you have your FU money or not.

~~~
_benedict
OPs description matches mostly how the UK does it, except we have an
aristocratic hangover that confuses the meaning of "upper class"

We also (perhaps because of this) have the term "upper-middle class" to refer
to particularly well-off middle-class people; though beyond a certain level
you just become "rich"

~~~
OJFord

        > mostly how the UK does it
    

With the addendum that it - or your perception - will always have more to do
with your parents and upbringing than your salary.

America's socio-econmic classes, by stark contrast, are all about the money.

~~~
maxerickson
That class is all about the money in the US is not entirely true. If you have
lots of money but don't know the social rituals, people will notice.

"new money" is after all a thing.

------
samirillian
There seems to be a lot of confusion in this article and the comments between
class and income-bracket. The bourgeoisie (the historical middle class) were
precisely the nouveaux riches. In Europe especially, class made a lot of sense
when you could be either impoverished nobility or a wealthy son of peasants.
Class was a useful category in early capitalism, but maybe less so in late
capitalism (especially in America where we are all essentially bourgeois). I
think this survey, if anything, shows the increasing irrelevance of "class" in
our society. There is no more class, there is just income, wealth, etc.

------
twblalock
Hey look, a rehash of my Sociology 101 class from freshman year of college.

Most Americans call themselves as "middle class," and most Americans believe
that social mobility is higher than it actually is. In fact, since the 1970s,
economists and sociologists have known that social mobility in America is not
much higher than in Europe.

This is old news.

------
sevenless
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as
an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." \-
John Steinbeck

------
namenotrequired
"'Rich', by the way, is anyone with more money than you."

A quote from a teacher of mine that has always stuck with me. It explains so
much.

~~~
afterburner
Yes, even the wealthy are constantly comparing themselves to people richer
than them, and complaining about it.

~~~
broodbucket
Look at this rich guy, always complaining.

------
okket
I doubt that multi-millionaire think that they are 'middle class'. Or a person
living on welfare. Everybody else is pretty much in the 'middle' from very low
to very high.

$200k is much, but unless you are extremely lucky or inherited a huge amount,
you have to do a bit for such an income. And you have likely a long time
behind you earning less, living in the middle.

~~~
dismantlethesun
> I doubt that multi-millionaire think that they are 'middle class'.

Perhaps, but low digit millionaires do think that they're middle class because
they've earned their money across the past 50 years. In that same 50 year span
they've seen the actual 'rich' earn about billions instead.

Let me give a character construction.

You are an engineer. Salary $120k at age 38. Your spouse is also an engineer.
Salary $100k at age 38. You both are the inheritors of your parent's estate
which includes a pair of $200k pensions, and 2 houses valued at $800k a piece
thanks to 20 years of land values rising in your near DC hometown.

Now your net worth is 2.0 million and rising.

Yet you don't _feel_ like you are 'rich'. Maybe you have kids, can't take 5
vacations a year, and end up comparing yourself to your friends with no kids
and greater discretionary income. Maybe because your windfall is from
inheritance, you don't think of it as 'yours'.

It's a psychological motif, even if its not the economic reality.

~~~
rayiner
Low millions over 50 years is solidly middle class. That's a couple of
teachers saving up responsibly for retirement and paying off their house on
time.

~~~
nugget
This point is often lost in the debate over income and wealth. A public school
teacher who starts working at 25 y/o and retires 30 years later at 55 y/o with
a relatively modest $60k/year pension benefit has effectively retired with a
pension value of $1.3 million (using current lifetime annuity rates). Two
public school teachers married to each other with a paid-for $500k home (but
zero other savings or assets) effectively have a household net worth of $3.1
million. Government retirees with 'high 3' pensions are the every day
millionaire next door types of modern society. I know many of them with multi-
million dollar pension values and yet most feel solidly working class because
it took them decades to earn the pension benefit and all they see is the
monthly check.

------
Jill_the_Pill
The symbols on the quotes are mysterious, and no key is given. First block is
D/R (democrat, republican). Second is age range. Fourth is gender. I thought
the third might be race, since a couple of people have a pink W (white?) and a
couple have a brown M (mixed race?), but some have a green dollar sign or
cents sign.

edit: someone has both a W and a cents sign.

~~~
DINKDINK
If you click and hold on the symbols, an overlay appears that decodes it.

~~~
OJFord
I had to double-tap and hold... would never have got it without comments here
- what a bizarre UI!

------
Hondor
What on earth is that graph showing? 2% of households make $150k, and another
2% make $151k, and another 2% make $150.01k, etc. It makes no sense at all. I
think they meant to use a bar graph or histogram, and perhaps those circles
are the boundaries between the bins. But then why are some much wider than
others? Do 7% of households make between $30k and $90k? Normally with a bad
graph, you can work out what they meant and it's just misleading, but this is
too wrong to mean anything.

On a second look, the sharp edges of the curve appear to be $10k boundaries
which with the text about $20k-$30k would mean they're the bin boundaries. But
that assumes the text was written by someone who knew that and wasn't just
reading off the line.

~~~
Inufu
Presumably the probability density function,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_density_function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_density_function)

------
throwaway2016a
I think I'm probably a good poster child for this. It's not just about income
it's also about wealth.

My household income puts me in the top 5% (my wife and i are engineers) but my
wealth and savings barely puts me in the top 40% thanks to student loans,
buying a house, having a kid, and short work history. So according to income
I'm upper class. According to wealth I'm middle class. I don't think you can
truly feel upper class until you fall in the top percentages in both.

I think it falls under:

\- Upper class: you could retire today without impacting your lifestyle

\- Middle class: you will retire someday but you'll have to cut down on your
lifestyle

\- Lower class: you will never retire unless you go on disability / welfare

------
refurb
I love the retire who isn't middle class, but has 2x the average family income
_while retired._

------
koolba
How you live and how much money your make are related but it's not absolute.
Local cost of living is a huge factor. Plus you can be an idiot (when it comes
to spending money) with a larger paycheck and end up with a lower quality of
life than your frugal neighbor.

~~~
gamesbrainiac
This is a very good point. Even if you make 200k in NY, its equivalent to 100k
in Arizona. Or at least something along those lines.

~~~
sotojuan
Depends where you live in NY. I make 80k in Sunset Park and I live
comfortably. 200k would mean I don't have to worry about money much.

That said, no kids.

~~~
namenotrequired
> live comfortably

> don't have to worry about money much

It's interesting how those two phrases can mean the exact same thing to one
person (me) and be apparently so wide apart to others.

How can you live comfortably while worrying about money a lot?

~~~
sotojuan
I don't worry about money now because I save and budget appropriately. I meant
that with 200k I wouldn't have to think much about money at all. Sorry for the
confusion!

~~~
namenotrequired
Ah :) thanks for clarifying!

------
javajosh
Interesting that the interviews were done in Minneapolis, a city I'm currently
spending the summer in. This city is big on public services - public
transportation is particularly good. Probably everyone in that article took
the Metro to the Mall. The libraries are plentiful and excellent, and there
are really good amenities in Downtown. The rent/home prices around here is
also astonishingly good (Note: I'm from LA). Heck I'm renting a 1500 sq ft.
house with a garage and a yard for $1500/mo, and that's kinda pricey. You
could probably find a reasonable 1Br around here for $400/mo.

tl dr: $30k really is middle class in some American communities.

------
DominikR
Chances are that even if you make $500k a year you'll still have lots and lots
of social interactions with people earning much less. Even most of your
friends and family will earn less.

That's why it isn't surprising to me that most people choose to identify with
the middle class, especially if you consider that most people associate with
this term "normal working citizens".

Maybe it is different once you have so much that you actually do not need to
ever work again, but you certainly aren't in this position by earning $200k.
You still have to work really hard, often even harder than the average person
does.

------
toast0
Is there a commonly accepted definition of middle class? (in the United
States; class definition seems more rigid in England)

Preferably something that involves net worth as well as net income; for me
rich and poor indicate status of wealth/net worth, which is often correlated
with income, but isn't the same thing. Taxed on those with high income are
considered taxes on the wealthy, but may also be taxes on people who had a one
time windfall, but aren't wealthy.

~~~
dahart
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States#Status_and_stratification)

------
peter303
I am optimistic that many people here retain such a broad definition of middle
class- essentially the range between poverty level and one percenters. This
shows that most Americans dont want to be indentified as impoverished nor
wealthy, despite statistics otherwise. Ironically this flies in the face of
media pronouncements the middle class died atbthe end of the 20th century and
Trump movement is exploiting to the hilt.

------
tunesmith
I don't understand what conclusion this graph is going for. It's a real
"Therefore, what?" thing for me.

------
scotty79
That reminds me of
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Status_Civilization](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Status_Civilization)

Sci-fi society where eveyone thought of themselves as middle class but it was
either upper middle class or lower middle class.

------
peter303
Obama and Congress wrestled as to what is middle class when dealing with
permenantizing the Bush tax cuts- introduced in 2002 and made permanent in
2011. ACA surcharges start at 200K for individuals and 250K for a couple. The
highest income bracket at 400K. We are talking about the top 2%-3% here.

------
DINKDINK
Rather than 4 data points is there any large-sample-size conclusions about
people who identify as Middle class?

------
contingencies
The overwhelming sense I get reading this sort of article is: if everybody
insists on drawing lines amongst themselves how will we ever solve the world's
most pressing problems, which are clearly beyond the reach of individual
social groups or nations?

------
jweissman
Don't these definitions have a more solid statistical economic meaning here?
As in: middle "class" is the _middle quintile_ of income. This makes the other
strata fall pretty reasonably too:

80%-100%: Ruling Class

60-80%: Upper Class

40-60%: Middle Class

20-40%: Working Class

0-20%: Lower Class

------
soufron
Isn't that a data-bias? Everybody think they're middle class because it's the
biggest class... meaning that there is an increased probability that people
indeed belong to the middle class.

------
ciconia
As usual, there's the emphasis on how much one makes, very little on how much
one spends. Personally, I've spent the last few years not so much trying to
earn more but rather spend as little as possible.

------
agounaris
I don't find this surprising...obviously the 200k person has an easier living
compared to the 50k but probably they hand out to the same places, have
similar houses and generaly their habits are the same.

------
turar
Here's a good discussion on this:
[http://siderea.livejournal.com/1260265.html?format=light](http://siderea.livejournal.com/1260265.html?format=light)

------
vixen99
A British view: [https://youtu.be/K2k1iRD2f-c](https://youtu.be/K2k1iRD2f-c)

------
smegel
Well it is a pretty wide band one would assume.

I think the real problem is people claiming to be poor when they are bang in
the middle of middle class.

------
superkuh
Apparently no javascript means no text these days. It is obviously done
intentionally. It is not like blocks of text require javascript to render. I'd
shame bloomberg but the frog is well and boiled now; everyone just accepts
that without JS websites aren't going to show you anything. And _that_ is a
damn shame.

~~~
Koshkin
Well, this is probably because today JavaScript is the biggest middle class
generator.

