Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 'classes': poor; middle; rich; wealthy, all are concerned with INCOME.
The classes have nothing to do with Blue Collar or White Collar. A blue collar worker CAN be rich, as is evidenced by your repeated example.
false
The common measures of what constitutes middle class vary significantly between cultures. In urban India, for example, a family is considered middle class if it resides in an owner-occupied property........ In the United States, many families where the primary income-earner is employed in a blue collar job consider themselves middle class, when in fact they are working class by the classic Weberian definition; this may be encouraged by politicians conscious of the fact that the term "working class" is seen as unflattering in the USA.
This is in contrast to the United Kingdom, where the term "working class" can be seen as carrying its own cultural status. Here the term middle class implies those people who typically have had a good education, own a family house, and hold a managerial or professional post. Those holding a senior role in a profession or ownership/directorship of a corporation may be regarded as upper middle class, but in England this is as much dependent on background and education. The upper class is generally regarded as the aristocracy
from above:
In the United States, many families where the primary income-earner is employed in a blue collar job consider themselves middle class, when in fact they are working class by the classic Weberian definition
says NOTHING about income level
infact it goes futher:
A persistent source of confusion surrounding the term "middle class" derives predominantly from there being no set criteria for such a definition. From an economic perspective, for example, members of the middle class do not necessarily fall in the middle of a society's income distribution. Instead, middle class salaries tend to be determined by middle class occupations, which in turn are attained by means of middle class values. Thus, individuals who might fall in the middle ground on a societal hierarchy as defined by sociologists do not necessarily fall into a middle ground on an economic hierarchy as defined by economists.
even In Marxism, which defines social classes according to their relationship with the means of production, the "middle class" is said to be the class below the ruling class ........................250k is certainly not the ruling class
In February 2009, The Economist announced that over half the world's population now belongs to the middle class, as a result of rapid growth in emerging countries. It characterized the middle class as having a reasonable amount of discretionary income, so that they do not live from hand to mouth as the poor do, and defined it as beginning at the point where people have roughly a third of their income left for discretionary spending after paying for basic food and shelter........again 250k falls within that realm
Last edited by workingclasshero; 09-20-2011 at 12:42 PM..
so you are saying a Nassau county cop (regular PO) making 150k married to a teacher making 105k is rich....so liberals are defining a workingclass cop married to a workingclass teacher as ""rich""....isn’t that just swell
I haven't seen any liberals here claiming that $250k/year is rich. It is, however, more than 92% of their fellow Americans make, so claiming that they are middle class is ridiculous.
All you say is beside the point, though. Even if there were a proposal to raise taxes on people making a million, ten million, or a billion dollars a year Republicans would be whining about how unfair it is.
I don't believe the definition of middle class actually has to do with the percentile of the income scale one falls on, but is more of an arbitrary demarcation that says you are nicely above the poverty line, but no where near the "no need to work for a living" anymore line.
they say 250k is not middleclass...well if it not middleclass then what it is.....rich
even the OP states "IS 250k middlelcass?"
Unless you can quote me a single post, from this thread or any other, that claims someone making $250k is "rich" your statement that "liberals are claiming $250k a year is rich" is a lie.
Unless you can quote me a single post, from this thread or any other, that claims someone making $250k is "rich" your statement that "liberals are claiming $250k a year is rich" is a lie.
So that's an admission that you've never heard a liberal say that $250k a year is rich, then.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
