Upper middle class African American Seeking Diverse Housing in Chicago (Naperville: real estate, apartments)

[Humboldt1]

Sukwoo,

I like your definition as it lets middle class, etc. fluctuate depending up locale, and situation (married, kids, etc.). My definition of wealthy may have been too low, because they would have to keep working for many to maintain their lifestyles.

Please DM when you know more regarding meeting up with others in the group this weekend. Thanks.

[Sailaway50]

Definitely check out Beverley. I know white, black, and mixed couples who are happy there and feel safe, accepted, nice neighborhood, etc......

Hyde Park is fine, but not as safe as Beverly, particularly at night.

Hyde Park is more accessible to downtown and has the U of C "academia" feel, etc....but the safety issue is the trade off. Depends on what you seek.

I would not move to Orland if I were black. Same for Lemont and alot of the S and SW suburbs, period. I feel there are some rather major racism issues there......unless you want to tackle that for personal or political reasons, I wouldn't choose the additional stress. It's very real.

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

I am gonna get slammed for this post, but $50K is not upper middle class, even for a single person. Here is my breakdown for those living in Chicago.

Single:
up to 30M working class
30M-80M middle class
80-150M upper middle class
+150M wealthy

Married:
up to 50M working class
50M-100M middle class
100M-200M upper middle class
+200M wealthy

Married with Children (2):
up to 70M working class
70M-150M middle class
150M-250M upper middle class
+250M wealthy

Others, may have slightly different numbers, but I think few will see $50M as upper middle class, regardless of marital or child status.

And don't think of Chicago as "ethnic concentration camps" as there are many areas that are diverse and have a nice blend of all ethnicities as well as socio-economic groups.

Your self-created synthisized caste system has several flaws.

First. your classifications are too vague. You leave out key groups including single parents, empty nesters, and retirees just to name a few.

Second, you base your classifications on income earned...... instead income and assets accumulated.Furthermore you failed to mention if these are incomes before or after taxes.

Third, you are basing your classifications on no substance. Using your scale a garbage man or a plummer who is single making say.... 40k is middle class but two married individuals who are college educated and say..... 5th year substitute teachers that pull in about 45-50k would be "working class".

I could go on with the various flaws of your creativley sythisized class system, but it does not matter. The fact of the matter is class systems in America at times can be very vague and open to interpretation.

For example you say that an individual alone making 50k (baseline starting salaray of a graduate school-eduacated accountant) is not 'upper middle class', but at the same time you acknowledge that if two people making that (50k) exact same income when put together (100k) they magically transcend the lower middle class and become upper middle class. How does that work

[Humboldt1]

LakeShoreSoxGo,

Dude, I said it was my opinion and that others would have slightly different numbers. Clearly, I can't include all the groups that are out there. Sukwoo's definition was better than mine as it accounted for a number of factors, mostly lifestyle.

Of course the numbers were pretax. Perhaps I should have added 50m to each middle and upper middle class group and wealthy maybe 100m.

My point was to generate dialogue as I am sure many define these groups differently.

What is wealthy in one neighborhood in Chicago may not be in another neighborhood.

If you have a masters in accounting and are only making 50m, I know lots of places would gladly pay you double to do audit work.

I am looking for discussion not someone pointing out flaws in my opinion. Feel free to give me your opinion which I will respect regardless of whether or not I agree.

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

LakeShoreSoxGo,

Dude, I said it was my opinion and that others would have slightly different numbers. Clearly, I can't include all the groups that are out there. Sukwoo's definition was better than mine as it accounted for a number of factors, mostly lifestyle.

Of course the numbers were pretax. Perhaps I should have added 50m to each middle and upper middle class group and wealthy maybe 100m.

My point was to generate dialogue as I am sure many define these groups differently.

What is wealthy in one neighborhood in Chicago may not be in another neighborhood.

If you have a masters in accounting and are only making 50m, I know lots of places would gladly pay you double to do audit work.

I am looking for discussion not someone pointing out flaws in my opinion. Feel free to give me your opinion which I will respect regardless of whether or not I agree.

I guess my point is that 'class' atleast in America...is really less traditional and more rhetorical. Our class system is not something percise and well defined like say India. Class in the US, particularly the 'middle class' after the Second World War, has become more of an analogous to describe the masses. I suppose I just wont go there...

But are we not engaged in dialogue?

[Humboldt1]

LakeshoreSoxGo,

You make a good point, several actually. Everybody wants to be middle class. I remember my freshman roommate in 1996 telling me my parents were lowe middle class becuase they made less than 200m per year. Of course, this was the son of a stockbroker from bakersfield, so it is all relative.

I had just gotten out of a loan committee meeting when I read your last post, so I may have taken your "dialogue" the wrong way for which I apologize.

I would still love to hire cpas for 50K.

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Exactly. What happens when you go away to college and people describe themselves in a socioeconomic manner? I had one roommate freshman year, whos dad's job got outsourced to India so he was now a park ranger, his mom was an out of work teacher; another roommate whos parents made 500k a year who was under the dillusion that he was upper middle class, and myself who at the time had parents pulling in roughly 200k a year. If you asked us all what class we thought we were, every one of us, with total and utter certianty, would have told you that we were "middle class". It really is a loose term.

[Sailaway50]

Interesting, but....where does everyone recommend dwest think about living?

If it's the burbs he/she is looking for, what about Oak Park? This is getting more "diverse" all the time..in terms of color, not necessarily socio-economic.

[Humboldt1]

I concur with recommending Oak Park.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Sailaway50

Interesting, but....where does everyone recommend dwest think about living?

If it's the burbs he/she is looking for, what about Oak Park? This is getting more "diverse" all the time..in terms of color, not necessarily socio-economic.

Actually, Oak Park is starting to get less diverse now. It's diversity peaked in the 80s or 90s, but many of the low-income renters are now being priced out and apartment buildings are going condo at a rapid pace. The schools are as diverse as ever, though, because many of the upper-middle class residents who dominate the town have a small number of kids or no kids at all (Oak Park is becoming very gay-friendly).

But yes, Oak Park is a very diverse community--and has many middle-to-upper class African American Residents. According to Wikipedia, the racial makeup of the village as of the 2000 Census was:

68.78% White,
22.44% African American
0.15% Native American
4.15% Asian
0.03% Pacific Islander
1.63% from other races,
2.82% from two or more races.
4.52% Hispanic or Latino of any race