Middle Class You Say.... (Cincinnati, Amanda: middle-class, for sale, how much)

[CarpathianPeasant]

What's Middle Class?

　
Class is hard to define. Example: all government workers are public servants. Servants are lower class.

　
If middle class suggests the notion of something like merchant class and/or tradesmen, i.e., an element of ownership and say-so but not aristocracy you don't have to have much to be middle class. A push cart with some vegetables for sale is merchant class.

　
Middle management likes to think of itself as middle class. And, if you are talking about the middle management of something like P&G, it certainly is "middle" not only in company position but also in general influence, finances, education, etc., but, they don't own the company, they just work for the stockholders. Even the CEO just works for the stockholders. It's very highly paid labor or "lower class."

　
And, if you are going to define upper class as royalty, there isn't any in the true sense of the word. The intelligentsia (or, if you prefer, "intellectuals") isn't upper class -- it isn't how much you memorize it's how fast you think that's the right criteria -- so the so-called professions don't qualify. Reduce it all to money and it's on shaky ground for more than one reason.

　

[Amandarthegreat]

I'm educated and work for myself, my husband works at NASIC; together we pull in six figures. From both of my parents, I'm descended from kings and queens of England, Wales, and Scotland--and was raised to know and understand that lineage. By your criteria, what does that make me?

[woxyroxme]

It depends on who you ask, some consider those who are barely above the working poor as middle class and some say it's those with household incomes just under six figures, although a great socioeconomic divide exist between the two. Lower middle class and upper middle class have come to define the two groups.

[joe from dayton]

Class has always been hard to define. You can go back hundreds of years and find nobility that didn't have anything but a title and a middle class merchant who had both land and money. The medieval Polish had multiple classes of commoner and nobility based on property ownership.

[CarpathianPeasant]

Originally Posted by Amandarthegreat

I'm educated and work for myself, my husband works at NASIC; together we pull in six figures. From both of my parents, I'm descended from kings and queens of England, Wales, and Scotland--and was raised to know and understand that lineage. By your criteria, what does that make me?

Sorry for the delayed reply. No handy internet access.

I don't know what NASIC stands for, but if he works FOR someone, he's labor.

If you are self-employed, you're middle class.

How far back are the kings and queens? That get's diluted after so many generations. Would you claim a throne? You know, there were a couple of legitimate heirs to the throne of Russia in Cincinnati.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

It depends on who you ask, ... Lower middle class and upper middle class have come to define the two groups.

Your terms are more what I would use. There are too many shades of grey. The following list is how I think of it, but I bet almost no one else would see it too terribly close to my point of view.

dirt poor .................. poor .......................... working poor ( min wage )

lower-middle-class ... middle-middle-class .... upper-middle-class ( 100-105k incomes )

lower-upper-class .... upper class ( top 5% ) .... top 1% .... top 0.1%

Only the last three can be statistically defined:
Top 5% is an annual income of about $170k
Top 1% is about $370k
Top 0.1% is around $5 million/year

Note that top 1% income != top 1% net assets

Note also that a family of 6 living on $150k has a lower living standard that a single person who lives on that kind of money. ... so many shades ...

It's interesting that it used to be that someone earning $5/day in 1920 was solidly middle class. (*)
In the late 50's-early 60's a "$10-thousand-dollar man" was considered to be someone who had 'made it.'
In the 1980's, the same could be said for someone who made "six figures" and were income levels in the top 5%.

(*) In 1920, that $5 would have been a $5 gold coin ( about the size of a nickel ) or convertible into one. Today, that $5 coin has enough gold to convert into about $300 - so $1,500/week - or $75k/year. That's what happened to the US dollar.

The only thing I know for sure is that whatever money I make has little to do with my standard of living. A long period of being a poor student has made me able to live on far less than what I make, so that when life threw me a bad deal, I had savings and investments.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by CarpathianPeasant

I don't know what NASIC stands for, ...

National Air and Space Intelligence Center. I just thought I would post that for the lurkers.

Originally Posted by CarpathianPeasant

... but if he works FOR someone, he's labor.

Originally Posted by CarpathianPeasant

... If you are self-employed, you're middle class.

I think in the US "class" means income level and not those things.

You wrote earlier:

Originally Posted by CarpathianPeasant

Even the CEO just works for the stockholders. It's very highly paid labor or "lower class."

Holding to that definition of "lower class" is a pretty old definition.

Almost all Americans would not classify someone who made a 7-figure income, as a typical top 500 CEO would make, as "lower class."

I'm not trying to pick at nits here, but just offering my understanding of "class" in the US.

Finally, I could also easily see someone who is self-employed being working poor - in terms of income level. Being working poor is not the same as unhappy, BTW. A poor student who lives on a subsistence income might be quite happy with their lot for the time being. So would someone who is semi-retired or retired and poor.

[Natural510]

Middle class used to be a one-wage earner who had a union job which ensured a livable wage for "his" family....we're talking 1970s and before. Since then, it's been either that same wage earner who can support his/her family who owns their own home, a car or two, and can afford an out-of-state vacation at least once per year while still paying the bills, or two wage earners doing the same. I've noticed upper-middle and even upper (not 1%) bracket folks refer to themselves as "middle class", either for solidarity reasons or to downplay their own good fortune, for whatever reason.

[SWOH]

^That is true, The number of upper class that like to call themselves "upper-middle" or "middle" class is quite a few.

But I digress, because for the most part they don't live around here. Our COL in general is too low to support those kind of wages.

[Amandarthegreat]

Originally Posted by CarpathianPeasant

Sorry for the delayed reply. No handy internet access.

I don't know what NASIC stands for, but if he works FOR someone, he's labor.

If you are self-employed, you're middle class.

How far back are the kings and queens? That get's diluted after so many generations. Would you claim a throne? You know, there were a couple of legitimate heirs to the throne of Russia in Cincinnati.

Well, it depends on the line. Not all royalty claims a throne and primogeniture pushed most of the lines to the side. Many of the second/third sons moved to America and established large estates and many women were absorbed into their husband's family. But that's a huge discussion for another forum.

In America, I doubt any would consider my husband's job to be "labor"--maybe white collar.