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.
For those of you old enough to remember Jaqueline Kennedy...well, THAT was class!
If you're working for a living, you're not high class. If you haven't 'done' Europe, you aren't; if you didn't go to a private school as a child, you aren't; if you didn't learn to ride English and steer a sailboat in your childhood, you aren't. If there was no restriction on whom you married, you aren't.
People who go to public schools are not; people who are not WASP are not. They live differently than we do, eat differently, dress differently, and travel in different circles. They are not snobs. They may well run for political office, but never president (even JFK was not, but Jackie was).
To equate any of this with "income" would make most of them laugh....
Mostly I agree with you, but we have had a number of presidents and presidential candidates I would consider to have come from the upper class.
Washington
Jefferson
Madison??
Monroe??
William Henry Harrison???
Benjamin Harrison???
T. Roosevelt
F. Roosevelt
Adlai Stevenson???
Maybe George H.W.
Nelson Rockefeller
When I was growing up, people in the rarefied zone were referred to as belonging to one or more of these:
Jet-setters
Upper Crust
Country Club Set
Old Money
Upper class was noticeably absent from the vernacular in Vermont, except when referring to the rich in England. I suspect that had a lot to do with an active hatred of the English class system, handed down over generations. It didn't hurt that a few of the local farmers in stinky barn coats and worn manure-covered overalls could walk into a local car dealer and buy the most expensive car on the lot with a small part of a wad of cash that would make a cow choke.
As for "class," we learned early on that some people had it and some people didn't, and money was no indication of that attribute. One of the historians for the town noted that the gentleman who had the business of mucking out the outhouses around town and digging new pits when they became unusable was perhaps the cleanest and most God-fearing man in the area, always neat and precise in his work and once complete the most well-bathed and cleanly dressed man in church, with a vocabulary and demeanor to match. To me, someone like that has far more class than an "upper-class" martinet or snob.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,347 posts, read 8,564,711 times
Reputation: 16689
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
Could not agree more. How are you upper class if you have to work for a living? It would make sense to base that on assets or something...Anyway this is america, we have no upper class. But a working stiff with 20k per year and $500 rent is just as much as a working stiff with $200K per year and 700K mortgage.
Actually no. Strictly by numbers
The stiff at $20k a year is spending 30% of his income on housing and the $200K a year stiff is spending 20% of the income on housing
Now while taxation is an issue, the bottom line is the poorer guy has $14K a year to live on and the richer guy has $160K a year to live on.
The poorer guy will have a hard time making ends meet, but the richer guy will make ends meet and have leftover money.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,347 posts, read 8,564,711 times
Reputation: 16689
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot
You shouldn't fall prey to that kind of thinking though. First its probably false when based on something as superficial as the vintage of your cars. Most people can't afford to BUY the cars that they drive..so its a false symbol of wealth in that the display of wealth is not an accurate indicator of actual wealth.
Secondly, the urge to compare yourself to others can lead to envy or jealously which are both unproductive and destructive emotions. We would all do well to try to keep these out of our repertoire. Not saying you are either of these things, but only that indulging or succumbing to these won't ever help you or anyone else.
I think its much more useful to look at what your work has yielded for you - how much you have saved, or how secure your source of income is, or how well-diversified your assets are, or your wealth-to-debt ratio, because those things measure your ability to withstand economic downturns.
If you own your house and your vehicles outright, even if they are worth less than the bigger houses and newer cars you might see, then you are in better shape than someone that does have either of those but is heavily mortgaged and doesn't own the car and is making big monthly lease payments on it. Because their wealth is illusory and yours is real. So of the two , you'd be in a higher/better position.
Yeah. You are right. Sometimes you just can't help it though.
I have to say that while I occasionally think of those things, I know I am very fortunate and thankful to be in my position
The article didn’t take into account of where you live, $100K doesn’t go far in San Francisco nor would it be considered upper class.
Plus it’s not how much you make, it’s how much you keep. Some folks are living beyond their means and that money goes as fast as it comes (see broke professional athletes).
Yup, $100k if you're single and no kids you can at least be sort of middle-class... at least until you want to buy a house. Unless you're out in the outskirts of the Bay Area in decidedly not upper-class neighborhoods delusions of upper class, or even middle-class, on $100k evaporate very quickly. Unless of course you bought a house 20 years ago. Then much more of the Bay Area is doable. Median home price being well north of $1,000,000 on the Peninsula and South Bay even $200k won't feel so upper class. Plus any two-income household with people holding professional jobs is going to earn more than that anyway.
I think this whole idea of upper class being based on income alone is wrong headed. I think net worth is a better indicator. But others would say non-monetary factors also come into play such as education, cultural attitudes and values, etc.
It looks like I’m solidly upper class then, but I agree with #48. Especially, because since I’m still young, the net worth isn’t there yet with the high income.
To me, "upper income" means one could stop working now and never feel it
Isn't this more a reflection of accumulation of assets than income?
If someone is a VP of a big company with a 600k salary they are upper income by just about any definition, but it's entirely possible they're living an upper class lifestyle that consumes most of that income and they haven't been in the half-mil club long enough to support that lifestyle for long without the income stream.
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.
