Who is middle class?

[wmw999 2,583]

I read an editorial this morning that referenced a Pew Research Center poll on haves vs have-nots. Which led me to think about what is middle class in America (or anywhere) anymore?

It used to be that middle class meant you could afford a house, a car, and eventually a TV.

Now a LOT of people have cars, nearly everyone has a TV, a LOT of people have PCs, and a decreasing number owns houses.

An interesting article working at defining middle class is here, and it seems to indicate that
a. Being middle class in America is good -- even the fairly rich (top 20%?) largely consider themselves to be middle class
b. Keeping up with the Joneses is also important. People's relative position within middle class apparently contributes to their self-perception of happiness.

So -- do we need to redefine middle class in America, now that so many technological things are practically basic necessities?

Who IS middle class, and what makes you that?
(too late now -- ya know, I SHOULD have made this a poll...)

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[warpedskydiver 0]

Today multi millionaires regard themselves as middle class.

So in order to keep up with the Jones America has aquired a true taste for being in debt up to their eyeballs.

Some debt is good, but the level I am speaking of will bury us all.

[billvon 3,107]

>Some debt is good . . .

I don't buy that. It's not good to be in debt; more of a necessary evil than an advantage. The only thing being in debt does is help you get more in debt, by getting a good credit rating.

>but the level I am speaking of will bury us all.

Agreed. It's a problem we have to solve on both the personal and the national level.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>Some debt is good . . .

I don't buy that. It's not good to be in debt; more of a necessary evil than an advantage. The only thing being in debt does is help you get more in debt, by getting a good credit rating.

Buy it. Debt is great when you think of it in terms of using other people's money to make money for yourself. Take real estate rentals. I've got a friend in the Army who partially owns a number of properties. Technically, he is many hundreds of thousands in debt, yet these properties put money into his pocket every month from rental income. How is this form of debt bad?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[warpedskydiver 0]

Bill I am speaking of debt in a sense of economics, some debt can be used productively in order to further perpetuate the national economy.

But that level is pretty much well deined and we are soooooo far past that it is beyond belief.

A good example of debt that is not destructive, is a person taking a loan to start a business that will net them far more than the interest paid out over the next three fiscal years,in the very first year of operations.

I know it is a shitty example but it does serve it's purpose, a debt is used to create income, and provide jobs.

A great example of a bad debt is taking a loan for a Hummer H1 and putting spinners on it, a 10k dollar stereo, a custom chartreuse paintjob, and XBox terminals at every seating position.

The awful thing is those individuals rack up huge debts, sure the people they purchased from got paid for everything, but when they file BK or do an insurance job on everything, we all wind up paying.

[vortexring 0]

The problem of debt relates to our wealth accumulation society. Over here, people are positively encouraged to get in more debt.

Not just through the encouragement to buy, but also the encouragement to consolidate and get more credit cards or personal loans.

We might have it better than our parents had, in regards to material wealth such as dishwashers and 52" plasma/LCD TV's and what have you, but we're certainly unhappier.

These days happiness generally relates to good health and wealth, or at least, being free of debt.

I wonder how many properly poor people out there are sincerely happy?

Essentially, it seems around 50 or so years ago, families could be poor and relatively happy. These days?

Not very.

So for me, I'd say middle class people are the happy people.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[pop 0]

Quote

>Some debt is good . . .

I don't buy that. It's not good to be in debt; more of a necessary evil than an advantage. The only thing being in debt does is help you get more in debt, by getting a good credit rating.

>but the level I am speaking of will bury us all.

Agreed. It's a problem we have to solve on both the personal and the national level.

what do you think would happen if all personal and national debts were wiped clean, and the entire country started as clean slate?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[quade 4]

Quote

Who IS middle class, and what makes you that?

The answer comes in a few different forms depending on who you are and who you talk to for political and other reasons.

That said, I'd think it would be rather obvious; if you're less than 2 standard deviations away from the median, you're middle class.

I'm not going to do the math here, but fortunately there is a pretty nice graphic on THIS page that makes it somewhat simple to understand where that "middle" is.

This quote in the .pdf Wendy linked I found hilarious;

Quote

Surveys indicate many people felt an income near $40,000 was the minimum
to be considered middle class. On the other end, surveys suggested that those with
incomes approaching $200,000 might still be considered middle class.

Lemme just say that if you think an income of $200,000 is "middle class" then you're delusional.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[vortexring 0]

Why stop there? Why not print an extra several trillion $100 bills to distribute?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

>Some debt is good . . .

I don't buy that. It's not good to be in debt; more of a necessary evil than an advantage. The only thing being in debt does is help you get more in debt, by getting a good credit rating.

>but the level I am speaking of will bury us all.

Agreed. It's a problem we have to solve on both the personal and the national level.

what do you think would happen if all personal and national debts were wiped clean, and the entire country started as clean slate?

if that happened there would be a complete financial collapse.

wiping away all debts would mean that individuals & businesses & other organizations who have any money invested in stocks or bonds wiped out. (stocks and bonds are essentially loans to a company or the government)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,107]

>what do you think would happen if all personal and national debts
>were wiped clean, and the entire country started as clean slate?

Wiped clean as in paid off? There would be a tremendous amount of flux in currency valuation, exchange and interest rates, and then the economy would level off and continue without as much interdependence between national economies. We'd have more money as a country to work with since we wouldn't be servicing such a massive debt.

Wiped clean as in taken as a loss? The world economy would collapse.

[billvon 3,107]

>A good example of debt that is not destructive, is a person taking a
>loan to start a business that will net them far more than the interest paid
>out over the next three fiscal years,in the very first year of operations.

Agreed. But you're talking about the results of having some money to spend, not whether or not it's good to be in debt. In your example it would be far better to take money you've saved to start that business. Making money is good; being in debt is bad. Being in debt more is worse.

[billvon 3,107]

>Debt is great when you think of it in terms of using other people's
>money to make money for yourself.

Yeah, and it's great when it comes to getting that big plasma TV that you couldn't afford without a credit card. But all things being equal, buying that TV (or house, or rental property) with money you've saved works a lot better than using credit.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>Debt is great when you think of it in terms of using other people's
>money to make money for yourself.

Yeah, and it's great when it comes to getting that big plasma TV that you couldn't afford without a credit card. But all things being equal, buying that TV (or house, or rental property) with money you've saved works a lot better than using credit.

That's the traditional view, yes. However, it would take a looooooong time to save up enough money to buy a property flat out with no mortgage. Why do that when you can borrow money, buy the house, and still make enough through rental prices to cover the mortgage plus earn a bit for your own use every month? The best part is, you can keep doing this over and over without having to wait to save up all that money again. Bottom line, not all debt is bad.

Edit: And even with the "all things being equal" caveat, this still works better.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Surveys indicate many people felt an income near $40,000 was the minimum
to be considered middle class. On the other end, surveys suggested that those with
incomes approaching $200,000 might still be considered middle class.

Lemme just say that if you think an income of $200,000 is "middle class" then you're delusional.

You can't ignore the location when defining the class. In San Francisco, a 6 figure income doesn't qualify you to buy a house. So if home ownership is part of the equation, 200k would still place you middle class. Alternatively, you take the local median income and go out two deviations as you suggest.

The line for lower class is easier to define - when it's difficult to afford rent.

[billvon 3,107]

> Why do that when you can borrow money . . .

Like I said, it's one financial tool. I am not claiming that "loans will always destroy you." I am saying that everything else being equal, it's generally better to use capital rather than debt to finance something.

"Some debt is good" is, I believe, an inaccurate statement; it suggests that one should not pay off all one's debt so they can maintain some debt. To put it in concrete terms, a mortgage may let you get a house you like and may let you buy at a time that means the house is a good investment. But it's still better to pay off the mortgage as soon as possible, rather than waiting as long as possible.

[quade 4]

Quote

The line for lower class is easier to define - when it's difficult to afford rent.

But you just said that housing costs should somehow figure into this.

I really want to rent that penthouse in NYC but my $200,000 income won't let me, doesn't that mean I'm now "lower class"?

Piffle.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pirana 0]

Income is only one small factor in determining class. There are lots of rich people with no class at all. Class is something you are born into, and rarely move out of - not by making more money anyway. Class ascendancy is possible, but requires attention to a lot more than money.

Class is about where you live, what you eat, when you eat, how you speak, where your kids go to school, what you do for your livelihood, where you vacation, when you vacation, how you vacation, what you drive, if you drive, what you read, if you read, how you furnish your home, and so on and so forth. It is about the multitude of things you do to provide for and express yourself. The standard model of classes includes 9 categories:

Upper out of sight
Upper
Upper middle
Middle
Lower middle
Upper prole
Prole
Low prole
Bottom out of sight

Funny aside; the two at the extremes (the 2 out of sights) share many behaviors:

<> They are very blunt, honest and straightforward. Niether is out to impress anybody; at least not to the degree that is evidenced by the middles, who are incrediubly concerned with what people think of them.
<> Neither drives. The Uppers because somebody does that for them most of the time, and the Bottoms because they do not have a prayer of owning a car.
<> Neither usually carry money. Again, the Uppers have people that do that; the Bottoms have none.
<> Neither watch TV. The Uppers consider it vulgar and a waste of time; the Bottoms don't have one.
<> Neither work.
<> They both eat whenever they feel like it; their lives not ruled by any kind of schedule.

A rube is a rube, regardless of their financial status. Even if they come into a big hunk of cash, they usually piss it away (spend it in a very proletarian fashion on shit like big screen TV's, a Hummer, some sort of fancy mutt, etc.).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

what do you think would happen if all personal and national debts were wiped clean, and the entire country started as clean slate?

It would mean that your boss doesn't owe you any money on payday, and your bank doesn't owe you any either; how much food and ammo do you have.

[Channman 2]

> Today multi millionaires regard themselves as middle class

Read somewhere, WSJ or Fotune that a million dollars saved is no longer considered rich. The new standard to be considered rich is a minimum of 5,000,000.00.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The line for lower class is easier to define - when it's difficult to afford rent.

But you just said that housing costs should somehow figure into this.

I really want to rent that penthouse in NYC but my $200,000 income won't let me, doesn't that mean I'm now "lower class"?

Piffle.

seems like verbal gymnastics you're doing- I'll give it a 9.3.

Housing is a basic need. If you can't afford your rent, you can't be considered middle class. I'm interested in how you dispute this.

The 200k benchmark was discussing middle class, not lower class. (geez, basic definitions here) If that money only gets you a place that is in reality an apartment, how can you categorize that as anything but the middle class?

[wmw999 2,583]

Quote

Housing is a basic need. If you can't afford your rent, you can't be considered middle class.

Housing is a basic need. However, choice of housing isn't. And what's considered to be big enough has gotten a lot bigger over the years.

There are places that are more expensive to live than others, too. And the points about "middle class" being a state of mind as much as a financial setpoint is also good.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It's not good to be in debt; more of a necessary evil than an advantage.

Well, yes. There is good debt and bad debt.

Good debt? College loans that will pay off in the future.
Bad debt? Credit cards.
Good debt? Mortgages.
Bad Debt? Mortgages being treated like credit cards.

One would think that we have learned our lessons. Odds are that we have not. The property market will rise again. We will have another bubble. My wife and I are trying to buy the house across the street right now because the market is so depressed. In another 5 years, we can sell the place and pay off our student loans.

My wife and I are middle class. I say this because we have negative net worth right now. Wealth is determined by "wealth." My wife and I have none.

But we'll probably be wealthy in the next ten years.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

So for me, I'd say middle class people are the happy people.

Bravo....Bravo.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I read an editorial this morning that referenced a Pew Research Center poll on haves vs have-nots. Which led me to think about what is middle class in America (or anywhere) anymore?

It used to be that middle class meant you could afford a house, a car, and eventually a TV.

Now a LOT of people have cars, nearly everyone has a TV, a LOT of people have PCs, and a decreasing number owns houses.

An interesting article working at defining middle class is here, and it seems to indicate that
a. Being middle class in America is good -- even the fairly rich (top 20%?) largely consider themselves to be middle class
b. Keeping up with the Joneses is also important. People's relative position within middle class apparently contributes to their self-perception of happiness.

So -- do we need to redefine middle class in America, now that so many technological things are practically basic necessities?

Who IS middle class, and what makes you that?
(too late now -- ya know, I SHOULD have made this a poll...)

Wendy W.

The government site you reference concentrates on money as the defining factor.

I agree with the poster who mentioned "class" as the defining factor. I think what you do, how well you are educated, how well you speak, etc. are the defining factors.

Taking Catholic priests as an example, very few of them are even remotely wealthy and most are poor, yet they (excluding the small minority of pedophiles who make headlines) are generally well respected even by non Catholics and certainly can't be considered "low class". Ditto for the holy men in other religions. Ditto for schoolteachers, who are usually well respected members of their communities despite having low incomes.

Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, on the other hand, have lots of money and no class at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.