define middle class ..

Grace, Ekim and Sensia are right, it varies greatly between cities, states and city vs. rural depending on COLA. The other factor is whether you are talking about income or wealth. A person who makes $1 Million a year in income, but spends $1.1 Million is technically a millionaire, but very likely isn't wealthy. Someone who has $1 Million invested now is lucky to make $50K in investment income and if they put it in the bank they will make less than $20K (OTOH, there are investments, risky, but available that return 6% to the 20% range).

Used to be in the '50's ad 60's middle class was one good blue or white collar income and possibly a second part time income. In this town in 1960 as a professor at UT it was between $5K and $10K. For that you could buy a house and a car, save some money, afford insurance and health care and save enough for your kids college and retirement. Now, you are very lucky if $50K gets you that, but if you have two $50K incomes you can live pretty well here. Even in Manhattan, $150K is pretty good, though you will be lucky to afford a nice 1000 Sq Ft. vs. here you could have a house with 3500 Sq. Ft. or more.

I think these days with a $Million not being what it used to be a lot of millionaires are middle class, though I doubt many who have income of $1Million or more can really be defined as middle class. If you don't spend like an idiot on $250K you can save a $million pretty quickly and technically be qualified as a millionaire. Over a 40 year career at those rates with good safe investments you could save $4 Million or more and at 5% interest that would net you around $200K in retirement. That is definitely upper middle class, but middle class nonetheless. Those are very rough figures, but it probably goes from $30 or $40K to $200K or more depending on location, location, location. Also having a family of four on $40K isn't really middle class, but working poor, while single on $200K is probably out of middle class. YMMV

Austxjr, by putting the upper bound at $200k of household income, you're including the top two or three percentile. That CAN'T be middle class by deginition. Otherwise, there is no upperclass, no wealthy, nor a rich group. Too many people don't realize how well they have it because they never talk to many folks who,live in the bottom third, living off part time jobs, minimum wage jobs, and government assistance. Top two or three percent middle class??!! Give me a fuckin' break.

Austxjr, by putting the upper bound at $200k of household income, you're including the top two or three percentile. That CAN'T be middle class by deginition. Otherwise, there is no upperclass, no wealthy, nor a rich group. Too many people don't realize how well they have it because they never talk to many folks who,live in the bottom third, living off part time jobs, minimum wage jobs, and government assistance. Top two or three percent middle class??!! Give me a fuckin' break. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

FUCK YOU 1% er.

TXTushHog - "degination"? I'm unfamiliar with that term, but whose "degination" if I might ask - LOL

IIF - 200K per year is actually a 4 or 5%er if you want to get technical.

Uh, that means there actually are ~12 to 15 Million people above that income, but the point I was making is that "it depends" - YMMV. There are lots of folks who make $200K or more and live a very middle class lifestyle and aren't ostentatious or lord it over people or anything. $200K in NYC, DC, SanFran doesn't get you an opulent lifestyle and if you have a wife who doesn't work and a bunch of kids or take care of a parent with Alzheimers it does't get you far. $200K in Ft. Worth, Wichita, NE Texas or any of the 100 cheapest places in the U.S. probably does make you "rich" if you have made it for a long time and saved. Rich or non-middle class IMHO is a combination of income, wealth and disposable income (lower expenses than income) which makes it even more fuzzy. The CEOs and most VPs of my last two companies (small public companies 150 to 500 employees) made a bit more than $200K and you couldn't pick them out on the street as non-middle class, though their bank accounts from stock options would put them probably in or near the 1%. They drove a Jeep and an old BMW and didn't stand out in any way other than really nice houses.

We don't really have classes in the U.S. either like much of the rest of the world where you have aristocracy and royals (and old merchant class money), but we do have stratification and I would put $200K somewhere at the top of "upper middle class" in most regions and possibly just above it. People who make $200K/yr can be anywhere from rich to living hand to mouth depending on a lot of factors (a hobby addiction for instance - LMAO) IMHO is all I'm saying.

Middle class for America's Finest City, I would say for a family of 4 = min 80K to 180K with benefits like health insurance of course.
For a hobbyist add 10K.

To hobby every day with good GFE it would be north of $100K a year. Add doubles and more that once a day on weekends it could be $150K. Heck for that you could almost afford a wife - LOL

Middle class for America's Finest City, I would say for a family of 4 = min 80K to 180K with benefits like health insurance of course.
For a hobbyist add 10K. Originally Posted by waverunner234

Little correction on the hobby addition, if you add Tijuana to the query then that 10K would be remarkably less, even if you include jacuzzi hotel rooms and overnight fun.

isn't middle class by definition incomes between 30,000 - 250,000?

isn't middle class by definition incomes between 30,000 - 250,000? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

No!

I don't think anyone with 30K income for a family would call themselves middle class.
Hell they even qualify for big Income Tax Credit.

I don't think that anyone getting tax money in stead of paying tax money can call themselves middle class.

There was a very insightful response Ekim...I take it you don't know. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Glad you grasped it for once now take it to heart.

It's not "middle class" if you have to dip into the top two deciles to get there. Never mind the top 3-5%!!! Period. The middle is, by definition, the middle, not the top. And I think it should be a semetrical middle, that is as big a percent below your sample as above it.

The problem is that when most folks say "middle class," they aren't thinking about specific distribution of incomes, but a high middle class to lower end of well off life style. And of course that doesn't match in income demographics at all, especially not now with the top 1% taking such a disproportionate share and everybody in the bottom nine deciles loosing ground. But let's not feed that fantasy. If you're household is making $60k, you're better off that average. You're making more money that roughly 2/3s of you fellow Americans and instead of bitching about how hard you've got it, you ought to be thanking your lucky stars that you're well off.

...one could look at it from a percentage standpoint. What is the percentage of people that are below the poverty line? That same percentage of the upper earners would be then defined as the "upper class." Those in the middle would, then, be the middle class and the middle class can be divided into three sub groups, lower, middle and upper. I know, too simple. Plus it takes all of the arguing out of it, sorry. This method automatically adjusts for the flow of income.

Interesting discussion. Defining "upper class" and "working class" might help clarify what the "middle class" in the U.S. is, though it really is a fuzzy definition that cannot be totally quantified by income alone in the U.S.

Since we don't actually have "classes" per se in the U.S. defined by family blood line as they were in much of the rest of the world it must be defined by income, wealth, membership in exclusive society and political power I would think. According to WikiPedia, "The upper class is generally contained within the wealthiest 1-2% of the population, and is distinguished by immense wealth (in the form of estates) which is passed from generation to generation." so yes a good portion of the upper two deciles would or could be considered middle class or upper middle class at least.

"Working Class" was usually associated with trades and blue collar work, but a good mechanic, plumber, etc... can make more than $100K or even $200K or more if he owns the business, but would hardly be called "upper class" just because of his income. Once he quit plumbing, wore suits, bought and estate, amassed a few $million and sent his daughters to cotillion or some such social nonsense he might be seen as "upper class" by all but the "upper class" though :-) The great thing about the United States is that this upward mobility is possible and has become a model for some of the rest of the world. The plumber will probably never be part of the upper class in crowd at the country club, but his kids and grand kids have a shot at it.

So I would say that if you consider yourself "middle class" and aren't obviously not so to those who are middle class, then you probably are unless you are a comfortable member of elite society and/or have serious political or economic power. People in the U.S. also tend to come in and out of the elite as administrations and other things change over time as well. Lots of movers and shakers wind up being teachers and professors so I would hardly call most of those "upper class".

Thoughts?

Lets look at a couple in Chicago that are both school teachers. The average teacher makes $74,000 a year and only works for nine months. So our couple with ten years on the job make about $83,000 a year for each. They have a second job in the summer which helps them pull down another $15,000 each. Combined, their income (not counting free benefits like retirement, healthcare, and their own lending institution) is about $196,000 for the year. Why these people are almost rich, filthy rich. They must be part of the 1% and they go strike for a 30% increase in their pay. That would bump them up to about $245,000 yearly.