What makes someone Upper rather than Middle class? - Page 4

mrcunningham · #31 05-01-2007, 11:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think in the US the dividing line is probably around 250K/yr, give or take. Class typically means income almost exclusively, I think, here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the idea that class in the US depends primarily on income. I would add, however, that the threshold depends in large part where you reside.

$250,000 in the Bay Area is definitely middle class, while $200,000 in Houston or Galveston would put you into the upper class.

almostbusto · #32 05-01-2007, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

lol. I'm pretty sure you're joking but I hope so. This thread is really silly. People are way off. $100K/year is nowhere near upper class. My brother is a firefigther/firetruck salesman who makes 6 figures. He also chews tobacco, likes Country music, owns a Dalmatian, and has a tattoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's also upper class

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...statemhi2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

note those numbers are for whole households.

prohornblower · #33 05-01-2007, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

lol. I'm pretty sure you're joking but I hope so. This thread is really silly. People are way off. $100K/year is nowhere near upper class. My brother is a firefigther/firetruck salesman who makes 6 figures. He also chews tobacco, likes Country music, owns a Dalmatian, and has a tattoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's also upper class

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...statemhi2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

note those numbers are for whole households.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you totally disregard personal debt, that might make sense. No, actually it still wouldn't make sense.

almostbusto · #34 05-01-2007, 11:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If you totally disregard personal debt, that might make sense. No, actually it still wouldn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously wealth is factored in as well of course. which i have already mentioned. but yea, I would say someone making 100K with unusually low wealth might be middle class and someone with a 50k income with unusually high wealth could easily be upper class. the last example is obviously true, since there are retired people with virtually no income who are upper class.

however if you are suggesting that someone who is in debt because of their purchasing decisions can be knocked down a class then i disagree.ie, owning a really big house, nice cars, and a boat rather than having a more modest lifestyle is not cause to be dropped down a class because you leveraged yourself in the process of attaining that lifestyle.

mrcunningham · #35 05-01-2007, 11:28 AM

There was a recent article that brought up a new concept present in the US that there are now two tiers of wealthy. One tier is the low rich and the other is the high rich. Low rich would be MDs, lawyers, CPAs, etc... who make between $200-400,000 and have maybe up to a couple million in assets. High rich would be CEOs, hedge fund managers, google/MS/arriba/you name it option multi-millionaires who either have incomes of $500,000+ or assets in the several million. The idea is that the low rich worked hard to get where they are and in other times would be happy that they could fly first class, own a mercedes, buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood, but now they are envious of the high rich who fly on private planes, own a maybach/bentley/ferrari, and own multiple homes wherever they want. Wish I could remember where I read this. It was on a plane to somewhere. If one of you 2+2ers have read this article, let me know where I might find it.

prohornblower · #36 05-01-2007, 11:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you totally disregard personal debt, that might make sense. No, actually it still wouldn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously wealth is factored in as well of course. which i have already mentioned.

however if you are suggesting that someone who is in debt because of their purchasing decisions can be knocked down a class then i disagree.ie, owning a really big house, nice cars, and a boat rather than having a more modest lifestyle is not cause to be dropped down a class because you leveraged yourself in the process of attaining that lifestyle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it can. By "owning", I'm assuming you mean "paying a bank interest to borrow their money", and "nice things", you mean "things that depreciate drastically in value".

Do you see?

almostbusto · #37 05-01-2007, 11:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it can. By "owning", I'm assuming you mean "paying a bank interest to borrow their money", and "nice things", you mean "things that depreciate drastically in value".

Do you see?

[/ QUOTE ]

No i don't see at all. What i see is someone with a very high income who made a choice in an effort to maximize their own utility. the method chosen to maximize utility does not change the freedom that person had in choosing his/her lifestyle.

just because you think its not a high valued lifestyle is irrelevant, they have chosen to use their income stream to achieve it and thats all that matters.

prohornblower · #38 05-01-2007, 11:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it can. By "owning", I'm assuming you mean "paying a bank interest to borrow their money", and "nice things", you mean "things that depreciate drastically in value".

Do you see?

[/ QUOTE ]

No i don't see at all. What i see is someone with a very high income who made a choice in an effort to maximize their own utility. the method chosen to maximize utility does not change the freedom that person had in choosing his/her lifestyle.

just because you think its not a high valued lifestyle is irrelevant, they have chosen to use their income stream to achieve it and thats all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

But their choices are not going to change their family lineage. Buying boats and Lexus's and other crap that looks good but doesn't wealth-build isn't going to move you from middle to upper class, and even if it did, it wouldn't keep you and your family there.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, I'm just saying it isn't going to "get you out" of middle class.

samsonite2100 · #39 05-01-2007, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Upper class" in America, as it's commonly used, means "rich." Which means you could own a boat. If you own, or could own, a boat in America, you're upper class.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. I'm pretty sure you're joking but I hope so. This thread is really silly. People are way off. $100K/year is nowhere near upper class. My brother is a firefigther/firetruck salesman who makes 6 figures. He also chews tobacco, likes Country music, owns a Dalmatian, and has a tattoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I'm joking. The joke is that the concept of "class" in America is so vague as to be completely useless--you might as well arbitrarily say that being UC means owning a boat, for all the good the term does. I do stand by the statement, however, that if UC means anything in America, it means being rich; or as a prvious poster described it "high rich."

samsonite2100 · #40 05-01-2007, 11:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Joe Kennedy was not upper class. He was a bootlegging thug. His grandchildren are upper class.

[/ QUOTE ]

But are they? For the most part the ones I read about strike me as just your standard rich family people. Obviously having several generations of wealth does a lot to smooth the coarseness and gauche idiosyncrasies of the original earner, but do people in the US actually show deference to them for having that family history? The real difference between them and any number of other people from rich families is that their name is famous.

Also, no one "owns" a boat.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one "owns" boats? Please explain.