<p>
[quote]
your stats are off depending on where you live in california. some parts are pretty wealthy city people but if you go into suburbs and even some rural area, the figures dont apply.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Take away taxes and you're in business.</p>
<p>From another post:</p>
<p>"Low-income"=$65k or less
Lower-middle class=$65k-$95k
Middle class=$100k-$175k
Upper middle=$175k-$400k
Upper=$400k+
Wealthy=$1,000k+</p>
<p>This is the most accurate classification in my opinion, but of course it depends on the region. Suburban and residential areas of a large metropolitan area (San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, etc.) will always be much more expensive than suburban and residential areas elsewhere.</p>
<p>Again, look at the stats. Middle class is certainly NOT $100K-175K. </p>
<p>There is NO STATE IN THE US where this is the median income for a family of four. See <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html</a></p>
<p>The problem is, where lower class ends and middle class begins is not officially defined by the US Census Bureau. Sorry.</p>
<p>"The Census Bureau does not have an official definition of the "middle class," but it does derive several measures related to the distribution of income and income inequality."</p>
<p>When the median family income for a family of 4 in the U.S. is $45,000 below where you start your range for middle-class, you know that yours is way off.</p>
<p>Also, as I pointed out above, you can get figures broken down further -- by quintiles or deciles -- and can use those to set class boundaries. </p>
<p>For a bunch of folks in college, interested in college, or with children in one of those categories, it would seem that you'd want to know some actual facts.</p>
<p>The median is low because there are a lot more lower-class income people than middle class.</p>
<p>My original point still stands.</p>
<p>What an odd way of defining middle class, quite unlike the standard way economists define it: the middle.</p>
<p>Low Income: You do not have enough money to consistently afford the basic needs of life for yourself or your family.</p>
<p>Middle Class: You have enough money to support your family and live a relatively comfortable life. </p>
<p>Wealthy: You are financially secure enough to help many other people beside your family.</p>
<p>I keep wondering if I'm missing something on this threat. It seems to me that there's resistance to using standard economic/business data and methodologies? If a business person wanted to market to median income families, he or she would use figures to determine what census tracts with what income range to target. If an economist wanted to model consumption or savings, they would need to use quantitative data. So why not use numbers to look at actual median incomes in different states, along with figures on income distribution? Neither would say, "Oh, I think x range of income are middle-class." What am I not getting?</p>
<p>Haha. I keep finding it weird to see a mother posting on CC outside of the Parents board.</p>
<p>I define it pretty much as Chaos does, meaning, evidently, that the exact figures vary depending on where you live. There is such a thing as a "cost of living," and one's lifestyle is pretty much dependent on that. When you try blowing it all up into a national, or perhaps even a state-wide scale, there's bound to be discrepancies to regions. I know that New Jersey's property tax at least takes a sizable chunk out of a person's paycheck, and a lot of items here are just expensive relative to...say, some place out in Hicksville.</p>
<p>"When you try blowing it all up into a national, or perhaps even a state-wide scale, there's bound to be discrepancies to regions."</p>
<p>Five Responses:
1. Yes, that's why you can look at state level data and data at smaller levels as well. However, you also have to keep in mind the limits of those data (see points 2, 3).
2. Part of why states vary in median income is that some states are wealthier than others. The population of CT is wealthier than the population of Alabama (as populations).
3. If you define middle class only as what is the middle class in my town, you have no sense of whether your town is particularly wealthy in the state or national context. Also, as in point 2, the median income across towns varies because some towns are wealthier than others, say East St. Louis versus Greenwich.
4. FAFSA and PROFILE EFCs are largely based on national income and asset figures, with some adjustments. Thus if you are going to understand how your EFC was generated, you should understand the national income distribution.
5. If you are looking forward to having a BA and perhaps beyond, it's time to start using evidence and making arguments based on evidence.</p>
<p>It's always entertaining when the discussion starts heading personal.</p>
<p>What I said was: "I define it pretty much as Chaos does, meaning, evidently, that the exact figures vary depending on where you live." This means that if you've enough to live well off in your region, then you are middle class. The question asked was what I thought was middle class -- I replied exactly to that point, which is also your response #1. I have specified that the data is limited in saying that it's based on my own perception.</p>
<h1>2 I find irrelevant, it's obvious, and it has no bearing on my opinion whatsoever.</h1>
<h1>3 -- No duh. However, I am unconcerned about other regions; I don't need to have a sense in the state or national context, because my particular town is the only thing affecting me. My perception of whether I personally am middle-class or not is solely based on my environment and neighborhood and what I can afford there. This is the point.</h1>
<h1>4 -- That's nice.</h1>
<h1>5 -- Personal opinions that are stated to be personal opinions work perfectly well. No one asked for evidence. This is not a debate, merely a forum thread asking for opinions. I have neither tried to refute your figures nor pushed mine as to be one everyone should have.</h1>
<p>If you're looking forward to discussing topics on the internet, it's time to relax and not take everything as a personal challenge.</p>
<p>I don't take it personally at all. </p>
<p>Focusing on your perception of class is perfectly legitimate. However, you might also want to know whether your perception is in line with evidence or not. I guess you're not interested in that. Whatever.</p>
<p>By the way, there are many social science studies showing that 90% or so of Americans see themselves as middle-class. Of course they aren't all middle-class and social scientists argue that are important political implications to the discrepancy between perception and reality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what people consider what is going to be vastly different depending on where people live.</p>
<p>and i agree that "wealth" has zero correlation to income</p>
<p>upper - CEO's, "old money", connections to washington, having a centurion card(amex "black" card)...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeaaaaaaaaaaah boy. Boca baby.</p>
<p>Um as far as I know, the cost of living index in Manhattan is 200+. So if you make $150k NET OF TAXES in Manhattan (pretax income can sometimes be DOUBLE your takehome pay so let's not consider the portion that goes to IRS your "income" since you never see it anyway) is about $75k or less on the national scale. So use the Census bureau's scale, but that's based on a COL index of 100, thus you MUST adjust for the cost of living index....i.e. if you live in an area where the COL index is 200, you DOUBLE the census bureau figures.</p>
<p>momfromme - I know the numbers. I want opinions from people about what they think the numbers are. I stated this is my original post.</p>
<p>So.. any more?</p>
<p>My own personal figures for America at large (this assumes that there are 4 family memers, and on average, 1.5 people contributing to the household income, eg, dad and sometimes/sometimes not mom), without consieratino for the actual numbers:</p>
<p>Lower-tier: <$40,000
Middle-tier: $40-100,000
Upper-middle class: $100-500,000 (but the majority will probably fall within 100 and 250, and the 250-500 bracket will most prob be of 2 parent incomes)
Upper-class: $1,000,000+</p>
<p>I don't know what to do w/ the 500,000-1,000,000 bracket. they don't seem upper class, yet they have more than the "upper-middle" Hmm.</p>
<p>Considering that incomes above $400,000 are in the 99th percentile (i.e, are in the top 1%) I'm not sure why you wouldn't call people with incomes from $500,000 to $1,000,000 rich. Oh yeah, they are below the 99.9 percentile (top one-tenth of 1%), of $1.67 million, so they must just be upper-upper middle class!!??</p>
<p>oops...sorry...you don't want real numbers...just what people think it means to be middle-class....</p>
<p>This is a stereotype I have as a city kid, but to me, wealthy=suburbs or private school.</p>
<p>Yes, I know that, momfromme. But as I said 3 times, statistics I already know are impertinent to the point of this thread (as noted in the title).</p>
<p>I personally don't find $500,000 to be very much. That would buy you half of a bungalow in my neighborhood (seriously. most go for around 1.5, but they're very well maintained) Doctors (esp. anesthesiologists) make that in my area, and I don't think that's and "upper class" job, but a upper-middle class job (along w/ lawyers, scientists, etc.). Being a doctor is something a lot of people can do (given they have an IQ above 115) if they put their mind to it. I think big business (CEO of Time Warner), big finance (executive position at Goldman Sachs), big real estate (ehh.... Trump.. ugh), and big oil/mineral businessmen.</p>
<p>momfromme, </p>
<p>depending on where you live, making $500,000 a year doesn't bring you near what is considered "upper-class"(top 1% of net worth) in the city you live. on a national level, mabey, but not on a local level.</p>