If an income of $200k/year is "middle class"....

[YoungDemCA]

...then what is an income of about 1/4 of that ($50k/year-which is roughly the median household income for all Americans-single, married, those with children who work, etc.)

Yes, half of all American households take in less than $50,000/year. And that's before you factor in taxes ("but I thought half of all Americans don't pay taxes!!!&quot And, of course, there are the many expenses-America is a rather expensive nation to live in. Not a good country to be poor in, and increasingly, not an easy country to be middle-income in.

The only places that $200k /year could even be conceivably considered "middle class" are the handful of really, really obscenely rich zip codes-you know, the places where the 1% are actually the 99%, within those zip codes. But let's confine ourselves to the real world, for the purposes of honesty about what's really happening.

[octothorpe]

1. I've always scratch my head when I see people say $200k/yr is middle class.

[Proles]

25. Honestly, while I would be thrilled to have that salary,

200k really isn't as much as it seems. If someone making that salary were to live in NY, it'd really be just enough to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle. Add children and mortgage to the mix, then you become suddenly not so wealthy.

We should not be taking issue with people who make 200 or even 300 thousand. More often than not, people who make that money are skilled professionals who earn their pay (doctors, air traffic controllers, even highly skilled machinists). The issue should be with those who make obscene amounts of money (millions and billions) through little productive effort.

What would a billionaire like more than anything else? Pitting someone who makes 40k against someone who makes 200k. All chump change in the grand scheme of things when you take a look at the .01% who truly control the wealth. Hell, 200k isn't even the top 1%.

[Ruby the Liberal]

44. Way to miss the point.

Allow me to rephrase: We live in a country where $200k is "middle class" and can't be taxed a red cent more, but damned if we can do anything about the minimum wage.

[The Magistrate]

2. What It Means, Sir, Is That 'Middle Class' as Generally Used Is Obfuscation And Deception

The fact is that no one who works for a salary is, or can be, 'middle class' in the genuine sense of the term's origin as bourgeoisie. To be in the middle class, between the aristocracy, whether of the sword or of wealth, and the working class, whether laboring in agriculture or industry, is to be a person who derives his or her living from a stock of knowledge, such a lawyer or a doctor or an accountant in independent practice, or from a small stock of capital, such as a small merchant or a modest speculator.

This country has never had, and never will have, an extensive middle class, honestly defined. What it had once, in the middle of the twentieth century, was a prosperous working class, which received sufficient remuneration for its labor in many instances that a good portion of its members were able to own property on a small scale, and enjoy some of the perquisites middle and upper class persons did, albeit in a small way. That prosperous working class has been largely destroyed, and many of its members actively co-operated in its destruction, selling their birthright for a mess of racist and faux-patriot swill they swallowed to such an intoxicating degree that they did not notice, or did not mind, that their prosperity was being stripped from them by their bosses.

[YoungDemCA]

5. Agree with most of this...

However, I would argue that there is a "new" middle class, and that consists of the salaried strata of managerial and professional services, more likely than the general population to have advanced or professional degrees and having higher income, benefits, security, and flexibility than most wage-earners (or even the self-employed "old" middle class of small business owners or self-employed professionals in many cases).

These managers and professionals are very often employed by large corporations and are increasingly more specialized in their expertise than in the past. I'd argue that members of this class play an increasingly dominant role in both major political parties.

[jeff47]

12. Those fit into the doctor and lawyer examples, IMO (nt)

[The Magistrate]

17. There Is Something To That, Sir

I would hold, though, that they lack the independence which is part of the classic definition. Even the managerial knowledge ( which I agree is a real thing, and overlaps with the classic definition ) is worthless outside the corporation. Only if such people parley their salary into a stock of capital on which they can live by investment, or by some independent enterprise, outside their salaried employment, do they escape from being, by virtue of living on salary, really workers who sell their time, albeit skilled workers whose skills are intellectual rather than rooted in some physical craft. Their position is analogous to than of non-commissioned ranks in an old army; whatever prerogatives of authority and pay they may enjoy, they enjoy these only at the pleasure of their commissioned superiors, and can lose their stripes at any time. They remain enlisted men, when all is said and done.

[KittyWampus]

22. There's also now a large group of Americans who make a very good living in entertainment.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. No, there aren't. Their numbers have grown, but they are an insignificant percentage.

SAG/AFTRA/Equity still reports that at any given time 85% of their members are unemployed and over 2/3 of those members earn less than $2,000 in any given year.

[KittyWampus]

35. And Sports.

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Not even close. Add every member of every professional team in every sport and you

don't even raise the percentage by 1/1,000%.

This lack of understanding of the numbers we are talking about is an unfortunately common problem. We throw around millions, billions, and trillions without ever considering the volumes we're really talking about. You've probably never seen a million of anything and you've certainly never seen a billion.

Even today, after half a century of devaluing our money and inflation, anybody with a net worth of a measly one million dollars is doing very nicely, but because of how successfully the media has skewed our perception, in order to condition us to accept the literally inconceivable amounts of our money that is being stolen from us every year, we no longer think of mere millionaires as rich.

If you were born January 1st, in the year zero, and you spent $1,000 a day, every day, you would still need to live another 750 years to spend one billion dollars.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. I have a nephew that related a story about his friends (a couple)

who earn 250K per year and are having a tough time making ends meet.

I just looked at him when he told me that and laughed.

Kids in their 30s just don't understand what middle class is.

[nachosgrande]

4. Middle class in their minds

I know plenty of couples on the Coasts that make in the $300-400k range and they're always griping about how hard it is to make ends meet, especially in heavily taxed states like California and New York. There's mortgages, nannies, kids' private school tuition, landscapers, weekly massage therapy, etc. to pay for. Life is HARD for these folks.

[stevenleser]

26. Has nothing to do with 'heavy taxes' and everything to do with high cost of living. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. I agree, that's why us on the lower end, need to rethink this 99%

In your last paragraph you allude to this point. I earn less than 30k as a state employee I do not feel like I'm in the same company as those making 200k.

[phantom power]

7. I think it could be considered "middle class" in the sense of "labor class"

By that, I mean at $200K/ year, you are obviously "rich" compared to a pantload of people, but you aren't so rich that you can generally live off of capital investments - you have a comfortable lifestyle, but you can't quit your job. So, you are still "labor class", as opposed to "capital class." Another way to look at it is, you could define "rich" as "having sufficient capital assets that you can live off of those assets without actually needing to earn a salary by holding a job"

In modern 2013 dollars, a $50K/year family income for a family of four ought to be considered poverty, or nearly so. When I was a kid, $50K/year was a good salary, but inflation adds up over the years.

[Xithras]

8. The difference between middle class and upper class isn't income, it's wealth.

I know lawyers who make $150k a year and certainly aren't upper class or "rich". On the other hand, I know a guy who makes about $50k a year and has more wealth than everyone on DU combined. He works because he chooses to.

The difference between middle and upper class is your dependence on that income for survival. If you make $150k a year and would be bankrupted if you lost your job, you're middle class. If you make $150k a year and have enough in the bank to maintain your current lifestyle after that income is cut off, you're wealthy.

The difference between middle class and upper class isn't decided by your paycheck, it's decided by your bank statement (or, more accurately, your portfolio).

Now, there's clearly a point where this can break down. A playboy might make and blow a million bucks in a year. He's wealthy, but the difference is that he's making the choice to blow his wealth. That's probably not the case with someone making $200k a year (I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally).

[spinbaby]

13. That's the distinction right there

It's not the specific number that matters, it's whether or not you have to work for a living.

[riderinthestorm]

9. I've also often been confused when people will say certain professions don't pay well

and then you see that the median pay is $60k or $70k per year. To me that's a LOT of money to be making annually.

I believe the geographic differences account for some of that but certainly some of it is perception. Some folks really don't believe that $200k is an adequate salary. I have no idea how they were brought up that this doesn't seem an adequate salary but there's enough people who say it.

[freshwest]

10. When I see these numbers, I doubt that I am alive. Perhaps I'm only a hallucination.

If this level of income is required to live in the USA, I should be dead now...

[JustAnotherGen]

11. I live in one of the

Wealthiest counties in the US (Somerset County, NJ) - That's 'middle' class here.


But - when I moved here I also researched job opps in Dayton Ohio - and hey -even Lincoln Nebraska (Moved from Rochester NY). In Dayton- I was looking at apartments (back in 2006) - 1 bedroom - top of the line for less than $600. Lincoln - $500 range.

Bridgewater NJ - Good luck keeping your commute to Basking Ridge (exhorbitant - town of mansions -can't live there as a worker bee) down to under half an hour and getting away with anything less than $1300 a month.

Yep - Boundbrook IS an option - if you don't mind MS-13 being your neighbor. Manville too - except it floods - like BAD - constantly. Ditto Boundbrook. Newark (cheap living out there) is indeed cheaper - but - REALLY? Commute and hour and 15 to 1 and a half hours each way for a 35-40 mile commute? No way.


The home and rental prices are driven by telecom and pharma alley in this area.

I see though you are in CA - Depending on where you are there - the home/rent is VERY similar. Just having been head hunted by Qualcomm, Nokia, LG, etc. etc. . . . But they match your salary for greater NYC so you can afford to live.


I find it VERY sad that you cannot live in Bridgewater AND work there in a service industry job.


Just like I find it sad that you can't live in Basking Ridge AND work there in a double income no kid marriage making more than $200K a year.

And there are idiots 'getting by' because they just HAD to have that $800K home in Basking Ridge. And that's the bottom tier.

[winter is coming]

14. You know what the real point of getting people to debate whether or not 200K is middle class is?

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

It's just like the talking points pitting the old against the young: its purpose is to divide. Anything to keep us from discussing the people who make billions.

I've probably known a few couples in my lifetime that pull in over 200K, but they're well-paid worker bees. They're not trying to destroy the hive so they can steal all the honey.

[JHB]

27. Exactly. I point to the 1955 tax brackets to make that point (inflation adjusted)

In 1955 there were 24 tax brackets. For a married couple filing jointly, adjusting for inflation:

16 of them affected taxable income over $250,000
11 of those affected taxable income over $500,000
The top rate kicked in on income over $3.4 million

And that's without even getting into what the rates were.

[sulphurdunn]

15. $200k a year

is most definitely middle class, maybe upper middle. The median household income of $50k is working class. It serves the interests of the upper classes, mostly those with incomes above $5m annually, for the working class to call itself middle class. Middle class has a more positive connotation, especially in a society that denigrates work and the word "labor."

[Recursion]

16. $200K, give or take, is the top end of the middle third of the income distribution

If you see our income distribution broadly in three clumps, the middle clump goes from about $40K to $200K. That's roughly what you can earn with more education than high school but without insane good luck (and with numerous exceptions).

[Tsiyu]

18. The most revealing thing about present circumstances

has been seeing just how selfish most Americans are.

Those who make any six figures today want to whine and mewl and complain about being pinched.

Meanwhile, they absolutely turn their goddamned backs on people who live on the streets, who make sometimes in the four figures, who have zero health insurance, who are in a an honest-to-goodness life and death struggle.

To hear the privileged whine like they are starving Ethiopian children in the midst of so much REAL poverty and need and sorrow just makes me almost hate that certain class of human being. The hate stems from two realities:

1) These fortunate Americans should know better, yet they compare themselves to the truly poor for completely PERSONAL gain. When they get their tax break, their whatever, they shut the fuck up all of a sudden about what anyone else might need.


2) When you fuckers complain about how "hard it is" to make it on your six fucking figures, you have no goddamned sense of compassion or justice for those into whose gaping wounds you rub that copious salt.



Fuck off. Really.

( Not you, OP, but the six-figurites who want to pretend they're all just starving orphans )

[FreeJoe]

19. It all depends on what you mean by "middle class"

My elementary school aged child recently asked me if we were rich. I told him that the term Rich means different things to different people and at different times. If you picked people at random from throughout history and showed them how we lived, the typical person would think we were extremely rich. We have secure access to food and shelter and don't feel threatened by other people or animals. That alone makes us "rich" to the typical person in history. Add to that the fact that we get weekends off from work and can travel and we're in a pretty elite group.

On the other hand, when people in America talk about "the rich", they usually picture someone living in a mansion, not having to work for a living, traveling in their own plane or at least in first class, and things like that. That doesn't match us at all.

I made over $200,000 last year. I consider myself "upper middle class" or "professional class". I know that I'm financially better off than people with median incomes. I also know that I'm not "rich" in the way that most people think of as "rich".

Tell me what you mean when you say "middle class" and I'll tell you if I think I'm in it.

[dawg]

20. Here, let the WSJ explain it to you ...

[Ron Green]

24. Where the hell did they get these examples? n/t

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

29. I'm working on the assumption the WSJ has a pretty good handle on,

who reads their paper.

[dawg]

30. They pulled them ...

from .... somewhere.

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. Who doesn't have an annual retirement income of $180,000?

Don't most single parents pull in $260k?

Seriously. No words for that...

[Paul E Ester]

21. That there is a broad middle class is an illusion.

There are those with good credit who can manage to live a middle class lifestyle, but they are in reality living month to month. They have no assets or any assets they do have is negated by a ton of debt. They are one serious illness away from bankruptcy and poverty.

When the very rich are worth billions it skews what is considered middle income. A large number of Americans have NO assets only debt. Their income stream services that debt, and they don't actually get ahead(ever).

[dmallind]

23. Another definitional quandary

Some people say anything in excess of median income is not middle class, but by that definition we have the absurd idea that 50% of the country is rich. (as others have stated, to more than half the world's people, 90% of the US is rich, but I think it makes sense to keep a national rather than global perspective here).

So clearly stopping at the median is silly. How far up do we go? Depends how many classes you want really. In the simplest lower-middle-higher model it may make sense to use quartiles and assign the middle two to "middle", which would leave us with a lower limit of about 25k and upper of just under 100k for middle class in 2009 dollars according to the most recent census. Does 13$/hr make you middle class? not in my book surely. So does 90k/yr make you rich when the distribution is nigh identical? Seems too few who are lower income and too many called rich if we use that.

Even here we see regional problems too. 24% of NE households exceeded 6 figures in 2009, only 17% of Southern ones did. Do we need to move higher incomes in the South to 75k to keep it at a quartile? A bit too blunt still. Atlanta is not cheap, and has many high incomes. Rural MS is and has fewer. Does who is rich vary there?

What about family size? Married couples saw 100k+ incomes 32% of the time, single women living alone 3.9%. Certainly couples have slightly higher expenses in consumables etc, but not to such a large extent. My income married or solo afforded me essentially the same standard of living personally.

If we want a more nuanced look it gets even more complicated. Who is upper middle or upper-lower? Surely a person making $13/hr is far far better off than one making $8, but the resulting 10k annual difference makes far less of an impact when you make 100 or 110k does it not?

The tranches simply cannot be made to conform to equal %ages, as we get far too much segregation at the upper end and far too little at the lower end. Even though I love numbers, I think words are the best choice here albeit with a numerical basis. Here's my stab at it.

If your income is insufficient to pay for the rent of a safe 2br apartment, a reliable used car, and all utilities, gas, insuarance plus enough to feed and clothe your reasonably sized family in comfort but not extravagance, you are low income.

If you can do all that and have money left over for a week or more vacation and eating out biweekly or so, you are lower middle.

If you can add a mortgage, a new car and some fun toys you are middle.

If you can add a 2500 sq ft+ well maintained home in a nice area, multiple new cars, more frequent vacations and eating out plus some "play" money for investments or bigger toys like RVs or boats you are upper middle.

If you can quit work today and maintain the upper middle lifestyle for the rest of your expected lifespan without worrying about dying bankrupt, you are rich.

What you do spend money on is immaterial to what you can, and the latter should be the yardstick here.

[cbrer]

36. Good post...

I would only add that there's also a net effect that needs to be considered.

Income may be at a defined level, but the variable nature of expenses on a national, as well as a personal level, can put one squarely in (or out) of the middle class.

[octothorpe]

43. I like how you put this.

[Ruby the Liberal]

46. Well stated!

[KurtNYC]

28. It used to be $90K for a family of four was middle class

That was 10 years ago though.

[pampango]

31. The 1% are the problem. I have no problem with those making $200,000. They are not

the ones that rig the system against the 99%. If they are on our side I welcome them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. They should be but, by and large, they are not.

I understand that you are one of them and believe otherwise, but the statistics do not agree with your wishes.

The $200K household crown are squeezed pretty hard, but lack of income is not their main problem. Their problem is in believing that $200K should allow them to live a much better life that it does. They are typically buried in debt and living beyond their means. So, they buy into the whole government = evil, private enterprise = good meme that the people that matter push, and end up voting republican.

[pampango]

34. I believe that Romney won the $200,000+ folks by about 55%-45%. You are right that

'by and large' they vote republican but there is a substantial percentage that vote Democratic also.

I understand that you are one of them and believe otherwise, but the statistics do not agree with your wishes.

Alas you did not cite any statistics.

Not sure what you mean by 'you are one of them'. If you mean the $200,000+ crowd, I will just smile and wish you a nice day. Retired teachers make a little (just a little, mind you) less than that. Heck, even the active ones come up just a wee bit short of the income figure.

[cbrer]

37. I guess that makes my wife and me "untypical".

We were able to afford a new roof and a kitchen remodel (prior owners were Bulldog fans = BRIGHT RED).

*However* That $200K simply doesn't go as far. By the time we've put aside expected expenses into retirement, covered household expenses, and paid all our taxes, the net effect AIN'T rich!

[Egalitarian Thug]

40. Well you're here, so that makes you atypical, your household income is in the top 10%, that

makes you pretty rare as well, and I assume that, since you had 15 grand or so to do your roof and kitchen, you aren't buried in debt and that makes you precious.

[Demo_Chris]

41. They are easily within the top 5%

And yet they see themselves as being in the middle.

And that's the problem. They believe, they REALLY believe,that they are in the middle. They believe that our struggle is like theirs, only perhaps a little more. And because of this, they quite often believe that the difference is more a matter of personal choices than anything else.

The person earning 200K a year earns as much money per MONTH as the average Walmart worker (America's largest employer) earns per year. The wealthy person is also far more likely to have exceptional benefits, making the disparity even greater. Finally, because they are wealthy, they are not saddled with the hidden costs of poverty, and best of all they have TWO parties who represent their interests while the poor have no one.

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. The answer to that question is "working class"

"middle class" does not mean "representing the demographic middle of the population", it means "the socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class". The middle class, traditionally, consists of people with management jobs and professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and such). A good rule of thumb: if your job pays an hourly wage and not a salary? If you have to spend most of your work day on your feet? You're not middle class.

The problem of perception of what is and isn't "middle class" has come about because of many years of outright lying on the part of American politicians. The idea being to deny the existence of a working class in America (which is one of the reasons for socialism's lack of success in the USA).

[bvar22]

42. This guy explained it well: