"The New York Times has used" the quintiles to define class. It has assigned the quintiles from lowest to highest as bottom fifth, lower middle, middle, upper middle, and top fifth.[
Instead of laying that on the Times, making it sound like some concoction of the Librul Media or the M$M, it should say "Some social scientists use"
The quintiles, from that, are
bottom 20% - under $20,260
2nd 20% - under $38,515
middle 20% - under $62,434
bottom 60% - under $62,434
4th 20% - under $101,577
top 20% - over $101,577
top 5% - over $186,000
Although the Times chart is kinda cool http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html
Except it makes me no longer a Eugene Debs ("if there is a lower class, I am in it"
As a janitor, I was at the 12th percentile, but as a janitorial supervisor I am 23rd percentile. Education should not be included, in my opinion. My master's degree puts me in the 97th percentile for education, but since one of the main points of education is to get a better paying job with more prestige, being 97th percentile in education is kind of a moot point if you are still 12th or 23rd percentile in occupation.
Apparently they use individual income instead of household income. My individual income puts me at 56th percentile and household income puts me at only 35th. I think household income is more relevant than individual. For wealth, they put me at 85th percentile, which is ridiculous. I had to adjust that down since I am far closer to $100,000 than I am to $500,000 and they lumped that whole group together.
Still puts me at 45th percentile, maybe because I am old. Well out of the bottom 20%.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read