What is your notion of middle class? - Page 3

Fat Elvis · 01-04-2005, 01:15 PM

I'm asking this question because I just read an article on investing your year end bonus and one sentence struck me as odd:

Quote:

For example, say an employee who makes $100,000 a year is lucky enough to receive a $40,000 bonus in early 2005.

It was odd to me because it seemed to imply that $100K/ year salary is pretty normal. Judging from the Christmas bonus thread, I think a 40% bonus seemed a bit out of whack as well.

Is this how the regular world works and I am just missing out?

It might be more the norm on the coasts becuase of the costs of living are so much higher there than here, but do those numbers sound right for the midwest?

Just curious....

Fat E

MOhillbilly · 01-04-2005, 02:29 PM

I read a thing on here that said anything over 16k was lower middle class made me feel good about being poor.

Hoover · 01-04-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

this is true but you can live comfortably at 100K a year but most people choose to live above thier means so they think that 100K a year is "middle class"

so "Middle Class" means I have enought money to get by, but I can't have everything I want?

DenverChief · 01-04-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoover

so "Middle Class" means I have enought money to get by, but I can't have everything I want?

people think they need Cable/sat TV, internet access, a brand new 35K vehicle, and a 5 bedroom house in the westport area....when in reality they could live without the cable tv/internet, drive a used vehicle that is just as nice as a brand new one and live in a 3 bedroom house in shawnee mission.....live within your means...

Amnorix · 01-04-2005, 02:45 PM

I remember reading somewhere that something like 85% of Americans thought they were "middle class". By definition that's impossible.

I'm in agreement iwth Rain Man. $40K-$100K for a family of four is roughly middle class. Once you're past $100K in income, you're moving into lower upper class, or somesuch.

Amnorix · 01-04-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

Shouldn't there be some manner of "official" classifications out there somewhere?

None that I have seen. The government is willing to categorize "poverty", because it kind of has to, but it seems to want to stay away from "middle class".

I also spent a fair bit of time once about a year ago (while trying to find data relating to some argument on this board) trying to find out how many American households made X income, how many made Y, etc. You'd think the census bureau or someone would publish this kind of data. If so, I failed to find it.

Amnorix · 01-04-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

Well, I guess the Census doesn't define it...

https://ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/askce...YWdlPTE*&p_li=

I don't remember if I found this before or not, but I remember seeing something similar to it which I decided was not exactly "user-friendly", at least for trying to quickly pull data for an internet BB argument.

**cdcox** · 01-04-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

None that I have seen. The government is willing to categorize "poverty", because it kind of has to, but it seems to want to stay away from "middle class".

I also spent a fair bit of time once about a year ago (while trying to find data relating to some argument on this board) trying to find out how many American households made X income, how many made Y, etc. You'd think the census bureau or someone would publish this kind of data. If so, I failed to find it.

You suck at google:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01ar.html

HC_Chief · 01-04-2005, 02:58 PM

Median US salary not too long ago was 40k.

I consider middle class between 35 and 150k. Once you pass the combined salary of 150k .per year, you're entering into 'lower upper class' (150-500). Anything greater than 500k annually = wealthy.

That scale applies ONLY to people who actually work for their money. Anyone who lives off of interest accumulated from holdings, that doesn't qualify for retirement or disability, = stinking rich

**Rain Man** · 01-04-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

Well, I guess the Census doesn't define it...

https://ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/askce...YWdlPTE*&p_li=

To some extent, I think they don't define it because it varies so strongly by locale and by family size. It's not a number, it's an array.

The guv'mint tends to work a lot on "Percent of Area Median Income" and they really don't care a lot about people who are above the median, so there's really no upper end classifications that even exist.

Amnorix · 01-04-2005, 02:59 PM

If I read this one right:

http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/0.../new05_000.htm

then the "middle fifth" quintile (i.e. those making 40-60% more than everyone else, which would be roughly the "middle") has a minimum household income of $34,000. The second highest fifth has a minimum income of $54,000 per household.

So I guess an "average" household in America makes $34K-54K per year. As far as I can tell, that doesn't consider the number of members in the household or anything.

The top 5% in income in 2003 made a minimum of a little over $150K.

So the $40K-250K range for "middle class" is absurdly high on the high end, as that reaches into the top 5% of household income in America.

I welcome anyone to tell me that I'm misreading these incredibly user-friendly *cough* tables...

**ChiTown** · 01-04-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

You suck at google:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01ar.html

Cool, thanks.

If that's true, that seems really out of whack to me that the lower level of the top 5% is at $154K (household income). I'd have guessed significantly higher.......

Pants · 01-04-2005, 03:00 PM

There are such things as lower and upper and middle classes. It's all relative, IMO. I have yet to see a good definition of middle class.

Amnorix · 01-04-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

Median US salary not too long ago was 40k.

I consider middle class between 35 and 150k. Once you pass the combined salary of 150k .per year, you're entering into 'lower upper class' (150-500). Anything greater than 500k annually = wealthy.

That scale applies ONLY to people who actually work for their money. Anyone who lives off of interest accumulated from holdings, that doesn't qualify for retirement or disability, = stinking rich

Note that you're insane. The census info posted tells us that $150K plus per year in income is only achieved by about 5% of American households. That ain't middle class... I'm not saying it's filthy rich, but it ain't middle class...

Amnorix · 01-04-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

Cool, thanks.

If that's true, that seems really out of whack to me that the lower level of the top 5% is at $154K (household income). I'd have guessed significantly higher.......

Note that the data may be extrapolated from tax return data, which is significantly underreported across all income groups.

**ChiTown** · 01-04-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Note that you're insane. The census info posted tells us that $150K plus per year in income is only achieved by about 5% of American households. That ain't middle class... I'm not saying it's filthy rich, but it ain't middle class...

That number isn't middle class. It's the top 5% of all household incomes, right?

01-04-2005, 02:29 PM	#31
MOhillbilly Mama Tried Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Missouri Casino cash: $9949903	I read a thing on here that said anything over 16k was lower middle class made me feel good about being poor. __________________ True Son of Liberty
Posts: 23,371

01-04-2005, 02:45 PM	#34
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	I remember reading somewhere that something like 85% of Americans thought they were "middle class". By definition that's impossible. I'm in agreement iwth Rain Man. $40K-$100K for a family of four is roughly middle class. Once you're past $100K in income, you're moving into lower upper class, or somesuch.
Posts: 43,125

01-04-2005, 02:58 PM	#38
HC_Chief That's just f***in' stupid Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: suburbia Casino cash: $3687107	Median US salary not too long ago was 40k. I consider middle class between 35 and 150k. Once you pass the combined salary of 150k .per year, you're entering into 'lower upper class' (150-500). Anything greater than 500k annually = wealthy. That scale applies ONLY to people who actually work for their money. Anyone who lives off of interest accumulated from holdings, that doesn't qualify for retirement or disability, = stinking rich __________________ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Posts: 12,355

01-04-2005, 02:59 PM	#40
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	If I read this one right: http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/0.../new05_000.htm then the "middle fifth" quintile (i.e. those making 40-60% more than everyone else, which would be roughly the "middle") has a minimum household income of $34,000. The second highest fifth has a minimum income of $54,000 per household. So I guess an "average" household in America makes $34K-54K per year. As far as I can tell, that doesn't consider the number of members in the household or anything. The top 5% in income in 2003 made a minimum of a little over $150K. So the $40K-250K range for "middle class" is absurdly high on the high end, as that reaches into the top 5% of household income in America. I welcome anyone to tell me that I'm misreading these incredibly user-friendly cough tables...
Posts: 43,125

01-04-2005, 03:00 PM	#42
Pants Time Keeps On Slipping Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $5719900	There are such things as lower and upper and middle classes. It's all relative, IMO. I have yet to see a good definition of middle class. __________________ "Turn the channel to 26!"
Posts: 27,294