• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What do you define as "middle class"?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
brianmanahan said:
oh i definitely want to travel the world as well... leaving millions to my family is just a stretch goal :awe:

in order to greatly exceed expectations, i need to get a building named after myself
Click to expand...

The Brian Manahan Sky-penis? Just stick with an e-peen like the rest of us.
 
TheAdvocate said:
While her assertions of middle class-dom clearly rub a lot of people the wrong way, US News & World Report points out, "there is no universally accepted definition of middle class." Their best guess is that the American middle class earns somewhere between $25,500 and $76,500, based on the 2012 median household income of $51,017. The mayor of New York City has declared the city's middle class to earn $47,040-$97,020 for a single person and $67,000-$138,000 for a family of four.

Yep. Sounds about right.

It would probably devolve into P&N idiocy, but I was surprised no one commented on this particular graph:

800px-US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png


There is the an excellent example of why people say the middle class is disappearing - here is a root cause. Again, hard data, not opinion.
Click to expand...

So, it doesn't bother anyone else that Real GDP has grown while Real Median Income for US households hasn't? Or is it just that no one here understands what that means?
 
TheAdvocate said:
So, it doesn't bother anyone else that Real GDP has grown while Real Median Income for US households hasn't? Or is it just that no one here understands what that means?
Click to expand...

it is pretty much unavoidable with the growth of a viable global economy.

places that had a lower-than-average median income like india and china will increase.

places that had a higher-than-average median income like the US and west europe will decrease.
 
TheAdvocate said:
So, it doesn't bother anyone else that Real GDP has grown while Real Median Income for US households hasn't? Or is it just that no one here understands what that means?
Click to expand...

The problem is that you have a lot of people on this forum basing their idea of the middle class on perception rather than fact. It's very amusing reading through this thread. There are some real outliers here.
 
brianmanahan said:
it is pretty much unavoidable with the growth of a viable global economy.

places that had a lower-than-average median income like india and china will increase.

places that had a higher-than-average median income like the US and west europe will decrease.
Click to expand...

That isn't what's being shown, at all. The gap shows the additional GDP gains didn't go to the median income people (and certainly not those below). The negative trend on the income line shows not only a % loss compared to the gains of GDP, but a slide in real income as well.

Economy goes up, median income slips=double dip in purchasing power.
 
Phoenix86 said:
That isn't what's being shown, at all. The gap shows the additional GDP gains didn't go to the median income people (and certainly not those below). The negative trend on the income line shows not only a % loss compared to the gains of GDP, but a slide in real income as well.

Economy goes up, median income slips=double dip in purchasing power.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Well said.
 
moonbogg said:
You have very few people in this world who are free. Very few who have the one thing we all actually care about, and that thing is time combined with ability to do what you want. If you make 200k per year and you work 60 hours doing some genius IT work somewhere, you don't have either of those things anymore than the guy packing meat at the local market does.
...
If you take a qualitative average between America's best lifestyle and worst, you find very very few who are privileged enough to live a real mediocre existence. 99% of us don't get to ever know what its really like to be middle class.
Click to expand...

The definition of "middle class" may be flexible, but this is the first time that I've EVER heard it used to describe "complete financial independence".

Also, a "middle" is more properly a median, not a mean, if you're dealing with a skewed distribution.
 
madoka said:
Argued with my friend tonight.

He makes $300K+ per year. He just got a $750,000 bonus this year and will get an additional $1 million in two more years when his options vest.

He claims he is middle class. While I can't say he is "upper" class, it just seems wrong to say that he's middle class. Would he best be described as upper middle class?
Click to expand...

He is rich. Not middle class. Not upper middle class. He is rich.
 
If you make $300K/year for 20-30 years and are smart with your money, you are rich.

If you do it for 2-3 years, even with a 750K bonus, you are not rich. You could be some day.
 
I'm not worried about not having enough retirement in old age.
Retirement money is for your 60s-70s, not 80s-90s.

Once you are in your mid-late 80s, all you do is sit and watch TV, go for strolls and eat out at cheap restaurants.
You don't need any money for that.
 
edro said:
I'm not worried about not having enough retirement in old age.
Retirement money is for your 60s-70s, not 80s-90s.

Once you are in your mid-late 80s, all you do is sit and watch TV, go for strolls and eat out at cheap restaurants.
You don't need any money for that.
Click to expand...


Uh... Most old people go bankrupt over medical bills...
 
edro said:
I'm not worried about not having enough retirement in old age.
Retirement money is for your 60s-70s, not 80s-90s.

Once you are in your mid-late 80s, all you do is sit and watch TV, go for strolls and eat out at cheap restaurants.
You don't need any money for that.
Click to expand...

My plan is to pinch the butts of my nurses.
 
maddogchen said:
Uh... Most old people go bankrupt over medical bills...
Click to expand...

Thankfully the Baby Boomers are going to pitch a fit in the next few years as this starts happening to them and they'll get the laws changed so that by the time my generation is ready to retire, we'll all be given a team of nubile young boys to act as our slaves valets throughout our dotage. That's why my retirement fund consists solely of a slowly-increasing jar of loose change that I can dash about as tips for good service. I'm going to be the Ezio Auditore da Firenze of the nursing home, pausing in my deranged ascent of the tallest furniture to scatter coins at the peasants like a geriatric lunatic.

Getting old is the best.
 
maddogchen said:
Uh... Most old people go bankrupt over medical bills...
Click to expand...

yeah, I figure most of my retirement money will be going to ensure that I'm in a top-notch nursing home with a state of the art helper robot (which I'm sure will be a thing by then), rather than being shoved into a budget home for the terminally old.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
I'll never understand this mentality. You live life once and only once.
Click to expand...
You can't prove this. You would have a new brain in every life so you wouldn't remember your past life. It's quite possible that we're all just the same person living a different life with a different brain. Prove me wrong or I call BS on you. :awe:
 
Atomic Playboy said:
The average new car price is over $30,000, which would get you something comparable to the average sedans of the 1960s.
Click to expand...

comparable being way more reliable, much safer, far less gas consumed, much faster (R&T tested the original HiPo mustang at 8.6 seconds 0-60, a 6 cylinder version tested by MT took 14.3 seconds), far better creature comforts, etc.

there's really nothing on the market "comparable." if it were it'd be the biggest hunk of crap around.
 
Last edited:
ElFenix said:
comparable being way more reliable, much safer, far less gas consumed, much faster (R&T tested the original HiPo mustang at 8.6 seconds 0-60, a 6 cylinder version tested by MT took 14.3 seconds), far better creature comforts, etc.

there's really on the market comparable.
Click to expand...
But yet no one is still happy with their lives today and still want more than what they have.

So sorry, none of this is impressive.

Oh and the bank pretty much owns all of these cars we see on the road today. Leaseeeeeeeeeees is damn accurate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top