[Godstud]

No. He's in the UPPER CLASS.

Do you even read the stuff you post?

You can find all kinds of different names to call the middle class, but in the end it doesn't change what's considered middle class.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

@anasawad Again, that's entirely irrelevant to the distinctions of socioeconomic class used in North America.

[anasawad]

@Bulaba Jones
The difference between the upper middle class and the upper class is that the first has to work to maintain its position while the latter doesn't have to work to maintain its position. i.e capital gains and investments.
The defining feature of the upper class.

And not just anywhere, specifically in American sociology, thats the main characteristic of the upper class.

@Godstud
Yes, I do.
Your friend is in the upper-middle class.
The upper class in the American sense has a very specific definition and ranking. Its actually more restrictive than in most other countries believe it or not.
And if you're rich, but just not yet in the upper class, then you're in the upper-middle class.
Which the upper-middle class has very rich people in it, don't get me wrong. But it simply not upper class.

What's so hard about this concept ? And this is not my opinion alone BTW, this is the opinion of Sociologists defining the upper class, and yes in the US.



I mean you guys can keep saying its wrong from now till tomorrow, its still not going to change the fact that there is a difference between upper class and upper-middle class and that the latter includes a good portion of rich people. This is pretty much an established definition.

[Godstud]

Sorry, Anasawad, but you're incorrect. You even demonstrated that by what you posted. What you posted mostly supports what Bulaba and I have been explaining to you.

What you refer to as the Upper Class, is something social, that is not related to the actual middle class. You're talking a social strata, and not a societal or economic one.

Bulaba and I are not referring to the perception of Upper Class, by those hoity-toity upper class twits. We're referring to the actual middle class.

Incidentally, my friend who makes $250k a year could, if he wanted to, slip into the social class(perception of upper class), as well.

You mention sociologists. This even more indicates that you are referring to a perception of society. This has nothing to do with the actual economic classification(which we are discussing) of middle class, which is the actual topic!

[anasawad]

@Godstud
How exactly does the definition of the upper class being literally centered around their income and how they make it not be related to economics ?

The Perception of being an upper class can indeed be attained and is arbitrary as to what ever fade of etiquette being popular among its members to adopt.

But on socio-economic measure, the upper class is a class of people that is characterized by its wealth and its ability to extract large sum of income from investments and capital gains without the need to participate in any labor (that is both physical or mental) or even administrative duties as it can delegate to others (usually to the upper-middle class members)

This is the American definition of it. In other countries like the UK or Jordan, you can only be born or marry into the upper class. And in our society, its more fluid as you're appointed to the upper class by a collective, the upper class being the ones to control the direction of the flow of wealth rather than holding it directly, with the upper middle class holding all the wealth.

[Godstud]

You seem to be using a different measure of socio-economic status, than what is being referred to, in the original post, and what people like myself, and Bulaba, refer to.

Middle class income is $40k-$140K in North America. That income level puts you firmly in the middle class. If you are making more than that, then you are in the Upper Class. it's that god-damned simple.

We are not talking about Jordan, Thailand, UK,India, or Lebanon. I am sure the middle class would be similar to the US, in the UK, however.

The upper class, in the West, hold most of the wealth, not the middle class. You are incorrect in this assertion.

Wealthy families, of the upper class, have people born into wealth and money, thus being in the upper class.

[anasawad]

I gave example of other countries upper classes to show the difference and that the US is not like them.
The US has this definition for the upper class;

the upper class is a class of people that is characterized by its wealth and its ability to extract large sum of income from investments and capital gains without the need to participate in any labor (that is both physical or mental) or even administrative duties as it can delegate to others (usually to the upper-middle class members)

Which is very simple but for some reason you guys are not following up.

The middle class makes up to 140k, sure. Then there is the upper-middle class. Then after that the upper class comes along.

The upper class, in the West, hold most of the wealth, not the middle class. You are incorrect in this assertion.

In giving examples of other countries to show the difference between the definition of the upper class between them and the US, I mentioned my society. Which in my society, the upper middle class holds the wealth and the upper class controls who holds it and where it goes as the upper class is a rank of power not of wealth for us.
I didn't say that the US is like us, I said VERY CLEARLY that this is why the upper class in the US differ from other countries. Because it has very different definition from other countries.

I doubt my post wasn't clear so please don't twist my words in it too much.

[Godstud]

The middle class makes up to 140k, sure. Then there is the upper-middle class.

WRONG. Again, you are making your own classification.

Above the $140k mark is UPPER class. There is not extra strata of upper middle class, there.

Lower class - below $40k/year
Middle class - between $40k and $140K/year.
Upper class- over $140k/year.

It's that simple, and sociology has nothing to do with it. Perception of wealth/class is what sociology deals with.

[anasawad]

Classes are socio-economics. Sociologists deal with socio-economics.

What you're talking about is the income-levels stated in the US Tax code. And at those levels it would change from middle income to high income.
The US does not legally or officially define classes. Income levels are for tax brackets and irrelevant to class categorization. Classes are based on socio-economic analysis done by sociologists.

[Godstud]

We are not dealing with social strata, however. We are dealing with economic strata, in this thread.

There are clear economic levels for lower, middle, and upper class, in the USA/Canada. You don't have to agree with them, but trying to alter them does you no favours.

[Potemkin]

The difference between the upper middle class and the upper class is that the first has to work to maintain its position while the latter doesn't have to work to maintain its position. i.e capital gains and investments.
The defining feature of the upper class.

The defining feature of the upper class, as Marx pointed out, is that they do not make their money from their own work, but from other people's work. This, after all, is what capital gains and investments are. Indeed, if we're going that route, we could further assert that the only class distinction which has any objective meaning (rather than being merely a pissing contest about who has the larger number of greenbacks being shovelled into their bank account each year) is the distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between those who make money from their job and those who make money from other people's jobs. But that isn't what this thread is about.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Rule of thumb; if you can buy a house with a yearly salary, you are not in the middle.

Thats a dumb statement.

Incomes are often reflective of local economies. I spent most of my adult life making $30,000.00 or less and have owned three homes under that price because housing prices are depressed in the Rust belt where I am from. I am of the general opinion that when it comes to the United States, excluding certain parts of appalachia and the inner city ghettos, being "poor" is a state of mind. On that little bit of income stated above I have been able to own my own homes and vehicles, go to college and grad school, and have my wife stay at home with an ever-growing brood of kids without rarely ever needing any gov. assistance. It has more to do with debt-to-income ratio and maintaining steady employment whether one makes it the U.S.

I have been blessed, but it seems to push a rather discouraging myth that you can't do well in America if you are less than middle-class. I still make under $60,000.00 and that is more than most people in my community. So I think that remark is inaccurate and harmful rubbish. If you pay your bills, keep a strict budget, avoid debt, invest in tangible assets, and avoid unnecessary expenditures (have some self-control), you can own a home on very little money and have a generally pleasant life.

If you can't achieve such where you live, then you should probably move where you can.

[MistyTiger]

I found a link that defines middle class in the US by state. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/30/how-muc ... state.html

So if you earn under 200 k, you are still in the middle class.