[anasawad]

@Rancid
I would imagen it would be right below what the Lower upper earns.
The upper-upper are basically billionaires.
Lower-upper are ones who make in the millions and are millionaires.
Those two though don't make up 3% of the population but rather the first less than 0.1% of the population and the second the rest of the 1%.
Which fits with how things usually work pretty much everywhere because the upper class almost never exceeds the top 1%. Its practically a special attribute of capitalist societies.

Then you have everyone else below that being various sub-classes of either middle or working class.
Upper-middle class are as described in almost every paper on the topic are the managers, elite professionals, doctors, academics,brokers, etc mostly with very high ranks and degrees and income with high level of economic security.
Those could pretty much be making pretty much anything below the multi-millionaire level.


Think of it this way.
When people say bourgeoisie. How much do you think one of those earns ?
Probably in the 100s of thousands right ?
Well, bourgeoisie is the name of the upper middle class.
And this is why there is often a confusion about it, because the term middle class describes a very very wide set of incomes, as its by definition anyone between the working class, which doesn't make much, and the upper class, which is usually massively wealthy.

For example, If lets say Jordan. A middle class person would be anyone between a Syrian waiter in a restaurant (working class) and those people who hang out with the royal family (the upper class), but not of either of those groups.

[Potemkin]

Anasawad is describing a tribal society, in which the definition of 'class' is not commensurate with a Western definition. Is anasawad working class, middle-class or upper-class? He's none of those things; his relation to the mode of production is mediated through a tribal social structure, and it's the tribal elders who decide his social and economic status. It's not anasawad's net income which determines his social status, it's his position within his tribe which determines it. His ideas about social class in a Western capitalist country are therefore nonsensical.

And Rancid is correct - social class is determined as much, or even more, by culture and tradition than by money. The USA is anomalous among developed Western societies in basing social status almost exclusively on money alone (though race places a huge role in one's social status in the USA). However, the present discussion relates to specifically American definitions of social class, so bringing things like Middle Eastern clans or British aristocrats into the discussion is irrelevant and off-topic.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
And in the US, anyone above the working class and below the upper class (the top 1%) is middle class.
The higher ends are upper-middle class but still middle class nevertheless.

Where I come from doesn't mean that I'm wrong when I copy paste the American definition in regard of American class structure.

And Jordan modern urban class structure is actually very similar to that of England with slight American influence on it. Since literally it was established by the British. So you probably don't want to push it too much and say its tribal.

And no offense bro, but you don't know how our clans work. My position is not based on what elders decide nor anyone's position. The council has an entirely different job.
Not all tribes are the same. And in some cases, a tribe is an entire nation with its own governing system.

[Godstud]

Middle Class:
the social group between the upper and working classes, including professional and business workers and their families.

Income:


Consumption:


Ownership:


Demographic:

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/econom ... index.html

You're incorrect, Anasawad. You are assuming that everything that isn't the top levels of upper class, is middle class.

[anasawad]

@Godstud

Well then,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class
If they're not upper class, and not middle class; What are they ?

You are assuming that everything that isn't the top levels of upper class, is middle class.

No, 'm assuming that anyone who isn't part of the upper classes nor is part of the working class must be middle class by definition.

And I mentioned previously the characteristics the middle class usually have pretty much everywhere its studied.

[Godstud]

Did you even look at what I posted?

People making $450k a year are the lower end of the Upper class scale. They are NOT middle class.

[anasawad]

I did.
But people making 450k a year are though on the tip but not quite lower-upper class yet.

The main distinguishing feature of this class, which is estimated to constitute roughly 1% of the population, is the source of income. While the vast majority of people and households derive their income from wages or salaries, those in the upper class derive their income from investments and capital gains.

Though in some US states, 450k would make you of the top earners. In others it doesn't, specifically in major states where pretty much the entire economy is in.

To be exact, you'd need 1.2M household income to be in the top in the US.

[Godstud]

WRONG. People making $450k a year are not on the tip of anything. They are firmly upper class. People making $150k a year are in the upper class, as well, although they are just sort of edging in.

As someone already mentioned to you, if you can buy a house every year with your wage, then you are definitely not middle class.

Stop being daft, Anasawad. It's unlike you to troll like this. Yes. It's trolling.

[anasawad]

I'm not trolling.
If you make 450k, you're upper-middle class. i.e in the bourgeoisie class.
But you're not yet in the upper class. You still wont have the sufficient capital to be one.

I already shared that the upper class both lower and upper sub-divisions of it are generally considered the ones making from millions to billions in income.
And those, according to pretty much everyone, make up the top 1%.
The top 1% make average household income of 1.2M as of 2014. So now its even higher.

So, if a household makes 450k is not an upper-middle class nor are they an upper class. Then where do you put them ?
You and others so far have called me all sorts of things and continuosly say I'm wrong, yet statistics and definitions by American institutes put the upper class at the level I just mentioned. The 450k is not in it, so it must be upper middle class. Yes, even if you can buy a house with a year's wage.

The middle class isn't a pinpointed category that has specifically set range of income. Its everything between the upper class and the working class, thats why in the first definition I quoted, it say there is the middle class (normal ones) with specific income range then the upper middle class from 76k or so and above without a limit to how much above.
Because it goes all the way up to an inch below the upper class. And as before, the upper class has a clear definition and characteristics.

If you think being able to buy a house in a year's salary is too much, how about 5 houses in a single year salary ? You can do that in Russia or pretty much most of eastern and central Europe and even South Europe, while being upper middle class.

It isn't exactly a poor class it turns out.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

It's unlike you to troll like this. Yes. It's trolling.

I can't entirely tell if he's trolling at this point or is simply ignorant of American (and Canadian, because let's admit here that our economies are fairly similar and cost of living for people is relatively similar enough that rural American cost of living is similar to rural Canadian cost of living, and in many cases urban areas are similar) socioeconomics. It would be like you or I being given a random number in a particular currency to a specific country and then trying to guess, while both of us are ignorant of that country's cost of living because we have no experience whatsoever with it, what might constitute middle class or upper class. You, being Canadian, can see how every single American in this thread is quoting figures ranging from $30-50k or so as being the lower edge of middle class, and up to $120-150k as being the upper edge of middle class, and how it also differs based on region and city. You're also capable of intuitively understanding why $450,000 is upper class, and why it's completely wrong how Anasawad's incorrect belief that the top 1% of income is what constitutes upper class (it does not) means that people with million-dollar salaries, in Anasawad's mind, are middle class, or barely upper class (if the top percentage is stretched further).

It's not simply that we can find these figures or quote Wikipedia articles on American income levels: we actually know, by experience, how true those figures are. We can mentally picture, figure out, and mentally apply those income levels to different regions of the US. Personally, I've lived extensively in every region of the US except for Alaska/Hawaii and the Northeast. I know, by experience, that an income of $120,000 in various areas of the South makes you upper class, while I know enough, personally, that in Oceanside and San Diego, California, $120,000 is comfortably middle class but doesn't make you upper class.

Most importantly, you or I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and lecture people outside of our experience or knowledge on the socioeconomics of their country. That would be pretty absurd and I think both of us would recognize how ignorant that would be. I can't imagine you or I continuing to insist we are right after literally everyone keeps pointing out it's wrong.

I chalk it up to ignorance rather than trolling. He seems to actually believe the stuff he says, but he seems incapable of admitting he's wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about. He keeps stubbornly doubling down, which looks pretty terrible, but again, he seems oblivious to this as well.

As I think I mentioned before, it's deliciously ironic how this thread has literally become a living example of cluelessness by people who don't know what middle class means in the US.

[Godstud]

The middle class isn't a pinpointed category that has specifically set range of income

You are definitely trolling! I showed you this with a source that you seem to have dismissed , outright.

Bulaba is correct, as well.

I have a friend who's in the upper class. He makes around $250k/year, and is purchasing a 3rd home. He takes lavish vacations, when he wants, and purchases anything he wants. He's going to purchase an older GT-R and soup it up.

That's upper class.

[anasawad]

Does his income come from a Job ?

[Godstud]

All incomes come from "jobs".

I think you are trying to make a distinction that isn't necessarily related.

I am firmly in the upper class in Thailand. In Canada, I would still fall into the middle class category. It varies, where you are, and by the cost of living, and averages wages, ownership, etc.

[anasawad]

The upper middle class definition.
"the social group between the upper and the middle class made up of well-paid professionals, managers, and their families"

[Godstud]

That definition is probably wrong. There is no class in between the middle and upper class. There are simply degrees within those classes.

What is your source for this information?

[anasawad]

There is, look it up. This is what we refer to as the bourgeoisie.

[Godstud]

Bourgeoisie
the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes.

[anasawad]

a sociologically defined class, especially in contemporary times, referring to people with a certain cultural and financial capital belonging to the middle or upper stratum of the middle class: the upper (haute), middle (moyenne), and petty (petite) bourgeoisie (which are collectively designated "the Bourgeoisie"); an affluent and often opulent stratum of the middle class (capitalist class) who stand opposite the proletariat class.

Though the word bourgeoisie is commonly used to refer to the upper layer of it. i.e upper middle class.

[Godstud]

Yes, a degree of MIDDLE CLASS.

upper stratum of the middle class

an affluent and often opulent stratum of the middle class

Someone making $100K could probably fit into this, but they'd still not be upper class.

[anasawad]

And your friend is in it.

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.