Define middle class in Seattle
Is a single 30 year old in Seattle with a 100K salary upper middle class? I definitely think so. Most folks at my work don't think so - consider this to be just middle class. What do folks here say?
Comments
Lower middle class if you are married with children.
Upper middle class earns around $300k.
If you earn more than $300k then you are upper class.
What percentage of people/households in seattle do you think are upper middle class (~$300K)?
Maybe 0.5%
At least the guys with the money want you to think so. They prefer to keep you sniping at eachother about race or your political views. Keep your mind off the fact that your salary has been declining for a decade.
Here's the income distributions
It is remarkable to me though how many people I meet in Seattle who are at least this well off (the lawyer's husband probably makes about $80K - $90K) and insist that they are middle class at best, barely making it. Even when they've bought their houses years and years ago, even when said houses are fully paid off. This is the only city I've lived in as an adult. If you'll forgive my naivete, is it like this everywhere? I feel like such a rube -- way back when I was a freshly minted state-school liberal arts grad, I never dreamed I'd be making what I am today and have a job with even more upward potential. I'm sure my parents would be really proud of my success, based on that number. I live well if judiciously and save a bundle. So it's disconcerting when friends suggest that by the prevalent standard I am nearly impoverished.
My own answer to Sid's question is Hell yes. But I suspect that *among* single 30-year-olds making in the range of $100K, the consensus is no. Sid, do you work in law or software/IT?
What's goofy in Seattle right now is that there is a significant difference in what that upper middle class income means depending on how old you are or how long you've been here. If you've been in Seattle since 1970, that salary means you've got a nice house in an older neighborhood, probably a boat, and so on. If you've been here since 2000, that salary means you've in an apartment, condo, or tiny decrepit house.
Either way, I tend to think in terms of personal freedom rather than class. If you live well within your means, $100k a year means you can take extended leaves of absence with no real negative impact. When we have a declining job market, like now, that freedom is one of the most valuable commodities.
Anyone who can't get by quite nicely on $80k, regardless of their student loan debt, is doing something wrong.
Yeah, $80k is insufficient to support a $60k new car and $750,000 place to live, so it is "not a living wage".
I get by fine on $98k, but i'm single and i rent (in the central district to keep that cost down) and i bought my car back in 2000 and i'm going to drive it into the ground. But as a result I can afford a ridiculously expensive technical diving habit that chews through about $15k/yr in after-tax.
A lower middle class person can own a plasma television and a BMW if they are willing to turn their retirement savings into discretionary income.
But even if he is saving for retirement, he shouldn't be worrying about where the money for the next bill is coming from.
If you are worrying about how you are going to pay your bills then you are working class.
If you pay the salary of one more more working class people then you are upper class.
What kind of definition is this?
It seems like the confusion is really in how people define middle class. It's a newer term so it has little historical context. When it first became used, it would refer to a family that still had to budget for large purchases, but could afford many of the comforts of life. In the 1960s this meant a running car, one bedroom for every two residents, a cheap (usually driven and often camping) summer vacation, nutritious meals with some variety (meatloaf and potatoes not fillet mignon), and a television.
Today (family of 4), I think it would probably means a home with one bedroom for every 1.5 residents (that's 2-3 bedrooms for a family of 4), a two running cars, access to extracurricular activities (sports/band/clubs), ability to eat out at affordable restaurants once a week, and a slightly nicer vacation than enjoyed 40 years ago.
Anyone else want to weigh in on what middle class even means?
100k income with 2 million asset (solid executive) comparing to 300k income with no asset (RE agent/Mortgage Broker). Who do you think is better representative of middle class?
UAW = high income, low net worth (RE agents, doctors, lawyers, tend to fall into this group). the faux rich, heavy spenders
See "The Millionaire Next Door".
Lower MIddle Class = next 20% of income distribution above Lower Class
Middle Class = next 20% of income distribution above Lower Middle Class
Upper Middle Class = next 20% of income distribution above Middle Class
Upper Class = top 20% of income distribution
So using the data biliruben linked above, the classes are as follows:
Lower Class: <$25,000/year
Lower Middle Class: between $25,000 & $45,000 per year
Middle Class: between $45,000 & $70,000 per year
Upper Middle Class: between $70,000 & $120,000 per year
Upper Class: above $120,000/year
Assets are a consequence of income. Class is based on income, and the assets people associate with a certain class are what a financially responsible person should be able to buy with that class' income. A RE agent making $300,000 a year is upper class without a doubt, even if they blow it all on real estate and end up bankrupt.
Actually, income is a consquence of assets. Someone with $2M in assets should be able to earn $100k-300k on those assets without "working".
Assets can be inheirited or 'found' (as in a lottery or being on the right end of a bubble). Someone earning $100k a year will require decades of living frugally and saving and investing aggressively to reach $2M in assets.
This is a gross oversimplification.
The wealth of your parents (and how much they help you financially), your family situation (a single guy making $70k is probably upper middle, parents with 3 kids making $70k is lower middle?), how you spend/save your money, and other variables all come into play.
I may be wrong, I'm just going off what I remember (or chose to remember possibly) from my econ classes in college.
I also know a lot of schoolteachers, and I work in the public sector. Say what you will about the public sector -- I have probably said it myself -- without it many many people without college educations would be barely hanging on in the workforce. In the public sector they can start around $35K as clerks or admins, and the regular pay bumps and COLA increases allow them to gain an increasingly solid financial foothold and also a non-financial investment in the community. I see single mothers making it work on $50K, even closer to $40K. I don't know how they're doing it, and they are certainly not property owners, but they are doing it, and I don't hear them complaining. (Which is a big part of the reason that poormouth lawyertalk chaps my *ss like it does.) As Elizabeth Warren points out, income stability is so key. I wonder how many junior real-estate agents will see their previously coursing income stream dry up in the next few years. Will they look with regret on stable office jobs they passed up or quit?
I like "working" class instead of "middle" class. More descriptive! For the same reason I liked David Losh's use of "worker housing units" in a comment thread the other day.
I think in most cases income is a consequence of occupation, which is a consequence of education (or dumb luck). If people are smart, they'll take this income and buy income producing assets like you say above, but income producing assets are not the starting point in my opinion.
What was that study where the overwhelming majority of people said they'd rather be making $100K and live in a neighborhood where everyone else made $80K than be making $180K and live where everyone else made $200K? Ouch.
Prodigious accumulator of wealth
Average accumulator of wealth
Under accumulator of wealth
From the "Millionaire Next Door"
Interesting, I've always thought of "working class" as a politically correct term for "lower class," as in "working paycheck to paycheck" without the ability to save any money. Maybe I've been incorrectly translating that in my head this entire time.
That may be a gross oversimplification, but that was kind of the point. I would like a concrete definition of class and this seems like the best way to break it out in my mind. What is your concrete definition of class? Why do you say that a single guy making $70,000 is upper middle? What characteristics does he portray that make him upper middle class?
If you Google "working class" you will get a wide variety of definitions. In my personal experience, terms like "working class" or the phrase "works for a living" have been used in a context to mean that the individual or group actually do "work" or physical labor for a living, as opposed to a cubicle dweller who sits at a desk all day.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Class/ ... 251/?itm=1
OK sorry -- onward to the battlements.
I agree that there are a large amount of middle class these days that are living paycheck to paycheck, but I also think that many of these people could be getting by on less and putting that money into savings if they really wanted to. I think it's a problem of people confusing needs with wants. There are a lot of people that think they need things, when they really could get by without them.
Urban Haute Bourjoise.
Great movie, with some fantastic lines.
"It's a tiny bit arrogant of people to go around worrying about those less fortunate. "
"I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism."
"Playing strip poker with an exhibitionist somehow takes the challenge away. "
"I've always planned to be a failure anyway, that's why I plan to marry an extremely wealthy woman. "