More Americans Are Breaking Into the Upper Middle Class (wsj.com)
- Reference: 0181388010
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/04/06/1635241/more-americans-are-breaking-into-the-upper-middle-class
- Source link: https://www.wsj.com/economy/more-americans-are-breaking-into-the-upper-middle-class-bf8b7cb2
> In 2024, about 31% of Americans were part of the upper middle class, up from about 10% in 1979, according to a report released this year by the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. There is no single, standard definition of middle class, or upper middle class, and what counts as a hefty income in one city can feel paltry in another. The AEI report, by Stephen Rose and Scott Winship, classified a family of three earning $133,000 to $400,000 in 2024 dollars as upper middle class. Households earning more were categorized as rich. The analysis looked just at incomes, not assets such as stocks or real estate.
>
> [...] The gains span generations. Many baby boomers, born to parents who grew up in the Great Depression, are living well on their savings, aided by steady Social Security checks and decades of stock-portfolio gains that they can now tap. Millennials, who everyone worried would be permanently set back by the 2008-09 financial crisis, are earning solid incomes, buying homes and surpassing their parents. Many families are surprised to find that they have moved into this new economic tier, and see themselves as comfortable, not rich. They tend to have jobs that are white collar but not flashy -- think accountants, not tech founders.
>
> This doesn't mean that all Americans are climbing the ladder. Entrenched inflation and higher prices on major necessities have pushed many families closer to the financial edge, or locked them out of homeownership. Those costs weigh on high-earning families too, and for many are the reason they don't feel wealthy. The AEI report divided families into five different groups by income. Three groups were in the middle: lower middle class, core middle class and upper middle class. The authors found that more families now fall into the two highest-earning groups -- upper middle class and rich -- and fewer fall into the three lower-earning categories.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/economy/more-americans-are-breaking-into-the-upper-middle-class-bf8b7cb2
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/more-americans-are-moving-into-the-upper-middle-class-than-ever-but-some-still-don-t-feel-wealthy/ar-AA20e3jU?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds
Now that we've broken in... (Score:5, Funny)
... let's make off with their TV! :D
Re: (Score:2)
I've got the keys to their Rivian!
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck. The starter in my Rivian is broken.
Re: (Score:3)
> Good luck. The starter in my Rivian is broken.
That's nothing. I'm so poor I can't afford a new serpentine belt for my Bolt.
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
133K is upper middle class?? Wow, I have been a lot richer than I ever thought. Maybe in some flyover town that is big money, on either coast that is "at least I am not on food stamps" money. That is a school teacher married to a cop money. In places where a cheap house is $450K, that is not Upper anything.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah. 133K isn't "upper middle class". I would say 2M/year is approaching that. You can't live in Manhattan or San Francisco for 133K a year.
Re: Really? (Score:2, Informative)
So the only way to qualify as middle is to be able to afford two of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country? I tend to think "middle" or even "upper middle" would include a lot more than that.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point, living in a place like Manhattan is luxury consumption. Yes, $133k is a stretch in Manhattan (below 120th at least) unless you have subsidized housing, but New York City isn't just Manhattan. You can live just fine on $133k in the Bronx or Staten Island. Likewise, living in SF proper is a luxury choice, others live in lower-cost bay area locales like Oakland.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a stretch above 120th as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It's doable above 120th. You can get a decent 2bedroom apartment for ~$3k/month north of 120th. That's doable on $130k.
How do you define upper middle class (Score:4, Insightful)
The numbers here are almost useless, since what you need to earn to be upper middle class differs by location.
133 K /yr is going to be the bottom of middle class or even upper working class in San Jose, but a decent living in Indianapolis or Tuscaloosa.
Income of $2M a year, however, is upper class no matter where you live. Even in Boston, the median home is only a million dollars. You could argue that it is toward the bottom of upper class in the super-expensive cities in the US.
Re: Really? (Score:1)
It could be upper-lower class.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. The whole thing is MAGA assholes lying about reality.
Re:Name Calling (Score:4, Informative)
I fkn hate that pretentious asshole gweihir, but in this case, he's entirely correct: MAGA are assholes who lie about everything.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
> 133K is upper middle class??
Well, it is definitely a politically-loaded question... but it doesn't seem totally unreasonable, at least based on population percentages. They said "middle class" not "rich"; this is for a family of three, which nowadays means two incomes in the majority of cases; and $133K was chosen as the very bottom of the "upper middle class" window.
Pew is considered rather less politically biased than the Wall Street Journal; but in 2022 they gave the following broad-brush definitions for a family of three:
Lower-income (28% of US population): Under $56,600 per year
Middle-income (52% of US population): Between $56,600 and $169,800 per year
Upper-income (19% of US population): Above $169,800 per year
There are certainly a lot of political side questions one could ask, like - should we really consider it to be "middle-class" if a person can't afford to buy a house?
Re: (Score:3)
> should we really consider it to be "middle-class" if a person can't afford to buy a house?
This is how I see it. A solidly middle class income for a given area should be able to buy at least a modest house or at the very least a condo. In San Diego county, you are hard pressed for find a 1bedroom condo for $350k. 2bedroom around $450k. Those are properties about 25 miles from the beach, where it's 90F all summer.
The average income is around 75k here. So if you had two adults making that, you could maybe afford the bottom one, if you had no other debt anyway.
To me, that hardly feels middle class.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
These numbers are for two different things. "Upper income" is just a measure of income. "Upper class" includes other factors that may influence a person's place in society. Someone making $170k (at least in 2022 dollars) is upper income in the context of Pew, but they would not necessarily have the indicators of being "upper class" (i.e. being in upper management or other influential position, significant property ownership, being close to political power) in a high cost of living area like Manhattan where that income might represent a blue collar couple. Class is impossible to measure objectively.
Re: (Score:2)
> Wow, I have been a lot richer than I ever thought.
A lot of people don't realize how well off they are. Take the median income for example - if you earn more than that, half the US population earns less than you.
It's probably also a bit of a contributing factor to why so many folks on here underestimated how popular the MacBook Neo would be. A cheap computer is a lot easier to dismiss when you've got the budget for something better.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it's more about perspective than math. If you only got 51% of the answers on a test correct, that's pretty bad. If you had a 51% chance of waking up dead tomorrow, you'd probably not be feeling so great about those odds.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What are you smoking? The median household income in the US is roughly $84,000 a year. That would make $133k very clearly upper middle class. You know that there's more to the US than New York and Los Angeles, right?
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
"upper class" never meant a relative income percentage. It has always meant a lifestyle. "Upper middle class " means you can afford a three or four bedroom house in a safe location with good schools, that you can absorb a series of financial shocks like dead appliances and car accidents without trouble, that your whole family has decent health insurance, that you can choose to go on vacation every year to a foreign country and still save for retirement. And so on. Wealth capture to the very rich has made us all poorer.
Re: (Score:2)
No it didn't. Nobody in "upper middle class" back in the 50's was "going on a vacation every year to a foreign country." Give me a break. And the general standard of living was much worse, particularly health care. Back in that "golden era" the life expectancy was significantly shorter, everyone smoked, and health care was basically anti-biotics, or nothing. They were still doing lobotomies. And houses were a lot smaller, poorly insulated, almost every kid shared a bedroom with a sibling, you had to w
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how all of the luxuries have dramatically come down in price, while the cost of essentials like home ownership and healthcare, has become unreachable for many. Appendectomy for example, costed about $400 in the 1950's, which is about 30 days of income. Today it costs about $20,000, which is closer to 80 days of average income.
You're also not being completely honest with some of the characterizations. Lead paint was common, but not because they couldn't afford better or safer paint. They simply thoug
Re: (Score:2)
IDK, if you spend it wisely. I just hit 50 years of age and have only had three years that I've made more than that and the last 16 years as the sole income earner in the family. I could go on a huge long humble brag about how well my family is doing, but what's the point. I'd think we are easily upper middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you bought a house 30 years ago and it has tripled in price since.
Congrats! You are rich! (Score:2)
I live in a major US city and $133K a year will do pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
> ... Maybe in some flyover town that is big money...
Yep. Please keep flying over us.
Living where? (Score:3)
Where exactly does supporting 3 people on $133k/year count as 'upper middle class'? You could be doing a lot worse, and many are; but that's not just tons of money in a HCOL area; and that's also lower than twice the median salary for full time employees with bachelor's degrees; so you are calling either a single income household doing a bit better than median or a dual income one doing worse 'upper middle class'; which seems pretty ambitious.
Re: (Score:3)
> Where exactly does supporting 3 people on $133k/year count as 'upper middle class'? You could be doing a lot worse, and many are; but that's not just tons of money in a HCOL area; and that's also lower than twice the median salary for full time employees with bachelor's degrees; so you are calling either a single income household doing a bit better than median or a dual income one doing worse 'upper middle class'; which seems pretty ambitious.
Pittsburgh.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me about it. I can't find a single tamale lady.
Re: (Score:2)
> Tell me about it. I can't find a single tamale lady.
Especially since January 2025...
Re: Living where? (Score:5, Insightful)
A cynic might suggest that the threshold was chosen in part to make the numbers work out for a pre-determined conclusion.
you're absolutely right, don't trust AEI (Score:5, Insightful)
> A cynic might suggest that the threshold was chosen in part to make the numbers work out for a pre-determined conclusion.
They just want to justify tax breaks for the wealthy by saying 31% of Americans will benefit...when in reality, only 2% or less truly get more than they lose from a typical Republican tax cut. Nope, those tariffs are not failing!!! Look, more people are getting wealthy!!! No need to look into tax reform or making sure billionaires pay more!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No cynicism required. The whole thing is a big fat repulsive lie.
Re: (Score:1)
A dumb MAGA like you would not even be convinced by rock-solid evidence. You lack the two working braincells required.
Proving my point (Score:4, Insightful)
I might be dumb. Not sure I could claim to be part of the red hat wearing MAGA people, I did not vote for Trump or Republicans.
The "Again" part in the MAGA is what I do not much care for, plus "Great" is a bit to ambiguous for me as well.
Maybe I do not have the working braincells required; but it you provide anything I am sure someone here could confirm or dispute it and I would have something to point to and claim the Wall Street Journal lied. But pointing to you saying so on Slashdot is pretty weak.
It just seems to me you have a leftist agenda, and only name calling to back it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in central Florida that's a pretty decent living if you bought your house before the market went crazy . As with a lot of things relating to wealth, there's always the "fuck you, I got mine" factor in play.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were making $133k/yr, while living in my rural NY area, I'd be one of the wealthiest people in town. For a while, I worked in Tarrytown, NY, and later, Chicago, IL, while living in my rural NY home, and life was good. The money rolled in nicely, while my living expenses were reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
> Where exactly does supporting 3 people on $133k/year count as 'upper middle class'?
That's not what TFA said. It said "a family of three." That would, on the average, be 2 adults and a child. Two incomes, one dependent. Maybe that's what you're saying, but "supporting 3 people" makes it seem like you're talking about dependents.
Not for long (Score:5, Insightful)
Reasons:
1. Stupid tariffs
2. Reduction of healthcare benefits in insurance plans (Employer, ACA, Medicare) to pay for the war.
3. Higher fuel costs will drive up transportation costs.
4. Food will get more expensive due to transportation and fertilizer costs.
5. Social security benefits will be cut to 70% of the current benefit due to the government not being able to pay out full benefits.
6. Medicare advantage plans will be significantly cut back for seniors.
7. There will be a crisis in private lending which will affect the stock market.
8. Punitive taxation on electric vehicles, solar and wind due to the oil crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points. Execpt for one that confuses me:
> 8. Punitive taxation on electric vehicles, solar and wind due to the oil crisis.
We may be living in upside-down-world right now, but I can't imagine that even the current government would punish the use of non-oil sources of energy during an oil crisis. Maybe for some other reason, but not "due to" the oil crisis.
Re: Not for long (Score:2)
"Punative taxes" on EVs? Explain.
When the federal gov't stopped SUBSIDIZING EVs folks called that punative, it's not, it's prudent.
When states talk about assessing road usage fees on EVs to make up for lost road taxes that would normally have been collected on gasoline purchases, some call it punative, it's just prudent.
People aren't 'owed' $7,500 for an EV purchase, nor are EVs entitled to use our public roads for free - so please, don't try and claim treating EVs like ICE vehicles as "punative."
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confused. I'm not saying EVs shouldn't be taxed in general. I'm saying they shouldn't be taxed due to the oil crisis. Governments should encourage, not discourage, the use of alternate energy-sources when one of them has supply-chains that are threatened.
And I made no claim that treating EVs (tax-wise) like ICE vehicles is "punitive"(*). But taxing EVs more than ICE vehicles because of the oil crisis certainly seems to be so. But see below...
You make a good point about road taxes, but not muc
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these road usage fees assessed on EVs greatly exceed the equivalent costs gas buyers pay. For example, Texas drivers pay $400 additional fee to register a new EV over what they would pay for a gas car. The gas tax is 20c/gallon. That would require buying 2,000 gallons of gas per year to equalize. That's like driving 60,000 miles in an average sedan getting 30mpg or 30,000 miles in a truck getting 15mpg. That's is absolutely punitive.
So "lower middleclass" is homeless then? (Score:2)
What you have trouble paying for your expenses and a medical emergency could bankrupt you? Its all just in your mind!
Re: (Score:2)
If you're making at least $133k a year and can't afford your bills and health insurance, you've overextended yourself. That'd be a genuine case where the proverbial "stop eating so much avocado toast" advice actually applies.
There's no amount of high-end income that is immune to bad budgeting. It would take some extraordinarily bad spending, but even Elon Musk could waste his entire fortune if he really put his mind to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Shh commie troll account gwehir needs to stir up fear to get his people in power.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably overlooked that this is for 3 (!) people. Dumb and dumber.
Re: (Score:2)
$133k doesn't buy nearly as much as it used to. And it depends on where you live.
Re: (Score:2)
This is $133k for 3 people.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is $133k for 3 people.
If you divided it by three people and expected each of them to live on about $44k/yr, yeah, I'm pretty sure that'd qualify as poverty. But that's not how a family budget actually works. Plus, usually the 3rd person is a dependent child, which confers tax benefits (and health insurance for a dependent child is usually employer subsidized).
The problem with the analysis (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with the analysis (according to the article I read -- didn't read the formal analysis) is that using income as a measure of class misses the high variance of goods in the US. For instance, the article mentions that the median price of a home is about $500k. This likely isn't enough to buy a studio apartment in lower Manhattan. So, a more accurate measure would be a dimensional analysis that uses income as a ratio with respect to what a median priced basket of goods (eg, a house, average grocery bill, etc) in various parts of the US.
In other words, it would give a normalized unit measurement of how much, say, earning $130k in Des Moines, Iowa differs from making the same amount living in Cambridge, MA. Then, "upper middle class" would, I assume, be a measure of a standard distribution on a normal distribution (eg, the top 1/3 of the distribution).
Re: (Score:2)
True. If more people in the US beat the $133k bottom edge of their definition, but most of the growth is in expensive metros, then that is pretty suspect. And given that metro areas are concentrations of population, well, it seems reasonable to assume that most of the people in this basket are in metro areas and not in Sioux City.
[I just looked up Des Moines housing prices, and now I am sad. Not sad enough to move back to the Midwest, but still.]
Re: The problem with the analysis (Score:2)
For instance, the article mentions that the median price of a home is about $500k. This likely isn't enough to buy a studio apartment in lower Manhattan.
Manhattan isn't considered "typical" by most measures. 'Middle class' Americans don't buy apartments in Manhattan, wealthy American buy in Manhattan, middle class Americans rent.
Re: (Score:2)
Manhattan (and NYC more broadly) is also a heavily distorted housing market due to subsidies and the fact that it was not a very expensive market until relatively recently (things started going up in the 1990s). There are a lot of middle class people living in Manhattan but they usually in rent controlled or public housing and don't pay market rates. There are also people who bought Condos/Co-ops 40+ years ago (or their parents did) who could never buy anything like the places they are living if they had to
Class hard to quantify by income (Score:3)
People like to use "income" as a proxy for class, but it's really a much broader topic. For one, there's a social component that has nothing to do with income. For example, a doctor making $150k is treated differently by society than a plumber who makes $150k with a bunch of overtime. There are also social networks. You may only make $80k as a college professor, but if most of your friends are doctors, lawyers, and investment bankers who would have no trouble spotting you $1k, it's a very different position from a welder making $80k whose friends and family are mostly on food stamps. Finally, as you go up the ladder wealth becomes far more important than income. Someone with $10 million of assets and $100k income is in a very different position from someone with a negative net worth and $100k income.
This sounds weasel-wordy (Score:2)
OP says: "More Americans have moved into upper-middle-class incomes over the past several decades (source paywalled; alternative source), with new research suggesting that group has grown sharply while the lower and core middle class have shrunk. The Wall Street Journal reports:"
The above looks very weasel-wordy. It is only talking about those people that are shifting within the middle class. It doesn't say at all how many people fell out of any level of "middle class" entirely and firmly into "poor" (i.e.
Re: (Score:2)
They define 133-400k "family of 3" as "upper middle class".
Which is just patent bullshit.
All it is, is they keep the same old income brackets for "middle class" while inflation pushes wages and COL higher. There are actually far fewer people able to maintain a 1990s "middle class" lifestyle, and I'd argue most of these "upper middle class" people are living month to month. "Middle class" used to mean you were financially secure and had investments and retirement. That's a joke for most people under 50.
The middle of the "K" (Score:3)
I noticed when our income (we're DINKs, double income, no kids) got us to the point where we could easily make capital expenditures, take significant vacations, or put aside/invest reasonably significant money. That was probably when we hit $100k in 1995, and that's $215k now (https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1995?amount=100000 ) As DINKs, we were pretty much always able to contribute 401k money to the amount matched by our employer. And we owned a house (albeit with a significant mortgage). Within 20 years, our retirement savings had grown substantially, our house appreciated and mortgage payments produced substantial equity, and our savings and investments were doing well. We had one relatively expensive car and one cheaper car, that we'd keep for 8-9 years before replacing. Wife had some employee stock grants, I had larger retirement matches from my (generous) employer.
All this is to say that, once you're over the hump and on the upper half of the K in our K-shaped economy, things are good. Stock market returns have been great IF you could put money in the markets. The huge challenge is reaching that point. I'm sure there are economists out there calculating the income that represents 'the middle of the K'.
Wage gap! (Score:2)
But, but - what about the wage gap?!?! I hear it's worse than ever...
So, to be clear, that means Senators & Congressmen are "upper middle class" by virtue of earning about $175K/yr, right?
By conservative AEI w/o clear middle class definit (Score:2)
Without a clear definition, it is difficult to see what you are comparing: 'By our definitions, using contemporary benchmarks, 36 percent of American families composed the core middle class in 1979, while just over half (54 percent) fell short of core middle-class'.
The 1979 post 2 time oil embargo great inflation and recession was their starting point and benchmark.
It's called... (Score:2)
...inflation.
No funny? (Score:2)
I blame the weak FP?
The GINI Index is a better metric of (Score:1)
general inequality because it factors in all the levels, not just specific boundaries.
Take home or pre-tax? (Score:1)
In many expensive and high tax places $133K would not afford you traditional middle class things like a house, two cars and two kids.
Disingenuous (Score:4, Informative)
They're defining upper middle class as " family of three earning $133,000 to $400,000 per year". So that's 2 middle aged adults + an adult child as the upper barrier.
What's that mean for your typical "family of 2"? Do they normalize on 3 incomes and play funny with the figures, using extrapolation for the third?
Because the cost of living has increased. $133k is going to just barely buy you a house in most of the country. Is starter home ownership "upper middle class"?
Absolutely not.
This is just inflation, and a disingenuous bullshit article in the NYT (as you can expect, at best). The middle class is markedly smaller, not larger, and they're just using old income brackets to define "upper middle class".
From the Daily Mail, uh huh... (Score:2)
The Article originates from The Daily Mail, and that explains everything - right wing populist and aimed at the same demographic all the populist right wingers woo. It's TL:DR is that Trump really is making America great again.
Along the lines of Zimbabwe's "billionaires"? (Score:2)
I'm not sure what this means. Upper middle class as in money, or actual buying power. Dollar amounts don't mean much when one sees 3% raises, but tarriffs and fuel costs make goods cost 20% more, or like in 2020, prices hikes were done just because companies felt like it.
Buying power, like we had in the US in the 70s, where the average person could afford a house, car, even an airplane or some other hobbies is well behind us. Stuff that people took for granted back then is virtually unattainable now.
Good (Score:2)
This sounds like a good thing.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the point of TFA, to sound good, to create the impression that the country is no the right track and life is getting better for the people. Decades of people entering upper middle class, sure, if you play with the definition a bit.
Meanwhile two thirds of the nation cannot afford a $500 emergency expense [1]https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/3... [cnbc.com] and are one hospital visit away from the streets [2]https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/63percent-of-workers-are-unable-to-pay-a-500-emergency-expense-survey.html
[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-medical-emergency-away-from-financial-disaster-2017-01-12
Found another commie troll account (Score:1)
Your citations are from 2018 and 2023, this article it from 2026. Do you have any recent sources?
Re: (Score:1)
Are you seriously claiming the economy has improved in the past few years?
Re:Found another commie troll account (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsequitur.
"More Americans have been entering upper middle class" is not inconsistent with "the economy has not improved over the past few years."
Re: (Score:2)
The nonsequitur is on your part. The claim being labeled out of date is about the percentage of people that cannot afford a $500 expense. Economic trends since the publication are absolutely in bounds. Keep up with the conversation if you want to accuse others of not following it.
Re: (Score:1)
its worse than that. more people entering the upper middle class is an indication of the economy doing worse, not better, because of those aforementioned two thirds that are completely screwed if anything goes wrong. it's strange that people would argue against most people being completely fucked by the current system. and not just the americans, but the entire world is fundamentally screwed by the continued existence of money. we will shrug it off eventually, and its gonna be a rough ride until then. good
More commie troll accounts?! (Score:1)
The grandfather asserted that the article sounds like good news, which is a bit rhetorical, but kind of the same question I asked myself when I read the headline.
Even more more surprising is that the first poster actually state the same question that ran through my mind; instead of immediately casting shade.
But then of course the first reply tries to set us back to Slashdot commie doom and gloom; why?
> Are you seriously claiming the economy has improved in the past few years?
No I am claiming the citations are from 2018 and 2023 and this article is from 2026; therefore it is hard to
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to lump "percentage of people in the Upper Middle Class", with "availability of $500" and calling it the economy is absolutely boneheaded.
My wife and I are about $100k a year short of what the article calls "rich", and yet my funds availability has fluctuated from nearly nothing to $80k liquid at any point in time depending solely on my consumerism.
So to call into question the dated surveys isn't asking anything about the economy, per se.
It's asking if the old pattern of consumerism vs. wages sti
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, my sweet summer child..
Re: (Score:1)
It does not sound grounded in reality as well.
Re: (Score:3)
wsj ...
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
> It does not sound grounded in reality as well.
This. The lower end of those "upper middle class" numbers may qualify for welfare in some tech hub cities.
They do point out that it varies by location, but really their number range is terrible. "classified a family of three earning $133,000 to $400,000 in 2024 dollars as upper middle class." From the [1]HUD Section 8 income limits [huduser.gov], expensive places the lower end of that is considered low income, like San Jose 143,600 qualifies for Section 8, versus cities like Akron where 72,250 is low enough to qualify. Location, location, location.
As this is /. lots of us live in tech hubs that even though we don't like the costs, they're very expensive places to live. In my current city despite being a full hour commute from the city center 130K is still solidly middle class. Not poverty, but not upper crust either. That income wouldn't require a trailer park, but would have a hard time affording a 3 bedroom / 2 bath home (they'd add another 45+ minutes to the commute distance), one or possibly two small vacations per year.
In tech hubs especially, those household incomes can be very middle class, not upper-middle, and in some places, lower class lifestyles.
[1] https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il25/Section8-IncomeLimits-FY25.pdf
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
> The lower end of those "upper middle class" numbers may qualify for welfare in some tech hub cities.
Yes, and that's what they said. From TFS: There is no single, standard definition of middle class, or upper middle class, and what counts as a hefty income in one city can feel paltry in another.
For the comprehension impaired, that's why stated range of $133,000 to $400,000 is so wide. In one city, $133,000/year would be "upper middle class", while in another, $400,000 would be the threshold.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Seems you're missing the point. The article says anyone over 133K was classified as upper middle class, and ignored the location. We agree on that bit.
They counted millions of people who are low income for their region and even potentially on welfare as being upper middle class. They said 10% of the population was upper middle class in 1979 by one metric, but then using a different metric that 31% were upper middle class in 2024. They wrongly and quite openly counted millions of households with welfare level incomes, lower class incomes, and middle class incomes and claimed they were in the upper middle class. Everything that follows from the conclusion that upper middle class has grown so much is fundamentally flawed.
A huge amount of the population are millionaires if we define a millionaire as someone with thousands of dollars. That's effectively what they did here. Count millions of household that middle, lower, and welfare-level as though they're upper middle class, and suddenly the upper middle class triples in size. The claims that follow that the lower rungs of the middle class are garbage because they just reclassified them as upper middle class, even though by the author's own admission they are not.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. But the target of this propaganda lie is not people that can actually think. It is the MAGA cultists, that will claim everything is great while they are starving, dying from preventable disease and being homeless.
Re: (Score:1)
Cite some reality then.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the real issue is that the idea of "upper middle class" hasn't been properly adjusted for inflation.
$133,000 a year would have been a decent income 5 years ago, but now it's the minimum for meeting your living expenses in some higher cost of living states.