Which Income Class Are You

[Laura33]

I think it's more seeing people with "nicer" things than him and realizing that if he wanted to for example, go buy a Tesla Model S tomorrow it would become a budget line item he couldn't just ignore.

If you make $600K and can't go out and buy a Tesla at the drop of a hat, you're spending too much on other stuff.

Unless (a) you have massive student loans, or (b) you're trying to live in Manhattan/SF/San Jose.

[Arbitrage]

It's really more a lifestyle. 

If you are chronically unemployed or paid hourly, homeless or rent month-to-month, under-educated you may be lower class.
If you have live-in servants, multiple homes, inherited exclusive private club memberships, and multi-generational land and wealth, sit on various profit and non-profit Boards, you may be upper class.

Everyone else is middle class.

That said, there's no way I'm calling her "middle class" not when she's well into the 1% of wealth. Also, in my experience living among the ultra wealthy, a lot of those live-in-help, generational land types are actually a lot *less* wealthy than their newer wealth counterparts because many of the old wealth estates erode with every generation.

I agree that the concept that it's more of a lifestyle that determines one's class rather than income.  However, as with Malcat, my bar is far lower than the 'old money' bogey for calling someone upper class. 

My rich friends with fancy houses, fancy cars, fancy vacations with first-class travel, many types of servants (who don't live in the house), no money concerns, etc. are absolutely upper class to me.  I think it's facile to lump those sorts of people together with those who are grinding away at a median-income career and worried about their car breaking down.  Everyone wants to think of themselves as middle class, or upper middle class.  I just can't call 1 percenters (use whatever threshold you want) middle class, regardless of their spending choices.  Maybe they don't fit the 'old world aristocracy' ideal, but that's not my specific determinant for class.

[GilesMM]

...

My rich friends with fancy houses, fancy cars, fancy vacations with first-class travel, many types of servants (who don't live in the house), no money concerns, etc. are absolutely upper class to me.  I think it's facile to lump those sorts of people together with those who are grinding away at a median-income career and worried about their car breaking down.  Everyone wants to think of themselves as middle class, or upper middle class.  I just can't call 1 percenters (use whatever threshold you want) middle class, regardless of their spending choices.  Maybe they don't fit the 'old world aristocracy' ideal, but that's not my specific determinant for class.

The threshold for 1% net worth is fairly low - around $10 million.  With a bit of real estate and savings for future spending that really doesn't go that far these days, especially if you have a couple kids.  I consider almost everyone at this level middle class as most are paying lots of bills for housing, taxes, vehicles, travel.    These people are not buying a Rolls-Royce or flying via NetJets.  If a net worth for upper class exists in the US today, it is certainly more than $100 million and possibly closer to $1 billion.

[Morning Glory]

...

My rich friends with fancy houses, fancy cars, fancy vacations with first-class travel, many types of servants (who don't live in the house), no money concerns, etc. are absolutely upper class to me.  I think it's facile to lump those sorts of people together with those who are grinding away at a median-income career and worried about their car breaking down.  Everyone wants to think of themselves as middle class, or upper middle class.  I just can't call 1 percenters (use whatever threshold you want) middle class, regardless of their spending choices.  Maybe they don't fit the 'old world aristocracy' ideal, but that's not my specific determinant for class.

The threshold for 1% net worth is fairly low - around $10 million.  With a bit of real estate and savings for future spending that really doesn't go that far these days, especially if you have a couple kids.  I consider almost everyone at this level middle class as most are paying lots of bills for housing, taxes, vehicles, travel.    These people are not buying a Rolls-Royce or flying via NetJets.  If a net worth for upper class exists in the US today, it is certainly more than $100 million and possibly closer to $1 billion.

10 million supports a 400k/year spend. If you think that is middle class you are insane. How do they have lots of bills? If they aren't  in a mega-hcol area they could pay cash for a new house and car every year and still have some left over. Even in an hcol they have way more than almost everyone else

[simonsez]

Like many I struggle with the definition of Upper Class. We’re in the top 1% for both income and NW. Some years even the top 0.1% for income, our NW is probably there for our age. We own some kuxury goods (beach house, international vacations) but not others (fly coach, no luxury cars, public schools).  I certainly would nevercall ourselves upper class, but I wonder if that’s just that everyone defines “rich” as “people with three times as much money as me.”

Why is it a struggle to define?  It doesn't define YOU and plenty of experts have already put in the work.  I'd just go with whatever income or wealth classification that you line up with and not think twice about it (outside of trivial places like this thread).  Or if you don't care at all, that's even better but I suspect that can't be the case by virtue of posting in this thread. 

Why would you never call yourselves that?  Not saying anyone "should" or "needs to" at all, merely a curiosity.  In the US we typically just make this about the $ amount in terms of a percentile and not like a social stratifier (like "class" really means) or anything that has consequences.  Maybe "upper income class" would be more accurate but would mean the same thing.  You already recognize your income and wealth are upper income class standards but you are stumbling over the label.  The good news is that it doesn't matter!

I feel incredibly rich at the 85th percentile for hh income, 86th for NW by age, 76th for overall NW, both adults have advanced degrees, both adults have jobs that require degrees.  Most sociologist and economists call that upper middle so that's what I call it.  Does that mean we can buy anything we want in a moment's notice?  No, of course not.  I feel rich mainly because in the historical context of humans, what I'm able to do at the push of a button, the lift of a lever, the harnessing of water and electricity, etc. all while enjoying immense safety from the environment is pretty incredible.  I only have to go back two generations in my family to encounter dirt floors, no college education, summers spent sleeping on the front porch, etc. and I refuse to forget that and appreciate how freaking awesome life is today.  I mean, monarchs up until the mid/late 20th Century do not live as well as we do now.  We largely do what we want but many things require a budget and many years of planning/saving.  I suspect this would be true even if my household's income was 3x larger, but if that level of income or wealth was deemed 'upper class', okay, then I'd be upper class. 

Also, as far as luxury cars, I tell my wife all the time how luxurious our Accord feels.  Every new vehicle is so nice and has sheer wizardry integrated throughout!

[Laura33]

And I do look down at the preventable poor, much like we facepunch folks here for poor choices.

***Note:  rant below is in response to a whole collection of posts, not just this one* * *

The problem is that we often cannot tell what is "preventable" and what is not.  My brother has every outside appearance of what is needed to succeed -- UMC parents, degree from a good college, very personable, intelligent, etc.  He also suffers crippling anxiety and depression that makes it impossible for him to deal with the stress that comes with most high-pay jobs -- and the US as a whole is absolutely atrocious at providing medical insurance to get him the treatment he needs to function.  Around the age of 40, he got very lucky:  he found a position at a bakery that allows him to work largely on his own, and the bakery pays for the healthcare he needs to keep that depression/anxiety under control.  To the outside world, he looks like an underachieving slacker; to those of us who know his struggle, we're absolutely over the moon to see him living a functional life, even if he will never move out of his mom's basement.

Financial success is very much like maintaining a healthy weight:  almost everyone knows what we need to do, and yet the obesity rate continues to skyrocket.  We all know how effective fat-shaming is at promoting weight loss.  So why the fuck would smart people assume that poor-shaming will somehow provide the incentive to do all those things that they've already demonstrated they can't do?  All that does is give us justification to turn our backs, because it's their own damn fault, and making excuses for them is enabling more bad behavior, etc. etc. etc.

IMO any kind of success is a balance of factors we control (hard work, effort, deferred gratification, etc.) and factors we do not (luck, genetics).  From the outside, I worked my way up from food-stamps-level poor to the 1%.  It would be super easy to pat myself on the back for all my hard work and diligence.  And yet I don't get to do so exclusively.  Because I happened to go to school during the Great Society years, when the government was implementing programs to identify smart, poor kids like me and give them educational enrichment -- and I happened to go to school when Title IX came in and doors were starting to open for women.  Because I'm a WASP and thus only had to deal with sexism, not racial or religious or cultural discrimination. Because those food stamps allowed my mom to get her Ph.D and ultimately a stable job.  Because even though my parents divorced when I was young and my mom was a single mom who struggled for a number of years, both of my parents valued my education above all else.  Not one of those things was under my control.  But they were all necessary to earn me those "qualifications" needed to get those plentiful high-pay jobs that another poster referred to.  One link in that chain breaks, and I'm just another bright misfit.  Oh:  and when I myself descended into a major depression, I had health insurance that covered my psychiatrist and prescriptions, and a very understanding employer who basically let me go dark for months without firing me. 

Because success comes from a combination of things we control and things we don't, any solution has to provide both incentives for those good characteristics and support for those things that are out of our control.  For example, a statistic I heard a number of years ago was that 50% of personal bankruptcies were driven by medical bills.  Why the fuck does a civilized, wealthy society allow that to happen?  People should have medical insurance and access to healthcare, because they cannot reach their potential* when they are sick or drowned in hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs.  And why the fuck are schools funded out of property taxes, which ensures that the rich schools get richer and the poor ones get screwed?  It is an obvious outgrowth of redlining -- of not wanting all that lovely WASP money to go to those uppity poor Black folks.  And yet it is entrenched into our society to the point that we've all anchored to that approach as "normal," and any suggestion of change gets the folks who have the loudest voices (i.e., those with money) up in arms (to protect their own kids, of course). 

IMO, our first priority should be fixing basic problems like these that guarantee that a significant portion of the population starts behind the 8-ball.  It's not even so much about making things better -- it's stopping actively fucking people over because of things entirely out of their control (first rule of holes:  when you're in one, stop digging).  If/when we do that and people are still not taking advantage of the opportunities before them, then we can blame them for their own laziness.

tl;dr:  Hard work and discipline is necessary but not sufficient.  To give ourselves full credit for our own success is sheer hubris -- as is assuming we can accurately identify the challenges others face that lead to superficially poor decisions.


*I do strongly agree with your point that the appropriate approach is to want people to do the best they can given their particular situations and constraints. 

[Metalcat]

Like many I struggle with the definition of Upper Class. We’re in the top 1% for both income and NW. Some years even the top 0.1% for income, our NW is probably there for our age. We own some kuxury goods (beach house, international vacations) but not others (fly coach, no luxury cars, public schools).  I certainly would nevercall ourselves upper class, but I wonder if that’s just that everyone defines “rich” as “people with three times as much money as me.”

Why is it a struggle to define?  It doesn't define YOU and plenty of experts have already put in the work.  I'd just go with whatever income or wealth classification that you line up with and not think twice about it (outside of trivial places like this thread).  Or if you don't care at all, that's even better but I suspect that can't be the case by virtue of posting in this thread. 

Why would you never call yourselves that?  Not saying anyone "should" or "needs to" at all, merely a curiosity.  In the US we typically just make this about the $ amount in terms of a percentile and not like a social stratifier (like "class" really means) or anything that has consequences.  Maybe "upper income class" would be more accurate but would mean the same thing.  You already recognize your income and wealth are upper income class standards but you are stumbling over the label.  The good news is that it doesn't matter!

I feel incredibly rich at the 85th percentile for hh income, 86th for NW by age, 76th for overall NW, both adults have advanced degrees, both adults have jobs that require degrees.  Most sociologist and economists call that upper middle so that's what I call it.  Does that mean we can buy anything we want in a moment's notice?  No, of course not.  I feel rich mainly because in the historical context of humans, what I'm able to do at the push of a button, the lift of a lever, the harnessing of water and electricity, etc. all while enjoying immense safety from the environment is pretty incredible.  I only have to go back two generations in my family to encounter dirt floors, no college education, summers spent sleeping on the front porch, etc. and I refuse to forget that and appreciate how freaking awesome life is today.  I mean, monarchs up until the mid/late 20th Century do not live as well as we do now.  We largely do what we want but many things require a budget and many years of planning/saving.  I suspect this would be true even if my household's income was 3x larger, but if that level of income or wealth was deemed 'upper class', okay, then I'd be upper class. 

Also, as far as luxury cars, I tell my wife all the time how luxurious our Accord feels.  Every new vehicle is so nice and has sheer wizardry integrated throughout!

The truth is that "class" doesn't really have any meaning anymore.

It's an old aristocratic concept that the meritocrats have been half-adopting and half-rejecting since they took over.

We kind of use it as a proxy for wealth and income and we kind of still use it to define lifestyles that used to be associated with the aristocracy, which is kind of hilarious since the financial upper class are now in that category because of their industry and the hallmarks of the aristocrats were social norms that emphasized heavily that they DIDN'T work.

So in this godawful mishmash of conflicting values, there is no real definition of what upper class even means.

Weirdly, the middle class has this strange fetishism about old school aristocratic values, which I often find disturbing. It's found in the denigration of "new money" and statements like "real wealth doesn't shout, it whispers" and the veneration of old school aristocratic interests like playing classical instruments and reading classic literature and belonging to tennis clubs, which as I said, were all the kind of hallmarks of the aristocratic class who specifically did them to demonstrate that they dedicated their time to leisure and not to work.

And traditional middle class hobbies are looked down on in comparison, for really no reason other than historical aristocratic snobbery that has been half-adopted into the social discourse as still being "superior" despite it representing the opposite of our meritocratic values.

It's just a cluster fuck of historical snobbery combined with modern meritocratic snobbery where basically no one is ever good enough and no one can win.

Which is why everyone feels like they're middle class, because when you can't win the game, you feel like you're always losing.

[Villanelle]

I think by most definitions, we are upper middle class.  Sometimes I feel like we live with we are upper, upper middle class, but if I compare spending or the value of specific things (our cars vs. "their" cars; my handbag vs. their handbag, etc.), then we probably look middle class by most regards. 

From the outside, I'm not sure if we look "higher" than we are, or "lower".  Other than our obnoxiously large house (chose, despite being 2x the size we need, because it was actually cheaper and a closer commute than anything else we could find), I suppose people might think we are struggling a bit since our cars are modest, we don't have designer Anything, don't have a housekeeper, etc.  But if they look closer, them might see that we also rarely even talk or think about daily finances, and when we want something, we just buy it, so maybe that looks wealthier than we are.

I remember being a teenager, when fitting in really, really mattered, and noticing that we had the least-nice cars in the neighborhood.  They weren't crappy:  probably 2-6 year old Toyotas, instead of the new Mercedes and BMWs everyone else had.  Did the neighborhood think we were struggling or living in a house/ neighborhood above our means? Maybe.  But looking back I realize that my family likely had a higher net worth and far, far more security than at least 90% of them. 

And this touches on one part of this conversation that I find so interesting:  What actually defines these classes, and what outward signals might we be misinterpreting when we assess someone's position.  The family in the expensive neighborhood with expensive cars very well could have negative net worth; the family with modest everything could well be multi-millionaires.  And is a family that makes $350k and spends $360k upper middle class (or even upper class)? 

There are so many indicators beyond income or even net worth. 

[Metalcat]

I think by most definitions, we are upper middle class.  Sometimes I feel like we live with we are upper, upper middle class, but if I compare spending or the value of specific things (our cars vs. "their" cars; my handbag vs. their handbag, etc.), then we probably look middle class by most regards. 

From the outside, I'm not sure if we look "higher" than we are, or "lower".  Other than our obnoxiously large house (chose, despite being 2x the size we need, because it was actually cheaper and a closer commute than anything else we could find), I suppose people might think we are struggling a bit since our cars are modest, we don't have designer Anything, don't have a housekeeper, etc.  But if they look closer, them might see that we also rarely even talk or think about daily finances, and when we want something, we just buy it, so maybe that looks wealthier than we are.

I remember being a teenager, when fitting in really, really mattered, and noticing that we had the least-nice cars in the neighborhood.  They weren't crappy:  probably 2-6 year old Toyotas, instead of the new Mercedes and BMWs everyone else had.  Did the neighborhood think we were struggling or living in a house/ neighborhood above our means? Maybe.  But looking back I realize that my family likely had a higher net worth and far, far more security than at least 90% of them. 

And this touches on one part of this conversation that I find so interesting:  What actually defines these classes, and what outward signals might we be misinterpreting when we assess someone's position.  The family in the expensive neighborhood with expensive cars very well could have negative net worth; the family with modest everything could well be multi-millionaires.  And is a family that makes $350k and spends $360k upper middle class (or even upper class)? 



And half of them are nonsense where most people don't even understand *why* they are signifiers of "class".

[GilesMM]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

[Cassie]

Laura, you are right that people with disabilities often get left behind economically. I am glad that your brother is doing well.

[Villanelle]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV  But not an SUV, and then a Korean small SUV that's 7 years old)
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats  NONE
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service Occasional lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure walking, reading, board and card games, playing with our dogs
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

By these metrics, it looks like DH and I are middle or lower middle class.  But our income and net worth suggest otherwise. 

I think there are other categories you could add, like brand of handbag for women (Target, thrift store >$50; department store >$200, designer bags that can be $30k+), types of clothing and brands, etc.  Or education (high school diploma, GED, or no diploma, undergraduate degree, graduate)  But again, but all those standards except education (DH completed grad school and I have some grad school credits), DH and I come out lower than I think is reality. 

[2Birds1Stone]

We’re in the top 1% for both income and NW. Some years even the top 0.1% for income, our NW is probably there for our age.......... I certainly would nevercall ourselves upper class

Hahahah, thank you for the comic relief.

[Metalcat]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

I know a few billionaires who don't qualify as "upper" class according to your particular metrics.

[simonsez]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

I know a few billionaires who don't qualify as "upper" class according to your particular metrics.

Sure, that's bound to happen but like, who cares?  Would those billionaires really care that they're not labeled as upper class by an anonymous member on an internet forum?  Or would they?  If so, why? 

If we're (or a group of qualified experts who are) trying to define class by activities, behaviors, and other similarities of its constituents, it makes sense to have rich lower class people and even poor upper class people.

If we're (or a group of qualified experts who are) trying to define class by simple income/wealth percentiles, then you just are what the numbers say you are and it should have zero effect on activities or behavior. 

Just need to be clear about how one is qualifying/quantifying it.

Numbers are fun, so are various qualitative lists.  It's all just for fun.  In a scenario where a billionaire is considered to be lower class for whatever reason and somehow that affects their life in a negative/serious way, I'd recommend they re-evaluate how their life is setup and who/what they surround themselves with.

[StarBright]

This thread is making me think of my grandmother (who grew up sharecropping) who would say "I may be poor, but I'm not low-class."
 

[Villanelle]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

I know a few billionaires who don't qualify as "upper" class according to your particular metrics.

Sure, that's bound to happen but like, who cares?  Would those billionaires really care that they're not labeled as upper class by an anonymous member on an internet forum?  Or would they?  If so, why? 

If we're (or a group of qualified experts who are) trying to define class by activities, behaviors, and other similarities of its constituents, it makes sense to have rich lower class people and even poor upper class people.

If we're (or a group of qualified experts who are) trying to define class by simple income/wealth percentiles, then you just are what the numbers say you are and it should have zero effect on activities or behavior. 

Just need to be clear about how one is qualifying/quantifying it.

Numbers are fun, so are various qualitative lists.  It's all just for fun.  In a scenario where a billionaire is considered to be lower class for whatever reason and somehow that affects their life in a negative/serious way, I'd recommend they re-evaluate how their life is setup and who/what they surround themselves with.

Well, why would anyone care where they fall individually?  To me, the point is to have meaningful metrics for the conversation, and if many  (most) people that we intuitively know are category A fall into Category B or C based on a proposed definition, then it seems pretty clear that the definition or metric is off and needs more work. 

An occasional outlier isn't problematic.  That person who lives in a palatial mansion that they inherited, but lives pay-check to paycheck, makes minimum wage, and has no money in the bank?  Fine, we don't need to worry too much about them because there aren't enough of them to be statistically relevant.  But when you have almost as many people who fall outside of where it seems they should be as who fall inside--almost as many outliers as there are conformers, it's not a successful metric. 

[Metalcat]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

I know a few billionaires who don't qualify as "upper" class according to your particular metrics.

Sure, that's bound to happen but like, who cares?  Would those billionaires really care that they're not labeled as upper class by an anonymous member on an internet forum?  Or would they?  If so, why? 

If we're (or a group of qualified experts who are) trying to define class by activities, behaviors, and other similarities of its constituents, it makes sense to have rich lower class people and even poor upper class people.

If we're (or a group of qualified experts who are) trying to define class by simple income/wealth percentiles, then you just are what the numbers say you are and it should have zero effect on activities or behavior. 

Just need to be clear about how one is qualifying/quantifying it.

Numbers are fun, so are various qualitative lists.  It's all just for fun.  In a scenario where a billionaire is considered to be lower class for whatever reason and somehow that affects their life in a negative/serious way, I'd recommend they re-evaluate how their life is setup and who/what they surround themselves with.

Lol, that was kind of my point, and the point I made in several previous posts. The lifestyle indicators of class are kind of a messy combo of indicators of spending and old holdover indicators of aristocracy.

It's fucking weird

[GilesMM]

Numbers are fun, so are various qualitative lists.  It's all just for fun.  In a scenario where a billionaire is considered to be lower class for whatever reason and somehow that affects their life in a negative/serious way, I'd recommend they re-evaluate how their life is setup and who/what they surround themselves with.

No sure about billionaires but probably some pro athletes and entertainers who live lower class lifestyles despite high net worth and income. Maybe wee need more categories.

Occupation
L - laborer, hourly worker
M - salaried worker, state leader
U - business owner, fed level leader

Industry
L - trades, services, local politics
M - corporation EVP and below, retail, education, research, IT, web, entertainment, sports, state politics, house of reps
U - finance, law, national politics (Pres, Senate), Supreme Court, Fortune 100 CEOs

Education
L - none up to trade school, 2-year college
M - any advanced degree
U - MBA, Law, possibly medicine

School
L - private religious schools, home schooling, local/community college
M - public schools, any four-year college
U - boarding school, prep-school, Yale/Harvard, Oxford/Cambridge

Influence
L - family and social group
M - city or region
U - national and global

[simonsez]

Numbers are fun, so are various qualitative lists.  It's all just for fun.  In a scenario where a billionaire is considered to be lower class for whatever reason and somehow that affects their life in a negative/serious way, I'd recommend they re-evaluate how their life is setup and who/what they surround themselves with.

No sure about billionaires but probably some pro athletes and entertainers who live lower class lifestyles despite high net worth and income. Maybe wee need more categories.

Occupation
L - laborer, hourly worker
M - salaried worker, state leader
U - business owner, fed level leader

Industry
L - trades, services, local politics
M - corporation EVP and below, retail, education, research, IT, web, entertainment, sports, state politics, house of reps
U - finance, law, national politics (Pres, Senate), Supreme Court, Fortune 100 CEOs

Education
L - none up to trade school, 2-year college
M - any advanced degree
U - MBA, Law, possibly medicine

School
L - private religious schools, home schooling, local/community college
M - public schools, any four-year college
U - boarding school, prep-school, Yale/Harvard, Oxford/Cambridge

Influence
L - family and social group
M - city or region
U - national and global

Can you expand on that?

How is the athlete who chooses to go bowling where they drink the low class swill known as beer in their leisure time negatively affected because they aren't playing tennis at the private country club?

[RetiredAt63]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

I know a few billionaires who don't qualify as "upper" class according to your particular metrics.

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

[mizzourah2006]

Damn, if that's the list I'm barely middle class.

[teen persuasion]

Damn, if that's the list I'm barely middle class.

Yeah, I'm barely represented on that list; in most of the categories I'm N/A.  In the few we do hit, we cross several levels.

Even in the housing options, we aren't on the list w/ owning a 180 year old house on 2 acres in the country.

[Radagast]

I am not sure if looking at income by population percentile is a good way to look at class. Population percentiles are a population phenomenon, but class is a wealth phenomenon. If you want to examine the population look at the horizontal axis, but if you want to examine wealth you need to look at the vertical axis. Most people pay attention to the horizontal axis, but most wealth pays attention to the vertical. Are you trying to learn about the lifestyle of the median person, or the person who owns the median dollar? They are very different people.

My observation is that the NCAA college basketball tournament is an excellent model of our economic system. It perfectly integrates the effects of luck and skill into a winner-takes-all single elimination tournament in a fashion which is very similar to reality. Is the 37th best team out of 64 teams considered a middling team in March Madness? No, they are losers who went out in the first round. A middling team made the sweet sixteen. In the tournament, those teams losing the first round (50%) are lower class, those losing the next day (50-75%) are lower-middle class, those losing in the sweet sixteen (75-88%) are middle class, those losing the elite eight (88-94%) are upper-middle class, and only the final four are upper class. The tournament is judged on the vertical scale of how far into it a team advanced. Our economic system is even more extreme than that.

It is more like the Pareto Distribution, which was invented to approximate human economic behaviour. In the Pareto Distribution the wealthiest 20% own 80% of wealth. The wealthiest 20% of those 20% own 80% of that 80% (wealthiest 4% owns 64% of wealth). And so on. The wealthiest 0.001% own 20% of wealth according to Pareto. Is measuring the population by quintiles really the best way to examine this system? Our income distribution isn’t quite as extreme as Pareto, probably because of redistributive government policies.


I think class in the economic system we have is better examined by a 10-round NCAA tournament model. The losers of the first two rounds are lower class, the next two rounds are lower-middle, the winners of the top two rounds are upper class, etc. It looks like this.

Radagast Wealth-Based (10-Round Tournament) Model of Class
lower         | low-mid      | middle         | up-mid        | upper            |Class
10%  20%  |30%  40%   |50%   60%   |70%   80%   |90%  100%   |wealth decile
50%  25%  |13%  6.3%  |3.1%  1.6%  |0.8%  0.4%  |0.2%  0.00% |top of population percentile

In this model the bottom 75% of all people are lower class, while upper class starts at the top 0.4%.

By contrast, here is what population-based data looks like and it is a lot less extreme.
10%        20%       30%       40%       50%        60%       70%         80%        90%         population decile
$15,640  $28,002  $40,501  $54,945  $70,181  $89,673  $113,191  $149,212  $212,110  income

It makes no sense for a person who is richer than 97% of all people to claim to be middle class in a population-based model. But in a wealth-based model it makes perfect sense: half of all money is owned by wealthier people, and half of all money is owned by poorer people.

It sort of makes sense for my household too. As an engineer and a nurse we are clearly an upper-income income household. But by occupation we design sewers and wipe poo, which are hardly upper class activities. Which makes sense in this context because by wealth we are lower-middle class. Upper class is someone who owns a company of 200 such individuals. I can easily imagine the lifestyle of the lower class because they are in line in front of me in the grocery store, and likewise they can imagine me because they see me. In fact most of my friends and coworkers are lower class by assets, and the main reason I advanced to the lower-middle class is because I found this website and forum. I cannot imagine the lifestyle of the upper class because I have never encountered them.

So my answer is that class is a wealth phenomenon determined by dividing the population according to quintiles of wealth. Those who own the bottom quintile of wealth are lower class, the middle class owns the middle quintile, and the upper class owns the top quintile. I think this is numerically consistent from a historical standpoint where upper class was a local lord and his immediate family, a dozen people among many thousand. Upper middle were merchants and millers, middle was smiths and other occupations that ended up as last names, lower middle were leaders of small groups, and most people were just bodies in the lower classes.

[GilesMM]

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

I didn't realize that.  We attended Anglican church in Australia but I thought they used red wine. 

Religion
L - dancing or laying on of hands during service
M - normal outfits, no dancing, possible guitar playing
U - lavish costumes worn by officiants, formal service, large pipe organ, possible boys choir

[BicycleB]

Bravo @Malcat, @GilesMM, @Radagast for very illuminating comments.

-signed, Sociology Minded (middle class?)

[Metalcat]

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

I didn't realize that.  We attended Anglican church in Australia but I thought they used red wine. 

Religion
L - dancing or laying on of hands during service
M - normal outfits, no dancing, possible guitar playing
U - lavish costumes worn by officiants, formal service, large pipe organ, possible boys choir

You're equating Catholicism with upper class????

Yeah...n'ah...

[Villanelle]

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

I didn't realize that.  We attended Anglican church in Australia but I thought they used red wine. 

Religion
L - dancing or laying on of hands during service
M - normal outfits, no dancing, possible guitar playing
U - lavish costumes worn by officiants, formal service, large pipe organ, possible boys choir

It says a lot that non-Christians are entirely left out of this model, since even though Christ or Christianity aren't mentioned at all, these are very clearly references to Christian services. 

Given the elitist, tone-deaf vibe of all these categories, that's not surprising. 

[BicycleB]

One of the ways of viewing class is that of the old school English-derived WASP. The poster in question sounds like someone in complete good faith who is summarizing that view. However tone deaf it may be to those us who have another view of class, it's a view that exists - and reflects a real life group that actually has been upper class historically by almost any standard. In that sense, it's a worthwhile addition to the discussion. Personally he said at least three things I'd never heard because I don't know enough people from that group.

Fwiw, note that the poster has joined our forum, probably not something that is on the approved list of activities from his apparent class background. He might well be here as part of a personal project of growing away from his roots. I'm willing to cut him slack on tone deafness; pretty sure he means well.

Not arguing the tone deafness isn't there, though. I agree it's part of the elitist vibe, but what else are you going to get from someone from the elite?

I say, welcome to our new elite friend. :)

(No one has to agree with him, I just think it's interesting and he's a person too.)

[BicycleB]

One of the ways of viewing class is that of the old school English-derived WASP. The poster in question sounds like someone in complete good faith who is summarizing that view. However tone deaf it may be to those us who have another view of class, it's a view that exists - and reflects a real life group that actually has been upper class historically by almost any standard. In that sense, it's a worthwhile addition to the discussion. Personally he said at least three things I'd never heard because I don't know enough people from that group.

Fwiw, note that the poster has joined our forum, probably not something that is on the approved list of activities from his apparent class background. He might well be here as part of a personal project of growing away from his roots. I'm willing to cut him slack on tone deafness; pretty sure he means well.

Not arguing the tone deafness isn't there, though. I agree it's part of the elitist vibe, but what else are you going to get from someone from the elite?

I say, welcome to our new elite friend. :)

(No one has to agree with him, I just think it's interesting and he's a person too.)

@BicycleB you're a much nicer more forgiving person then me ;-). I agree all points of view are important but it's hard for me to get beyond the stereotyping in this day and age. I wonder if the same level of stereotyping would be acceptable if it was written about race or gender etc rather than social class or income class lifestyle behaviors. I'm just curious if @GilesMM actually believes what he wrote or is just having fun.

Hi, @spartana. Re bolded - mostly not, imho. But so far is about behavior. Anyway thanks for the kind words!

[Villanelle]

One of the ways of viewing class is that of the old school English-derived WASP. The poster in question sounds like someone in complete good faith who is summarizing that view. However tone deaf it may be to those us who have another view of class, it's a view that exists - and reflects a real life group that actually has been upper class historically by almost any standard. In that sense, it's a worthwhile addition to the discussion. Personally he said at least three things I'd never heard because I don't know enough people from that group.

Fwiw, note that the poster has joined our forum, probably not something that is on the approved list of activities from his apparent class background. He might well be here as part of a personal project of growing away from his roots. I'm willing to cut him slack on tone deafness; pretty sure he means well.

Not arguing the tone deafness isn't there, though. I agree it's part of the elitist vibe, but what else are you going to get from someone from the elite?

I say, welcome to our new elite friend. :)

(No one has to agree with him, I just think it's interesting and he's a person too.)

Sure, if we want to view things through the lens of old school WASPyness, I'd say his "U" categories do that quite nicely.  But his M and L still fail to account for large swaths of the population, so it's hard to argue they don't fail to effectively categorize people.  That's different from disagreeing with that categories.  So my point was more than in his world, only Christians (for example) even exist.  The atheists and Jews and Muslims and everyone else don't even exist to be categorized, or there is an implicit "Other" , U, M, L, (O).  If that's not myopic, at the very least, I don't know what is. 

Someone who drink sochu and vacations in Asia (or Africa)?  O.   Non Christian?  O.  Live in a multi-family home with several generations?  O.    Because sure, he only mentioned "behaviors" but race, or race-related culture, is implicit in many of those behaviors.  And even some gender biases as well, since some of his categories are for stereotypically male thing-a-ma-jigs (boats and cars), but none of the wealth or class markers more associated with women (fancy handbags and shoes, cosmetic surgery or procedures, I guess) are covered. (Those things also apply to men, especially men in upper classes, just as cars or boats can apply to women, but since we are supposedly just going with "traditional class markers", then it seems women were forgotten on the list.  So again, there's implicit bias, and not just toward "class", but toward race, culture, and gender. 

It's not just elitist.  It's bigoted.  Sure, he's a person, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out pretty offensive, glaring, problematic holes in his "logic".  Especially when his approach to something fails to do exactly what he seems to want it to do--categorize more or less everyone.  If he wants to categorize white, Christian, Anglo people, maybe he's done an adequate job though, so I guess there's that.   If he's just elitist, then he may benefit from understanding the implications of what he's saying and how they are both offensive conceptually and  ineffective as a way of categorizing all or even most people. We all have blind spots and we all benefit from having them pointed out to us, especially when they are dangerously large.  If he's actually a bigot, then I still feel pretty darn okay with pointing that out.

Oh, and despite his categories suggesting otherwise, I actually fall in pretty clearly in the U or U/M categories to most people looking in.  I'm an upper middle class white girls, whose family didn't live ostentatiously, but who had money, especially in my later childhood.  My dad was a C-level worker, though for a government entity.  I had tennis lessons as a kid.  We lived in "owned typical suburban homes", etc.  So it isn't as though I'm objecting because I'm left out in some way as an "O".  Not really.  The fact that his categories don't really capture me means they just suck at doing what they are trying to do. 

[Metalcat]

One of the ways of viewing class is that of the old school English-derived WASP. The poster in question sounds like someone in complete good faith who is summarizing that view. However tone deaf it may be to those us who have another view of class, it's a view that exists - and reflects a real life group that actually has been upper class historically by almost any standard. In that sense, it's a worthwhile addition to the discussion. Personally he said at least three things I'd never heard because I don't know enough people from that group.

Fwiw, note that the poster has joined our forum, probably not something that is on the approved list of activities from his apparent class background. He might well be here as part of a personal project of growing away from his roots. I'm willing to cut him slack on tone deafness; pretty sure he means well.

Not arguing the tone deafness isn't there, though. I agree it's part of the elitist vibe, but what else are you going to get from someone from the elite?

I say, welcome to our new elite friend. :)

(No one has to agree with him, I just think it's interesting and he's a person too.)

Sure, if we want to view things through the lens of old school WASPyness, I'd say his "U" categories do that quite nicely.  But his M and L still fail to account for large swaths of the population, so it's hard to argue they don't fail to effectively categorize people.  That's different from disagreeing with that categories.  So my point was more than in his world, only Christians (for example) even exist.  The atheists and Jews and Muslims and everyone else don't even exist to be categorized, or there is an implicit "Other" , U, M, L, (O).  If that's not myopic, at the very least, I don't know what is. 

Someone who drink sochu and vacations in Asia (or Africa)?  O.   Non Christian?  O.  Live in a multi-family home with several generations?  O.    Because sure, he only mentioned "behaviors" but race, or race-related culture, is implicit in many of those behaviors.  And even some gender biases as well, since some of his categories are for stereotypically male thing-a-ma-jigs (boats and cars), but none of the wealth or class markers more associated with women (fancy handbags and shoes, cosmetic surgery or procedures, I guess) are covered. (Those things also apply to men, especially men in upper classes, just as cars or boats can apply to women, but since we are supposedly just going with "traditional class markers", then it seems women were forgotten on the list.  So again, there's implicit bias, and not just toward "class", but toward race, culture, and gender. 

It's not just elitist.  It's bigoted.  Sure, he's a person, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out pretty offensive, glaring, problematic holes in his "logic".  Especially when his approach to something fails to do exactly what he seems to want it to do--categorize more or less everyone.  If he wants to categorize white, Christian, Anglo people, maybe he's done an adequate job though, so I guess there's that.   If he's just elitist, then he may benefit from understanding the implications of what he's saying and how they are both offensive conceptually and  ineffective as a way of categorizing all or even most people. We all have blind spots and we all benefit from having them pointed out to us, especially when they are dangerously large.  If he's actually a bigot, then I still feel pretty darn okay with pointing that out.

Oh, and despite his categories suggesting otherwise, I actually fall in pretty clearly in the U or U/M categories to most people looking in.  I'm an upper middle class white girls, whose family didn't live ostentatiously, but who had money, especially in my later childhood.  My dad was a C-level worker, though for a government entity.  I had tennis lessons as a kid.  We lived in "owned typical suburban homes", etc.  So it isn't as though I'm objecting because I'm left out in some way as an "O".  Not really.  The fact that his categories don't really capture me means they just suck at doing what they are trying to do.

^what she said

[BicycleB]

(ack! some of my friends / respected commenters are mad at me!!)

(making very cogent criticisms though!)

[mspym]

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

I didn't realize that.  We attended Anglican church in Australia but I thought they used red wine. 

Religion
L - dancing or laying on of hands during service
M - normal outfits, no dancing, possible guitar playing
U - lavish costumes worn by officiants, formal service, large pipe organ, possible boys choir

Nope, Anglican churches use port for communion wine because it tastes richer and more blood-of-god-like. Source: my dad who is an Anglican minister.

@Malcat given the context that last one probably isn’t referring to Catholicism but High Anglican, which also goes in for the Latin and the pipe organs and the choirs etc

[RetiredAt63]

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

I didn't realize that.  We attended Anglican church in Australia but I thought they used red wine. 

Religion
L - dancing or laying on of hands during service
M - normal outfits, no dancing, possible guitar playing
U - lavish costumes worn by officiants, formal service, large pipe organ, possible boys choir

I always thought it was red wine too, until my sister told me it was port  It makes sense, it keeps a lot better than wine, tastes better than most red wines, has a higher alcohol content so kills all those germs on the communion cup.   ;-)

So Religion - somewhat lavish costumes, formal service, piano or small organ (not pipe), choir of adequate singers from the congregation - that has been basically all the churches I have attended.  So UM?  Or just standard Anglican?   ;-)

For L should we also add a lot of fire and brimstone preaching?  Or is that a subset?

Religion is so tied into cultural background - my ancestors range from really poor to working class of varying levels to definitely upper middle class, and they also include everything from Roman Catholic to Presbyterian, with United Church and Anglican a bit newer in the mix.  The really poor ones were some (not all) of the Catholics.  Some of the better educated ones were Presbyterians.  So a mish-mash. 

[Metalcat]

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

I didn't realize that.  We attended Anglican church in Australia but I thought they used red wine. 

Religion
L - dancing or laying on of hands during service
M - normal outfits, no dancing, possible guitar playing
U - lavish costumes worn by officiants, formal service, large pipe organ, possible boys choir

Nope, Anglican churches use port for communion wine because it tastes richer and more blood-of-god-like. Source: my dad who is an Anglican minister.

@Malcat given the context that last one probably isn’t referring to Catholicism but High Anglican, which also goes in for the Latin and the pipe organs and the choirs etc

Either way.

Where I grew up both were poor.

[RetiredAt63]

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

I didn't realize that.  We attended Anglican church in Australia but I thought they used red wine. 

Religion
L - dancing or laying on of hands during service
M - normal outfits, no dancing, possible guitar playing
U - lavish costumes worn by officiants, formal service, large pipe organ, possible boys choir

Nope, Anglican churches use port for communion wine because it tastes richer and more blood-of-god-like. Source: my dad who is an Anglican minister.

@Malcat given the context that last one probably isn’t referring to Catholicism but High Anglican, which also goes in for the Latin and the pipe organs and the choirs etc

Either way.

Where I grew up both were poor.

There is Anglican (what I grew up with) and High Anglican, which is what you see when you watch English YouTube videos of choirs and organ playing.

Of course when I was growing up in Montreal, Catholic meant the odds were you were French, not that you were either rich or poor. 

In Eastern Canada, Catholic was usually poor because you were most likely an Irish immigrant in steerage.

[Metalcat]

There is Anglican (what I grew up with) and High Anglican, which is what you see when you watch English YouTube videos of choirs and organ playing.

Of course when I was growing up in Montreal, Catholic meant the odds were you were French, not that you were either rich or poor. 

In Eastern Canada, Catholic was usually poor because you were most likely an Irish immigrant in steerage.

Yep, I grew up Anglican too (barely), and the nearest High Anglican church was not attended by wealthy folks. I'm not that familiar with the church though, so maybe it does hold that "High Anglican" churches tend to be attended by the very wealthy. I have no idea.

We mostly attended the Anglican church nearby because the minister used to get high with my mom.

[Morning Glory]

There is Anglican (what I grew up with) and High Anglican, which is what you see when you watch English YouTube videos of choirs and organ playing.

Of course when I was growing up in Montreal, Catholic meant the odds were you were French, not that you were either rich or poor. 

In Eastern Canada, Catholic was usually poor because you were most likely an Irish immigrant in steerage.

Yep, I grew up Anglican too (barely), and the nearest High Anglican church was not attended by wealthy folks. I'm not that familiar with the church though, so maybe it does hold that "High Anglican" churches tend to be attended by the very wealthy. I have no idea.

We mostly attended the Anglican church nearby because the minister used to get high with my mom.

Now I am picturing the "high Anglicans" sitting primly in their church hats passing a joint while rapturously listening to the boys' choir. Later over coffee and cake they will titter about how it's "for their glaucoma".

[Metalcat]

There is Anglican (what I grew up with) and High Anglican, which is what you see when you watch English YouTube videos of choirs and organ playing.

Of course when I was growing up in Montreal, Catholic meant the odds were you were French, not that you were either rich or poor. 

In Eastern Canada, Catholic was usually poor because you were most likely an Irish immigrant in steerage.

Yep, I grew up Anglican too (barely), and the nearest High Anglican church was not attended by wealthy folks. I'm not that familiar with the church though, so maybe it does hold that "High Anglican" churches tend to be attended by the very wealthy. I have no idea.

We mostly attended the Anglican church nearby because the minister used to get high with my mom.

Now I am picturing the "high Anglicans" sitting primly in their church hats passing a joint while rapturously listening to the boys' choir.

Not exactly...more like the minister would sometimes come hang out at my mom's bar where EVERYONE got high. The previous minister's son was a raging cocaine addict and drove his car through a wall of the bar. Thankfully no one died.

[GodlessCommie]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

So, basically, class = vibes. Because no other definition puts someone owning a $40K truck and a water ski boat in lower class.

Not saying it's not a popular view. This is what (partially) drives WWC resentment towards the "elites". "Look, I'm financially stable, I have my sh*t together, I hit every marker a responsible adult must hit, I may be better off than you - and you still look down on me".

[Villanelle]

Spending and activities are a good way to look at it.

Home
Lower Class - rent, own pre-fab home
Middle Class - own typical suburban home or urban condo
Upper Class - house and significant land with manicured gardens, gates, privacy wall

Wheels
L - American truck or SUV
M - Japanese or European SUV
U - Rolls Royce, Suburban

Wings
L - discount airlines, regional airlines
M - commercial airlines
U - private aircraft

Boats
L - airboat, fishing boat, water ski boat
M - canoe, kayak, sailboat
U - 50 ft plus motor yacht

Vacation
L - Vegas, Theme Parks
M - Canada, National Parks, Europe
U - Martha's Vineyard, Hamptons, Swiss Alps, St. Tropez

Staff
L - may actually be staff
M - bi-weekly maid service, lawn service
U - live-in maid, cook, au-pair and groundskeeper

Beverage
L - beer, ripple, box wine
M - modern wines, craft beer
U - aged Scotch, vintage French wine, port

Dining
L - fast food, diners
M - every public restaurant with sit-down service
U - private club, no prices shown

Leisure
L - bowling, off track betting,
M - golf, tennis, soccer, skiing domestically
U - polo, croquet, tennis, skiing in the Alps

So, basically, class = vibes. Because no other definition puts someone owning a $40K truck and a water ski boat in lower class.

Not saying it's not a popular view. This is what (partially) drives WWC resentment towards the "elites". "Look, I'm financially stable, I have my sh*t together, I hit every marker a responsible adult must hit, I may be better off than you - and you still look down on me".

But you fly a *reqional airline*!  I mean, you might as well be playing banjo in Appalachia! 

[Metalcat]

So, basically, class = vibes. Because no other definition puts someone owning a $40K truck and a water ski boat in lower class.

Not saying it's not a popular view. This is what (partially) drives WWC resentment towards the "elites". "Look, I'm financially stable, I have my sh*t together, I hit every marker a responsible adult must hit, I may be better off than you - and you still look down on me".

Well...yeah...

That's why I keep making reference to the old school aristocratic values having been adopted by the meritocrats and how problematic that is, especially since most don't even know that that's where they come from.

Old school aristocratic superiority is still alive and well, it's just dressed up in a seemingly palatable meritocratic bow.

[big_owl]

That calculator is sort of bunk.  We are 99.7% income and the best it could tell us was we're "upper".  Yeah, no shit. 

[mizzourah2006]

So, basically, class = vibes. Because no other definition puts someone owning a $40K truck and a water ski boat in lower class.

Not saying it's not a popular view. This is what (partially) drives WWC resentment towards the "elites". "Look, I'm financially stable, I have my sh*t together, I hit every marker a responsible adult must hit, I may be better off than you - and you still look down on me".

Well...yeah...

That's why I keep making reference to the old school aristocratic values having been adopted by the meritocrats and how problematic that is, especially since most don't even know that that's where they come from.

Old school aristocratic superiority is still alive and well, it's just dressed up in a seemingly palatable meritocratic bow.

I wonder to what extent this is colored by where you live. If that definition is what makes you upper class I've never known anyone that is upper class, because these aren't really behaviors or hobbies common in the midwest. I'm sure that's reasonably common in DC and NYC, but that list implies that the only people that are upper class are on the east coast.

[Metalcat]

So, basically, class = vibes. Because no other definition puts someone owning a $40K truck and a water ski boat in lower class.

Not saying it's not a popular view. This is what (partially) drives WWC resentment towards the "elites". "Look, I'm financially stable, I have my sh*t together, I hit every marker a responsible adult must hit, I may be better off than you - and you still look down on me".

Well...yeah...

That's why I keep making reference to the old school aristocratic values having been adopted by the meritocrats and how problematic that is, especially since most don't even know that that's where they come from.

Old school aristocratic superiority is still alive and well, it's just dressed up in a seemingly palatable meritocratic bow.

I wonder to what extent this is colored by where you live. If that definition is what makes you upper class I've never known anyone that is upper class, because these aren't really behaviors or hobbies common in the midwest. I'm sure that's reasonably common in DC and NYC, but that list implies that the only people that are upper class are on the east coast.

It varies according to tons of things, and is heavily influenced by what writers of tv and movies think is "high class."

[StarBright]

So, basically, class = vibes. Because no other definition puts someone owning a $40K truck and a water ski boat in lower class.

Not saying it's not a popular view. This is what (partially) drives WWC resentment towards the "elites". "Look, I'm financially stable, I have my sh*t together, I hit every marker a responsible adult must hit, I may be better off than you - and you still look down on me".

Well...yeah...

That's why I keep making reference to the old school aristocratic values having been adopted by the meritocrats and how problematic that is, especially since most don't even know that that's where they come from.

Old school aristocratic superiority is still alive and well, it's just dressed up in a seemingly palatable meritocratic bow.

I wonder to what extent this is colored by where you live. If that definition is what makes you upper class I've never known anyone that is upper class, because these aren't really behaviors or hobbies common in the midwest. I'm sure that's reasonably common in DC and NYC, but that list implies that the only people that are upper class are on the east coast.

Isn't this why "The Great Sorting" happened in the 90s and aughts? I grew up in the midwest - hate watching sports, can't stand lake culture, barely tolerate camping. I like museums and the opera and the ballet. I moved to the east coast as soon as I was 18.

I think "Class" and "Culture" are inextricably linked in the United States - probably because traditional cultural institutions (coded upper class) don't exist without major money underwriting them (which you couldn't do if you didn't have the big bucks).

In the US there was a movement in the 50s- early 80s to disentangle culture from the east coast elites and make it more of a public good. But by the 80s there was a strong counter movement that said we don't want our tax dollars supporting culture, and so the cycle continues. Upper class culture is "upper class" because it is funded by donations from the ultra rich.

Donating money for culture (non profit) is really different than buying a product (boat, truck, season of football tickets) and therein lies the difference.

FWIW - There are midwestern towns with decent culture, but those areas also had or have real concentrations of wealth (Omaha, Detroit, and Chicago (which is its own wonderful animal, and reads as neither East Coast or Midwestern.)

[Chris Pascale]

Household this year will be about $200-250k gross, depending on teaching assignments. On LI, it means we can live pretty well if we're smart with what we take in.

Some rich-people-stuff I do: Volunteer on a charitable board, do independent research for which the potential for making any money is very remote; wife and I are thinking of which potential 2024 candidates we'd volunteer to help if they run.

I've thus far cash flowed daughters 1 and 2 through (local, public) university.

Having one vehicle for both of us by choice is a rich-person thing, IMO.

[Spiffy]

Hey, port is delicious.  Every Canadian Anglican grew up with red port, it is our communion wine.

I didn't realize that.  We attended Anglican church in Australia but I thought they used red wine. 

Religion
L - dancing or laying on of hands during service
M - normal outfits, no dancing, possible guitar playing
U - lavish costumes worn by officiants, formal service, large pipe organ, possible boys choir

Nope, Anglican churches use port for communion wine because it tastes richer and more blood-of-god-like. Source: my dad who is an Anglican minister.

@Malcat given the context that last one probably isn’t referring to Catholicism but High Anglican, which also goes in for the Latin and the pipe organs and the choirs etc

Anglican/Episcopalian churches in America use port for communion wine because, once opened, the bottle last much longer. Source: me, an altar guild member.

[Edubb20]

Income class is such a strange concept when viewed in isolation.


 I'd love to see income class to net worth comparisons( both with and without home equity) for various segments of the population.