[Ayoob]

I want to share my views on these three economic classes.

If you're upper class, you don't have to work much. You earn your income from managing a portfolio of investments. You have time for hobbies and family. If you stopped going to work, there would probably be very little change in your lifestyle. You would go skiing in the winter, take a nice summer vacation, and live in any one of several houses you own.

If you're middle class, there's a difference between work and home life. You probably don't get your hands dirty at work, but there's a chance that you do if you really have a passion for what you do day to day. Somebody that owns fifteen Burger King franchises is a middle class person. You haven't flipped a burger in years. You probably go over receipts on a given location once a year, if that. You probably have an accountant that does that work. You drive any car you want, but you probably have to make some kind of compromise on where you live. Your summer home is probably bitchin.

If you're lower class, you probably have a job. There are small business owners who show up an hour before anybody else does and goes home from work an hour after everybody else has left the building, but those guys are doing pretty well for a lower class lifestyle. If you own your home outright and make more than 250K a year, you're still lower class but you're doing pretty well. One year of relying on your savings and you're tapped out, right? Thought so. Attorneys, MDs, and high-level accountants are still servants. A year without income hurts.

It's hard to move up from lower class to middle class. There's this idea that people that have a job in public relations for State Farm are middle class, but they're not. They're lower class. It's OK, it's just how it is.

I know a few middle class people, but not many. I live in an area that is lousy with middle class people, so it's not surprising that I know a few. I don't know any wealthy people personally. I know people that have friends who are wealthy, but they're not MY friends. The upper class seems to have a weird life. I'm not sure I would want it. I'd rather have a middle class life, I think. It's a little more grounded in reality.

If you're curious, this is the breakout that Morgan Stanley uses to decide who their best clients are. Turns out that the upper class like lower fees, and the middle class are willing to pay more for better service. The lower class gets a website and a call center. If you have less than a million at Merill, you get the website/call center.

Just so you know.

[Cloud9]

Anybody that lives pay check to pay check is lower class, even public servants.

[MadMarcus]

I think that you are missing the hidden middle class that was discussed in The Millionaire Next Door. People who have the outward appearance of normal everyday folks. Often even a not quite as well off appearance since they don't spend much on lifestyle and consumption. Yet they own a profitable business that they could sell and be set for life.

Some doctors and lawyers might be in this catagory but most don't see to handle the living below one's income that is needed. Instead, statistically, it is the plumbers, electricians and so forth who start and then run a business that can make it into these catagories. On the other hand the investment firms don't really care about these folks as their money is tied up in the business. Until the business is sold or grows to a certain scale there isn't a lot of excess wealth for investing.

[TheDude]

Am rereading Paul Fussell's 1983 book

Class - A guide through the American status systems. This link has Fussell's 9 tiered class system, as follows:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')op Out of Sight - Billionaires and multi-millionaires. The people so wealthy they can afford exclusive levels of privacy. We never hear about them because they don't want us to.

Upper Class - Millionaires, inherited wealth. Those who don't have to work. They refer to tuxes as "dinner jackets."

Upper Middle - Wealthy surgeons and lawyers, etc. Professionals who couldn't be described as middle class. I suspect this is the class to which I, an engineer, am supposed to aspire.

Middle Class - The great American majority, sort of.

High Proletarian (or "prole") - Skilled workers but manual labor. Electricians, plumbers, etc. Probably not familiar with the term "proletarian."

Middle Prole - Unskilled manual labor. Waitresses, painters. (In other words, my mom and dad!)

Low Prole - Non-skilled of a lower level than mid prole. I suspect these people ask "Would you like fries with that, sir?" as a career.

Destitute - Working and non-working poor.

Bottom Out of Sight - Street people, the most destitute in society. "Out of sight" because they have no voice, influence or voter impact. (They don't vote.)

[Eli]

Ayoob I would add a little to what you are saying.

The Upper class I think by definition has money no matter what they do like you have said. These are the trust fund babies and the families that own most of the wealth. I would also add there is a higher level than this that is the moneyed aristocracy.

Quite honestly, the millionaire next door is simply an upper middle class person who has half a brain and manages their money well. Most of the people I know who have large incomes are terrible savers however and a couple of bad months and they would be out on the street.

Here is the thing I hate, when everyone talks about taxing the rich the only people they really get are the upper middle class and middle class. The moneyed aristocracy have teams of professionals that hide all their funds. And everything they spend is written off as a corporate expense. We really don't tax the rich in this country.

[Angry_Chimp]

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim - for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives - is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

By the late nineteenth century the recurrence of this pattern had become obvious to many observers. There then rose schools of thinkers who interpreted history as a cyclical process and claimed to show that inequality was the unalterable law of human life. This doctrine, of course, had always had its adherents, but in the manner in which it was now put forward there was a significant change. In the past the need for a hierarchical form of society had been the doctrine specifically of the High. It had been preached by kings and aristocrats and by the priests, lawyers, and the like who were parasitical upon them, and it had generally been softened by promises of compensation in an imaginary world beyond the grave. The Middle, so long as it was struggling for power, had always made use of such terms as freedom, justice, and fraternity. Now, however, the concept of human brotherhood began to be assailed by people who were not yet in positions of command, but merely hoped to be so before long. In the past the Middle had made revolutions under the banner of equality, and then had established a fresh tyranny as soon as the old one was overthrown. The new Middle groups in effect proclaimed their tyranny beforehand. Socialism, a theory which appeared in the early nineteenth century and was the last link in a chain of thought stretching back to the slave rebellions of antiquity, was still deeply infected by the Utopianism of past ages. But in each variant of Socialism that appeared from about 1900 onwards the aim of establishing liberty and equality was more and more openly abandoned. The new movements which appeared in the middle years of the century, Ingsoc in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia, Death-Worship, as it is commonly called, in Eastasia, had the conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality. These new movements, of course, grew out of the old ones and tended to keep their names and pay lip-service to their ideology. But the purpose of all of them was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment. The familiar pendulum swing was to happen once more, and then stop. As usual, the High were to be turned out by the Middle, who would then become the High; but this time, by conscious strategy, the High would be able to maintain their position permanently.

The new doctrines arose partly because of the accumulation of historical knowledge, and the growth of the historical sense, which had hardly existed before the nineteenth century. The cyclical movement of history was now intelligible, or appeared to be so; and if it was intelligible, then it was alterable. But the principal, underlying cause was that, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, human equality had become technically possible. It was still true that men were not equal in their native talents and that functions had to be specialized in ways that favoured some individuals against others; but there was no longer any real need for class distinctions or for large differences of wealth. In earlier ages, class distinctions had been not only inevitable but desirable. Inequality was the price of civilization. With the development of machine production, however, the case was altered. Even if it was still necessary for human beings to do different kinds of work, it was no longer necessary for them to live at different social or economic levels. Therefore, from the point of view of the new groups who were on the point of seizing power, human equality was no longer an ideal to be striven after, but a danger to be averted. In more primitive ages, when a just and peaceful society was in fact not possible, it had been fairly easy to believe it. The idea of an earthly paradise in which men should live together in a state of brotherhood, without laws and without brute labour, had haunted the human imagination for thousands of years. And this vision had had a certain hold even on the groups who actually profited by each historical change. The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years - imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations - not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.
~George Orwell

[Tyler_JC]

Saying that everyone who must work for a living is "lower class" is a very Marxist way of looking at things.

There is a major separation between the working class and the middle class in terms of attitudes, skills, actions, etc.

I'd agree that the majority of the households in the United States cannot be classified as white collar middle class but to ignore the separation between factory workers and lawyers doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')In 1965, the average man spent 42 hours a week working at the office or the factory; throw in coffee breaks, lunch breaks, and commuting time, and you're up to 51 hours. Today, instead of spending 42 and 51 hours, he spends 36 and 40. What's he doing with all that extra time? He spends a little on shopping, a little on housework, and a lot on watching TV, reading the newspaper, going to parties, relaxing, going to bars, playing golf, surfing the Web, visiting friends, and having sex. Overall, depending on exactly what you count, he's got an extra six to eight hours a week of leisure—call it the equivalent of nine extra weeks of vacation per year.

For women, time spent on the job is up from 17 hours a week to 24. With breaks and commuting thrown in, it's up from 20 hours to 26. But time spent on household chores is down from 35 hours a week to 22, for a net leisure gain of four to six hours. Call it five extra vacation weeks.

[MadMarcus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'S')aying that everyone who must work for a living is "lower class" is a very Marxist way of looking at things.

There is a major separation between the working class and the middle class in terms of attitudes, skills, actions, etc.

[Eli]

Well, a lot of that lack of safety is self inflicted.

People of the middle class and the lower class get caught up with having things. They want the appearance of wealth at all costs.

I agree somewhat with the author of that book the middle class wears a lot of branded clothing so that you can tell they are rich, even though their credit cards are maxed out. All they really have is more things and higher priced brands than lower classes.

[jasonraymondson]

$250,000.00 a year is lower class???? What the hell does that make me??

What about my parents that both work full time and only pull in $35,000 or myself who works full time and pays for school out of his own pocket and only makes $15,000. Shit if I made $250,000 I would feel pretty damn healthy wealthy and terrific.

Crap when i graduate school I will only be making $50,000

[Cloud9]

Middle class values abound in the working class. Education and civic obligation are no doubt high on the list of shared values. It matters not if you are a stock man at Home Depot or a school teacher, lose your job, miss your house payments and you join the homeless in short order.

[jasonraymondson]

If you make 250,000 a year and if you can't save $125,000 a year then you are a pathetic idiot. If you can make $250,000 over ten years and you don't have one hell of a nest egg saved then you deserve whatever fate befalls you.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'Q')uite honestly, the millionaire next door is simply an upper middle class person who has half a brain and manages their money well. Most of the people I know who have large incomes are terrible savers however and a couple of bad months and they would be out on the street.

[Eli]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', 'I')f you make 250,000 a year and if you can't save $125,000 a year then you are a pathetic idiot. If you can make $250,000 over ten years and you don't have one hell of a nest egg saved then you deserve whatever fate befalls you.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', 'I')f you make 250,000 a year and if you can't save $125,000 a year then you are a pathetic idiot. If you can make $250,000 over ten years and you don't have one hell of a nest egg saved then you deserve whatever fate befalls you.

[Eli]

And lets not forget that if you happen to live in a place like New York or San Francisco 200k is not all that much money.

Buddy of mine was working on Wall Street in the late 90s making about 150k a year. We were standing in his 800 sq/ft condo that he was leasing and I remember him telling me "everything I own is in this apartment, I really don't own anything."

[jasonraymondson]

Then don't buy a bloody fucking home. There is no way rent for a halfway decent place is more than 5000.00 a month + 500 a month car payment + utilities + food + Misc should still not equal 125,000 per year. The problem is, that a bunch of retarded idiots think they need to latest and the greatest and that they need to eat out every night. That is a bunch of crap, stop fucking bawling and grow up already and learn to live within your means.

So yea, if you can't save 125,000 you are a fucking financial keeping up with the jones loser. welcome to why the US is so fucked up!!!

[Andrew_S]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'C')ogito, ergo non satis bibivi

[jasonraymondson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andrew_S', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'C')ogito, ergo non satis bibivi

[Kingcoal]

When I was younger, I was cynical about people who had a comfortable living. A was working my ass off for maybe 30K/yr, while I saw a lot of older, middle aged people drawing salaries in excess of 100K/yr really not seeming to work very hard for it.

But now that I'm over the hill, I have to admit that there is truth to the statement that if you redistribute all the worlds’ wealth equally among the world's people, it will find itself back into the same hands within 2 years. Most everyone I know that is struggling is bad with their money. I see people who are struggling happen upon a stroke of good luck only to piddle it away trying to keep up with the Joneses.

When I bought the house I'm in, it almost bankrupted me. We slept on mattresses on the floor and had very little furniture. Over the years of living below our means paid off, though. That's really the trick, live below your means; you will have the money to ride out the tough times and will have the extra money to invest when times are good. Everyone I know who is struggling is doing so because they don't save and they live beyond their means. Windfalls happen for everyone and when these people experience one, they usually just go further into debt thinking that "their ship has finally come in." I know a guy who does home construction who has been bringing in about $5000/month all year yet he can't save enough to buy a house. He just took his wife away on a weekend for their 2nd anniversary and spent about $3,000. I told him of my story about not taking vacations or going out AT ALL for almost 10 years and he finally stopped complaining about how unfair everything is.

I used to know a guy who used to point at bums and say that it made him feel good because it was one less person he had to compete with. That's the attitude, the reason why up and coming upper class people do so well. They make a lot of money because they are in demand and everyday do everything in their power to make sure that they retain that status. There are a lot of jobs out there if you are willing to travel. Most people aren't, so what should they say to themselves? I constantly hear about how "there aren't any good jobs left." What they really mean is that there aren't any good jobs left for people with marginal skills who aren't willing to travel to where the work is. In my opinion, they want a good lifestyle served up on a silver platter delivered to their door. It don't work that way, it never did, well maybe in the 50's and 60's, but not anymore.