Why?

that article essentially proves what we're trying to tell him, yet he thinks it somehow helps his argument. ohwow.jpg

I'm just saying that upper middle class is not the top half of the middle class. There is middle class, then the upper class divided into upper middle and upper proper as in the chart. I didn't read the article itself tbh.

This could mean that all butler's butlers are bad butlers, unless they too have their own butlers, which would eventually mean that everyone is a butler.

And the world's worst butler is the butler without his own butler.

I think Carlin did a bit similar to this only with doctors.

I had my assistant read it but he says Ikes and schu are misinterpreting it pretty badly

You can have closed loops of good butlers. A butlers for B, B butlers for C and C butlers for A.

That would make sense if it was called the lower upper class. It's called the upper middle class because it's the upper part of the middle class.

Time for a breather Max.

We need to divide classes up into an infinite number of parts, and make it a calculus problem.

We could bundle the classes up and sell them to investors.

I'm Class B Senior Preferred class!

Gotta take some of the sour if you want the sweet.

Where is Wookie with the badly needed extraction?

So even though upper middle class literally means the upper part off the middle class - your contention is that is has morphed into meaning 8 figure liquid assets and 2-4 live in servants. Because ... you just know?

only extract this **** if it's going to get shipped off to OOT

Exaggeration aside....yeah, i think the "upper middle class" has morphed to mean something different from what the literal words mean when grouped. Perfectly logical classes with the same number of quantifiers such as "middle lower class" , "upper lower class" etc don't really even exist in the vernacular, implying that the meaning of "upper middle class" is not forced to be the literal meaning of those three words mashed together.

I mean, i think i am describing what i think people mean when they say those words. I don't think it makes sense to take a phrase that already exists and then try to post hoc the most rational possible definition of it based on math.

No one I've ever met on this earth other than you thinks upper middle class means 2-4 live in servants. You may be spending too much time with Wall St. types.

2-4 servants (not necessarily live in) was fromq my definition of rich, not nax's UMC

Well you still haven't because I never said that. I used live in help as a euphemism for a nanny that may stay in the house permanently or maybe for a few nights a week. Its expensive obv, but the alternative of day care is also expensive and the dropping off, picking up can be a huge pain for 2 parents with careers. I certainly wasn't talking about paying somebody to deal with the indignity of opening your own front door.

Oh, maybe that was the confusion. I think I'll take the under on 2-4 servants to be rich though. 4 just sounds outrageous unless you count the lawn mower, pool cleaner etc as servants.

I was definitely including gardner and housekeeper. You'd add a nanny as needed

Ok I got you mixed up with Keeed's xpert level trolling.

Again - this is not the standard definition of upper middle class in people's minds.

Is that because the upper-middle class have pensions and the middle-middle class have 401(k)s?

Can you give me a standard one, without just defining it based on a graph of income distribution?