Sorry, Schu, but SK and others are correct on this point. People do not commonly use "middle class" to refer to persons whose income or wealth clusters around the 50 percentile.

Would you seriously contend that people in the 50 percentile in Haiti are "middle class"? Of course not.

Uh, we're talking about America. Not Haiti or 18th century France or whatever where there's no income distribution and it's a dichotomy of rich or poor. America is nothing at all like that

I'm pretty comfortable actually calling the 130k lifestyle the American Dream, even if it's not readily attainable today, if we're using it as a reference between eras as opposed to between current Americans or between cities today. If it's now very difficult to obtain that lifestyle, it's a representation of stagnant or declining wages despite increased productivity.

I mean, I'm comfortable skewing the distribution upward quite a bit. It's not a Gaussian curve about the median income. But when we're labeling as middle-class people in the 95th percentile, who make 3-4x the median, it becomes just absurd.

The "American Dream" stuff just complicates things, because it's an illusion concocted from badly-remembered visions of the 50s and consumer-driven media. I don't know what the American Dream is exactly, but it certainly isn't to live the way the vast majority of middle America does IRL.

My American Dream is to be richer than Mitt Romney, making babies with Kate Upton, and be so secure in my Senate seat I can get away with saying even more unpopular **** than John McCain.



PS: it's loltastic to think middle class today isn't better off than the middle class of 50s and 60s. In 1950, people on average spent 80~85% on food, housing, healthcare, and apparel alone. We're down to about 50-55%. Digest that a bit.

Family of four at about 150k. Would definitely feel UMC if not for child care expenses.

Maybe it's just the Americans that love to complain, but if you told me I could increase my real wage income by 25-40% but I'd have to be transported back to the 50s or 60s, I'd never do it. You'd have to almost double my income for me to seriously consider saying the 50s and 60s were better.

The cars sucked, the houses had all horrible or non existent design or architecture, fashion sucked, tv was horrible, sports are unwatchable (nba full of white guys that can't dribble), no internet, no computers, no cell phones, can't google anything I need to find. Black and white movies. Music was crap. Crappy air conditioning in cars and houses. No fitness centres anywhere.

Just horrible.

Liberals can keep their nostalgia of a crap time they never even experienced.

Completely agree we are living in a GOAT era as far as standard of living but is it really liberals with the nostalgia? Seems like it is more conservatives/tea party types wanting America to "go back to its roots" or w/e

This the NBA in the 50's. You absolutely can't tell me we consumers had it better in the 50's in real dollars.

Our dollars back then could afford to buy this kind of entertainment in more volume, but seriously, the 50s and 60s are garbage.

Like you wouldn't pay to see five-ball basketball, come on

Not if its with white guys.

Girlfriend just said she'd rather live in the 50s and 60s. Gonna have to have a long talk with her tonight.

Yeah technology and entertainment is better now but most people have to take out massive loans to buy a house, go to college etc. Not to mention retirement savings weren't really an expense then for the middle class, since most companies provided generous pensions, plus full family health benefits. A working class family could also afford to own a home with only a single wage earner, almost impossible today in many places.

So yeah you can afford lots of cool gadgets when you go into debt to buy them. It doesn't mean the middle class is better off.

I think the point he is making is a rising tide lifts all boats and standard of living has gone up drastically since then because of enhanced entertainment options whether it be music/movies/concerts/sporting events/internet/outdoor activities/etc...Better healthcare/medicine, higher qualify of overall life, etc.

Seems like back then you got home and basically watched whatever was on 1 of the big 3 channels and called it a night.

I do think comparing 50/60s/70s to modern day life is a more interesting discussion then figuring out if 130k is affording an american dream or middle class lifestyle and playing semantics with the definitions though.

Speaking of girls, they wear nothing and are pretty liberal sexually speaking compared to historical norms. This is a big win for contemporary life.

Pension plan coverage peaked ~47% of private workers in the 60s and 70s. It's still ~40% today.

The percentage of retirees expected to have investment income however is expected to rise over time as succeeding waves of baby boomers saw more and more choices with regards to saving for retirement, allowing a higher percentage to retire outright.

What has however happened is there is a clear shift from Defined Benefits plans to Defined Contribution plans as the unpredictability and potential for ruin with DB plans based on rosy projections (and a I'll be gone you'll be gone mentality) have become obvious for all to see over the last 3 or 4 decades.

Even with all that, retirees are becoming better off, partly because, yes, greater participation in owning capital (investments).

The last pension percentage number I saw was like 19%. 40% is loltastic

You're talking about defined benefit pension plans alone. I am including defined contribution pension plans as well.

There's a reason companies are making the shift to defined contribution plans, and it's not b/c they're costing them more money.

So while, yes, while the percentage hasn't dropped as drasticly as Schu said, we're not really talking apples vs apples.

I currently have a defined contribution plan at my work, they made the switch for just their managers before I started here. Our unionized employees still have a defined benefit plan.

To the 'Rich vs. Upper Middle Class' debate. My wife and I do alright, we make about ~160K combined base salary, plus bonuses which could push us over the 200K mark on a really great year. My wife also gets stipend from her work for her home office and car etc...

We don't have kids. Neither of us went to university.

Does that place us in the 'Upper Middle Class" category? I'm not really sure, we're comfortable for sure, we both have cars (neither are new), and we can go out or on vacations etc. I've never really felt rich though.

We live in Canada though.

Liberals want to work in the 1950s, conservatives want to live there.

Both are really dumb

You are Upper Class. A full rung above Upper Middle Class.

Lower Upper Class, Middle Upper Class or Upper Upper Class?

Poors
Lower Middle Class
Middle Class
Upper Middle Class
Well Off
Comfortable
Well-to-do
Rich

Because he has no kids and lives in Canada, I'd say he just barely breaking into the UMC.

Seems a little high.

I took a drive in Palos Verdes, near my neighborhood, yesterday. Saw a sign that said "Second homes starting at $1,295,000". What percentage of people who could actually be interested in that self-identify as "rich"? I bet it's actually pretty low. The guy with the third and fourth home - he's rich.