Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class) Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class)

08-22-2014 , 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I'm going to summarize the article w/o clicking the line: "it depends".
Yup, I just posted to show that not many people agree on what rich is and the richer you are the more likely you are to set a higher bar for "rich"

Quote:
It is not my purpose to police dictionaries or linguistic usage. When it comes to designating social groups, everyone is right and wrong at the same time. Everyone has good reasons for using certain terms but it is wrong to denigrate the terms used by others.

<snip>

The truth is that any representation of inequality that relies on a small number of categories is doomed to be crudely schematic, since the underlying social reality is always a continuous distribution
From Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
08-22-2014 , 04:05 PM
"But intriguingly, they also broke down responses by the respondents' income. Those in household making less than $25,000 a year, $293,000 was the cutoff; for those making $25,000 to $60,000, it was $394,000; for those making $60,001 to $120,000, it was $426,000, and for those making over $120,000, it was $501,000. Rich people, in other words, tend to have more stringent definitions of "rich.""

Notice how the responses change due to perspective.
08-22-2014 , 04:34 PM
Ergo nobody is rich! End the thread!
08-22-2014 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
"But intriguingly, they also broke down responses by the respondents' income. Those in household making less than $25,000 a year, $293,000 was the cutoff; for those making $25,000 to $60,000, it was $394,000; for those making $60,001 to $120,000, it was $426,000, and for those making over $120,000, it was $501,000. Rich people, in other words, tend to have more stringent definitions of "rich.""

Notice how the responses change due to perspective.
Exactly, as people make more and more money they start to get a better idea of how little 300k/year really buys.
08-22-2014 , 04:43 PM
lol
08-22-2014 , 05:20 PM
heh. legit kinda funny.

kinda

(just kidding, was funny)
08-22-2014 , 09:06 PM
Quote:
It is not my purpose to police dictionaries or linguistic usage. When it comes to designating social groups, everyone is right and wrong at the same time. Everyone has good reasons for using certain terms but it is wrong to denigrate the terms used by others.

<snip>

The truth is that any representation of inequality that relies on a small number of categories is doomed to be crudely schematic, since the underlying social reality is always a continuous distribution.
this this this x1000. The thread would have ended on the first page if we could just agree on this.
08-23-2014 , 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Exactly, as people make more and more money they start to get a better idea of how little 300k/year really buys.
Exactly.....I'm not going to have very strong opinions about whether 30k a year for a family of 3 is poor or lower middle class because I am really ignorant on that sort of lifestyle and I'd appreciate the same respect on the other side.
08-23-2014 , 02:52 PM
08-23-2014 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
Exactly.....I'm not going to have very strong opinions about whether 30k a year for a family of 3 is poor or lower middle class because I am really ignorant on that sort of lifestyle and I'd appreciate the same respect on the other side.
Jesus Christ
08-23-2014 , 03:05 PM
That's a level, right?
08-24-2014 , 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
That's a level, right?
I said it in an intentionally inflammatory manner, but I do agree with the sentiment that what people near the rich/upper middle class line think matters more than what people not there think.
08-24-2014 , 03:46 AM
You are the most tone deaf non-total-moron on this site.
08-24-2014 , 12:21 PM
I mean, I totally get that it sounds bad and why. I wouldn't make a habbit of telling it to people irl, but I do think it's accurate.
08-24-2014 , 12:48 PM
I don't think you get why it sounds bad. I think you believe it sounds bad because it's callous and tone deaf, but it actually sounds bad because it's incredibly stupid. Like at the core point, why is it so important to you to not be labeled rich? Figure that out, and everything will fall into place.
08-24-2014 , 01:17 PM
I thought that was a troll/level. He was serious?
08-24-2014 , 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
I don't think you get why it sounds bad. I think you believe it sounds bad because it's callous and tone deaf, but it actually sounds bad because it's incredibly stupid. Like at the core point, why is it so important to you to not be labeled rich? Figure that out, and everything will fall into place.

I doubt it's important to him one way or the other, but he is probably well aware of the fact that a $300k family income does not allow one to live a lifestyle that would meet any reasonable definition of "rich". Why does that seem to bother you so much?
08-24-2014 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
I don't think you get why it sounds bad. I think you believe it sounds bad because it's callous and tone deaf, but it actually sounds bad because it's incredibly stupid. Like at the core point, why is it so important to you to not be labeled rich? Figure that out, and everything will fall into place.
It's not and I don't know why you think it is, my posts itt were about whether people who make less are automatically rich. I am completely fine with being labeled rich, it's accurate in some ways but maybe not in others.

I'm currently in Europe for a light work trip....I'm working maybe 25 hrs a week and a lot of that is buying meals for subordinates. My employer payed for me to bring my daughter and a nanny along since my wife didn't want to go because we have twins too young to really gain anything but she wanted the experience for the eldest. I can see how that would be inconcievable to a lot of people making 250k, and I have no problem if they think they are not rich and I am.

Of course there are also a lot of ways in which I am culturally closer to upper middle class or below. I am asset poor since I've only been working for a couple years and 90+% of what it will take to continue the lifestyle I am living is tied up in future labor and not wealth ownership. But bringing it all back home to the initial OP, I could easily afford a 3% tax increase on income over 250k and I think it's crazy that anybody couldn't.
08-24-2014 , 05:30 PM
It seems like people refuse to consider themselves "rich" because they imagine that term means they can't know anyone who makes more money than they do. Or something similar.
08-24-2014 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brocktoon
I doubt it's important to him one way or the other, but he is probably well aware of the fact that a $300k family income does not allow one to live a lifestyle that would meet any reasonable definition of "rich". Why does that seem to bother you so much?
"Reasonable definition" meaning anyone who's household income is over $100k? Because there are a whole lot of people in this country, and billions more around the world who would easily consider making $300k "rich".

That's the whole point - it's all based on your perspective and stupid to argue about.

But if you think it's not fair that you make $250k and people call you "rich" when deep down you feel like you're barely keeping up with the Joneses - you should probably just STFU about it.
08-24-2014 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
It's not and I don't know why you think it is, my posts itt were about whether people who make less are automatically rich. I am completely fine with being labeled rich, it's accurate in some ways but maybe not in others.

I'm currently in Europe for a light work trip....I'm working maybe 25 hrs a week and a lot of that is buying meals for subordinates. My employer payed for me to bring my daughter and a nanny along since my wife didn't want to go because we have twins too young to really gain anything but she wanted the experience for the eldest. I can see how that would be inconcievable to a lot of people making 250k, and I have no problem if they think they are not rich and I am.

Of course there are also a lot of ways in which I am culturally closer to upper middle class or below. I am asset poor since I've only been working for a couple years and 90+% of what it will take to continue the lifestyle I am living is tied up in future labor and not wealth ownership. But bringing it all back home to the initial OP, I could easily afford a 3% tax increase on income over 250k and I think it's crazy that anybody couldn't.
I don't really have an opinion on whether you are rich or not, but you're absolutely one of the least likable posters around.
08-24-2014 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
I don't think you get why it sounds bad. I think you believe it sounds bad because it's callous and tone deaf, but it actually sounds bad because it's incredibly stupid. Like at the core point, why is it so important to you to not be labeled rich? Figure that out, and everything will fall into place.





They are worried the lower classes will discover that their salary is not worth the value they provide and start doing something about it.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/23/6057467...m-2005-to-2011
08-24-2014 , 05:44 PM
I mean we have dessin admitting that he only works 25 hours a week and most of that is "buying meals for subordinates" and apparently makes over 250k. What the f do you do?
08-24-2014 , 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
I don't really have an opinion on whether you are rich or not, but you're absolutely one of the least likable posters around.
That's not very nice Riverman. I like his posts from what I remember. I think.
08-24-2014 , 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_C_Slater
I mean we have dessin admitting that he only works 25 hours a week and most of that is "buying meals for subordinates" and apparently makes over 250k. What the f do you do?
I work way more than 25 hours a week when I'm not in Europe, nobody even seems to work 40 here. And subordinates was prob the wrong word, they are management of small companies we own. They report to the same people I do, but I'm sent to largely prepare reports to my superiors about their operations, which I don't really know how to do. But I have no real power over them.

Last edited by dessin d'enfant; 08-24-2014 at 05:54 PM.

      
m