Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

"The U.S. middle class is shrinking, but not because more Americans are poorer.

Instead, more households are climbing into the echelons of the upper middle class due to income gains in recent decades, according to research from the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "


There is data to support the conclusion for all the mockers.

More importantly, this is on CBS News. The left has lost an ally in the mainstream media. Go Bari!


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/upper-middle-class-income-us-what-it-takes/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=927196548

---

I would tend to agree. You have an affluent class, then a class of people most think of as poverty but really are not. Then you have the entitlement class.

The definition of middle class many of us (Gen X for me) think of is woefully dated.

I've been saying this for years. One of the first, actually.

It's always just assumed that the shrinking middle class are people falling out of the bottom with no regard that people could be rising out of it.

I don't see any mention of discretionary income.

If the gross increases, but expenses also increase, and the net remains relatively unchanged, does the earnings increase matter?

If the above scenario is true, could it paint a picture of the middle class working double time to keep its head above the water?

Haven't had time to read the full article yet

EFR said:

---

It has been a while since I took a statistics class but…if you move all your "regular middle" people to "upper middle" then they just become regular middle again.

---

Everybody's rich.

Maybe income wise they are moving on up, but they gripe like hell like they are poor because they have spending problem,

The individuals comprising each of these bracket classes changes from decade to decade. Lots of mobility in our society

Owlagdad said:

---

Maybe income wise they are moving on up, but they gripe like hell like they are poor because they have spending problem,

---

The whippersnappers going to lay waste to you for speaking such blasphemy.

I got married in 2005 and for the first couple of years that my wife worked she got $20 for the week for lunch. And the credit cards were locked down.

20 years later we want for nothing. It was hard work and preparing not just for rainy days but for days where the sun unexpectedly smiles on your with opportunity and you had saved the scratch to take advantage.

Hard work is hard. *****ing about how the man is keeping you down is much easier

No **** Sherlock

It all comes down to home ownership (more importantly WHEN you bought) and the stock market.

If you purchased a $250k home prior to 2021 at 3-4% interest you could be sitting in a $450k+ house now and due to the low monthly payment have cash flow to pour more into investments and consumer spending. You've built wealth. Congrats on your new upper middle class lifestyle.

If you didn't buy a home prior to 2022ish your wealth growth is subdued. Your middle class home purchase could easily cost you $1,000 or more per month for the same house. Less money to invest, less money to consume.

That's where the split is in the middle class right now.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I glanced at that article. The notion that a single person making $77k or a couple making $109k is "upper middle class" is absurdly ridiculous.

Multiply it by 4X and you might be getting close. Living a comfortable life is expensive. Getting there doesn't mean you're one step away from being "rich."

This smells more like a left-leaning author trying to paint "the rich" at a low level so they can justify higher taxes on the working class.

---

You would have to be impossibly bad at finances to make $436,000 and not be living a kush life.

Are you assuming everyone in your hypothetical has an apartment on the Upper East Side or a single family house in Montfort?

Making a million a year leaves you just barely wealthy?

Quit spending so much!

what is the line for rich, middle, and poor?

I agree with those who say our spending problem is far worse than any income issues. Virtually every American household has at least one 65+" flat screen, nearly $200/mo in TV subscription services, spends a car payment every month on "stuff" from Amazon, walks around with an $800+ mini computer in their pocket, buys vehicles on 72+ mo. notes, and eats out more than they cook at home.

Put 50% of that in a modest yield Roth IRA each month from the time you graduate high school, and you retire a millionaire. As a nation, we're incredibly financially illiterate.

Bird93 said:

---

I agree with those who say our spending problem is far worse than any income issues. Virtually every American household has at least one 65+" flat screen, nearly $200/mo in TV subscription services, spends a car payment every month on "stuff" from Amazon, walks around with an $800+ mini computer in their pocket, buys vehicles on 72+ mo. notes, and eats out more than they cook at home.

Put 50% of that in a modest yield Roth IRA each month from the time you graduate high school, and you retire a millionaire. As a nation, we're incredibly financially illiterate.

---

My 65" TV was $179 on Black Friday. My 5 cars are a 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and 2020. My kids have gotten 2 full rides to college, a welding certificate, and a partial ride. I never pay more than $200 for a phone. It adds up over time.

But retire at 40? $450K/year to be middle class? Some of y'all are nuts. I guess if my pay doubled like that, I wouldn't have to rent out my second home. That would be nice.

This is the exact plan of communism/socialism so you can see the effects are starting to happen. You need the few elites that live like kings. You need a giant lower class who all live in misery, but equal misery. But you don't need middle class. Middle class are the ones who cause all the problems for the elites. They must be silenced.

94chem said:

---

Bird93 said:

---

I agree with those who say our spending problem is far worse than any income issues. Virtually every American household has at least one 65+" flat screen, nearly $200/mo in TV subscription services, spends a car payment every month on "stuff" from Amazon, walks around with an $800+ mini computer in their pocket, buys vehicles on 72+ mo. notes, and eats out more than they cook at home.

Put 50% of that in a modest yield Roth IRA each month from the time you graduate high school, and you retire a millionaire. As a nation, we're incredibly financially illiterate.

---

My 65" TV was $179 on Black Friday. My 5 cars are a 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and 2020. My kids have gotten 2 full rides to college, a welding certificate, and a partial ride. I never pay more than $200 for a phone. It adds up over time.

But retire at 40? $450K/year to be middle class? Some of y'all are nuts. I guess if my pay doubled like that, I wouldn't have to rent out my second home. That would be nice.

---

I completely agree that retiring at 40 is a ridiculous notion for 99.9% of people, even those who have been very successful.

It sounds like you're probably an outlier. Nobody needs Netflix and Disney+. Nobody needs to buy multiple 6 to 8 dollar coffee drinks every week. Nobody needs to eat fast food every day. All those little costs add up to major savings if you plan correctly and invest early.

I certainly wasn't properly advised to do these things when I was 18 to 20 years old, and I wasted a lot of money in my younger years that would make me much closer to retirement now than I am. Even though I preached these things to my kids, they are still more interested in instant gratification than saving for their future.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I glanced at that article. The notion that a single person making $77k or a couple making $109k is "upper middle class" is absurdly ridiculous.

Multiply it by 4X and you might be getting close. Living a comfortable life is expensive. Getting there doesn't mean you're one step away from being "rich."

This smells more like a left-leaning author trying to paint "the rich" at a low level so they can justify higher taxes on the working class.

---

LOL, sorry no. The median income for single households in 2024 per Census Bureau was $42k. Double that - $84k - puts you in the 75th percentile. 4x that puts you in the 92nd percentile, which is upper income. The range is based on median income and statistical distribution, not on what you feel is rich!


Since you think the author is left-wing, this is Pew:

I am always a bit concerned about household income data used.

Does income include all state provide subsidies, credits, and welfare, or just personal income from labor and investments? I'm going to guess most poor income households bring in somewhat more after various government assistance than we see regarding income.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I am always a bit concerned about household income data used.

Does income include all state provide subsidies, credits, and welfare, or just personal income from labor and investments? I'm going to guess most poor income households bring in somewhat more after various government assistance than we see regarding income.

---

I think its safe to say they do not add such amounts. And you are correct, those entitlements can make a $50k income act like $75k.

Logos Stick said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I glanced at that article. The notion that a single person making $77k or a couple making $109k is "upper middle class" is absurdly ridiculous.

Multiply it by 4X and you might be getting close. Living a comfortable life is expensive. Getting there doesn't mean you're one step away from being "rich."

This smells more like a left-leaning author trying to paint "the rich" at a low level so they can justify higher taxes on the working class.

---

LOL, sorry no. The median income for single households in 2024 per Census Bureau was $42k. Double that - $84k - puts you in the 75th percentile. 4x that puts you in the 92nd percentile, which is upper income. The range is based on median income and statistical distribution, not on what you feel is rich!


Since you think the author is left-wing, this is Pew:

---

$77k for a single person is not upper middle class if the next increment is supposed to be "rich." I don't care what anybody else says.

$150k for a single isn't either.

The whole "class" discussion is just another leftist attempt to pit one group of people against another. "You have more than I do!" "You're not paying your fair share of taxes."

If you have to work 40 to 60 hours a week to maintain your standard of living and save for the future so that you can retire someday, you're not anywhere near the category of "rich."

Income is such a lazy statistic anyway. If you're young and making $250k/yr as a new doctor and paying off $700k of medical school debt at 7% interest and eating PBJ sandwiches to keep your expenses in line, you're nowhere near rich. Wealth is a more meaningful statistic... what you have actually saved and could rely on to live.

Quote:

---

I wasted a lot of money in my younger years that would make me much closer to retirement now than I am.

---

here

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I glanced at that article. The notion that a single person making $77k or a couple making $109k is "upper middle class" is absurdly ridiculous.

Multiply it by 4X and you might be getting close. Living a comfortable life is expensive. Getting there doesn't mean you're one step away from being "rich."

This smells more like a left-leaning author trying to paint "the rich" at a low level so they can justify higher taxes on the working class.

---

LOL, sorry no. The median income for single households in 2024 per Census Bureau was $42k. Double that - $84k - puts you in the 75th percentile. 4x that puts you in the 92nd percentile, which is upper income. The range is based on median income and statistical distribution, not on what you feel is rich!


Since you think the author is left-wing, this is Pew:

---

$77k for a single person is not upper middle class if the next increment is supposed to be "rich." I don't care what anybody else says.

$150k for a single isn't either.

The whole "class" discussion is just another leftist attempt to pit one group of people against another. "You have more than I do!" "You're not paying your fair share of taxes."

If you have to work 40 to 60 hours a week to maintain your standard of living and save for the future so that you can retire someday, you're not anywhere near the category of "rich."

Income is such a lazy statistic anyway. If you're young and making $250k/yr as a new doctor and paying off $700k of medical school debt at 7% interest and eating PBJ sandwiches to keep your expenses in line, you're nowhere near rich. Wealth is a more meaningful statistic... what you have actually saved and could rely on to live.

---

The world does not live according to what MemphisAg1 believes is a middle class or upper middle class.

Again, I think the issue is with folks who have never been poor or do not spend time with folks who are truly poor.

Wealth does not incorporate individual consumption / spend. Your example actually illustrates the opposite. Whilst the young doctor does not have wealth, his income would most assuredly put him in the upper part of middle class.

I guess if he decided to weld and lived in a double-wide MHU and walked to work, then he could be "wealthy" if he kept his extra funds buried in the backyard.

I think a single dollar value for the groupings is too simplistic. It disregards regional and localized costs of living and income differences, and also how the income is derived.

My view is that if you make a certain multiple of the local minimum wage and a certain fraction of your total income is investment derived versus labor derived, then that's the most simple way to categorize.

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

I wasted a lot of money in my younger years that would make me much closer to retirement now than I am.

---

here

---

You are doing fine. I got you beat by a mile in bad financial decisions, amigo.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I think a single dollar value for the groupings is too simplistic. It disregards regional and localized costs of living and income differences, and also how the income is derived.

My view is that if you make a certain multiple of the local minimum wage and a certain fraction of your total income is investment derived versus labor derived, then that's the most simple way to categorize.

---

Those are all good points and a step in the right direction of thinking about it more accurately.

Also, the acquired debt scenario I mentioned of a young doctor (or lawyer, engineer, etc.) that invested heavily in themselves to develop earnings capability but still owes a multiple of their annual income -- even though their income might appear high -- is another example of where annual income falls shorts to judge one's economic well being.

The same could be said for a young farmer that's borrowed millions for equipment and other assets to produce an annual crop, or a business owner that's borrowed heavily to startup a new business.

Yes, there is a social status element, an actual wealth element, and probably a related age grouping element due to the exponential increase in wealth with time for most individuals that do save.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Income is such a lazy statistic anyway. If you're young and making $250k/yr as a new doctor and paying off $700k of medical school debt at 7% interest and eating PBJ sandwiches to keep your expenses in line, you're nowhere near rich. Wealth is a more meaningful statistic... what you have actually saved and could rely on to live.

---

That degree is a valuable asset, no different than another person who has no student loan buying a multi-million dollar home, having to pay the mortgage and eating PBJ because of it. I guess you would consider the latter "rich" if instead they drove a 20 year old beater and lived in a wooden shack and had no assets/debt.

By your definition, that new doctor is no different than the person making $45k per year and having to spend it all on living expenses. They should both be categorized the same.

Teslag said:

---

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. If you're poor in America it's because you make bad choices and/or are lazy. Period.

---

Disagree.
Being lazy is one of the many reasons. Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity. Now older folks here will say "go be a plumber! that is what I did!". Why should one trained to be a software engineer become a plumber when foreigners are invited into our country for the same jobs?? Americans willing to take less money are many times not eligible because foreigners can be treated like slaves.

America in 2026 isn't the America of 1976 which these old people fondly remember. Today, the only way to get rich is if you start your own business and it takes off... Or if you invest wisely in the stock market and don't lose your shirt. Working hard and doing well in a corporate job is so 1996.

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. If you're poor in America it's because you make bad choices and/or are lazy. Period.

---

Disagree.
Being lazy is one of the many reasons. Other valid reasons are that the system is stacked against you. Lack of opportunity. Now older folks here will say "go be a plumber! that is what I did!". Why should one trained to be a software engineer become a plumber when foreigners are invited into our country for the same jobs?? Americans willing to take less money are many times not eligible because foreigners can be treated like slaves.

America in 2026 isn't the America of 1976 which these old people fondly remember. Today, the only way to get rich is if you start your own business and it takes off... Or if you invest wisely in the stock market and don't lose your shirt. Working hard and doing well in a corporate job is so 1996.

---

Ahh yes, the old "lack of opportunity" argument that is just stupid.

Opportunity is literally surrounding every single person here, and in a whole lot of cases it favors a lot of people over others simply because we have tilted the deck on a social spectrum out of guilt, etc. There is no such thing as lack of opportunity, there is lack of taking advantage of the opportunities (lazy, stupid, etc.).

Your schtick of CEO's are the most evil people in the world and foreigners taking every single job and opportunity is a lazy and worn out take that lacks any semblance of actual critical thought.