Hacker News Reader

Comment by Naritai | Hacker News Reader

In my experience 60-70k is considered to be a 'high' salary in Boise. Like, someone outside of tech who is making is 60k considers themselves to be upper middle class. I know people who relocated from Boise to Bay area, and were given 30-40% salary boosts for cost of living. Of course, at the time real estate was so cheap in Boise, it was commonly noted that it actually costs much more than 30-40% more to live in the Bay area than it does in Boise, but that's what was offered.

View on HN

Huh? A plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas, I wouldn't consider $60k to be upper middle class.

Some definitions of upper middle class start as low as "$62k per earner AND a household income above $100,000". So a huasband and wife who each make $62k would be "upper middle class".

Of course, these definitions are silly and depend on tons of things. A teacher making $60k with difficult-to-lose jobs and a great pension might be better off than a construction worker making $80k. The latter will have a shorter career at that salary, is more exposed to cycles, and will have a tougher time planning for retirement (assuming, of course, the teacher's pension is well-run).

A teacher making $40k with no dependents and no desire to reproduce is practically upper middle class compared to a software engineer making twice that but who's a single mother with 4 kids.

And a teacher making $60k in rural midwest is basically in a different economic class than a teacher making $60k in a coastal city...

> plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas

Sure. Class isn't just about income; it's also about value systems and educational attainment. Which is definitely classist! But then, we are literally discussing class...

Thanks. I know it's a tough definition, I just meant that someone making 60k is Boise is going to be at least as satisfied with his/her life as someone making ~100k in Silicon Valley...

Huh? Why do you define upper middle class so as to exclude the trades? Trades are frequently lucrative enough to place tradespeople in the income percentile required to reach upper middle class, especially if you own your own business, as many tradespeople do.

Most class definitions are classist.

"Upper middle class" has a definition in sociology that basically excludes the trades; it's the "managers and professional" class.

And it is not too unusual to find "trade" households making more than professionals.

Class and income are related but distinct. People with advanced degrees and high-autonomy white collar jobs ("upper middle class") are a distinct sociological cohort from people in the trades.

You may think this is bullshit, but class has some decent explanatory power for otherwise-puzzling observations, like how the children of the first cohort defy their own economic incentives to avoid the behaviors of the second.

It offends modern liberal sensibilities to treat class hierarchy as normative ("classism"), but most acknowledge its existence and utility as a descriptive concept, one which is a lot more nuanced than bands on the income spectrum.

The distinction can be traced to that between the liberal and mechanical arts.

Latter also goes by servile and vulgar:

Artes Mechanicae or mechanical arts, are a medieval concept of ordered practices or skills, often juxtaposed to the traditional seven liberal arts Artes liberales. Also called "servile" and "vulgar",[1] from antiquity they had been deemed unbecoming for a free man, as ministering to baser needs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artes_Mechanicae

https://quidditycirce.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/liberal-arts-...

Closely related is C.P. Snow's ""Two Cultures":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

This is reflected in educational systems, with a rough hierarchy from premier liberal arts colleges (Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Palermo, Stanford, ...), major research schools (MIT, CalTech, UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, ...), various technical schools (San Jose State, Michigan State), polytechnics and ag schools, secondary tech schools (often formerly "teachers colleges" or "normal schools") in the U.S., say, Midwest State in Wichita Falls, TX. Then two-year and strictly vocational schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_school

Interestingly, liberal arts universities are some of the oldest extand institutions, with exceptionally durable prestige: Bologna, Oxford, Salamanca, Cambridge, Padua, and Naples, dating from 1088 - 1224. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in...

The emphasis on basic skills and literacy is part of this. STEM (or STEAM) is the new "Three Rs", as is the focus on rote-work and standardised skills testing at primary and secondary levels in the U.S. and elsewhere.

J.S. Mill commented on this in the 1860s in the UK, via the late Hans Jensen:

First, the universities were given the task of providing an unceasing supply of ideologically correct candidates for vital positions in government, church, and business. The state was able to make the faculties of the "venerable institutions" of higher education, or rather indoctrination, assume this duty because it controlled appointments and held the purse from which "emoluments" flowed into the coffers of academics. Hence the members of the unversity "hierarchy" made it their "business, the business for which they ... [were] paid," to "uphold certain political as well as religious opionions," namely those of the "ruling powers of the state" (J.S. Mill, Autobiography and Literary Essays, p. 429 (1981), J.S. Mill, Journals and Debating Speaches, p. 350. (1988) ). Thus the universities pursued with vigor their assignment to inculcate in their students those political and ideological views that were cherished by the power elite. The graduates of the ancient universities were, therefore, well prepared for employment in, and by, those institutions that were instrumental inperpetuating the existing maldistribution of income. All of this might come to naught, however, if the masses of the underclass should achieve anything approaching success in ptoential attemtps at throwing off their fetters.

See: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6x7u6a/on_the_...

I was trying to point out that $60k for skilled people of any type is absurdly low and not worthy of being called upper middle class, by pointing out two skilled trades that are commonly needed and well compensated significantly in excess of $60k/yr across the US.

The key factor that you seem to be ignoring is ratio of the income to cost of living in that area. For the purposes of this I'll define upper middle class as 'can afford a house, a reasonably nice car, and can afford to go to pretty much any restaurant in town for special occasions'. Sure you can argue about details but that may well be true for a successful tradesman, especially one who runs his or her own business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com