Hacker News Reader

Comment by sometechie | Hacker News Reader

In the spirit of this discussion, I’ll share my journey. In 2015, my base was $95k. Today, it is $150k. Including stocks and bonuses, my total compensation went from ~$140k to $220k. In California, but not the Bay Area. I hold a Bachelor’s from a pretty good university, but by no means an elite institution.

White guy from a modest background: grew up lower middle class, single mother who worked in retail, got free lunch, etc.

It feels odd to have moved and basically move up the economic totem poll to what I guess I’d call upper middle class. Life for people who stayed where I grew up is quite different than my life now.

View on HN

An income over 220k is easily > 90% percentile. I do not know what upper middle class is supposed to mean. Does it mean 90-95 percentile?

I didn’t totally flush this out, but I don’t feel upper middle class in the conventional sense since I’m used to simple living. The two cars, white picket fence lifestyle isn’t me. But by raw income numbers, it certainly places me there.

It all sort of feels relative. If a “beginner” single family bungalow costs 850k+ in my neighborhood, home ownership still feels like a gamble (well, the accompanying debt burden would make me uncomfortable). A $4k mortgage payment does not sound fun if I were to lose my job, for example.

> An income over 220k is easily > 90% percentile.

Every source I can find (2014-2018 data from a variety of places) puts it between 97th and just over 98th; probably hasn't changed more than a couple of points since.

> I do not know what upper middle class is supposed to mean. Does it mean 90-95 percentile?

If by “middle class” one means petit bourgeoisie, then 95th to 99.something percentile for the upper range of that class is fairly reasonable; the haut bourgeoisie are a very narrow slice, and economic classes in that classic sense have overlapping income ranges, because they are more about how one relates to the economy than income level, though the two are correlated.

OTOH, the language of economic class these days is used in many murky and inconsistent ways.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the classic idea of the petit bourgeoisie as the middle economic class of capitalist societies does not mean that they represent the average or some range around the average; the working class makes up the vast majority, the haut bourgeoisie (the class of major capitalists) is a tiny slice that controls most of the wealth, and the petit bourgeoisie are a fairly thin (though much broader than the haut bourgeoisie), largely relatively rich class that is “middle” in the sense of deriving income from a mix including both a substantial contribution from personal labor (the predominant support for the working class) and a substantial contribution from personal capital (the predominant support for the haut bourgeoisie)—the classic example of that mix being the independent small business owner whose labor is applied to their own capital rather than either being rented out to some capitalist, or gaining returns on capital by renting others labor to apply to it.

You could probably draw a quantitative line according to fraction of income paid as tax, since capital gains follow, ahem, different rules. It's good to be king!

It has to be adjusted for the metro area. An income of 250k puts one in the top 1% nation wide but maybe top 6-3% in San Francisco. Just like how a $1M home is expensive in most of the rest of the country but a bargain in SF, NYC, etc.

I don't have an answer for the question but I remember watching a series of recorded interviews with Americans from all walks of life and all described themselves as middle class, from the poorest to the wealthiest.

I have ~50k/year of passive income. I'm definitely not in the same class as people with ~50mil/year passive income.

50mil/year passive income puts u at the billionaire level. Obviously they are not going to describe themselves middle class. I do believe the commenter is referring to people making 200-1000k+ and still calling themselves middle class.

My point is that people making 200k-1000k are closer to middle class than billionaires. So it makes sense to me why they don't group themselves with the billionaires.

Anyways, I think the answer is just based on how you want to define middle and upper class.

I'd guess his idea of upper class is people with mansions and yachts. 220K isn't enough for that in California (but it is in other places in the US). I think in California that gets you a nice house outside of the most expensive areas and whatever kind of car you want to drive, and maybe private schools for your kids if you want that.

I’d say you’re upper class if you have enough accumulated wealth that your kids will never have to work.

Even if you’re making 500k a year, depending on the part of the country, it may take a fair few years before you make that jump.

I think it’s the difference between having _wealth_ and having a lot of disposable income. There’s a fairly big difference. You can convert the latter to the former but not everyone does.

Really depends on your definitionof social stratification. Traditional class values is correlated to wealth, but you could be not wealthy and still be considered upper class. e.g a Duke or Lord.

The economic definition of middle class is very different from how people identify themselves. In the US, unless you have enough wealth to live like a celebrity most high earners identify themselves as Upper Middle Class.

The cost of maintaining your Upper Middle Class status is very high: tuition for elite, private schools, mortgages on giant homes and vacation homes, leases on luxury cars to keep up with the neighbors, and the desire to live in high-cost exclusive communities, etc.

Because of all of the above, people that should be "rich" if you look at where they are on an income distribution graph, actually do not feel "rich." So they identify as Upper Middle Class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com