Talk:Upper middle class/Archive 1

message: would 90 thousand a year be considered upper middle class or middle middle class? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.7.249.145 (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that depends. If two people need to work together full-time to earn $90,000, probably middle-middle. If one person alone earns $90k, upper middle. But please also consider that there is more to being upper middle class than income. The upper middle class consists of white collar professionals (including management) who hold advanced degrees. A Ph.D. in economics, making $77,000 as an Associate Professor would definitely be upper middle class, yet two dental hygenists who both combined earn $85,000 a year may not be. If you want to see where you stand in terms of income see my two articles regarding Income in the United States. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From an economic viewpoint, yes. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: high 5 figures

message: I don't know any university professors that make six figure salaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.124.19 (talk • contribs) 
: Some administration staff have higher income, eg. this university president makes up to $400k CAD or about $350k USD. Shawnc 20:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't know any six figure professors?  Take a nice stroll in the business, engineering, medicine, or law faculty and chat up a tenured professor.  You usually have to pay these people six figures for them to stick around. rasblue 02:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the economics departement (which is actually a social science and not business, despite common perception) ;-) Signaturebrendel 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could I forget the economics department!  Maybe when you are immersed in the economics field (like me) you forget that some people actually become wealthy doing the "perma-book-tour-on-fox news" or the "lobbyist/think tank" thing.  rasblue 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You actually do not need a six figure salary to be in the upper-middle class. Also watch the term salary. There are college professors who have smartly invested parts of their incomes and whose investments now yield significant capital gains income. This captial gains income combined with an income of roughly $80k could exceed $100k a year. Also, household icome is taken into consideration, 2 college professors, each making $80k, togehter generate a household income of $160k. Net Worth also needs to be considered. But as I mentioned all that is needed to enter the upper-middle class according to most institutions is $65k+ income and a $250k+ net worth. Both can easly found in the housholds of many post-secondary educators. Please remember that a $200k+ lawyer is upper-class, not upper-middle class. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  $200,000 to be upper-class?  I really think these "class/salary indices" need to be linked to inflation.  I personally know electricians and plumbers who run small businesses, but still personally work in the trade, who make close to or above $200,000 a year and they are definitely not upper class. rasblue 05:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the term households does make things difficult. A houshold with five children in which both parents combined earn $90k would be upper-middle class, while a single parent houshold with one child in which the parents earns $50k be classified as middle-class. Who has really the higher standard of living. The ladder can afford to spoil his/her child more than the former, will have more square feet in his/her home per person as he or she will have $45k for each person in her/his household, whereas the large family with $90k, only has c.a. $13k per person. Also, yes the salary for college professors does vary with their rank (assistant, associate, full proffesor) but $68k is upper-middle. A middle-class occupation would be police officers with $46k or registered nurses which according to the Departement of Labor have a median annual income of $52k. Of course one also has to consider education and prestige which boost class; class is more than merely income and net worth; often the education and prestige will boost professors at universities into the upper-middle class. For community college professors the standing would be middle-class since they tend to not have PhDs and lower prestige. Thank you for your input. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Income debate

message: Hi guys, I am quite new so please forgive any poor etiquette :) Could anyone give more details as to where the the quote "whose income exceeds $65k a year and whose net worth exceeds $250k" comes from? This seems very low and is one to understand that socially, America is stratified moreso by wealth than anything else?
I will add to the UK definition of UMC perhaps with reference to RP and other idiosyncracies but overall it seems a true reflection. Phil
:That's actually almost common knowledge, I think just googeling upper middle class might show you several sites where you see that threshold. The $65k a year does seem a little low, then again the median for America is only $48k. For the $250k, keep in mind that it is net worth. That means all you're worth minus all you owe (many people think the value of their home is their net worth... not true). Yes, America is mosr stratified by wealth than anything else. Any more questions please let me know. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: The class chart is a bit ambiguous.  The first column is an attempt to quantify prestige.  The second column appears to be education.  The third column, I assume, represents income, but is that individual or household?  The far right column represents....net worth??  What levels of "class" do the colors represent?
I must say that this chart is misleading.  A BA degree does not equate to upper class.  A school Teacher must have a BA/BS degree, but this does not make him/her upper class.  In some states, school-teacher salaries start around $25,000 and may not exceed $55,000 (after 30  years experience).  I'm sure there any many other examples.
I think this chart should be removed.  Any Discussion?  
68.187.192.107 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this graph provides an illustration of a particular definition or view of class, based on the US census and published by the NY Times, I think it should stay until something better comes along. The methodology and reference should of course be elaborated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the chart represents prestige of occupation, Household income (according to the 2000 Census), Net Worth (according to the 2003 Economic Survey), and the colors represent the quintiles. The New York Times uses a similar graph (actually its the exact same to define class. According to the NY Times each quintile is a class (i.e. 5th = Upper Class, 4th = Upper Middle Class, etc...). No a BA does not make one upper class, class is a combination of all four columns. Scoring high on one does not mean you autmotically in that class. Also a person with a BA who is making $55k a year is higher up in the social hirachy than a person making the same with no BA. The bottom line is that class is made up of all four, occupational prestige, education, income, and net worth. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous Chart 

message: I, too, found the chart ambiguous.  The quintile labels are so faint as to be nearly unreadable -- that was my initial question: what do they call each quintile.  I am an electical engieer, BSEE/CS.  I'll be 60 this year.  I earn a good living, but am surprised to find my income places me so solidly in upper middle class.  Retirement is still a concern for me, and certainly not something I am planning to do soon.  John, Denver
:Well, the chart is only one definition- please read the article American middle class that should answer more of your questions. You should note however that many people underestimate their standing in society- though not as many as according to that chart. Whether or not you are upper middle class also depends on where you live and your educational attainment. Class depends on each person's perspective but I'd say your solid middle-middle class. Economists and Sociologist have not yet defined the middle class accurately but here are some general guidelines for being upper/professional middle:
*High degree of autonomy and creativity in the work place
*Work is largely self-directed and includes managerial duties
*High degree of job security, no fear of out-sourcing or lay offs
*Influence, you're work influences the way others think
*Graduate degree, MA, MS, JVD, MD, DDS, Ph.D.
*Income in the top third
*Net worth incld. equity at least in the top quintile.
*You have the lifestyle indicative of the middle class=> own home w/ as many bedrooms as people, one vacation a year (at least), one car per driver in the household, etc...
Also, see the graph @ American middle class#Statistical middle class
Hope that helps. Signaturebrendel 22:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that;s true. Also, some like Ehrenreich say that the professional middle class (upper middle class) is the "real" middle class, as the actual middle of American society cannot really afford the lifestyle indicative of the middle class. As for retirement, many professionals never really retire-they start teaching at a community college or get involved w/ volunteer work, etc... Of course, this is usually not for monetary reasons-though it may be in some cases. Signaturebrendel 05:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The chart & I am upper middle? 

message: Hello, I just would like to put forth the idea that it is relatively impossible to assume a whole social class's values, based solely on their income and/or job. I do agree with most of what is written in the section, except for this part: 
"The majority regard themselves as liberal on social issues (such as feminism and gay rights), but some are conservative when it comes to fiscal matters (such as unionization and social security). This is the reverse of how most working class people view the world, which explains why these two groups clash more than the lower middle class and the working class."
As a member of the "upper-middle class" in America, I assure you that there are a great deal of individuals in this class who are self-identifying as "conservative" and/or "Republican".  I don't think this broad of a generalization should be used to label the upper-middle class, especially the majority- I ask you, what statistical or other information do you have to support this claim?  If you go by voting records, you will find that areas with these income levels have a majority of Republican voters. Also it should be noted that political views are greatly affected by region in America, for example, out of two upper-middle class families, one in the South(east) is much more likely to be conservative than one in the North(east).  This does not have to do with income but with the history of sociopolitical acitivity in the respective areas. From personal experience I quite frankly find these statements ludicrous.  I apologize for speaking so frankly, but I would suggest that this section simply be taken out, for the rest of the information on the values of people in this class is sufficient, and seeing as how it is difficult to verify your claim with hard data. Wikipedia is a public resource of information and if claims cannot be backed up and a consensus cannot be reached, the statements should surely just be deleted, as no one is officially in charge here. Thanks for listening to my suggestions. (This unsigned comment was left by 71.197.1.218 on 24 June, 2006.)
:Thank you, I'm part of the professional upper middle class in the United States as well and I can assure you that many individuals are liberal ;-), of course I do life in costal California. You have to differentiate betweent the professional upper middle class and managerial upper middle class. The comment concerning liberalism, is in regards to the professional class only and not the managerial class. It is widely accepted among sociologists that upper-middle class professionals are liberal, I as reference use an PBS segment on class I watched. Also, look at income and the blue/red states, you will find that the mjority of the nation's wealthiest states such as Conneticut, California, New Jersey (yes, beleive it or not), New York, MD, MA, etc... are blue states while the poorest states in the nation tend to be the red states. So, yes, geographic location has prehaps more to do with the political beliefs of an individual than his or her class, nontheless, upper middle class professionals tend to be liberal more so than other demographics. Naturally there will always be expetions that's why we state, "tend to be" as to imply that we are talking of general trend that is commonly accepted among sociologists. As to your comment, "From personal experience I quite frankly find these statements ludicrous." Well for me it's the opposite. Thank for beign interested in Wikipedia though and please add ~~~~ at the end of your posts in order to identify yourself. FYI: No, no one is in charge here, but that doesn't justify deleting an entire section based purely upon your personal experience. Let me reassure you that we are not assuming "a whole social class's values, based solely on their income and/or job." Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values 

message: OK, I promised to elaborate on why I think several of those closely-related articles on social classes are not that superb IMHO and how they can be improved. I will voice my concerns here taking this very article as an example, but I guess it pertains to all of the articles concerned.
# First of all, these are articles on sociological concepts, not natural phenomena (pl?) like planets or chemical elements. The subjects are even more elusive than, say, languages or ancient Greek theatre. Language can be said to exist and have some qualities without much doubt and, apart from some controversial issues, you can write about it as if it was a sure and solid thing comparable to said planets or such.What it means is that this article should describe sociological concepts and not try to imply that there are phenomena that surely exist in described form in real life. Sociological concepts by definition are a way or perceiving reality, not the reality itself.
# The structure, and thus contents, of the article are far from comprehensive and appropriately covering the subject. It should begin by a discussion of the concept in current psychology and its evolution in the history of this branch of science, then some applications should follow, and then some specific characteristics of the concept might be discussed, e.g. the education, income, items, values etc. observed or believed by sociologists to be tied to identify the upper middle class, or to be peculiar to the members of it. This should take into consideration the following two reservations.
# The article is extremely Americo-centric. If anything, it should discuss the concept as such in worldwide sociology, and then perhaps contain subsections discussing the applications of it in sociological research into specific societies, like American. Article that starts with an American viewpoint and then adds "in other countries" is totally unacceptable.To put that into perspective, you do not have to refer to the US or Americans themselves to make the article Americo-centric. For example, the mentioning of college (which is a rather Anglosaxon, if not even American-specific concept) makes the article not applicable to worldwide situation. Any mentions of specific monetary values do so too. Remember that there is upper middle class not only in America or Europe or other developed countries, but also Pakistan or Armenia. Life can be so much different there, so applying American/Western standards to the concept is not really a good way.
# The article lacks historic perspective. The upper middle class, both as a concept and set of observed social phenomena, developed throughout the years. Even if there are traces of the fact that it is not a new phenomenon in the article, it is not discussed at all. Besides, the references to items such as luxury automobiles are quite strictly bound to specific temporal period - the 19th century architect pictured rather did not own one. I guess there are more general characteristics of the upper middle class to be found, which could than be exemplified by e.g. owning a luxury automobile in contemporary USA.
# I also believe all of the reservations voiced above by other users are legitimate.
# In general, such an article should be based on extensive research of the literature on the subject, not just constructed basing on some general concepts one has with the goal to further expand/enhance it in the future. Such articles need to have very good and well though-out structure that reflects the subject in its entirety - in its present form, it's hardly ammendable without a major rewrite, which basically amounts to starting over.
:I am being pretty harsh on this article here, but I believe this is a really delicate and tough matter for an encyclopedic article, unlike e.g. motor cars or historic buildings (and other material items). It needs special attention and meticulousness and I believe much higher standard needs to be set as "minimium" for such articles. This is why I mentioned "quality over quantity" in some discussion earlier - I would very much prefer to have only one of those sociology-related articles created after weeks, or even months of research and written really superbly (don't mean style and other WP qualities here, just the way it deals with the matter) than all of them in the present form. Lieber arm und gesund, als reich und krank :D Bravada, talk - 22:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housholdkommentar 

message: I find that the article is bound to money, that class, or should I say social standing and how much cash one has in the bank makes them part of the upper middle class. The fact that this article does not address what the current middle class consider status symbols, implements that make them feel that they are cultured in some small way etc. The fact that America, and I shall address this to America because this article and those like it seem based strongly around America. The fact that the USA is made up of the middle class is not talked about enough. America is made of wealthy peasants, is it not? 
--Margrave1206 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me, but wouldn't this message be more appropriate on the middle class article. I'm guessing that you are talking about the working class majority something I covered here: American middle class#working class majority. Please keep in mind that this article deals with the upper middle class: the top 20% of society. In the US the upper middle class consists of the culutred and highly educated. It is perceisely that which sets the upper middle class apart from the majority. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is quite ambiguous  

message: This article is constructed using the collected predjudice of the editors of wikipedia. Thats fine in a way, because that is what class is, but I would like to see a little more published information and theory referenced. Perhaps also a little more of the idea that class is a constructed notion, and therefore it may defy attempts to ridgidly define it. Lets make marx proud of us.--86.20.247.36 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Class is a sociological conntrcut and thus a vague subject that cannot be "rigidly" defined. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 00:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I wasn't mocking your spelling but actually didn't see the mistake. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class?