530
McDonald’s CEO is grappling with a ‘two-tier economy’ as he slashes prices on value meals—and signals backing for a minimum wage increase (fortune.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/workreform@lemmy.world
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 108 points 1 year ago (14 children)

If you’re upper-income, earning over $100,000, things are good … What we see with middle- and lower-income consumers, it’s actually a different story.

When had this ever not been true? What a windbag.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 97 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Over $100K ain't chump change, but that also isn't the line where "upper income" starts.

    https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/heres-minimum-salary-required-be-considered-upper-class-2025

    The Pew Research Center defines upper-income households as having incomes greater than $169,800, based on three-person households. For a household with a single earner and no additional income, that $169,800 is the minimum salary required to be upper class. With two earners, each with the same salary, that minimum would be $84,900 each.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    And the difference between that level of “upper class” vs the truly wealthy is insane.

    Unless you’re in places like CA or NYC, $170k allows for a very comfortable life. It’s nothing to scoff at and it is absolutely beyond what most people in this country have.

    But when thinking of the “upper class,” I think most people picture lush lives. Mansions, yachts, foreign vacations, private schools, house staff, etc.

    I don’t think most people imagine someone who lives in a nice suburban neighborhood, saves enough money for retirement that they actually expect to retire in their 60s, and takes a modest vacation every year. But that’s closer to what $170k gets you. It’s comfortable and it’s a life most people would kill to have. But it’s a whole lot closer to a stereotyped “middle class” experience than it is to what most people imagine “upper class” to look like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I was curious how many U.S. households earn at least $170k, and this website responded to asking about 170k by saying that the 80th percentile is $165,068.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So the top 20%, seems a reasonable metric to consider wealthy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'd go with 20% as upper class. I think of "wealthy" as having money that lets you come and go as you please, just buy a fancy car if you want without really having to think about the finances of it.

    There is a D&D-type game that measures wealth as a rating of 0 to 5, and you can make essentially unlimited purchases of items costing up to 1 below your wealth rating essentially at-will. So someone can buy a sandwich whenever, someone else could take a decent vacation/cruise whenever, another could buy a decent car without worry, one could buy a nice house like it's nothing, and finally someone who could buy a mansion or private jet without real concern. Those in the couple-hundred-million to billions range.

    I'd draw the Wealthy line somewhere in the mid-4 range on that scale. You could also consider it as "the point where safe/moderate investments could continue supplying a family plenty of comfort without working for two+ generations".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Don't get me wrong I'd love to be top 20%, but they're still so solidly middle class it's not even funny.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I definitely get that from a reasonable perspective. But then I think about the words being used, and part of me wants terms like "upper" and "middle" to represent portions of a whole that have broadly similar sizes. But that doesn't really reflect the realities of the meaningful differences between two different lives usually meant by the terms, so that part of me needs to take a back seat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I believe we are arguing over semantics of upper class vs wealthy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I'm not even sure I would say we are arguing. You provided your version I offered mine. We disagree, maybe, but I don't think either of us is concerned enough to make a concerted effort to change the other's opinion.

    Yes, I did just argue over the semantics of argument itself. What of it? This is America the Internet, after all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    uh there are still loads of people living on like 30k/yr. you 100k people will fucking live

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •