you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 89 points 9 months ago (14 children)

If one paycheck is all that stands between half of the people and homelessness, can it really be called the "middle" class?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    There was an article with a pretty compelling argument a while ago that basically said the true poverty line in the US is over 100.000$/year family income (when you look at what that number was originally supposed to measure). Below that you're getting fucked left and right.

    Every dollar a family earns between 40k and 100k makes them poorer, because it triggers benefit losses (like health care & child care) that exceed income gains.

    So what the US reports as "the middle class" are actually the working poor

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago

    I was reading Michael Roberts’ blog the other day, and he pointed out something similar. The official calculations for inflation significantly understate it for various reasons. However, if you look at actual labor hours needed to cover the essentials of life, and you use the median income amount from 1950 (for the US), then that number comes out about $102k per year. Said another way, for a standard of living based on real life, to have the standard of the median American in 1950, you would need to earn over $100k today. But if you take that 1950 median income and just adjust it for official inflation, you only get to like $42k.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    So I learned it this way:

    Upper Class - can live a luxurious life without working at all, and even have domestic employees etc.

    Middle Class - can live comfortably but only if they work

    Lower class - cannot live comfortably even if they work, and can very easily end up homeless (no social safety net)

    The dude who taught me this was my Sociology of Work teacher over twenty years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    I was just trying to offer a quick explanation/summary of the concepts or the main distinguishing external features of each class, because I see a lot of confusion and wrong self-perception. I see a lot of people saying they're "mid to upper class" because they can afford a nice home and two cars. Just looking at how much money they have, not how do they have it or whether they can maintain that without working. Obviously to understand class and social stratification you have to read more. I am aware that the upper class are there because of the work of the lower classes and the surplus etc. I'm not obscuring anything, just offering some definitions. Sorry if it didn't come out that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Class traditionally

    It only refers to how we engage with societal production in a handful of belief systems such as Marxism. These are different from how Anthropologists view class which is different from how sociologists view class and all of the above are different from how many older societies viewed class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 32 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    I certainly don't disagree, but I think it's very useful to highlight how this has changed (IMO) in recent decades. I think there was a time when the boomer generation was earning relatively good incomes that allowed them to live comfortably and accumulate wealth (mainly in houses and the stock market). I think this arrangement between capital and the (predominantly white) working class created a situation where even those workers without much wealth could be "bought off" and swear allegiance to capitalism. This wasn't sustainable of course, as the postwar industrial boom and then the gains from neoliberalism were never sustainable. Couple that with the fall of the Eastern Bloc and with it the "threat of a good example", and I would say that this arrangement lasted as late as the GFC at most. I think this helps explain how older people today - even if they are solidly working class - might still be hostile to anything they think is "socialism" while younger generations do not share those opinions, it seems.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago*

    There's only two classes. There's nothing in the middle.

    If you're in doubt which class you belong to, look at the paycheck. Does it have your name on it? Then you're one of the ones who get paid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    It's better to think of working, middle, and upper class in terms of how much of their income derives from labour vs capital.

    Working class = majority of income from working.

    Upper class = majority of income from owning capital, i.e. can afford not to work at all.

    Middle = somewhat evenly split.

    Traditionally working class was associated with "lower" jobs such as labourers, and those working cushy office jobs usually earnt a high enough income to accumulate enough capital to become middle or upper class.

    This is more aligned with the British definition, where their "middle class" is more equivalent to the US "upper middle class." Make no mistake though, with many jobs not paying enough to accumulate capital, professionals such as teachers, accountants, and nurses would firmly be considered working class, because they you know, need to work.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)