In most cases it’s simply a matter of a longer commute. That is a tradeoff. No one wants to forego time with their family, but as austin notes, a high wage earner has options-live in a small home in a nicer area, commute a long distance, live in a less desirable neighborhood, or give up that high salary to move someplace more affordable.
Funny how when you move to a lower cost area, the salary also just plummet too.
The median household income worldwide is about $9700, and a household income of $34,000 puts you in the top 1% worldwide. So, if locality doesn’t matter, why not use those numbers to define middle- and upper-class?
“The median household income worldwide is about $9700, and a household income of $34,000 puts you in the top 1% worldwide. So, if locality doesn’t matter, why not use those numbers to define middle- and upper-class?”
Okay. So almost every person in the US, including some teenagers, are middle or upper class. So even if someone is considered way below the poverty level, hey, they are at least middle class. So why are any of those slackers getting food stamps, medicaid, unemployment, or workers comp? Compared to the rest of the world, they’re rich! 
So maybe the folks that makes about $34K per annum can move to a less prosperous country, eh? 
But then they might only make 2K/year. Uh oh.
All high income areas have lower cost options. The difference (one of many) between the person making 250K and the one making far less is that the 250K can either choose the lower cost option which leaves him/her with lots of disposable income but maybe less desirable neighbors, schools, amenities. Or choose to give up some disposable income for better surroundings. The lower income person doesn’t have that choice–it’s the scruffier surroundings, and yet, still less disposable income.
Money buys choices. And no, moving to my neighborhood doesn’t make the salary go down; we’re a stone’s throw from NYC and all its upper level salaries.
The people on this forum who post that earning $250k makes them middle class aren’t comparing themselves to the world’s poor, are they? That’s probably a good thing considering they make 26 times the worldwide median income.
Compared to the rest of the world, the majority of us are rich, aren’t we? However, we’re not comparing incomes of the world’s poor here. OP is saying $250k is a middle class income IN THE US. It’s not. People with that level of income enjoy a range of choices that most people in this country don’t have.
Yes, when we make one choice it often involves giving up something else, but let’s not pretend that choosing a smaller house in the same area necessarily means you’re going to end up in a shack in a drug infested gang neighborhood. I live within commuting distance of Manhattan, so I know better. There are houses nearby that go for 7 figures and many in decent areas that go for not much more than $100k. And we have many commuters. Those of us who commute don’t earn less, we earn more. A LOT more. I increased my income 4 fold by commuting. Even after taking out commuting costs we came out way, way ahead. I have seen plenty of people live up to their incomes and I understand that they feel that finances are tight. Those huge homes, brand new cars, private high schools, and expensive vacations are difficult to maintain when large corporations decide to downsize. I feel for all of them. They are still not anywhere near middle class.
I completely agree that people making $250k have a lot more choices than those making $50k. And I strongly believe that the growing gap between the highest and lowest earners in our country is one of the most significant problems facing our nation. And I’m a staunch democrat who is in no way an apologist for the rich. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that a household income in the $250k range automatically catapults someone out of the middle class.
Just yesterday in the LA Times there was an article about the salaries of longshoremen and other dock workers in the LA Port. Over 1500 longshoremen in the Port of LA (where there’s a strike going on) make over $150k a year. So, if two of those longshoremen are married to each other, that’s a household income of $300k a year. They are doing very well economically, but I would still consider these workers part of the broad American middle class.
I have close friends (a couple) who are public high school teachers. Their salaries are public information. Combined, their household income is in the $220k range, not including the income that one of them makes as a consultant to the College Board for developing AP curricula and writing and grading AP exams. Again, they are doing very well economically, but how are two high school teachers not part of the middle class?
I could go on and on with examples of people in high cost of living areas who have average middle-class jobs that pay in the $100k range, making for a combined household income in the $200k range (when both partners are working). They live in modest middle class houses (often in very expensive neighborhoods). They drive average cars, wear average clothes. They often have very, very high educational expenses for their kids, but overall their lives would appear to outsiders as the epitome of middle class.
On the other hand, a federal district court judge makes about $199k. I would classify the federal district court judge with a stay-at-home spouse as inhabiting a much more elite class than the high-school-teacher couple with a slightly higher household income.
I don’t know, you seem to equating choice of profession with status more than income. The status of the judge vs. the longshoreman may be historically different than it is today especially if the income differential has changed considerably.
Is the longshoreman middle class because he drinks beer from a can while the judge sips wine?
Re: #348 and #349
It looks like you are using additional criteria besides financial ones to determine whether someone is “middle class”. What criteria are you using to define “middle class”?
In any case, the opinion in Michigan Daily linked to by the first post focused on finances, rather than one’s other characteristics.
No, the judge has a great deal of power, prestige and control over her working life while the longshoreman has very little.
The ILWU is hardly a weakling among labor unions.
My dad was fond of the quotation, “I cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.”
The median household income in NYC is $50K a year. There are upper level salaries but also, apparently a ton of lower level salaries too.
^The point I was making was that you don’t need to live in a high income neighborhood to live near where a high income job is possible–in other words, someone living in NYC who says that their high income doesn’t go far because they live in NYC is free to move over here to my very moderate income neighborhood with inexpensive houses, and commute right into the city in half an hour.
Understood. Just also saying that apparently about half of NYC households make $50K or less work IN NYC. The idea that one MUST earn $200K to live there is clearly false.
(Though I will say many of those who make it work can do so because they’ve lived there for long enough to have rent control/cheap housing - my own family did and does. But obviously not all.)
Ah, got it. I think we’re on the same page here.
"My dad was fond of the quotation, “I cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.”
Then there’s the Stephen Wright version: “I cried because I had no shoes, 'till I met a man who had no feet. So I said, ‘You got any shoes you’re not using’?” 
And my version:“Instead of crying about having no shoes, I went to Value Village and got an almost new pair for 50 cents on half price Sunday.”