<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with this division is that the income is not a linear trend:</p>
<p>2012 Median Household Income quintiles
percentile | income range<br>
0-20% | $0 - $27,794
21-40% | $27,795 - $49,788
41-60% | $49,789 - $76,538
61-80% | $76,539 - $119,001
81-99% | $119,002 - $100’s of millions </p>
<p>In the top quintile, you really think it’s fair to lump together the family earning $119k and Mark Zuckerburg?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s household. Median personal income in 2014 is about $37,500. So the upper bound would be about $75,000. </p>
<p>This whole conversation underlines for me just how rich middle class Americans are in a global context. We have people here, with a straight face, arguing that people with incomes above 100 grand are not rich. In a global context, you are rich if you own a car, and even richer if you own a house with electricity and running water.</p>
<p>Even with that modification, Vladenschlutte - there are several people on this thread whose income falls below that threshold. </p>
<p>And I agree, Hunt.</p>
<p>scout, I am sure. But we were discussing earlier how 180K won’t make it to the upper middle.</p>
<p>Of course x2 is random. Better measure if they have data would be using standard deviation, median ± 2xstandard deviation except I am sure it’s not a bell curve and some assumption and modification has to be made also a bit randomly. So x2 is simple and gives a little more than median.</p>
<p>If we are talking about middle class, we can worry about differentiating top 20% another time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does any serious person not think the US is rich compared to the rest of the world? </p>
<p>Though I will say, people seem to be under the impression that the world is poorer than it really is. On a PPP basis per capita income in the world is about $19,000 (though if you exclude the US from this, so for all countries outside the US, it’s only about $17,500). Certainly much poorer than the US (about $55,000) but not hopelessly poor. A very large portion of people across the world can afford cars, and have electricity and running water. Someone living in an average place in the US making $9.50 an hour working full time has a life similar to the average person in the world. Or to give another comparison, the population of Mexico is roughly as well off as the population of the world as a whole. </p>
<p>^Not to mention that prices in a less well to do country are far more reasonable. Their transportation probably costs less than a penny instead of a few dollars. It’s complicated enough to address regional differences in the US. To include the entire globe in discussing what is Middle Class in the US is pointless. It is not like poor people can pack and move to another country. In the same country, you can move to a cheaper region.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Already built in. PPP means that those amounts have been adjusted for differences in cost of living. So that $19,000 would be as if they lived in the US. </p>
<p><a href=“https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2012/H01AR_2012.xls”>https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2012/H01AR_2012.xls</a></p>
<p>So here is an interesting census chart. 2012 numbers adjusted</p>
<p>Household Income broken into fifths. Income listed is high end of each 5th except for #5 which is lowest level of top 5% of household income.</p>
<ol>
<li>$20,599</li>
<li>$39,764</li>
<li>$65,582</li>
<li><p>$104,096</p></li>
<li><p>$191,156</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Of course this does not include assets.</p>
<p>It is pretty sobering. </p>
<p>^Oh, I see. My second point is still valid. People can’t move accross the border. You could move to New Jersey if Mahattan is too expensive.</p>
<p>I don’t know why middle class wouldn’t be the middle. Interestingly, people between 1 & 2 will argue about who’s poor. We don’t like labels. And, people move from group to group. According to some recent survey somewhere most Americans have been poor for one year of their adult lives. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does that mean? any household earning above the middle is rich?</p>
<p>Probably not, but rich should probably start before the very top of the top fifth otherwise middle has no meaning at all. Maybe, calling it upper middle solves this problem, somewhat. I don’t think Mr. 70K and Mr. 350K have much in common really. But, they both think they’re in the middle. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because that’s never been how “middle class” has been defined colloquially. </p>
<p>The simple definition x2 seems reasonable to me. That include 80% of households. </p>
<p>Mr 350K isn’t middle by any definition. If he thinks that, he need to wake up.</p>
<p>Well, if your household income is more than $ 105,000 you are making more than 80% of all households. </p>
<p>It’s been my running impression that middle class is something like 40th percentile to 99.3rd or 99.4th percentile or so. </p>
<p>Also, assets cannot be left out of all of this. And, how long you were earning whatever the number is makes a big difference. In other words, the statistics are useless.</p>
<p>The stats are not useless. </p>
<p>We have asset numbers too.</p>
<p>We have net worth numbers too.</p>
<p>On the avaerage, I think it’s safe to say most assets belong to top 20%. If we are talking about middle class of 80%, assets may be immaterial except for retirees. How to include retirees may be another detail we may need to ignore for a while.</p>