You are not middle class. (part 1 of 2)

[harmonicon]

I'll try to keep this relatively short, because I hate to read long posts on DU.

You are not middle class. I am so sick of seeing the term "middle class" bandied about around here with no regard whatsoever for what it means. Here are a few things to consider before calling yourself, or someone else, middle class:

Do you have a mortgage? If so, you are not middle class.

Do you have any debts; car payment, credit card balance, student loans, etc.? If so, you are not middle class.

Do you work for someone else? If so, you are not middle class.

If you own your own business, do you control the means of production? If not, you are not middle class.

The middle class is the class that arose during the renaissance and especially during the industrial revolution. The middle class control the means of production and own capital. The middle class have people who work for them to generate this capital. This is in contrast to the landed gentry who are not involved in business and production and distribution in capitalism in the same intrinsic way.

Some people who are middle class: bankers (not bank tellers or bank managers, but the people who actually run the banks), CEOs/owners/presidents of large corporations which control the production or distribution of products or resources, and in some cases surgeons and professors (though these two being middle class professions is falling by the wayside).

After WWII, working class people were given some of the same things as the middle class to placate them socially, but also to keep them in economic servitude to the real middle class. These things were chiefly cars and houses. Whereas the middle class could buy cars and houses, they could now be purchased by the working class with loans, keeping those who controlled the production of these things rolling in the dough.

If you were middle class, you would have no debts, you would answer to noone at your job (because you would be the boss), you would have gone to private schools without loans, and you wouldn't be bitching about "the middle class", because the people who do that are the suckers working for you while you sit back and laugh.

Yes, there is also an upper class, and it is even smaller than this tiny middle class, but you aren't in either (ok, a few people who read this website are probably in these classes). You are working class, and it's not a bad thing. There's no shame in working for a living, but there is a lot of damage to be done by refusing to acknowledge what your role is in society if you're trying to better that society.

[Drale]

1. Wait so if you have debt your not middle class?

I'm sorry but that makes no sense, debt is part of life especially things like mortgage, car payment, student loans etc.

[harmonicon]

5. Yes, I know. That's my point.

If you have a mortgage, a car payment, etc., you are not middle class.

[Drale]

23. Again I repeat that makes not sense

the definition of middle class is not rich not poor, therefore Middle class is based more on household income not on whether you have debt or not.

[metalbot]

38. Many people who are rich by almost any definition other than yours carry debt

The wealthy can generally get credit at very low rates. Why would you sink $1 million into your house where it generates no revenue if a bank is willing to give you that same $1 million at 4%?

If you look at corporations (arguably the richest "people" in America), you'll find very few that operate with no debt, because to operate without debt requires that you hoard cash (which can cost you more than you'd have to pay in interest on opportunity costs).

[harmonicon]

43. Yes, but investments and debt are fundamentally different things.

Sure, these people and companies have debt on paper, because that makes them more money. However, it's not as if most people have mortgages because they could have paid cash for a house but decided not doing so was a better investment. That's the difference.

[metalbot]

53. So what's the minimum net worth to be middle class?

First you make up your own definition, then you seem to want to change it.

Why not simply use net worth as your definition?

Everything else you've listed as criteria are really silly semantic games for which I can give you lots of counter examples. At the last shareholder meeting, Dell shareholders voted the eVP of eDell a $535k salary. He doesn't own Dell - he's an employee. Working class, by your definition? What about an attorney who's making $600k a year - middle class? Is that same attorney still middle class if he's terrible with money and has $0 assets?

Since you are able to define what middle class is, how do you make the distinction between middle and upper class?

[harmonicon]

58. Those people are the traditional middle class.

Those are the exact kind of examples I gave for what the middle class was - executives, bankers, lawyers, etc. I care less about distinguishing between the middle and upper class, because the historical upper class is now almost non-existent. What I do want to make a distinction between is the working and middle classes. There is no shame in working for a living and needing your pay cheque, but many people here seem to think there is, and seem to think that telling them that is an insult.

[Fire1]

68. It's part of YOUR life! LOL!!!

:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

2. k&r

[FLPanhandle]

3. That's not the usual definition

People were either rich, poor, or somewhere in the middle.

Being the Middle class didn't include of the conditions you mentioned. It just means you are not poor & not rich.

[harmonicon]

7. Not true.

What you suggest is a very new definition used to keep the poor divided against itself since WWII. If what I usually see described as "middle class" in the US was actually middle class, what would the lower class be? The homeless?

[FLPanhandle]

15. You are trying to re-define middle class

Even if your historical definition was correct (and I disagree there too), it's not the definition in use now.

Working people can be middle class. The two are not mutually exclusive (except in your attempted redefinition).

The accepted definition is that there is the Poor/Lower Class, Rich/Upper Class, and all the folks in the middle (some lower middle, some upper middle).

I'm not buying your definition or your explanation of "new definition used to keep the poor divided against itself since WWII".

Sorry.

[harmonicon]

18. Well, I'm sorry that you're wrong. That's not my fault.

You're the one changing the definition.

[cali]

20. bwahahaha. what a crock of shit. find a reputable enconomist who

agrees with your personal little definition of middle class. talk about making it up as you go along.

[harmonicon]

22. I'm just using the historical definition.

The economists are the ones sitting back and laughing because they've pulled the wool over your eyes.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLPanhandle]

27. I'd say most people here have identified who is wrong.

So, I'll leave you to your fantasy world.

[harmonicon]

31. I understand that most people here disagree with me.

That's why I wrote this post. I'm sick of the endless echo chamber that this place can be, and I'm especially sick of reading posts which I think include reasoning that is fundamentally flawed.

[FLPanhandle]

41. "I'm especially sick of reading posts which I think include reasoning that is fundamentally flawed."

I would include your OP in this category then. Fundamentally flawed.

The disagreement comes from you not presenting a decent argument.

[seaglass]

12. Seems there's lots of definitions but I'm with you. Not rich, not poor. n/t

[Pithlet]

4. People here who are bandying that term in that way

are doing so correctly because that is the common usage of the term They aren't disregarding anything. They aren't being morons or idiots. People who are not poor but at the same time not wealthy are considered middle class in our culture. I particularly want to keep that group from shrinking, so I don't see what use is in being pedantic.

[harmonicon]

8. Who are the poor then if these people aren't?

If you're in debt for more than you make in a year, how is that not poor? I'm poor, and I have no qualms about saying it. If you have a mortgage for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and/or if you'd be screwed if you lost your job, how are you not poor?

[Pithlet]

14. I think most people wh aren't affluent are screwed if they lose their job, debt or no debt.

But that doesn't mean they're poor.

[harmonicon]

21. No, it means they're working class, because they have to work.

The middle class is the class between the working class and the upper class, so, if someone is working class, they are not middle class.

[Pithlet]

26. You aren't getting it. There is such a thing as common usage in language. And it isn't incorrect.

Your castigation of those "incorrectly" using the term middle class doesn't hold water, because there are multiple definitions of the term. You are simply wrong in your assertion that the presence of debt means someone isn't middle class. It's hooey, for many of the reasons outlined by others in this thread.

[cali]

30. that is just so ridiculous. So someone earning 250 grand a year

is working class not middle class. Never mind reality.

[harmonicon]

33. It depends on how they earn it and what they do with the money.

Those people most likely are the middle class. They likely could lose their jobs and be fine. They likely own their homes and cars. Therefore, they probably are middle class. Someone making 40 grand a year with a mortgage and car payment though is not middle class. That person is working class.

[cali]

39. uh no. wrong again. Most people earning 250 grand a year have mortgages

in any case, YOU made that absurd broad claim in your op. It's there clear as day. You asserted that anyone who has a mortgage is not middle class.

[harmonicon]

46. You're purposefully rewording what I wrote, but that's fine.

Have it your way. I guess I could have written, "did you NEED a mortgage to buy your house?" I'm sorry that you either can't be comfortable being identified as working class or feel guilty about your level of wealth and as such would like to group the working class in with yourself in order to feel better. Either way, you're not going to change, and that's fine. We're allowed to disagree.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

36. Seriously

Adherence to such a ridiculous definition would render it beyond useless and pedantic. Whelp, they have a mortgage on their house, so 250,000 a year family is working class! Dumb. This is why people don't talk that way in the real world.

[JVS]

62. One can be subject to another's interests but still well paid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_aristocracy

[blindpig]

6. This is very wrong, you describe the capitalist class.

The middle class comprises of professionals with degrees, upper management, small entrepreneurs, the upper end of government services and the like. You are right that most folks do not belong to the middle class, we are working class. The 'American Middle Class' is a Cold War fiction that is now being laid to rest.

[harmonicon]

16. There's an argument to made there.

What you suggest as the middle class would have previously been considered the petit bourgeoisie. I think that's rather the beginning of this fiction that the "American Middle Class" is. That is, people with some of the social trappings of the middle class, but not the financial power. There are obviously problems with direct translation, especially as society has changed greatly in the hundreds of years since these terms were first used, but I think capitalism is fundamentally the same. As such, I think it's best to stick by what I see as being a more traditional definition. In either case, yes, the term as it's used in the US today is a fiction.

[white_wolf]

56. I agree especially on the last sentence.

That fiction of the middle class is no longer needed by the capitalist class so it not so much being laid to rest as violently ground to dust.

[ThomWV]

9. I have no idea where you got your definition of middle class, but not agreeing with it ....

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that "there is a lot of damage to be done by refusing to acknowledge what your role is in society if you're trying to better that society." Nothing in your argument leads to your conclusion.

[IDemo]

10. You're describing the upper middle class, or professional class

There are different levels of income and education within the spectrum of "Middle Class". Nowhere does lack of a mortgage or debt enter into the equation. If anything, the overall debt of those at the higher end exceeds that of the lower middle class simply because they have easier access to credit and are inclined to use it. The term "middle class" can include anyone with a Bachelor's degree or higher and a well paying job; be it accountant, teacher, electronics technician, or other skilled work.

[harmonicon]

25. I disagree.

Sure, the proletariat (working class) has changed over the years to cover those apart from manual laborers. I would include in that group accountants, teachers, etc. I do agree that the upper class may have more paper debt, simply because they have enough money to make it work for them. Those people, however, do not have debt if it is also not an investment. These aren't the people worried about their mortgages being "under water".

[IDemo]

42. I very highly doubt that the entirety of your definition of Middle Class is mortgage-free

Or even that most of them are. Unless you can provide a verifiable reference or two, the only one guilty of redefining anything is you.

[dmallind]

11. Somebody thinks Marx is infallible I see

The idea of a "landed gentry" even existing shows how outdated this silly definition (by which the "middle class" would be limited to < 1% of the population) really is.

This may have made some sense when all businesses from the local store to the blacksmith were individually owned, but we left that behind with Victoria and Lincoln.

In contemporary understanding the term "middle class" has nothing whatsoever to do with where your wealth comes from and everything to do with how large it is.

[JVS]

60. Marx isn't infallible, but he does use well defined terms to describe things.

[FSogol]

13. Unrec-ed for being completely wrong about the middle class. n/t

[cali]

17. OK, I know I'm not middle class, but it's ridiculous to state that anyone with mortgage

is not middle class. It's equally silly to claim that anyone with a debt is not middle class. It's absurd to state that you're not middle class if you're not your own boss.

you have posted the most inane op of the day. at least so far.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. No, not really; let's look at early uses

1745 J. Bradshaw Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France 4 The lower and middle Class of their People appear'd at that time, well dress'd in Ratteens and Frizes; the better, or richer Class, wore Cloths of Ten Shillings per Yard.

1756 J. Massie Calculations Taxes for Family 8 By such Assertions, People of the middle or inferior Classes, may be prevented from pursuing‥the Means to make future Provision for their Families.

1766 Queen Caroline Matilda of Denmark Let. 25 Dec. in Mem. Unfortunate Queen (1776) 21 There is no such thing here as a middle class of people living in affluence and independence.

1792 T. Paine Rights of Man: Pt. Second v. 111 A poll-tax was levied.‥ It excited, as it naturally must, universal detestation among the poor and middle classes.

All from the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the phrase ("A class of society or social grouping between an upper and a lower (or working) class, usually regarded as including professional and business people and their families; (in sing. and pl.) the members of such a class.")

Notice how the middle class tends to be grouped with 'lower', 'inferior' and 'poor'. Your definitions separates the middle class from them - by restricting the middle class to the very rich who haven't inherited large estates of land.

[harmonicon]

29. I think we're actually in agreement here.

What I consider to be most important about my argument is not coming to terms with exactly what "middle class" means, but to acknowledge that there is a much larger "working class", something which your examples also illustrate. In the US, and on DU, the working class is never discussed. The divisions seem to be "homeless", "middle class", and "rich". What I really want people to acknowledge is that the vast majority of Americans are really somewhere between homeless and middle class.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Then your definitions have derailed your purpose

Because people reading those realise, from their experience, that saying anyone with a mortgage, a student loan, or who is employed, cannot be 'middle class' is restricting the middle class to a ridiculously small part of what it really is agreed to be.

Indeed, getting a mortgage or a student loan might be said to be almost essential in being 'middle class'; they indicate someone with somewhat higher earning power (potentially, at least, in the case of the student loan) who will be able to gradually pay it off, if everything goes OK. But their family didn't have enough money for them to get through university without borrowing, or to buy a house outright for them. And if you never have enough money to contemplate a mortgage, or to pay off student loans, then it is fair to say you are working class - you're constantly working just to stay where you are at best.

That doesn't mean that having a mortgage or a student loan means you must be middle class; and where the divide is (and whether you can change during your life) can be argued. But with so many disagreeing with the dividing line you want to draw, I think you need to think again.

[harmonicon]

59. Agreed by whom to be?

I really do think that the marketing of the term "middle class" has been one of the largest coups of the right wing.

People certainly can move up in life - that's how the middle class came into being.

My parents are in many ways better off than their parents were, but have a lot more in common with them than they do with wealthy people. They need their social security cheques and still have a big chunk of mortgage to pay off. Just because they live in a nice house and my siblings and I went to college doesn't mean that we're that far removed from the farmers and factory workers that my grand parents were.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. By a large majority of people, and for a couple of hundred years

That's why I gave the 18th century quotations - to show that the middle class didn't start off as hugely separated from 'the poor' (and the phrase predates 'working class', as well). No, you're not that far removed from farmers (who can, of course, be middle class themselves - if they own their farm and are fairly secure) of factory workers; that's why you're not 'upper class' or 'ruling class', but quite possibly 'middle class' (I don't think you say enough about you for others to give a definite opinion, but I don't think you're ruled out of the middle class).

[Hangingon]

28. un-rec flawed premise

[Taverner]

32. The truth hurts, hence the deluge of unreccs

[cali]

35. oh what nonsense. this is a fact free op. it's just plain wrong.

it's beyond ridiculous to claim that anyone with a mortgage or anyone who works for anyone else is not middle class. Clearly and without having to elaborate that's just silly.

[Taverner]

40. Suit yourself. There hasn't been a true middle class since the 70's

The definition, at least by the APA and Sociologists puts the net income (that is, post taxes post debt) above what most people are.

[cali]

44. that may or may not be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the op made

bullshit claims re the criteria for being middle class. Facts matter. At least to me. To you, evidently not so much.

Oh, and I'd argue that beleaguered as it may be there is still a middle class in this country. Someone's going out to Appleby's, someone's going to Disney World. Someone's buying all the ipads and gimmicks. And it's not just the rich and it ain't the poor.

[harmonicon]

37. thanks

I understand that my opinion is a minority around here, but I'm just so sick of the echo chamber that this place can be, especially of late. I am surprised at some of the vitriol though. Oh well, such is life.

[Obamanaut]

34. Which is it - part 1 OR part 2? nt

[harmonicon]

47. fixed - I've always been a poor typist. nt.

[white_wolf]

45. I see your point, however...

You are using slightly outdated Marxist terminology where the capitalist class was still considered middle class because they were below the nobles and such. Today(and this is what is different about class relations today than they were in Marx's day) we have no real nobility anymore and what was once middle class has became the upper ruling class. They still exploit the working class and still control the means of production they have just gotten even more powerful. Yes, I just called some of Marxist terminology outdated I know most of you who are familiar with me are likely in shock right now, but the principle is still the same the terms are just mixed up.

[harmonicon]

49. I largely agree with you.

My real beef isn't with who is or who is not middle class. I think the term itself is largely outdated. However, instead of acknowledging this, we've entered some bizarro-world where everyone is called middle class, when in fact almost none of them are. There are still some... I'm thinking of the brother of a friend who was vice-president of a large software company. People like him aren't the super wealthy and don't hold real political sway, but the difference between him and his mother who was a civil servant is stark.

What I really want to drive home is that most people are working class. This no longer has to include only manual laborers, but almost all jobs, both white and blue collar.

[socialist_n_TN]

66. I think that your last sentence pretty much says it all

I remember another discussion on here about who is "working class" that generated a lot of discussion. My personal definition is that if you lose your job and are in real danger of homelessness or poverty, then you're working class. Anything else is middle class or exploiting class.

[JVS]

57. We have real nobility, they were simply supplanted by the bourgeoisie, as Marx pointed out.

I used to rent a room below the apartment of a duchess.

[Philippine expat]

48. So let me get this straight

I have no debt
I own my own home free and clear
I have decent medical care
I answer to no one
So by your definition I'm middle class
But considering I only make a little over $18,000 a year most people would consider me poor

[JVS]

54. Where does the 18k come from?

[Philippine expat]

67. A pension n/t

[harmonicon]

55. Could you comfortably lose your job?

Is making that 18k a year from controlling the means of production of a commodity or good? You may well be middle class. It has to do with power. If you answer to noone, I'm happy for you. Sounds like you've done alright. I'd rather make that money and have no mortgage than make 5 times that and be in debt up to my eyeballs. Or maybe you're just poor. I didn't say that those things automatically made someone middle class, but not having them means they aren't.

[JVS]

52. About debt/mortgage

A lawyer who works independently might have student loans, car debt, and a mortgage. That's still middle class, but it means they are cash-poor within the class.

[harmonicon]

61. I think it depends on where they work or what they do with their money.

My brother is a member of the bar association, but he doesn't work at a law firm. He can practice law and draw up contracts when he needs to, but he works a normal job and doesn't make a lot of money. Some debt is investment. Our hypothetical lawyer here could hold onto those debts as an investment, because they'll get a better return by keeping them than paying them off quickly. I think the real question is when does money spent change from debt to investment?

[saras]

63. Useful structural definitions - it's too bad the common definition of middle class is so useless

[Silver Swan]

64. How would a retired person be classified? nm

[Hippo_Tron]

69. You're right, by 19th century European standards, those people are not Middle Class

But, I'm certain there are no DUers who live in 19th century Europe.

[LoZoccolo]

70. Who is in the upper class? n/t

[harmonicon]

71. The stupidly fictional-seeming wealthy.

Traditionally, it took a few generations for someone to buy their family's way into the upper crust. It may happen faster now, but it's still a very tiny number of people. Don't forget that there was just a televised royal wedding. Some kids' wedding was televised around the world, for christ's sake!! That's insane upper class. Just last week saw the funeral of a Hapsburg. Sure, he didn't actually sit on a thrown, but the guy never really needed an income either. There is of course the very powerful Arab, especially Saudi, nobility, and then there are the families in places like the US who have moved into similar position, like the Bushes and Kennedys. How many generations has it been since any of them acted like normal people? When did one of these people ever even consider a vocation to be more than window dressing or a hobby they enjoyed?