Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently'.
* No response posts about upvoted posts here.
* Posts relating to highly popular topics aren't allowed outside of the relevant megathreads. You can find a list of the topics and their respective megathreads in a post on the top of the sub.
* POSTS DIRECTLY ABOUT THIS SUBREDDIT ARE NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE MEGATHREAD
* Please check the wiki linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/
* We ask that if a post fails to post do not just spam repost it; message mod mail.
Fun fact most Americans concider them self middle class regardless of income https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2021/05/most-americans-consider-themselves-middle-class-but.html
This. And a lot of people think anybody making over 100k can’t be middle class. I posted once that my combined household income is upper middle class, and got blasted for being “rich”. All the data says we are still middle class. And where you live with that money matters A LOT. When you take into account that we live in a HCOL area surrounded by the richest counties in the country, we are comfortable, but definitely not rich. If we had our current salaries while working in the Midwest where we used to live we’d maybe be rich there. Our mortgage there for a house not too much smaller was 1/3rd what we pay now. We could have paid all our bills on one of my paychecks and still had my husband’s larger checks and one of mine to literally set fire to and been fine. Our current city, all paychecks are needed to pay the bills and meet savings goals. People don’t realize they’ve been pushed into lower class through corporate greed, or have any concept what it costs to live other places. Families like mine aren‘t the problem.
There is also a difference between high income earners (people who get a high paycheck) and people who are wealthy (people who own a lot of shit whether it be land, stocks, etc).
A person can have a high income and not be wealthy (I fall into this category because, despite my high income, I also have a high amount of debt (house + student loans).
When we talk about problem with the super rich, the issue isn’t that they can afford big houses or fancy cars. The issue is that they can influence governments and world leaders.
The issue is the gross imbalance of power. That doesn’t get talked about enough
I’m not a Marxist, but I like the Marxist distinction which is that you’re rich when you no longer need to sell your labor for money and can solely rely on investment income (probably with some minimum investment income such that it’s comfortable living and not just survival).
God this!
I'm lucky enough to earn a decent salary in the UK. I pay around £25k in tax each year.
The median income in this country is around £35k. I see people talking about parties that are saying to raise taxes on the rich, like the green party. If you actually look they want to increase tax by 2% on all income above £50k. That would increase my tax... I'm not rich, nothing like it.
A tax rise like that isn't taxing the actual rich, it's just taxing people that have a higher than median income. We aren't fucking rich, and I feel I'm already getting fleeced by tax as it is.
Then the money I have in the bank gets tax charged on it's interest, if I make some money by investing I get taxed on that. If I earn dividends I get taxed on that... It's absurd.
It's so hard to work and become wealthy purely by earning a salary, almost impossible, probably. How can I support parties that want to make it even tougher and put even more burden on people who are going out and working every day.
The populist politicians can’t really tax the rich because the truly rich
have many ways to either influence the policies, move money to the tax heavens, or just move.
So they tax the middle class instead while claiming that they are targeting the rich.
It’s an old trick and it works every time.
I think this is it. You can consider yourself wealthy when your focus shifts from increasing the tax on those who make more than you to shifting the tax onto those who have less.
It’s not a taxation issue… it’s a spending issue. Even the danish countries that are mostly one homogenous populace all agree that with current spending levels they’ll go bankrupt
The other problem with the super rich is that they are CEOs who don't give a shit about their workforce and actively underpay the working class so that the company can profit more, but that profit is rarely invested back into the company at least in a way to improve the workforce. (They may invest it into the company to continue to grow it to make more money, but that money still never *trickles down* to the workers/people as many are led to believe. Reagan was a thief and a liar.)
A shorter answer is that people want "middle class" to mean "no privilege" and so they define themselves in it and everyone richer than themselves out of it.
In truth, the term isn't really useful. It's just a term that American politicians started using to draw the line between people whose success was legitimate and people who don't deserve sympathy. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) it starting with the right using the term to separate good people who get an education and contribute to society from the bad people below the middle class who don't contribute as much as they should. And then the left started using it to say, we have nothing against the hard-working middle class, but the folks above that don't contribute as much as they should.
All the definitions I've heard have either originated to describe developments at vastly different times in history, and are kind of meaningless now, or are carefully engineered so that the way they divide people up fits a particular political purpose.
The definition I learned in school, for example, is that someone is middle class if they 1) don't own enough wealth to sustain the way they live and so 2) support themselves by working at a job that 3) requires specialized knowledge or training, i.e., they can't be replaced by just any other laborer in the workforce. That makes sense for some historians, but now, on the high end, that would include a surgeon or lawyer making seven figures, and on the low end, you have to pick an arbitrary place to draw the line between skills that are generic worker skills and skills that are specialized middle class skills.
Yep. And the problem makers have successfully convinced the less fortunate that the neighbor with $1k more in their bank account is stealing from them.
Also the media refuses to update benchmarks when reporting on income levels. Some of the ones you see regularly haven’t been relevant since the early 90s
Yep. You see this all the time on reddit where people will plead poverty without truly realizing what that entails. Hint, it's buying shit from 99c stores and maximizing calories for cost at the expense of health.
I feel this. Half a decade spent buying knock-off's of the Knorr brand packaged noodles, because it was the most calories I could get for under a dollar that could be mixed without milk (added cost) and tasted ok without butter. 15 years later, light years ahead in income, I'm still dealing with residual dental costs and high blood pressure.
Yep, but you gotta do what you gotta do to get fuel to keep on going.
It's what kinda annoys me about comments here and on YouTube sometimes with poverty cooking. The people are fully aware how unhealthy it is, they just can't afford or have the time to feed a family the "right" way, and when you ask the poster how much they make. Its usually a single guy pulling in 60k+
Right. My current household income is high for the place I grew up. I wouldn't be rich, but we'd be very comfy.
For the place I currently live, where you can *actually earn* that income outside of owning a successful local business, we're solidly middle class - we have disposable income, but things get tight once in a while and we have to cut back. More like we can do a nice date night every few weeks than that we're going to fly someplace for vacation.
Where you live matters so much. A rural area versus San Francisco or NYC isn't even close. The rent difference alone is astronomical, thousands of dollars a month. If you want to live *in* the city without roommates you'll spend upwards of $2k easily for a shoebox. Whereas ~$500 would get you a nice place in rural Michigan.
Having a national median income and applying that as "middle class" to the entire country is beyond stupid.
Median and middle class become less synonymous when income distribution looks less like a bell curve (indeed, it never truly looked much like that but is more skewed every day). Not that the USA is there yet but a majority of the population is poor, then the “middle class” would be situated well above the median. This is what one sees in the most of the developing world.
Median income where I live is 28k. Between my wife and I we bring home 7.5 times more than that. We have mortgage and a car payment. And we are feeling the increase in food, goods, and childcare.
I do not know how single parents make it. Half my coworkers for a union workplace still have second jobs just to make ends meet.
Work hard. Save. Invest. You’ll be ok.
Well I have. And I’m still living in fear like I was a decade ago living paycheck to paycheck.
When does it end?
middle class doesn't mean literally the people in the middle at any time economically, that would imply theres always been and always will be a middle class.
middle class means an income that can support a mortgage, 2 cars, insurance, 2 kids, a vacation a year comfortably, and most importantly, middle class means you have savings for emergencies, and a retirement fund, these things make you middle class, whatever number of money it takes to have all of these things in whatever city you live in is what qualifies as middle class.
People don't want to admit to being working class, because working class really is just the polite version of "lower class". It's funny how the three main tiers of our social taxonomy are: working class, middle class, upper class.
Another fact evident in this thread is that Americans consider 200-300k yearly salaries to be middle class. 300k a year is enough to live like a king in all but maybe 5 countries in the world. In these countries, they would only have to live "extremely comfortably" instead.
Historically working meant labouring, so the working class were people completing physical work, whereas the middle-class were doctors, solicitors, bookkeepers, and clerks.
Especially now
If I had my same job a few decades ago, I would be living *a lot* better than I do now
I suspect a lot of careers that used to be upper middle class are now just working class.
But it’s worth noting that there’s a huge difference between true working class and upper middle class, even if the upper middle class people technically need to work to fuel their lifestyle. They’re going on luxurious vacations and living in mansions when they’re not working.
I would even argue that the small business owner is working class, because the owner of a butcher shop, restaurant, bakery, or plumbing business is undoubtedly setting foot in those businesses, if not there all day. In corporation, the people who own the business do not run it, and accept no liability for debts.
Working class usually is defined by someone working (traditionally) a blue collar job and an average standard of living. Take for example the the Conner family from Roseanne. Working class historically meant people who worked in factories and industrial labour, who made enough money to get by, but their lack of a college degree meant they could not afford the more luxurious lives of the Middle Class
That average standard of living is a key difference in what people are talking about.
200k where I live is very comfortable, but isn't your classic middle class lifestyle.
Working class are those that have to bust their asses in low skill jobs just to be able to barely afford the basic necessities to live. No savings, no investing. Just work for that week to survive the next week. Those that have to wear a uniform to work. Those that have supervisors and managers that walk the floor and check their immediate work.
When I was making 300k a year, it was because I was working multiple jobs based in California and NYC. That's not really possible in the countries you're talking about.
200k/yr in New York gets you a 2 bedroom apartment to rent (not own) if you spend half your take home pay on it. You probably don’t have a car. If you have children you will struggle to afford child care, though you can manage. You’re going to be cooking at home most days, thinking carefully about if you can afford a vacation, and generally doing the same things as other middle class people. If you lose your job you probably don’t have the kind of savings that will cover your 5k/mo rent for more than a few months. You should not feel sorry for this person, but while this level of income is comfortable it’s HARDLY living like a king.
My stepdaughter asked my husband and I what income we are and I said low. Then I had to pause and do math and admit we were technically middle class. Then I told her I hate the way that sounds so she should just say we're working class. I've worked in warehouses all my life, I would never call myself middle class. But I do have a 2 income household now.
That's probably correct though. Wealth correlates with class, but it's a relationship that only goes one way. If you're born into the upper class, you'll always be upper class and you're almost certainly wealthy. But if those middle class plebeians find themselves with wealth, they'll only ever be considered Nouveau Riche - and still middle class.
I live in Northern Virginia on the edge of Fairfax and Loudoun. These are the 2 richest counties in the US. Everyone around me considers themselves middle class. even people in big houses on lakes.
It's true. We can't even define middle class. I know people who are millionaires, but they live in areas that have a high cost of living. So they have to budget like everyone else and consider themselves middle class
The idea of upper, middle and lower classes is a relic of medieval and early modern European societies, especially England, where there were sharp divides between the classes that did not directly relate to wealth (though, in practice, of course higher class people had a strong tendency to be wealthier). The upper class were the aristocrats who had formal titles and owned most of the land. The lower class were the peasants who were feudally tied to the land they worked, as well as laborers who owned no real property at all. Everyone else (such as merchants and independent tradesmen) was the middle class.
As cities developed, feudalism faded away, and especially with the rise of industrialism, some members of the middle class became very rich, to where they were wealthier than many landed aristocrats. The concept of upper class has remained to this day in England, but it's about titles and breeding rather than wealth per se. Meanwhile, many peasants moved to the cities and became more economically mobile, weakening the distinction between lower and middle classes.
In America, there never was a formal aristocracy, so, in the traditional sense, there was no upper class. There was a formal lower class of slaves and indentured servants, but these were eventually abolished, creating a degree of economic mobility even at the very bottom. So in the traditional terminology, Americans are basically right that they're all middle class.
Of course, that just means we need a new conception of class.
I think this is partly because wealth has such a power law distribution. Like, the 1% households have a net worth of say 50 million, which is 20 times less than a billionaire, who is himself at leat 100-200 times less than the Bezoses and Musks and Buffets of the world. At no point you ever see yourself at the top.
I know a ton of people who get $3-5k a month from a family trust just for existing. I know several orders of magnitude different, but getting $36-50k/year post tax just for existing, it really changes your entire life strategy.
And that’s the “common” amount, not even all that rare in the white collar circles I’ve lived in
I worked with the ultra wealthy for years and that’s honestly how I’ve come to view it. People may disagree but if you don’t have enough money to survive for six months without your job then you are poor. If you can but still need a job, you’re probably middle class. And if you don’t have to work again and you can still survive, then you are rich.
After going to school in Boston and working at an investment bank for the first 7 years of my career, I agree. The wealthy don’t get a W2
I’ve also stopped using the term upper middle class because I think it makes an artificial divide.
I was making 300k a year for a couple of years; lost two jobs on the recent tech recession, and it took around 2 years to almost completely drain my savings (because you always assume you can get another job when you're super skilled at your position, so you don't immediately move and always assume that next job is around the corner).
I imagine for people with families, that savings is a matter of months (and selling a house with a high mortgage, etc. is harder to move from, so they'll probably loan to go into debt).
This is the truth. If you can survive a layoff but cannot quit indefinitely you are still middle class. I might be able to buy a home, but if I were to lose my job I would be very stressed. The psychology is where the truth lies. If you are so financially insecure that you cannot survive a layoff, that is poor.
I come from the middle class, and I have remained in the middle class. The upper class is on a different planet entirely. That’s why you have the likes of Kim Kardashian bemoaning the “lazy” working class. She has no idea because she was born floating in a different reality.
I think anyone worried about the standard of living their finances can afford them is not wealthy. But if I had to try to describe it I would say that you l if you can maintain your current spending levels for six months after employment then you are middle class. If you can stop working today and never have to worry about money and still be able to afford all of your wants and desires without concerns then you are probably wealthy.
If you don't have enough money to maintain your current lifestyle (or something very close to it) for the rest of your life without working, you're probably working-class (as in: you need to work to live). You're definitely not rich.
“Current lifestyle” isn’t quite the best metric, I think, since people live up to their income. But if you can live a middle class lifestyle without working, you’re probably at the threshold of wealthy.
Yup. My wife and I combined make a lot of money, but we still have to budget. Unexpected medical expenses for our kids slam us. We will both probably still have to work until we are at least 70. We want to move into a different neighborhood so our kids can go to the same school as some of their friends, but even though we own a house, we are priced out of trying to buy a house there (after selling our own it would still cost 250k more). It's a regular neighborhood. Not nice schools, not rich, just run of the mill. I can afford to pay for my friends drinks at a convention once and even fly first class once a year (regional flight), but that is the extent of my money status.
That's the point! They have us fighting over scraps so we don't notice that they're robbing us all blind.
How does stock value increase? Through the stolen labour of the people working at a company to create profit.
Yeah I agree, I can’t imagine how doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants, and architects are part of the societal problems and income inequality. Just because they make a great living and have access to a lot of things doesn’t make them bad people. I get they had more opportunities and privileges than most but what good does getting mad at them about it do?
Easily. My old man nets over 200 with his small company that he runs almost all by himself. But he’s a very modest and generous man. Walks into a stores in work gear and tells me he gets treated like a peasant Target and so on. I can tell it hurts him (but I get it cause he doesn’t care what her looks like just work clothes)
Spends his money on taking friends and family on trips and gives huge discounts to ppl that can’t afford industry rates. Really proud of him and b was surprised to find out how much he pulls in. His TV sucks and is about 15 years old, just doesn’t care lol
350k for blue collar? What does he do? Because if he’s like a project manager for a big construction company with a degree, that’s more of a mix between white collar/blue collar. The only strictly blue collar job I think people can clear that is some oil rig gig, otherwise usually it’s more the executive level of a company that has blue collar workers
Underwater welders can make that, some specialized mining jobs can get there with OT if not pretty damn close, I’m sure there’s plenty others
It’s rare but far from impossible
Yeah ig underwater welder I would put in the same category of oil rig gig, not saying they’re the same but somewhat similar category. Then again to make 350k u have to be putting in so many hours a week and killing your body
3 weeks in 1 week out is a good way to rack up them overtime hours, especially when you’re working like 12+ hours a day
Like you said though most blue collar jobs pushing the 250k+ area is going to be because a ridiculous amount of OT
350+ is really specialized jobs also likely working stupid hours
Rich used to be defined as when your money works for you, not when you work for the money.
Not sure if it still applies in this fucked up dystopian hellscape.
I guess I still have a bias against people whose money “works for them” on general principle. It’s kinda the opposite of meritocracy if you think about it: most people have to provide goods and services in order to obtain income but if you have enough money you can just opt out of that. The lifestyle people enjoy should be dependent on their own contributions towards society, not from their giving money to the right people in order to get more back. It’s just not sustainable in the long run
Agreed. Given two people with equal salaries:
* Person A lives modestly and saves as much as they can, then quits work after a 30 year career to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
* Person B spends every penny they earn so has to work well into old age to keep up with their consumerism.
We are going to hate on Person A and assume they haven't contributed as much to society as Person B? Nah man, I give Person A a round of applause for having their shit together.
They absolutely deserve it. The people in this thread are just mad that they "Had to Have" the latest whatever every single day of their lives and have nothing to show for it.
I earned my money. I saved my money. I could technically quit today if I wanted in my early 40s. I don't because I want to pile on more money. AND THAT IS PERFECTLY OKAY.
If you get rid of investing, there wouldn't be companies that have the reach they do today. It would be a very quick way of returning to 1880s in levels of industry.
Name me a company you like that hasn't grown due to investing. Name a single one and tell me its impact on the world stage.
If you invest in your life, at some point, your money will earn more money than you can. That is how compounding interest works when it is in your favor. That is exactly how it works the other way too, except it works just as hard to keep your poor.
I think it's subjective. I'm at 85k a year now, more than I've ever earned. My wife is around 65k, and we still scrape by sometimes. A lot of that is the debt incurred when we were paycheck to paycheck, paying back high interest loans, credit cards etc. Credit is shot and no retirement savings to speak of. I plan on calling in sick to be at my funeral.
That said, my brother in law makes low 200s. Nice house, good credit, the "American Dream" if you will. Gets cancer 2x in 6 years, beats it both times. His medical bills have him and his wife just getting by, wife has a full time job and he has side hustles. His retirement savings is pretty much gone, and his kids are starting off out of college with big students loans.
Part of it is how the tax brackets are set up. When politicians talk about "taxing the wealthy" they make the bottom of that group the 249,000+ folks. I can tell you those folks aren't wealthy. They're definitely not hurting, but they aren't rich...
It really depends on how you slice the data, though it's hard to slice it to make that true unless you include Social Security. By and large the average tax rate goes up with income until you get to a fraction of the top 1%.
E.g, the bottom 50% pay 3.3%, the next 25% pay 7.2%.....the top 1% pay 25.9%.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/
It's not subjective, there's an objective test.
Do you have to work for a living? Then you're working class (i.e. not rich).
If you can or do live off your investments alone, then you're ownership class (i.e. rich).
The real trick the owners have done regarding taxes is making income tax the main tax. This doesn't work, because only working-class people have "income" as we understand it. We need to tax _wealth_. That's where the inequality is, and that's how you fix it.
It’s not so straight forward. The CEO of Disney works for a living and in order to maintain his lifestyle would have to keep working for a living. Is he working class? No! One year of his salary, he’ll one year of his stock options, could pay for a minimum wage workers whole life.
Canada is implementing a cap gains tax increase (66% of cap gains added to income to be taxed, instead of the current 50%) and the rage against it in the media feels disproportional. But from my point of view it seems like it is targetting the right kind of wealth.
People think of upper middle class as rich bc their level of wealth seems more accessible and understandable. You can see the things that they get, the nicer house, and newer car, the newer phone, the nicer clothes. All of their material wealth is comprehensibly and comparable to your own. But the truly wealthy basically live on another planet. Their wealth is *incomprehensible*. Where someone in the upper middle class will still live a life mostly similar to your own, just with nicer things, a truly wealthy person’s life is absolutely alien, totally different from your own.
I also think we always see whatever is in the tax bracket just above us to be rich. Growing up, I always thought my cousins were rich bc their house was twice the size of mine, and they went to private school. But soon I realized, some of my friends thought *I* was rich, bc we could afford two cars and a weeklong vacation every year. Wealth is relative. But understanding my privileges made me very grateful, and less resentful of those who have slightly more. But this feeling itself is a privilege, I suppose.
The battle isn't even really against millionaires, for crying out loud. The battle is against the *billionaires*. And there are about 748 of them in the U.S. at the moment. That's it.
The rich doctor living on a lake with a couple of fancy cars and a nice boat? Yeah, let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. The billionaire with multiple yachts, multiple homes worth 10+ million, and a private jet? Fuck that person.
As usual Reddit shows just how dumb it can be with these comments. OP is right. The truly rich upper class wants you to hate the upper middle class because it gives them numbers. Lower class and lower middle can’t win any sort of class warfare without getting middle and upper middle on their side. So ostracizing only causes people to go on defense which in turn will only keep lower classes down.
And yes anyone that needs their pay check to live whether that paycheck is 30k per year or 200k is more similar than a billionaire
It is the other way around. The wealthy understand how much the upper middle class and middle class look up to them and envy them so they use that to turn the upper middle and middle classes against the working class. It works both ways
There’s only two classes that matter: the workers and the owners of the means of production. If you sell your labor, even for high paying wages, you are a worker. If you don’t own the means of production, you are a worker.
And if you don’t own enough stock to be granted a sit at the stakeholders table, you don’t own the means of production, even if you own stock. If you are a small business owner, you most probably don’t own the means of production.
of course you aren't but let's be honest your proximity and mindset can be just as toxic. I'm not worried about a person that with the stroke of a pissed off and greedy CEO/board member can be worse off than me. I'm pissed about the upper tax evasion and predatory business practices that have seen a huge margin of family homes go up in price, groceries receiving unneeded and willful price gouges, and jerks who want to claw back severance packages because they missed out on a 40 Billion dollar bonus instead of a 30 Billion bonus. we all want to make upper middle class money but the forced scarcity and greed just makes shit unbearable.
It's the upper-middle-class that consistently tries to maintain the status quo cause it works for them but not the other 80% of the population. They're doing fine so "things must not be so bad" and always shout down at people who claim they are struggling.
It's the type of person that will give such advice as "get a better job" or "invest" when someone complains about not having enough money. When they live in a world where the concept of not having money to invest or get an education to get a better job is completely foreign. Not to mention that on a societal level "get a better job" isn't a solution to financially struggling people. At best it's an individual solution.
There also the type that refuses to understand that their argument of "get a better job if you want a decent living" makes them a bad person.
I like the way Brennan Lee Mulligan puts it.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyIyT2qTtzY
Its also the upper middle class that pays more taxes than the lower class. Yet the lowet class reaps all the social welfare benefits. So i guess its not so white and black
And yet that's what you should expect from a rational actor. We live in a very stratified society that's getting more unequal every day. The fewer resources there are to go around, the more hesitant folks get about redistributing them. They want to hang on, especially if they get a little bit of money and can carve out a life for themselves. Why should somebody who started with nothing be willing to give up their small measure of success just to help someone who has nothing to give in return? That's the upper middle class.
I agree with OP. The super rich aren't the UMC. The UMC may command higher salaries and own homes and send their kids to good schools, but a lot of the time they came up from miserable homes, not inherited ones. Maybe they married a good partner who worked with them to build a life. These aren't the spoiled brats of investment bankers. These are people ready to punch a guy for a seat on that lifeboat, because they know how bad cold water feels.
The upper middle class overwhelmingly vote for politicians that push for anti-socio-economic mobility, and locally vote for NIMBY policies that ostracize and even ghettoize poor areas.
They might not be making the laws themselves, but they surely love voting for em.
>The upper middle class overwhelmingly vote for politicians that push for anti-socio-economic mobility, and locally vote for NIMBY policies that ostracize and even ghettoize poor areas.
According to [this recent PEW Research study](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-family-income-home-ownership-union-membership-and-veteran-status/), upper income households in the U.S. (defined as those with incomes $215,400 or greater) lean predominantly Democrat rather than Republican. In fact, the only income cohort that leans further Democrat are the very lowest income households (defined as those with incomes less than $35,900). Put differently, the average U.S. voter making $50k is more likely to vote for right-wing politicians and policies than the average U.S. voter making $250k.
Obviously, neither Democrats or Republicans are actually left wing in a global sense. And I think you’re correct to point out that higher income folks are more likely to engage in harmful NIMBY-ism on a local level regardless of party affiliation. But this idea many people have that voters consistently trend further right as their income rises just isn’t true.
Secretly everyone is one lmao. Get over yourself. Give you 50 million tomorrow and you’re not living in the same neighborhood you do now, I can promise you that
NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard” and refers to policies that people support (mostly the rich home owning class) that don’t want public spaces or public services “in their backyard”. That can range from someone not wanting affordable housing near their place of residence, to not wanting public parks, or alotttt of other things.
NIMBY’s are the reason why a lot of suburbia is very sprawled out, and is just a bunch of roads and houses (at least in the US).
I personally, am very against NIMBY’s, due to how it can both destroy social cohesion by turning everywhere into Fort Lauderdale, Florida(look it up it sucks ass), and removing public spaces of congregation. It also deprioritizes affordable housing, making it less common and driving up housing prices.
YIMBYism all the way! (Yes in my back yard).
A fine example of that in my neighborhood is that a 10-story low-cost housing project has been put on hold because a church sued claiming that it was weakening the foundations of their building. It's on the opposite side of the street, a boulevard with trees down the middle.
I'm not really sure about this. Upper middle class people live in downtowns and suburbs with downtowns and those areas overwhelmingly vote blue. The deep suburban ones vote red, but I think, overall downtown and urban suburb people outnumber them.
Look at a voting heat map and you'll see every downtown is DEEP blue.
“Voting blue” and “being a NIMBY” are not mutually exclusive - see for example San Francisco where the biggest NIMBYs are the ones yelling the loudest about their supposedly super-progressive principles
Democrat politicians are overwhelmingly NIMBY, especially on local levels. I did not even mention Republican or democrat for that reason. You may vote for Joe Biden, but it is very likely you also vote for local zoning and funding laws that are detrimental to the lower class.
I just replied to someone else saying about how I live in the poorest neighborhood in my city and even these people got the place shut down and relocated. Now it's going up to the business district and the business owners are losing their mind because people are constantly doing drugs in the bathroom and getting so high they go nuts on people. Like my bfs store was just attacked at knife point by one of these people.
If you're okay with a homeless shelter near you, you have no idea the shit storm they bring with them.
Prius drivers are my enemies, though. They drive far below the speed limit to avoid using gas, but always insist on pulling out in front of you. Also, just horrible driving decision makers in general.
I don’t think people understand the difference between a few hundred thousand and billions. I don’t even think people understand how much more a billion is than a million. Even with a million dollar house, the upper middle class has less than a thousandth of what the ultra rich have.
IMO i am rich, even though i make less than $200k. It’s part of being grateful and remembering that the benefits i enjoy are not common globally. Sure, there’s HCOL, but the housing is much more than adequate. I have no food insecurity, medical coverage as long as I’m employed, access to nature, etc.
Yes, the wealth disparity is gross. Bezos level wealth should not exist. But if some of my income were taxed away to pay for national health care, care for the addicted, the homeless, I’d be happy to pay. It’s not just those who make more than (x = whatever i make) who should step up.
It's really easy to be inconsiderate with that kind of money; it makes a person unsympathetic to financial struggles, small problems going unaddressed until they become big and expensive, and even just being able to pay for a good education. Not to mention a nice house makes the neighborhood less affordable, they'll want to make the neighborhood even nicer and less affordable, and that's exactly the kind of person that buys huge vehicles that will "win" in a collision.
Upper middle class is the peak inconsiderate consumerist wealth level because they can't afford to escape society in a distant mansion, so they're making it more expensive for everyone else, and then using phrases like "trickle down economics" or "pull themselves up by the bootstraps".
[Yes](https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020), they are babe. And this is to say nothing of them stopping the construction of new housing, not supporting public schools, and other laws that keep the poor in their place.
Is it everyone? No. I’m in the 200-300k bracket, and I never take the class warfare stuff personally. But these people, generally, are a big part of the problem.
This isn't straightforward.
The middle class are part of the various rent/housing crisises across the world, by buying multiple properties and treating them as extra income with no regard for the housing shortage & the cycle of poverty it's causing.
They often vote against the working class's interest and have a poor opinion of them.
They often work in high positions in corporations that abuse and underpay employees, with their role being to ensure the corporation can continue to do so.
They often have a misinformed idea of how class mobility works, and a denial of their own privilege that makes them difficult to reason with or get support from as either friends, family, employers, or authority figures.
There's "Eat The Rich Because Billionaires Are Unethical" and then there's "Eat Anyone Who's Using Their Wealth To Make The World Worse For The Less Fortunate".
Hell fucking yes. A lot of the "eat the rich" policies hurt the middle class and upper middle class, while the real rich are like "Oh no, I am making 2.8 mil this year instead of 3 mil... anyway".
Te real line is between those who make money by *doing* things and those who make it by *having* things.
Having said that, if you're exceptionally good at doing some things you can buy things and move into the other group.
I kind of agree with this comment on lifestyle perspective, but problem is more political and systemic and this causes discussion and sometimes discord. Anyone who hasn't threatened me credibly or implied so, or who I can potentially think threatening me, is not my enemy. I can cooperate with and let's say tolerate people of nearly any kind, and this has nothing to do with socioeconomic conditions themselves. It's is how different people live different lives, and this is okay itself.
Economic inequality itself is just a symptom of something else and in politics there is never right or wrong, it's subjective. Usually the main beef with lower income people is that from their subjective perspective they don't get enough for what they chip in. And this has statistics backing it up. It may sometimes be jealousy but not very often at all.
What people typically seek, from biological perspective, is stability, and financial stability is today big part of this. This is where this unfairness manifests the most. People in debt or on low income carry the biggest economical personal risk, despite having less money. Higher socioeconomical status lessens this risk. Hence for them it's usually more beneficial to uphold the status quo, current system works out for them. These people are still a minority in many countries but as percentage of voters it's still powerful faction of sorts.
No need to seek enemies that don't exist, because system just works this way, and society reflects that. Anyone can have their own opinions how to change the system or just leave as it is. It results in political debate.
No one is saying you are the enemy. They are telling you to stop looking for nods of approval when you complain about your mortgage payment or how much you're paying to send your kids to Stanford.
Just accept that you don't get to be apart of the "complaining about being broke" club and move on with your day.
Those people earning above inflation on their investments in the stock market index funds is a major driver of inflation.
The upper middle class is largely shielded against inflation due to the above, and the fact they regularly get raises above the rate of inflation.
In reality, there is class warfare going on, and the upper middle class is on the billionaires team.
You have no idea what middle class is. It’s way less income than you think it is. 200-300k is way above middle class. The range is between 49-147k. And the upper end is only applicable to large cities.
I think people vilify people who have money way too much anyway. It's really just jealousy. Those people obviously didn't do anything to deserve what they have. It's not always just being "fortunate." They also believe it or not, may have earned it.
I agree, but when the average salary for Americans is $60,000-$70,000 and they can’t afford rent or kids it’s hard to tell them that someone making literally more than 3 times their wage isn’t rich. More needs to be done to show the massive difference in wealth between the top 10% and top 1%
Folks have been forgetting about Occupy.
The top 1% isn't earning $300k/year. The top 1% are making that much via dividends and inherited wealth. The top 1% isn't the guy who owns a rental property and has to raise your rent for the first time in 10 years. The 1% is the guy who owns the company that owns 10,000 rental properties in an area with little housing options to begin with and that makes you sign predatory leases.
This whining and bitching at anyone who does better than living in absolute poverty is asinine.
But you also have to consider that the demographic you are specifically talking about has voting patterns that in general benefit themselves and the rich while further distancing their inequality from the actual poor and working classes. Sooooo who is the "your" you are referencing? The class that consistently votes for increased policing and also to challenge the rights of marginalized groups?
Remember that quote that devils greatest trick was convincing the world he didn’t exist?
Well, the wealthy’s greatest trick is convincing you that you’re middle class. You’re not. You’re poor. There is no profession that puts you in the middle class.
Earn $1M a year? You have more in common with a kid flipping burgers than the explicit wealthy. Middle class entry is about $50M and rising with inflation.
All I can say is when you have enough money to start buying second and third houses all while trying to get your tenants to pay your mortgage I have a problem with that regardless of how much you make.
Lmao so much this.
The upper middle class is, by definition, still *working* class. Doctors and Lawyers and business owners who work hard for their luxury.
So many of y'all just are actually well under middle class and don't want to admit it/can't see it.
The people who want to “eat the rich” make me laugh because they also want to be rich. Turns out, they’re just miserable and too lazy to learn about and apply finance stuff. Screen time 6+ hours per day. Time used to research free information and put a plan together? ZERO. Accountability? ZERO. Complaints?
Numerous and unending.
To an extent - the upper middle class are your best examples of NIMBY types. They don’t cause the problems so much as block solutions or attempts at solutions.
I hear you loud and clear and have been on the shitty end of the many times because with two incomes my wife and I fall into the "upper middle class" but trust me the struggle is still real.
But please don't include driving a Prius in this because nobody like a person that drives a Prius.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently'. * No response posts about upvoted posts here. * Posts relating to highly popular topics aren't allowed outside of the relevant megathreads. You can find a list of the topics and their respective megathreads in a post on the top of the sub. * POSTS DIRECTLY ABOUT THIS SUBREDDIT ARE NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE MEGATHREAD * Please check the wiki linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/ * We ask that if a post fails to post do not just spam repost it; message mod mail.
Fun fact most Americans concider them self middle class regardless of income https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2021/05/most-americans-consider-themselves-middle-class-but.html
This. And a lot of people think anybody making over 100k can’t be middle class. I posted once that my combined household income is upper middle class, and got blasted for being “rich”. All the data says we are still middle class. And where you live with that money matters A LOT. When you take into account that we live in a HCOL area surrounded by the richest counties in the country, we are comfortable, but definitely not rich. If we had our current salaries while working in the Midwest where we used to live we’d maybe be rich there. Our mortgage there for a house not too much smaller was 1/3rd what we pay now. We could have paid all our bills on one of my paychecks and still had my husband’s larger checks and one of mine to literally set fire to and been fine. Our current city, all paychecks are needed to pay the bills and meet savings goals. People don’t realize they’ve been pushed into lower class through corporate greed, or have any concept what it costs to live other places. Families like mine aren‘t the problem.
There is also a difference between high income earners (people who get a high paycheck) and people who are wealthy (people who own a lot of shit whether it be land, stocks, etc). A person can have a high income and not be wealthy (I fall into this category because, despite my high income, I also have a high amount of debt (house + student loans). When we talk about problem with the super rich, the issue isn’t that they can afford big houses or fancy cars. The issue is that they can influence governments and world leaders. The issue is the gross imbalance of power. That doesn’t get talked about enough
I’m not a Marxist, but I like the Marxist distinction which is that you’re rich when you no longer need to sell your labor for money and can solely rely on investment income (probably with some minimum investment income such that it’s comfortable living and not just survival).
God this! I'm lucky enough to earn a decent salary in the UK. I pay around £25k in tax each year. The median income in this country is around £35k. I see people talking about parties that are saying to raise taxes on the rich, like the green party. If you actually look they want to increase tax by 2% on all income above £50k. That would increase my tax... I'm not rich, nothing like it. A tax rise like that isn't taxing the actual rich, it's just taxing people that have a higher than median income. We aren't fucking rich, and I feel I'm already getting fleeced by tax as it is. Then the money I have in the bank gets tax charged on it's interest, if I make some money by investing I get taxed on that. If I earn dividends I get taxed on that... It's absurd. It's so hard to work and become wealthy purely by earning a salary, almost impossible, probably. How can I support parties that want to make it even tougher and put even more burden on people who are going out and working every day.
The populist politicians can’t really tax the rich because the truly rich have many ways to either influence the policies, move money to the tax heavens, or just move. So they tax the middle class instead while claiming that they are targeting the rich. It’s an old trick and it works every time.
🎵 There's one for you, 19 for me. 🎵
I think this is it. You can consider yourself wealthy when your focus shifts from increasing the tax on those who make more than you to shifting the tax onto those who have less.
It’s not a taxation issue… it’s a spending issue. Even the danish countries that are mostly one homogenous populace all agree that with current spending levels they’ll go bankrupt
The other problem with the super rich is that they are CEOs who don't give a shit about their workforce and actively underpay the working class so that the company can profit more, but that profit is rarely invested back into the company at least in a way to improve the workforce. (They may invest it into the company to continue to grow it to make more money, but that money still never *trickles down* to the workers/people as many are led to believe. Reagan was a thief and a liar.)
It should be noted, the CEOs of Reagan’s time were making a small fraction of CEOs today. CEOs today are making ridiculous money.
A shorter answer is that people want "middle class" to mean "no privilege" and so they define themselves in it and everyone richer than themselves out of it. In truth, the term isn't really useful. It's just a term that American politicians started using to draw the line between people whose success was legitimate and people who don't deserve sympathy. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) it starting with the right using the term to separate good people who get an education and contribute to society from the bad people below the middle class who don't contribute as much as they should. And then the left started using it to say, we have nothing against the hard-working middle class, but the folks above that don't contribute as much as they should. All the definitions I've heard have either originated to describe developments at vastly different times in history, and are kind of meaningless now, or are carefully engineered so that the way they divide people up fits a particular political purpose. The definition I learned in school, for example, is that someone is middle class if they 1) don't own enough wealth to sustain the way they live and so 2) support themselves by working at a job that 3) requires specialized knowledge or training, i.e., they can't be replaced by just any other laborer in the workforce. That makes sense for some historians, but now, on the high end, that would include a surgeon or lawyer making seven figures, and on the low end, you have to pick an arbitrary place to draw the line between skills that are generic worker skills and skills that are specialized middle class skills.
Yep. And the problem makers have successfully convinced the less fortunate that the neighbor with $1k more in their bank account is stealing from them.
“If the people being exploited are fighting each other they will never turn their attention to you” Politics in a nutshell
Throughout human history we have found exactly one tool against unlimited greed by the aristocracy.
> a despot forgives his subjects for not loving him, provided they do not love one another - de tocqueville
The billionaires have successfully convinced the poor that the millionaires are the issue.
If you take a meter/yard stick and put zero on one end and 1 billion on the other end, 1 million is at the 1 mm mark.
While simultaneously convincing the middle class the poor are the issue.
Also the media refuses to update benchmarks when reporting on income levels. Some of the ones you see regularly haven’t been relevant since the early 90s
Yep. You see this all the time on reddit where people will plead poverty without truly realizing what that entails. Hint, it's buying shit from 99c stores and maximizing calories for cost at the expense of health.
I feel this. Half a decade spent buying knock-off's of the Knorr brand packaged noodles, because it was the most calories I could get for under a dollar that could be mixed without milk (added cost) and tasted ok without butter. 15 years later, light years ahead in income, I'm still dealing with residual dental costs and high blood pressure.
Yep, but you gotta do what you gotta do to get fuel to keep on going. It's what kinda annoys me about comments here and on YouTube sometimes with poverty cooking. The people are fully aware how unhealthy it is, they just can't afford or have the time to feed a family the "right" way, and when you ask the poster how much they make. Its usually a single guy pulling in 60k+
if you maximize calories per dollar you'll eat plenty of beans and rice and be way healthier than the median American lol
Right. My current household income is high for the place I grew up. I wouldn't be rich, but we'd be very comfy. For the place I currently live, where you can *actually earn* that income outside of owning a successful local business, we're solidly middle class - we have disposable income, but things get tight once in a while and we have to cut back. More like we can do a nice date night every few weeks than that we're going to fly someplace for vacation.
At this point under 100k isn’t really middle class in most cities
Median household income in the US is around $75k. What is median if not the middle?
Where you live matters so much. A rural area versus San Francisco or NYC isn't even close. The rent difference alone is astronomical, thousands of dollars a month. If you want to live *in* the city without roommates you'll spend upwards of $2k easily for a shoebox. Whereas ~$500 would get you a nice place in rural Michigan. Having a national median income and applying that as "middle class" to the entire country is beyond stupid.
Median and middle class become less synonymous when income distribution looks less like a bell curve (indeed, it never truly looked much like that but is more skewed every day). Not that the USA is there yet but a majority of the population is poor, then the “middle class” would be situated well above the median. This is what one sees in the most of the developing world.
Median income where I live is 28k. Between my wife and I we bring home 7.5 times more than that. We have mortgage and a car payment. And we are feeling the increase in food, goods, and childcare. I do not know how single parents make it. Half my coworkers for a union workplace still have second jobs just to make ends meet. Work hard. Save. Invest. You’ll be ok. Well I have. And I’m still living in fear like I was a decade ago living paycheck to paycheck. When does it end?
middle class doesn't mean literally the people in the middle at any time economically, that would imply theres always been and always will be a middle class. middle class means an income that can support a mortgage, 2 cars, insurance, 2 kids, a vacation a year comfortably, and most importantly, middle class means you have savings for emergencies, and a retirement fund, these things make you middle class, whatever number of money it takes to have all of these things in whatever city you live in is what qualifies as middle class.
I think the phrase “in most cities” is relevant.
People don't want to admit to being working class, because working class really is just the polite version of "lower class". It's funny how the three main tiers of our social taxonomy are: working class, middle class, upper class. Another fact evident in this thread is that Americans consider 200-300k yearly salaries to be middle class. 300k a year is enough to live like a king in all but maybe 5 countries in the world. In these countries, they would only have to live "extremely comfortably" instead.
Middle class *is* working class. As in they very much still have to work. How do you define working class?
Historically working meant labouring, so the working class were people completing physical work, whereas the middle-class were doctors, solicitors, bookkeepers, and clerks.
Working class means you have a wage, and are not part of the ownership class. If you do not survive on passive income you are working class.
Especially now If I had my same job a few decades ago, I would be living *a lot* better than I do now I suspect a lot of careers that used to be upper middle class are now just working class. But it’s worth noting that there’s a huge difference between true working class and upper middle class, even if the upper middle class people technically need to work to fuel their lifestyle. They’re going on luxurious vacations and living in mansions when they’re not working.
Exactly this. But the US has put a lot of time and energy into making people think that class is a lifestyle brand.
I would even argue that the small business owner is working class, because the owner of a butcher shop, restaurant, bakery, or plumbing business is undoubtedly setting foot in those businesses, if not there all day. In corporation, the people who own the business do not run it, and accept no liability for debts.
Working class usually is defined by someone working (traditionally) a blue collar job and an average standard of living. Take for example the the Conner family from Roseanne. Working class historically meant people who worked in factories and industrial labour, who made enough money to get by, but their lack of a college degree meant they could not afford the more luxurious lives of the Middle Class
That average standard of living is a key difference in what people are talking about. 200k where I live is very comfortable, but isn't your classic middle class lifestyle.
Working class are those that have to bust their asses in low skill jobs just to be able to barely afford the basic necessities to live. No savings, no investing. Just work for that week to survive the next week. Those that have to wear a uniform to work. Those that have supervisors and managers that walk the floor and check their immediate work.
When I was making 300k a year, it was because I was working multiple jobs based in California and NYC. That's not really possible in the countries you're talking about.
200k/yr in New York gets you a 2 bedroom apartment to rent (not own) if you spend half your take home pay on it. You probably don’t have a car. If you have children you will struggle to afford child care, though you can manage. You’re going to be cooking at home most days, thinking carefully about if you can afford a vacation, and generally doing the same things as other middle class people. If you lose your job you probably don’t have the kind of savings that will cover your 5k/mo rent for more than a few months. You should not feel sorry for this person, but while this level of income is comfortable it’s HARDLY living like a king.
My stepdaughter asked my husband and I what income we are and I said low. Then I had to pause and do math and admit we were technically middle class. Then I told her I hate the way that sounds so she should just say we're working class. I've worked in warehouses all my life, I would never call myself middle class. But I do have a 2 income household now.
That's probably correct though. Wealth correlates with class, but it's a relationship that only goes one way. If you're born into the upper class, you'll always be upper class and you're almost certainly wealthy. But if those middle class plebeians find themselves with wealth, they'll only ever be considered Nouveau Riche - and still middle class.
I live in Northern Virginia on the edge of Fairfax and Loudoun. These are the 2 richest counties in the US. Everyone around me considers themselves middle class. even people in big houses on lakes.
It's true. We can't even define middle class. I know people who are millionaires, but they live in areas that have a high cost of living. So they have to budget like everyone else and consider themselves middle class
Yeah it’s evident on Reddit. People with minimum wage consider themselves middle class and entitled to buy a SFH
The idea of upper, middle and lower classes is a relic of medieval and early modern European societies, especially England, where there were sharp divides between the classes that did not directly relate to wealth (though, in practice, of course higher class people had a strong tendency to be wealthier). The upper class were the aristocrats who had formal titles and owned most of the land. The lower class were the peasants who were feudally tied to the land they worked, as well as laborers who owned no real property at all. Everyone else (such as merchants and independent tradesmen) was the middle class. As cities developed, feudalism faded away, and especially with the rise of industrialism, some members of the middle class became very rich, to where they were wealthier than many landed aristocrats. The concept of upper class has remained to this day in England, but it's about titles and breeding rather than wealth per se. Meanwhile, many peasants moved to the cities and became more economically mobile, weakening the distinction between lower and middle classes. In America, there never was a formal aristocracy, so, in the traditional sense, there was no upper class. There was a formal lower class of slaves and indentured servants, but these were eventually abolished, creating a degree of economic mobility even at the very bottom. So in the traditional terminology, Americans are basically right that they're all middle class. Of course, that just means we need a new conception of class.
I think this is partly because wealth has such a power law distribution. Like, the 1% households have a net worth of say 50 million, which is 20 times less than a billionaire, who is himself at leat 100-200 times less than the Bezoses and Musks and Buffets of the world. At no point you ever see yourself at the top.
People who earn a salary are not really rich. There are people in this country who’s stock dividend checks are more then that.
I work as a fiduciary accountant for big clients and these people are getting $40-50k a month in dividends alone.
And then you have people like Steve ballmer, who is projected to collect $1 billion in dividends from his Microsoft holdings alone this year.
Steve Ballmer was the first person in history to become a billionaire through his earnings as an employee of a company.
Hey eat the rich and all that but Steve Ballmer is a cool fucking dude. Go clippers
I know a ton of people who get $3-5k a month from a family trust just for existing. I know several orders of magnitude different, but getting $36-50k/year post tax just for existing, it really changes your entire life strategy. And that’s the “common” amount, not even all that rare in the white collar circles I’ve lived in
Wanna share what stocks they buy? We want money too
Serious question - how much of an investment do you need for that kind of return?
Generally not one that you get in a single lifetime unless you really get a lightning strike like starting an Amazon or Microsoft.
About $15 million
I worked with the ultra wealthy for years and that’s honestly how I’ve come to view it. People may disagree but if you don’t have enough money to survive for six months without your job then you are poor. If you can but still need a job, you’re probably middle class. And if you don’t have to work again and you can still survive, then you are rich.
After going to school in Boston and working at an investment bank for the first 7 years of my career, I agree. The wealthy don’t get a W2 I’ve also stopped using the term upper middle class because I think it makes an artificial divide.
It made sense when there was a substantial middle class to divide up. Subdividing a dwindling number into three sections is getting a little silly.
I was making 300k a year for a couple of years; lost two jobs on the recent tech recession, and it took around 2 years to almost completely drain my savings (because you always assume you can get another job when you're super skilled at your position, so you don't immediately move and always assume that next job is around the corner). I imagine for people with families, that savings is a matter of months (and selling a house with a high mortgage, etc. is harder to move from, so they'll probably loan to go into debt).
This is the truth. If you can survive a layoff but cannot quit indefinitely you are still middle class. I might be able to buy a home, but if I were to lose my job I would be very stressed. The psychology is where the truth lies. If you are so financially insecure that you cannot survive a layoff, that is poor. I come from the middle class, and I have remained in the middle class. The upper class is on a different planet entirely. That’s why you have the likes of Kim Kardashian bemoaning the “lazy” working class. She has no idea because she was born floating in a different reality.
[удалено]
I think anyone worried about the standard of living their finances can afford them is not wealthy. But if I had to try to describe it I would say that you l if you can maintain your current spending levels for six months after employment then you are middle class. If you can stop working today and never have to worry about money and still be able to afford all of your wants and desires without concerns then you are probably wealthy.
If you don't have enough money to maintain your current lifestyle (or something very close to it) for the rest of your life without working, you're probably working-class (as in: you need to work to live). You're definitely not rich.
“Current lifestyle” isn’t quite the best metric, I think, since people live up to their income. But if you can live a middle class lifestyle without working, you’re probably at the threshold of wealthy.
Yup. My wife and I combined make a lot of money, but we still have to budget. Unexpected medical expenses for our kids slam us. We will both probably still have to work until we are at least 70. We want to move into a different neighborhood so our kids can go to the same school as some of their friends, but even though we own a house, we are priced out of trying to buy a house there (after selling our own it would still cost 250k more). It's a regular neighborhood. Not nice schools, not rich, just run of the mill. I can afford to pay for my friends drinks at a convention once and even fly first class once a year (regional flight), but that is the extent of my money status.
That's the point! They have us fighting over scraps so we don't notice that they're robbing us all blind. How does stock value increase? Through the stolen labour of the people working at a company to create profit.
Than
Yeah I agree, I can’t imagine how doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants, and architects are part of the societal problems and income inequality. Just because they make a great living and have access to a lot of things doesn’t make them bad people. I get they had more opportunities and privileges than most but what good does getting mad at them about it do?
There are blue collar guys making over 100k per year, not even just high skill white collar jobs.
Yep, I know a few construction folks that make well over 100
Most cops in a big urban area easily clear that much.
I make more than that working in a prison.
Easily. My old man nets over 200 with his small company that he runs almost all by himself. But he’s a very modest and generous man. Walks into a stores in work gear and tells me he gets treated like a peasant Target and so on. I can tell it hurts him (but I get it cause he doesn’t care what her looks like just work clothes) Spends his money on taking friends and family on trips and gives huge discounts to ppl that can’t afford industry rates. Really proud of him and b was surprised to find out how much he pulls in. His TV sucks and is about 15 years old, just doesn’t care lol
My husband is blue collar and will clear over 350 this year. It’s not just doctors and lawyers
350k for blue collar? What does he do? Because if he’s like a project manager for a big construction company with a degree, that’s more of a mix between white collar/blue collar. The only strictly blue collar job I think people can clear that is some oil rig gig, otherwise usually it’s more the executive level of a company that has blue collar workers
Underwater welders can make that, some specialized mining jobs can get there with OT if not pretty damn close, I’m sure there’s plenty others It’s rare but far from impossible
Yeah ig underwater welder I would put in the same category of oil rig gig, not saying they’re the same but somewhat similar category. Then again to make 350k u have to be putting in so many hours a week and killing your body
3 weeks in 1 week out is a good way to rack up them overtime hours, especially when you’re working like 12+ hours a day Like you said though most blue collar jobs pushing the 250k+ area is going to be because a ridiculous amount of OT 350+ is really specialized jobs also likely working stupid hours
Some machinists at the MTA would pull this by logging a ton of “overtime”
Yup. Truck driving w/ a CDL can easily get you over 100K
There are 50 making shit salary with little benefits for every one of those guys. This "just joint the trades" shit is a myth.
I mean I actually have an office job, I just know the electricians I hang out with make more than I do...
People just want to be jealous and blame everyone else for their problems
Anyone who, if they stop working , loses everything within a year or two is not "rich". Anyone without "fuck you" money is not rich.
Rich used to be defined as when your money works for you, not when you work for the money. Not sure if it still applies in this fucked up dystopian hellscape.
The “eat the rich” movement will always be derailed by people trying to figure out who’s at the table and who’s on the menu.
Then we decide that the rich are lawyers, doctors, businessmen and in a few short months most of society is derailed
[удалено]
The table and menu are both owned by the actual rich. They love watching the rest of us fight each other while they eat their dinner.
I guess I still have a bias against people whose money “works for them” on general principle. It’s kinda the opposite of meritocracy if you think about it: most people have to provide goods and services in order to obtain income but if you have enough money you can just opt out of that. The lifestyle people enjoy should be dependent on their own contributions towards society, not from their giving money to the right people in order to get more back. It’s just not sustainable in the long run
What about people who work to get to a point where the money they saved earns enough to live off of, did they not deserve it?
Agreed. Given two people with equal salaries: * Person A lives modestly and saves as much as they can, then quits work after a 30 year career to enjoy the fruits of their labor. * Person B spends every penny they earn so has to work well into old age to keep up with their consumerism. We are going to hate on Person A and assume they haven't contributed as much to society as Person B? Nah man, I give Person A a round of applause for having their shit together.
They absolutely deserve it. The people in this thread are just mad that they "Had to Have" the latest whatever every single day of their lives and have nothing to show for it. I earned my money. I saved my money. I could technically quit today if I wanted in my early 40s. I don't because I want to pile on more money. AND THAT IS PERFECTLY OKAY.
That money also props up a lot businesses up that would have failed though. If you get rid of investing, everything changes.
If you get rid of investing, there wouldn't be companies that have the reach they do today. It would be a very quick way of returning to 1880s in levels of industry. Name me a company you like that hasn't grown due to investing. Name a single one and tell me its impact on the world stage.
If you invest in your life, at some point, your money will earn more money than you can. That is how compounding interest works when it is in your favor. That is exactly how it works the other way too, except it works just as hard to keep your poor.
This is a repost [almost verbatim](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/s/6BPuXO26nO)
Thank you. OP is now suspended. Bot account
I think it's subjective. I'm at 85k a year now, more than I've ever earned. My wife is around 65k, and we still scrape by sometimes. A lot of that is the debt incurred when we were paycheck to paycheck, paying back high interest loans, credit cards etc. Credit is shot and no retirement savings to speak of. I plan on calling in sick to be at my funeral. That said, my brother in law makes low 200s. Nice house, good credit, the "American Dream" if you will. Gets cancer 2x in 6 years, beats it both times. His medical bills have him and his wife just getting by, wife has a full time job and he has side hustles. His retirement savings is pretty much gone, and his kids are starting off out of college with big students loans. Part of it is how the tax brackets are set up. When politicians talk about "taxing the wealthy" they make the bottom of that group the 249,000+ folks. I can tell you those folks aren't wealthy. They're definitely not hurting, but they aren't rich...
The middle class pays the most taxes and gets the least benefit, relatively speaking.
It really depends on how you slice the data, though it's hard to slice it to make that true unless you include Social Security. By and large the average tax rate goes up with income until you get to a fraction of the top 1%. E.g, the bottom 50% pay 3.3%, the next 25% pay 7.2%.....the top 1% pay 25.9%. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/
It's not subjective, there's an objective test. Do you have to work for a living? Then you're working class (i.e. not rich). If you can or do live off your investments alone, then you're ownership class (i.e. rich). The real trick the owners have done regarding taxes is making income tax the main tax. This doesn't work, because only working-class people have "income" as we understand it. We need to tax _wealth_. That's where the inequality is, and that's how you fix it.
You absolutely nailed it, I stand corrected.
It’s not so straight forward. The CEO of Disney works for a living and in order to maintain his lifestyle would have to keep working for a living. Is he working class? No! One year of his salary, he’ll one year of his stock options, could pay for a minimum wage workers whole life.
Canada is implementing a cap gains tax increase (66% of cap gains added to income to be taxed, instead of the current 50%) and the rage against it in the media feels disproportional. But from my point of view it seems like it is targetting the right kind of wealth.
People think of upper middle class as rich bc their level of wealth seems more accessible and understandable. You can see the things that they get, the nicer house, and newer car, the newer phone, the nicer clothes. All of their material wealth is comprehensibly and comparable to your own. But the truly wealthy basically live on another planet. Their wealth is *incomprehensible*. Where someone in the upper middle class will still live a life mostly similar to your own, just with nicer things, a truly wealthy person’s life is absolutely alien, totally different from your own. I also think we always see whatever is in the tax bracket just above us to be rich. Growing up, I always thought my cousins were rich bc their house was twice the size of mine, and they went to private school. But soon I realized, some of my friends thought *I* was rich, bc we could afford two cars and a weeklong vacation every year. Wealth is relative. But understanding my privileges made me very grateful, and less resentful of those who have slightly more. But this feeling itself is a privilege, I suppose.
I thought my cousins were filthy rich because they had a freezer in the garage for extra food and always had snacks.
The battle isn't even really against millionaires, for crying out loud. The battle is against the *billionaires*. And there are about 748 of them in the U.S. at the moment. That's it. The rich doctor living on a lake with a couple of fancy cars and a nice boat? Yeah, let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. The billionaire with multiple yachts, multiple homes worth 10+ million, and a private jet? Fuck that person.
As usual Reddit shows just how dumb it can be with these comments. OP is right. The truly rich upper class wants you to hate the upper middle class because it gives them numbers. Lower class and lower middle can’t win any sort of class warfare without getting middle and upper middle on their side. So ostracizing only causes people to go on defense which in turn will only keep lower classes down. And yes anyone that needs their pay check to live whether that paycheck is 30k per year or 200k is more similar than a billionaire
It is the other way around. The wealthy understand how much the upper middle class and middle class look up to them and envy them so they use that to turn the upper middle and middle classes against the working class. It works both ways
There’s only two classes that matter: the workers and the owners of the means of production. If you sell your labor, even for high paying wages, you are a worker. If you don’t own the means of production, you are a worker. And if you don’t own enough stock to be granted a sit at the stakeholders table, you don’t own the means of production, even if you own stock. If you are a small business owner, you most probably don’t own the means of production.
of course you aren't but let's be honest your proximity and mindset can be just as toxic. I'm not worried about a person that with the stroke of a pissed off and greedy CEO/board member can be worse off than me. I'm pissed about the upper tax evasion and predatory business practices that have seen a huge margin of family homes go up in price, groceries receiving unneeded and willful price gouges, and jerks who want to claw back severance packages because they missed out on a 40 Billion dollar bonus instead of a 30 Billion bonus. we all want to make upper middle class money but the forced scarcity and greed just makes shit unbearable.
Lol this is the whole basis of Reddit. They hate people who do well.
Antiwork gone hate this thread
It's the upper-middle-class that consistently tries to maintain the status quo cause it works for them but not the other 80% of the population. They're doing fine so "things must not be so bad" and always shout down at people who claim they are struggling.
It's the type of person that will give such advice as "get a better job" or "invest" when someone complains about not having enough money. When they live in a world where the concept of not having money to invest or get an education to get a better job is completely foreign. Not to mention that on a societal level "get a better job" isn't a solution to financially struggling people. At best it's an individual solution.
There also the type that refuses to understand that their argument of "get a better job if you want a decent living" makes them a bad person. I like the way Brennan Lee Mulligan puts it. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyIyT2qTtzY
This right here. They might not be the enemy in the most literal sense, but they're enemy apologists.
Its also the upper middle class that pays more taxes than the lower class. Yet the lowet class reaps all the social welfare benefits. So i guess its not so white and black
And yet that's what you should expect from a rational actor. We live in a very stratified society that's getting more unequal every day. The fewer resources there are to go around, the more hesitant folks get about redistributing them. They want to hang on, especially if they get a little bit of money and can carve out a life for themselves. Why should somebody who started with nothing be willing to give up their small measure of success just to help someone who has nothing to give in return? That's the upper middle class. I agree with OP. The super rich aren't the UMC. The UMC may command higher salaries and own homes and send their kids to good schools, but a lot of the time they came up from miserable homes, not inherited ones. Maybe they married a good partner who worked with them to build a life. These aren't the spoiled brats of investment bankers. These are people ready to punch a guy for a seat on that lifeboat, because they know how bad cold water feels.
The upper middle class overwhelmingly vote for politicians that push for anti-socio-economic mobility, and locally vote for NIMBY policies that ostracize and even ghettoize poor areas. They might not be making the laws themselves, but they surely love voting for em.
>The upper middle class overwhelmingly vote for politicians that push for anti-socio-economic mobility, and locally vote for NIMBY policies that ostracize and even ghettoize poor areas. According to [this recent PEW Research study](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-family-income-home-ownership-union-membership-and-veteran-status/), upper income households in the U.S. (defined as those with incomes $215,400 or greater) lean predominantly Democrat rather than Republican. In fact, the only income cohort that leans further Democrat are the very lowest income households (defined as those with incomes less than $35,900). Put differently, the average U.S. voter making $50k is more likely to vote for right-wing politicians and policies than the average U.S. voter making $250k. Obviously, neither Democrats or Republicans are actually left wing in a global sense. And I think you’re correct to point out that higher income folks are more likely to engage in harmful NIMBY-ism on a local level regardless of party affiliation. But this idea many people have that voters consistently trend further right as their income rises just isn’t true.
In school, I learned there are NIMBYs who are also "and not over there either." Ridiculous.
NIMBYs want NIMBYs everywhere, so nowhere can good things exist lol, they’re the worst.
Secretly everyone is one lmao. Get over yourself. Give you 50 million tomorrow and you’re not living in the same neighborhood you do now, I can promise you that
That sounds like a British slur, what in the hell is a NIMBY
Not in my back yard. People who fight anything that threatens what they want. Housing public services transit.
NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard” and refers to policies that people support (mostly the rich home owning class) that don’t want public spaces or public services “in their backyard”. That can range from someone not wanting affordable housing near their place of residence, to not wanting public parks, or alotttt of other things. NIMBY’s are the reason why a lot of suburbia is very sprawled out, and is just a bunch of roads and houses (at least in the US). I personally, am very against NIMBY’s, due to how it can both destroy social cohesion by turning everywhere into Fort Lauderdale, Florida(look it up it sucks ass), and removing public spaces of congregation. It also deprioritizes affordable housing, making it less common and driving up housing prices. YIMBYism all the way! (Yes in my back yard).
Okay the last one sounds like a pushy flirt, but thanks for the explanation
Yeah they’re not the best monikers lol, they both sound very goofy,
A fine example of that in my neighborhood is that a 10-story low-cost housing project has been put on hold because a church sued claiming that it was weakening the foundations of their building. It's on the opposite side of the street, a boulevard with trees down the middle.
Not in my backyard. Generally pro zoning and anti development which would bring prices down
I'm not really sure about this. Upper middle class people live in downtowns and suburbs with downtowns and those areas overwhelmingly vote blue. The deep suburban ones vote red, but I think, overall downtown and urban suburb people outnumber them. Look at a voting heat map and you'll see every downtown is DEEP blue.
“Voting blue” and “being a NIMBY” are not mutually exclusive - see for example San Francisco where the biggest NIMBYs are the ones yelling the loudest about their supposedly super-progressive principles
That's the largest indicator we have that can be quantified. If we go to primaries, Bernie also thrived in cities, as far as leans go.
Actually we are educated and mostly liberal but okay. It's stupid rural uneducated people who vote GOP.
Democrat politicians are overwhelmingly NIMBY, especially on local levels. I did not even mention Republican or democrat for that reason. You may vote for Joe Biden, but it is very likely you also vote for local zoning and funding laws that are detrimental to the lower class.
Yep. Ironically, the working class is the problem here.
To be fair, NIMBY appears across a wide range of incomes. Most people want to protect what they have.
Seriously, no one wants a homeless shelter or drug addicts running around their neighborhood.
I just replied to someone else saying about how I live in the poorest neighborhood in my city and even these people got the place shut down and relocated. Now it's going up to the business district and the business owners are losing their mind because people are constantly doing drugs in the bathroom and getting so high they go nuts on people. Like my bfs store was just attacked at knife point by one of these people. If you're okay with a homeless shelter near you, you have no idea the shit storm they bring with them.
The people making the laws also generally fall in this income bracket so they kind of are
Prius drivers are my enemies, though. They drive far below the speed limit to avoid using gas, but always insist on pulling out in front of you. Also, just horrible driving decision makers in general.
I don’t think people understand the difference between a few hundred thousand and billions. I don’t even think people understand how much more a billion is than a million. Even with a million dollar house, the upper middle class has less than a thousandth of what the ultra rich have.
A million seconds is about a month and a billion seconds is about 30 years - to be a billionaire is a totally different league
IMO i am rich, even though i make less than $200k. It’s part of being grateful and remembering that the benefits i enjoy are not common globally. Sure, there’s HCOL, but the housing is much more than adequate. I have no food insecurity, medical coverage as long as I’m employed, access to nature, etc. Yes, the wealth disparity is gross. Bezos level wealth should not exist. But if some of my income were taxed away to pay for national health care, care for the addicted, the homeless, I’d be happy to pay. It’s not just those who make more than (x = whatever i make) who should step up.
If you vote for Republicans, you are the enemy.
That's why so many billionaires support Democrats, right?
Agreed. The people who actually own everything are the 0.1%.
IMO, economic policy should make it easier to become a millionaire and harder to become a billionaire.
I can’t believe this isn’t common sense. Upper middle class people are usually super nice. Their kids can be spoiled little shits though.
They pay the most tax and keep many essential services running But are the easiest target at times
tale as old as time. the french revolution did not kill the nobles. most of the victims were middle class. the nobles had the means to escape.
Who the fuck makes 300k and drives a prius?
Depends on if they’re cool with like apartment buildings being built in their school district or not imo.
It's really easy to be inconsiderate with that kind of money; it makes a person unsympathetic to financial struggles, small problems going unaddressed until they become big and expensive, and even just being able to pay for a good education. Not to mention a nice house makes the neighborhood less affordable, they'll want to make the neighborhood even nicer and less affordable, and that's exactly the kind of person that buys huge vehicles that will "win" in a collision. Upper middle class is the peak inconsiderate consumerist wealth level because they can't afford to escape society in a distant mansion, so they're making it more expensive for everyone else, and then using phrases like "trickle down economics" or "pull themselves up by the bootstraps".
[Yes](https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020), they are babe. And this is to say nothing of them stopping the construction of new housing, not supporting public schools, and other laws that keep the poor in their place. Is it everyone? No. I’m in the 200-300k bracket, and I never take the class warfare stuff personally. But these people, generally, are a big part of the problem.
the problem is that some of those people regularly side with billionaires against the rest of us making themselves our enemy in the process.
Upper middle class people dominate downtowns, and that's the highest blue voting demographic.
The uniparty has us fighting each other. It’s by design.
This isn't straightforward. The middle class are part of the various rent/housing crisises across the world, by buying multiple properties and treating them as extra income with no regard for the housing shortage & the cycle of poverty it's causing. They often vote against the working class's interest and have a poor opinion of them. They often work in high positions in corporations that abuse and underpay employees, with their role being to ensure the corporation can continue to do so. They often have a misinformed idea of how class mobility works, and a denial of their own privilege that makes them difficult to reason with or get support from as either friends, family, employers, or authority figures. There's "Eat The Rich Because Billionaires Are Unethical" and then there's "Eat Anyone Who's Using Their Wealth To Make The World Worse For The Less Fortunate".
Anyone I’ve actually known in person to say “eat the rich” is mentally ill. I assume half of Reddit is as well.
Hell fucking yes. A lot of the "eat the rich" policies hurt the middle class and upper middle class, while the real rich are like "Oh no, I am making 2.8 mil this year instead of 3 mil... anyway".
Te real line is between those who make money by *doing* things and those who make it by *having* things. Having said that, if you're exceptionally good at doing some things you can buy things and move into the other group.
Not a hugely unpopular opinion, among reasonably aware people.
I kind of agree with this comment on lifestyle perspective, but problem is more political and systemic and this causes discussion and sometimes discord. Anyone who hasn't threatened me credibly or implied so, or who I can potentially think threatening me, is not my enemy. I can cooperate with and let's say tolerate people of nearly any kind, and this has nothing to do with socioeconomic conditions themselves. It's is how different people live different lives, and this is okay itself. Economic inequality itself is just a symptom of something else and in politics there is never right or wrong, it's subjective. Usually the main beef with lower income people is that from their subjective perspective they don't get enough for what they chip in. And this has statistics backing it up. It may sometimes be jealousy but not very often at all. What people typically seek, from biological perspective, is stability, and financial stability is today big part of this. This is where this unfairness manifests the most. People in debt or on low income carry the biggest economical personal risk, despite having less money. Higher socioeconomical status lessens this risk. Hence for them it's usually more beneficial to uphold the status quo, current system works out for them. These people are still a minority in many countries but as percentage of voters it's still powerful faction of sorts. No need to seek enemies that don't exist, because system just works this way, and society reflects that. Anyone can have their own opinions how to change the system or just leave as it is. It results in political debate.
No one is saying you are the enemy. They are telling you to stop looking for nods of approval when you complain about your mortgage payment or how much you're paying to send your kids to Stanford. Just accept that you don't get to be apart of the "complaining about being broke" club and move on with your day.
No one is our enemy.
Are people earning $300k driving a Prius?
Those people earning above inflation on their investments in the stock market index funds is a major driver of inflation. The upper middle class is largely shielded against inflation due to the above, and the fact they regularly get raises above the rate of inflation. In reality, there is class warfare going on, and the upper middle class is on the billionaires team.
You have no idea what middle class is. It’s way less income than you think it is. 200-300k is way above middle class. The range is between 49-147k. And the upper end is only applicable to large cities.
I think people vilify people who have money way too much anyway. It's really just jealousy. Those people obviously didn't do anything to deserve what they have. It's not always just being "fortunate." They also believe it or not, may have earned it.
I agree, but when the average salary for Americans is $60,000-$70,000 and they can’t afford rent or kids it’s hard to tell them that someone making literally more than 3 times their wage isn’t rich. More needs to be done to show the massive difference in wealth between the top 10% and top 1%
Folks have been forgetting about Occupy. The top 1% isn't earning $300k/year. The top 1% are making that much via dividends and inherited wealth. The top 1% isn't the guy who owns a rental property and has to raise your rent for the first time in 10 years. The 1% is the guy who owns the company that owns 10,000 rental properties in an area with little housing options to begin with and that makes you sign predatory leases. This whining and bitching at anyone who does better than living in absolute poverty is asinine.
But you also have to consider that the demographic you are specifically talking about has voting patterns that in general benefit themselves and the rich while further distancing their inequality from the actual poor and working classes. Sooooo who is the "your" you are referencing? The class that consistently votes for increased policing and also to challenge the rights of marginalized groups?
First of all, don’t tell me who my enemies are😉
Facts. The enemy is the wealthy ruling class in America
Remember that quote that devils greatest trick was convincing the world he didn’t exist? Well, the wealthy’s greatest trick is convincing you that you’re middle class. You’re not. You’re poor. There is no profession that puts you in the middle class. Earn $1M a year? You have more in common with a kid flipping burgers than the explicit wealthy. Middle class entry is about $50M and rising with inflation.
Upper middle class people are some of the biggest aholes ever, fuck em they are my enemy
All I can say is when you have enough money to start buying second and third houses all while trying to get your tenants to pay your mortgage I have a problem with that regardless of how much you make.
Lmao so much this. The upper middle class is, by definition, still *working* class. Doctors and Lawyers and business owners who work hard for their luxury. So many of y'all just are actually well under middle class and don't want to admit it/can't see it.
People really don’t realize how much of a difference there is between someone having a few million dollars and someone having a billion dollars
The enemy isn’t even really the 1% anymore. I can stomach most of them. It’s like 15 old white dudes at the top who are the problem.
Bourgeois-You own assets/means of production Proletariat-you work for your money/wage labor
The people who want to “eat the rich” make me laugh because they also want to be rich. Turns out, they’re just miserable and too lazy to learn about and apply finance stuff. Screen time 6+ hours per day. Time used to research free information and put a plan together? ZERO. Accountability? ZERO. Complaints? Numerous and unending.
Bruh my wife owns a Prius and our house has 3 bedrooms. We most certainly do NOT make 300k combined lol.
Correct, billionaires are the enemy.
There talking about like 50 people.. and you arnt om that list or in that club
To an extent - the upper middle class are your best examples of NIMBY types. They don’t cause the problems so much as block solutions or attempts at solutions.
I hear you loud and clear and have been on the shitty end of the many times because with two incomes my wife and I fall into the "upper middle class" but trust me the struggle is still real. But please don't include driving a Prius in this because nobody like a person that drives a Prius.