• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s not middle class…

    I don’t know if it has its own name, but it’s like the Overton window in politics.

    Average people assume that they’re average and middle class means average, so they’re “middle class” despite having three figures in saving, no home equity, and a retirement account that will never be enough to retire.

    Prior generations at least built up home equity over a lifetime.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “middle class” is currently defined by arbitrary income levels, not purchasing power. Considering the cost of living disparity across the US it’s an absolutely useless measure.

      To be in the middle class 50 years ago, you were able to buy a reasonable family house on one income. To do that today if you’re in an area where the cost of living isn’t absolutely bottom of the barrel you’ve got to make what is currently considered “upper middle class” income or slightly above.

      Middle class living is relegated to upper middle class incomes while middle and lower middle class have to rent that lifestyle.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        upper middle class incomes

        The middle class died the day they had to make the “upper middle class” a thing…

        That’s the wealth distribution middle class was supposed to be. But it shrank down so much they had to make new class distinctions up.

        In pre-revolution France, the bourgeois were the middle class.

        99% in poverty.

        O.99% bourgeois

        0.01%, the aristocrats!

        That distribution wasn’t sustainable back then, it’s not sustainable now.

        As wealth concentrates at the top, there’s less for everyone else, and we’re all poor.