Economy How the upper middle class keeps everyone else out

[panamaican]

The question wasnt of average income in any area, but rather what is upper-middle class. So while 117k is in the top 25th percentile, 200k is in the top 10.

Unless we are going to say 200k is upper class I dont think theres any question that 117 has to be middle-middle.

But he didn't say "upper middle class" and neither did you. You were both talking about "middle class".

And 117 isn't middle-middle because it puts someone in the upper 25%. Being within the upper 25th percentile cannot be middle-middle just on the basics of being above 75% of the other population. It's not rich but it's not the middle anymore. By that reasoning, households literally in the middle of household incomes are poor? And people in the bottom 20% are what? Or is everyone below the 70th percentile simple low class?

If the top end of the spectrum is the "middle" then the word "middle" doesn't have any meaning anymore.

 

[JonesBones]

And I just can't see no humor
About your way of life
And I think I can do more for you
With this here fork and knife
Eat the rich
There's only one thing that they are good for
Eat the rich
Take one bite now - come back for more
Eat the rich
I gotta get this off my chest
Eat the rich
Take one bite now - spit out the rest

 

[IGIT]

ahoy JonesBones,

I recently watched this video and it makes some good points. It is often the upper middle class rigging things through their community. They control it so it suits the needs of themselves and their families. Real rich people like Bezos and Gates don't need to rig shit.

that college admissions scandal snagged quite a few 1%ers.

real rich people, i think, have an incredible capacity to rig things - because they're rich.

These upper middle class people prevent upward mobility of those below them systematically. The author calls them "dream hoarders".

i agree with the general drift of the video, but have one question;

how does upper middle class dream hoarding square with monied democrats who are essentially voting for the Federal Government to raise their taxes in the pursuit of redistributing the money more equitably?

is there a bit of broadbrushing going on?

- IGIT

 

[panamaican]

While your post is very accurate, I see nothing wrong with anything you posted. Unless you were posting to share knowledge (which would be a very effective and knowledgable post), I feel this is exactly how it should be. We are fortunate enough for it to be this way.

We are not fortunate for it to be this way but that entirely depends on what the long terms goals are. If you're talking about maximizing the nation's human resources in the furtherance of remaining international top dog, it's not a good thing. If you're talking about maximizing an individual family's climb up the economic and social ladder then it is.

In my opinion, I prioritize maximizing the nation's resources. But that's because I come from a background where I've seen the impact of how nations fail to do so.

If the children of the upper middle are truly elite and/or superior then they will outcompete their poorer counterparts, given an equal footing. If they're not and they're artificially raised into positions of power then we're impoverishing our nation in terms of intellectual capital.

 

[IGIT]

Ironically, the video predicted this. It predicted they would insist they are average people. Middle middle.

hiya JonesBones,

lol, i noticed that too. Mr. Reeves predicted some the responses and they've shown up on this thread. almost verbatim.

interesting video. thumbs up for PBS.

- IGIT

 

[BudKing8806]

Same here. According to this I’m upper middle class and I don’t keep anybody from anything.

Our business unit did great this year and I was able to give out raises of average 6% which we haven’t done in 10 years

Thanks, Trump!

 

[panamaican]

I see what you're saying, but I think it's the opposite. If I come from a background of, let us call it struggle, why would I want to be around such as I climb the ladder? Would I not want to be in a better situation? Why would I want my kids around lesser if I have worked hard to improve our situation? Why would I want housing devalued to make it "easier" for people who cannot afford it, to afford it? These are questions I think are very important on an individual level. I am sure the majority of the Rich Class do not want me as their neighbor, and I would perfectly understand why. Only I would benefit as I am not on their level or place their contributions.

If things were different it benefits only people who have less, but not really anyone within that range we are discussing, while being a possible (or likely) detriment. Housing prices are a prime example. I bought a brand new house in a great community to ensure my families status (potentially at least), low crime rate, schools, and the like. Not to be around "everyone". I pay that price for the quality of the house, and the surroundings that it ensures. If I am unable to afford this, my house will be of lesser quality, in different surroundings, around people similar to my economic level. That's the whole point behind it isn't it?

I don't know what you're seeing differently. I framed the pros vs. cons as maximizing national resources vs. maximizing an individual family's climb up the social and economic ladder.

I think the nation's policies should prioritize the nation.

If you want to argue that you don't want to return to struggle, that's fine. But there's a difference between working to prevent a return to struggle and legislating so that others cannot rise above it. One is about utilizing your strength of will and individual talents to outcompete and succeed. The other is about leveraging you and your neighbors collective wealth to prevent competition.

To use really broad language. You want your kids to get into a good college, so you spend your money on tutors and test prep. Or...you want your kids to get into a good college so you kill all of the tutors except yours so that you have the advantage at admissions. Same goal, very different methodologies.

 

[JonesBones]

ahoy JonesBones,



that college admissions scandal snagged quite a few 1%ers.

real rich people, i think, have an incredible capacity to rig things - because they're rich.



i agree with the general drift of the video, but have one question;

how does upper middle class dream hoarding square with monied democrats who are essentially voting for the Federal Government to raise their taxes in the pursuit of redistributing the money more equitably?

is there a bit of broadbrushing going on?

- IGIT

I was actually thinking of Aunt Becky. Imagine her but with less wealth. Exactly the kind of people who do this. It requires money, but it also requires desire. It is a mentality as well. A mentality many here probably don't have but it is common. I grew up in household of over 100k and my parents didnt rig shit because they are antisocial. But there are plenty of people who do. A dozen poorer Aunt Becky's rig shit in their small circle in their own way.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It should matter though if they're legal or illegal. If you have illegals in the middle class, that's not fair towards citizens and legal immigrants

As a conservative it shows pathways to middle class via hard work. For every one illegal who is able to achieve a life despite the tribulation they face is a reason to chastise a domestic who cant do the same.

I still support boarder control and immigration processes, though.

 

[ferrisjso]

I recently watched this video and it makes some good points. It is often the upper middle class rigging things through their community. They control it so it suits the needs of themselves and their families. Real rich people like Bezos and Gates don't need to rig shit. These upper middle class people prevent upward mobility of those below them systematically. The author calls them "dream hoarders".

Rich people and upper middle class people rig the economy in diffferent ways. Rich people rig it to exploit the workers. Upper middle class is keeping people in that situation. But it's important to note that while rich people intend to rig the economy(lobbyists and the high proportion of laws passed that benefit corporations is the most obvious example), upper middle class people don't see it that way. They see it as just being ultra competitive. Poor people are the same way with their kids they just don't have the resources to be good at it on average but they are trying to go to the best districts, trying to do all the things that upper middle class people have the capacity to do.

Due to the scarcity of the accomplishments everyone wants for their children(see Ivy League acceptance rates) it's pushing parents to......extreme methods to "win" and not be seen as losers. And that's how we get those celebrities bribing their way into colleges. In the upper middle class there's this prestige culture that's super unhealthy and setting up a competition that people with resources will use to win, is going to box out people without those resources. And yeah the district system just makes this even easier for them.

This is why Affirmative Action not just on race but based on class would go a long way towards fixing this problem(if there was official AA based on class it would create a fucking typhoon of lawsuits from obssessed parents). This would be a class version of the Asian AA situation where Asians are predominantly much better at playing the game than their numerical number and why they are suing cause most of them will lose. Rich people would be predominantly investing in a game they couldn't win and this would reverse engineer the advantages children receive from being in better school districts which would still exist but would be countered by the poor receiving a fair share of the opportunity's higher education provides rather than our current system where privilege(good school district) unlocks more privilege(good college) which unlocks yet more privilege(good professional network and high paying opportunity's).

 

[JonesBones]

Rich people and upper middle class people rig the economy in diffferent ways. Rich people rig it to exploit the workers. Upper middle class is keeping people in that situation. But it's important to note that while rich people intend to rig the economy(lobbyists and the high proportion of laws passed that benefit corporations is the most obvious example), upper middle class people don't see it that way. They see it as just being ultra competitive. Poor people are the same way with their kids they just don't have the resources to be good at it on average but they are trying to go to the best districts, trying to do all the things that upper middle class people have the capacity to do.

Due to the scarcity of the accomplishments everyone wants for their children(see Ivy League acceptance rates) it's pushing parents to......extreme methods to "win" and not be seen as losers. And that's how we get those celebrities bribing their way into colleges. In the upper middle class there's this prestige culture that's super unhealthy and setting up a competition that people with resources will use to win, is going to box out people without those resources. And yeah the district system just makes this even easier for them. This is why Affirmative Action not just on race but based on class is pretty important(if there was official AA based on class it would create a fucking typhoon of lawsuits from obssessed parents).

Good post. It is a mentality. But I disagree on the part about poor people trying to do this. Many certainly are but many are not. They don't have parents trying to do all that shit for them. They are just trying to survive. The idea of even upward mobility is so foreign it is rarely tried for.

Also, guys like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are very competitive too. More competitive than the upper middle class. Trump says the same thing. It isn't about money to him. It is about competing and winning. Jeff Bezos does not need more money. He isn't doing it for money anymore if he ever was. But he still must keep expanding. It is just in his DNA.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

How can it be fuckin middle middle when it is double median? The fuck? It is the very high end. Pew research reports middle class status at 40,000-120,00. $120,000 is the absolute highest of the middle class. That is upper middle class. Jesus.

. Pew defines the middle class as those earning between two-thirds and double the median household income.This means that the category of middle-income is made up of people making somewhere between $40,500 and $122,000. Those making less than $39,500 make up the lower-income bracket. Those making more than $118,000 make up the upper-income bracket

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

We're conflating terms. You're posting middle income brackets and then defining anyone above it as upper-CLASS based on OP vid.

Im saying no one making 120k is upper-class. That's a freaking union income with the spouse working slightly above min wage. If you want to argue that those people are upper-class; or even upper-middle, policy molders then expect the rest of us to scoff.

 

[IGIT]

I was actually thinking of Aunt Becky. Imagine her but with less wealth. Exactly the kind of people who do this. It requires money, but it also requires desire. It is a mentality as well. A mentality many here probably don't have but it is common. I grew up in household of over 100k and my parents didnt rig shit because they are antisocial. But there are plenty of people who do. A dozen poorer Aunt Becky's rig shit in their small circle in their own way.

hiya JonesBones,

aye, but what about these "poorer Aunt Beckys" (solid net worth, but not upper class) who vote for the Democratic Party?

aren't they voting for higher taxes on themselves? aren't they voting for economic measures that are antithetical to the notion that they are circling their privilege with barbed wire and sandbags?

- IGIT

 

[560ti]

Nowadays, people tend to cluster economically because of housing choices, so they really only see people who are in the same position as them economically and thus conclude that they must be average.

This is exactly why so many people are disillusioned with what classes are

So many people are "Oh i'm average by my neighborhood standards I must be lower middle class" (Reality: *lives in a neighborhood that's nicer than 80% of the USA).

 

[IGIT]

Alright, but what families making 120k are "legislating" others to not rise above?

hi MMAisGod,

at this point, watching the video that the OP is based on would help.

go to 2:00 in the video, if watching the first two minutes is too burdensome.

- IGIT

 

[panamaican]

Your original post that I quoted, not a single line was about "maximizing national resources" or "prioritize the nation". It was about what you stated (I can re-quote if needed), and what I replied. I think that line of conversation takes us way off what your original post stated as well as my reply to it, and turns this into an entirely different discussion altogether. Pass.

Actually your response to my post was about whether or not we were fortunate to experience something. I responded in explanation that it is not fortunate "If you're talking about maximizing the nation's human resources in the furtherance of remaining international top dog,..."

How can I take us off topic when you introduced the question of fortunate vs not?

That would mean that you took us off topic with your original response. I'm very much on target in relation to my original post.

Alright, but what families making 120k are "legislating" others to not rise above? Do you really believe a mom and dad making 60k each have that type of power? Most people within that range are trying to get by just like anyone else, finding the best community for their families that they can afford while having just a bit more than a family making 80k. This gigantic group of "middle class" is being classified as equal, when that couldn't be any farther from the truth. Again, a family making 120k have much more in common with a 60k family than they do a 180k family or a 300k family. Much more. Yet they are being lumped in that group which is a significantly smaller percentage as a whole.

This paragraph doesn't make any sense in relation to my original post, if that's what we're looking at. I spent multiple paragraphs describing one such example in relation to school districts and funding. And you greed that was an accurate description then you praised it as being fortunate. How are you now asking for examples?

As far as the rest, there is no reason why anyone cannot compete unless they choose not to or give up. It's 2019, all resources are available at the click of a button if an individual wants it. School? Free online tutors. Housing? All ranges. Nothing is restricted these days. If you have people using their money to improve their communities (much more than 120k), that's their prerogative as the alternative is to force them into lowering their standard. Reality is, pay more money if you want better quality, which is the way of all things. If a school is getting more contributions, reason dictates it will be better, have more trips, have better books, etc. At any level, from low, to mid, to high, to rich, none of the levels will want a level below leaching off of their contributions for their own personal benefit, nor having to reduce quality a notch due to lesser contributions. They would look to move into their own regions away from the level below, repeating the cycle all over again.

This paragraph, like the previous one, simply disregards my original post. To repeat that post, I laid out an example of how people are using legislative power to create a funding benefit for themselves relative to the other people with whom they shared a government resource.

They're not giving back state funding. Or federal funding. Or municipal funding. They're keeping their share of that while legislating to stop pooling lower levels of funding.

Anyhoo, given what I posted, I'm not sure you're actually remembering what I stated and how you responded.

 

[BossRootin]

Divide and conquer is how the elite maintain their power.
It used to be the rich hating the poor and vice versa.
Now they are trying to convince the lower middle class to hate the upper middle class.

 

[IGIT]

Actually your response to my post was about whether or not we were fortunate to experience something. I responded in explanation that it is not fortunate "If you're talking about maximizing the nation's human resources in the furtherance of remaining international top dog,..."

How can I take us off topic when you introduced the question of fortunate vs not?

That would mean that you took us off topic with your original response. I'm very much on target in relation to my original post.



This paragraph doesn't make any sense in relation to my original post, if that's what we're looking at. I spent multiple paragraphs describing one such example in relation to school districts and funding. And you greed that was an accurate description then you praised it as being fortunate. How are you now asking for examples?



This paragraph, like the previous one, simply disregards my original post. To repeat that post, I laid out an example of how people are using legislative power to create a funding benefit for themselves relative to the other people with whom they shared a government resource.

They're not giving back state funding. Or federal funding. Or municipal funding. They're keeping their share of that while legislating to stop pooling lower levels of funding.

Anyhoo, given what I posted, I'm not sure you're actually remembering what I stated and how you responded.

hi Pan,

i have to say this.

you can be just as acerbic and cutting as Jack, but you are so much nicer about it. your patience is...*ponders*...its almost like a form of rudeness.

i'm finding your current exchange enjoyable to read, and i also think its very funny.

i have to head to work.

- IGIT

 

[PainIsLIfe]

But he didn't say "upper middle class" and neither did you. You were both talking about "middle class".

And 117 isn't middle-middle because it puts someone in the upper 25%. Being within the upper 25th percentile cannot be middle-middle just on the basics of being above 75% of the other population. It's not rich but it's not the middle anymore. By that reasoning, households literally in the middle of household incomes are poor? And people in the bottom 20% are what? Or is everyone below the 70th percentile simple low class?

If the top end of the spectrum is the "middle" then the word "middle" doesn't have any meaning anymore.

Fair points. Im still trying to figure out how a blue collar union worker is suddenly upper-middle class --- it may say more about stagnant wages than the power of "upper-middle class" to affect legislation that hurts orhers.

Or perhsps I'm just lost at the idea that the avg stiff making 100k is effecting policy in a way to keep others from making 50k (?). Which is the vids contention

 

[nac386]

This is something that is well-known among people who look at this stuff aggressively, yet seemingly unknown among the general public.

A recent example of this is the amount of communities who are seceding...from their school districts. In these communities, they are pushing to turn their small regions into tiny school districts so that they don't have to share their property taxes with the larger school district. It's not enough to use housing costs to keep low income families out of their schools, they've moved on to completely separating themselves from the same tax pool.

The outcome being that it further impoverishes the poorer schools and enriches the seceding schools. And this is happening in upper middle class neighborhoods where the families have the money and the knowledge to push for this but not enough money to pay for the truly elite private boarding schools.

Perhaps a bit off topic, but there is also a growing trend of upper middle class parents who are timing their children’s enrollment in both school and sports in a way that ensures that their kid is the oldest in the class, and thus giving them developmental advantages that will put them in a higher performing track (better classes, better teachers, better teams, better coaches).

I know this is not a brand new thing. I have always read about it happening, but it seems more prevalent now than ever. Granted, maybe this has always been the case and I am just a new member of that particular social class. I understand it to a point, but I do believe some lines can be crossed.