What Is Middle Class?

Critics of Mitt Romney laughed when he said that “middle-class income” was “between $200,000 and $250,000” when what he actually said was that it was “between $200,000 and $250,000 or less” meaning that the $200,000 to $250,000 was the upper limit. As the Huffington Post points out, Democrats including Obama and Pelosi have also used that definition. Of course, both Romney and Obama have incomes well above that amount.

But all of these views are wrong, because classes such as middle class are not defined by income. As Michael Zweig writes in The Working Class Majority, “just looking at a person’s income doesn’t tell us anything about how the person got the income, what role he or she plays in society, how he or she is connected to the power grid of class relations.”

What Romney, Obama, and the various pundits are referring to is middle income, not middle class. As only 16 percent of U.S. households earn more than $100,000 a year, and only 4 percent more than $200,000, the upper limit for middle income is probably much lower than $200,000. But I suspect Romney stated it the way he did to preserve the claim that he has no desire to raise taxes on anyone below that limit.

Classes are different from income levels. As Wikipedia notes, various definitions of “middle class” have included completing a tertiary education; having professional qualifications; having “bourgeois values,” and other things. Zweig bases his definitions on relative power; I base mine on education and occupation.
It supplements your body with viagra 25 mg essential minerals, vitamins and carbohydrates to nourish the reproductive organs. If you are looking for help with your erectile dysfunction issues, visit us here at lowest price for tadalafilherbal.co.uk and browse through our wide selection of erectile dysfunction aids and potential solutions. YES oil based is excellent cheapest online viagra for daily use to prevent dryness, even if intercourse is not taking place and YES water based is best used with condoms and before and during menstruation. They are utilized for the treatment of erectile brokenness in grown-up men, a condition which intimates challenges in getting or keeping an erection continues for more than a few weeks, for long-term results you may have to continue usage for at least 3 months. cheap cheap viagra
Zweig calls the upper class the “capitalist class,” and within that class, he claims there is a “ruling class” of less than 50,000 people who own most of the interest in the corporations that produce most of America’s products. Below the capitalist class is the middle class, which Zweig defines as professionals, managers, and small business owners. Below that is the working class, which Zweig more-or-less defines as people who have to do what they are told.

My own definitions are a little different and are based more on levels of education and whether work is based on thinking or physical labor. We both agree that classes represent different cultural values and that the middle class is actually a minority, amounting to less than 30 percent of population, while the working class is 55 to 60 percent.

Most pundits ignore the working class under the notion that most people think of themselves as middle class now. But as Zweig notes, when you ask people “Are you upper, middle, or lower class?” most people answer “middle”; but when you ask, “Are you upper, middle, working, or lower class?” most answer “working.”

I think the real problem is that, as Zweig complains, the working class feels that it doesn’t have any power, so it doesn’t vote. Politicians focus on voters, and middle-class adults are much more likely to vote than working-class adults. The Republicans’ emphasis on “family values,” immigration issues, and similar themes are attempts to attract working-class support, while Democrats focus on labor unions and safety nets for the same reason. But partly because of low voter turnouts, I don’t think either party has truly found a theme that appeals to working-class voters.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

15 Responses to What Is Middle Class?

  1. LazyReader says:

    You can’t equate specific earnings. If say you make $99,999.99, then are you not upper middle class? It’s fascinating they put those upper-middle-lower description. People can make less money but be better off financially because they engage in financial behaviors that others may find strange. They’re frugal, they shop at the lowest priced stores. And why should we assume that just because you work with your hands means your a low earner. That’s absurd. Mechanics, plumbers, carpenters especially niche carpenters that reproduce antiquity furniture by hand without power tools can make mad money during a labor shortage.

  2. bennett says:

    “My own definitions are a little different…”

    This statement about sums it all up. Some people include an income factor. Some don’t. Some people include an educational factor. Some don’t. etc. etc. etc.

    Similarly to a previous Antiplanner post on the subject, I would define “Middle Class,” as a semantic tool used primarily in political and ideological debates with the purpose of vilifying an opponent.

    “Defend the rich job creators and attack the lazy welfare junkies.

    or

    Defend the poor and attack our bourgeois overlords.”

    That’s “Middle Class” in a nut shell.

  3. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    The Antiplanner wrote:

    I think the real problem is that, as Zweig complains, the working class feels that it doesn’t have any power, so it doesn’t vote.

    Persons (and groups) that fail to vote have no basis for complaining about anything.

    Politicians focus on voters, and middle-class adults are much more likely to vote than working-class adults.

    Maybe because we make it too hard to vote (and are trying to make it even more difficult in many states)?

    The Republicans’ emphasis on “family values,” immigration issues, and similar themes are attempts to attract working-class support, while Democrats focus on labor unions and safety nets for the same reason. But partly because of low voter turnouts, I don’t think either party has truly found a theme that appeals to working-class voters.

    The Republic Party is only in favor of “family values” when it’s time to pander to the Bible-thumping part of its “base.” But the revealed behavior of this party is that it has little or no interest in making family units stronger.

    Democrats are indeed guilty of pandering to labor unions (and certain Democratic politicians (usually those in large cities) are very guilty of pandering to certain favored unions).

    • Frank says:

      “Persons (and groups) that fail to vote have no basis for complaining about anything.”

      Sure they do:

      If this statement is taken literally, it’s false. You can complain, even if you don’t vote. Nobody ever asks me “did you vote?” when I gripe about the government. We have free rein to complain. There is no ethical or legal proscription against complaining simply because one failed to vote.

      Maybe when one says that “if you don’t vote you can’t complain” they mean to say “only those who vote are justified in complaining. You are allowed to complain, but you shouldn’t, if you didn’t vote.” It seems to me that the opposite may be the case. Voting reduces your right to complain. If you voted, then you support a corrupt system. You’re partially to blame for the debacle that is our federal government. Our elected officials are corrupt because voters vote for immoral political leaders (as I explained here). If anything, nonvoters have a greater right to complain than do the voters.

      • Dan says:

        Sure they do:

        That sudden cluster of quakes off the Mendocino Triple Junction and OR coast – Dan agreeing with Frank or something else?

        We report, you decide.

        DS

        • Frank says:

          Chuckle.

          I’m going to assume, and know you will correct if needed, that you’re not overjoyed with your choices when it comes to Willard or Obama (the terrorist). I know you rail against the oligarchy, the same oligarchy that keeps third parties out of the presidential debates. The problem with representative democracy, or any form of government for that matter, is the iron law of oligarchy. Voting essentially sanctions the oligarchs IMO.

        • Dan says:

          Surely of the two, there is only one choice when you hold your nose and fill in the bubble. But I’m not 100% sure that any holder of the office of POTUS these days can turn that boat. The people are going to have to grab that wheel and turn.

          DS

        • metrosucks says:

          Surely of the two, there is only one choice when you hold your nose and fill in the bubble.

          Come on planner boi, don’t be a coward, come out and say what you mean. You’re voting for Obama. Are you embarrassed to say so?

          Though I admit, they’re both mostly the same, which really means you’re just blinded by partisan hatred when you imply Obama is till the best choice by far.

          I almost agree, but not for the same reasons. A second Obama presidency buffered by a Republican Senate and House won’t get much done. A full Republican government aka Bush might get too much done, take away a bunch more of our freedom.

        • Frank says:

          The ol’ lesser of two evils argument, eh?

          I can’t hold my nose to avoid smelling the burning flesh of hundreds of civilians, including children (warning, graphic content provided by your tax dollars): http://youtu.be/6yMOzvmgVhc

          We all stop voting, the oligarchs lose their legitimacy, or what legitimacy you get from 44% of the population, half of whom choose the leader.

        • metrosucks says:

          Frank I agree. Not voting is the best option. I didn’t vote in 2008, and I won’t vote now. If only the rest of the country would follow up. National politics are hopeless. Anyone getting to this point is totally vetted and a elite/corporate whore. Concentrate on local politics instead. The Great Default will wipe out any influence to be had at the federal level.

        • bennett says:

          What about voting for nobody??? I think casting a vote (showing up and pulling the lever) for neither candidate speaks louder than not showing up at all.

          Plus, it will give you two a chance to vote against all the bond proposals in your district 😉

  4. Dan says:

    The Republicans’ emphasis on “family values,” immigration issues, and similar themes are attempts to attract working-class support, while Democrats focus on labor unions and safety nets for the same reason. But partly because of low voter turnouts, I don’t think either party has truly found a theme that appeals to working-class voters.

    I hear your pain. Additionally, recent polling also informs us that geography has a role to play as well in American voting electorates. The white working-class south has a much different voting pattern than those in other parts of the country. Voting reflects our self-identity, and differences in geographical voting patterns hint at differences within the working class as well.

    DS

  5. Frank says:

    Another OT post, which will probably get Andrew’s panties in a bunch, but this sabbatical has me so fricken bored:

    Self-driving cars now legal in California

    Ideally, a car that drives itself can minimize traffic by chaining together with other self-driving vehicles and using highways more efficiently. Drivers wouldn’t be limited to listening to NPR and honking during their morning commute; instead they could use that time to be productive, like the millions of people who take public transit currently do.[Emphasis added.]

    Asked who would get the ticket when a driverless car runs a red light, Brin replied, “Self-driving cars do not run red lights.”

    Take that!

  6. Sandy Teal says:

    I am surprised the Antiplanner wrote this post. One of the worst mistakes of planners is that they obsessively divide people into categories or classes, just so they can group and treat similar people as alike.

    The stereotyped “middle class” and “working class” are relics from the pre-1960s.

Leave a Reply