- Viola Anderson
- Ft. Nelson
- Canada
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is the universally accepted definition of the "middle class?"
Following the U.S. presidential campaign, I am struck by the way both the Republicans and the Democrats claim to represent and be concerned about the "middle class" without ever defining who belongs to that prized group. The result is that everyone regards themselves as "middle class," as if it is somehow "lower class" to be part of some lesser-regarded group. It's easy to claim you represent a group if you never define who actually fits into that group. Is it possible to represent all those in an undefined group when that group who believes they are middle class may range from minimum wage workers to doctors and lawyers, business owners, stock brokers, etc.?
Viola Anderson
Another definition is those whose income is in the median zone so that they have more income than 50% of the population and less income than 50%.
It may be that most believe that if they are not poverty stricken and also not rich, that they are middle class. I think, perhaps, that is the reason both parties seek to tap into this large reservoir of voters. They're easy to reach if they all believe they are middle class and part of the great majority most like themselves. People are likelier to vote for those they believe are like themselves because they conclude that people like themselves will produce the kind of results most beneficial to them.
That belief may be valid, but only if the underlying belief that they are middle class is true. So it seems to me extraordinarily important that politicians define exactly what they mean when they claim to represent middle class values.
Rick Ryan 10+
Then it becomes a problem of defining where the middle class vs the "rich" line is. That usually will invoke some heated discussion.
I ride motorcycles. I currently own ONE motorcycle. A friend of mine owns FIVE of them. And he is one of the people who insist that the solution to many of humanity's problems is to redistribute the wealth of "the rich" to the "poor". I asked him one day, "When are you going to give four of your motorcycles away to the poor people to help them out?" He looked at me like I was crazy and said, "What? I'M NOT RICH !!! It's the people with all the money who need to do it!".
He and I don't discuss economics very often anymore. ;-)
John Smith 30+
Rick Ryan 10+
The question is, does he really NEED 5 of them? Just like your example about the 5 houses. Even if he uses a motorcycle as his primary transportation tool, he doesn't NEED 5 of them. So is he over-wealthy by being able to purchase 5 of them? If I agree with the arguements people make about someone being "too rich", his ownership of 5 of the same things that serve the same purpose would justify it. Just like he can only live in one house at a time, he can only ride one motorcycle at a time, too.
And just because somebody may own 5 houses doesn't mean they aren't contributing to society. What if they are renting those 4 other houses to families so THEY have someplace to live? Lots of people rent properties because they aren't wealthy enough to buy their own yet...or maybe never will be. Why did the housing meltdown happen? Because somebody came up with the idea that EVERYBODY could afford their own home, and made the "opportunity" available to them. Ouch.
John Smith 30+
I can only eat 500gr of potatoes at once, but I can afford to buy many more potatoes than that. This doesn't make me rich because buying all those potatoes will merely give me a supply of them: I can't eat them all at the same time, but I don't have to, I can store them and eat them later. Your friend's motorcycles may last a long time because he can indeed ride only one at a time, so where you may own motorcycle at a time until it breaks down, and this way buy 5 of them during your lifetime, he may last a lifetime with the 5 he already owns. Also, important is the cost of these items compared to your total income, maybe your friend makes the sae salary as you but he has a slightly smaler house and/or a cheaper car and/or never goes on holiday, this is very much possible, now him owning 5 houses on the same salary is not possible.
"And just because somebody may own 5 houses doesn't mean they aren't contributing to society. What if they are renting those 4 other houses to families so THEY have someplace to live?"
If they were to sell those houses the prices would come down...
Being poor doesn't just mean lacking the bare essentials: you have to be a functioning member of society and for that you need a job and you won't find a job without a phone number and you can't go to your job without some form of transportation...
Being poor means having an income that's much less than the average income in your country/region, especially if you have a job that means you're getting ripped off.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
pat gilbert 50+
John Smith 30+
Gail . 50+
Please see the following TED talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
pat gilbert 50+
With the current POTUS you may be correct that climbing out of poverty is harder but in the past that is absolutely not true. The thing that creates opportunity is investment in small business. In the current environment that is hugely discouraged which is the real problem.
http://archive.mises.org/18826/the-obession-with-equality/
John Smith 30+
pat gilbert 50+
John Smith 30+
James Zhang 30+
John Smith 30+
There isn't one for the American middle class, almost all Americans, from minimum wage workers to multi-millionaires see themselves as middle class because those words have a positive connotation.