> >>lower-middle-class whites--those making between
> $30,000 and
> >>$50,000
> >
> >Huh? Median income in 2004 was $44,389. $30,000 is
> 68% of the
> >median, and $50,000 is 113%. How is that
> "lower-middle class"?
The above exchange is proof enough that the terms "middle-class" "lower-middle-class," "upper-lower-middle class," etc., (let alone the term "white"!) don't reveal shit about class or class society.
> Damn good question.
>
> How is middle class defined?
>
> I recall learning some time ago that one indicator
> of true middle
> class status was having an income based on other
> people's work, such
> as a merchant or business owner. The test in this
> case was whether or
> not your personal income was dependent on the amount
> of work you
> perform personally.
Class has little or nothing to do with income. Income is not an indicator of class, it is a result, and one cannot make retroactive calculations based on income and not deal with the resulting semantic bullshit. The real indicators of class are whether or not the collective entity owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange. If class had to do with income, why would professional basketball players and many doctors in the United States feel compelled to join trade unions? Now, the typical answer to this question is usually something along the lines of, "Well, because they're money-grubbing bastards," but that doesn't get us very far towards an objective view of class. One could equally argue-- as many liberals do-- that the working class are "money grubbing bastards."
> If you could stop working but
> your income
> remained stable, then you are middle class.
Or you could be selling pot, or you could be on the dole, or....
The
> other test was to be
> a professional with excessive income, so that only a
> small portion of
> earnings are needed to maintain a middle class life
> style and the
> extra income was used to purchase income producing
> assets. This puts
> a professional into the middle class early in a
> successful career.
...Or, in the inevitable occasion of an economic collapse (or even just a recession), puts a professional on the street. No point is made.
> People whose income comes from assets purchased for
> them by others
> are members of the economic upper class when the
> income from the
> assets is high.
Note the hedging of bets the writer makes when using the term "upper class." Did s/he mean "middle class"? "Upper middle class"? "The rich"? Since it's all pretty much incantations, the reliance ambiguous terminology is to be expected.
> These people do not ever have to
> acquire a profession
> or build a business in order to have a secure
> income. They have
> sufficient income that is not derived from their own
> work
> (professionals) or from the work of others whom they
> control
> (owners), This is, of course, inherited wealth.
What people? What income? Where? When? How?
I have no problem with the rest below. --adx
> The real point of this explanation, as I recall, was
> that most of
> America's self-described middle class is actually
> working class. If
> the work goes away, the income goes away, too. This
> was supposed to
> be the truest definition of working class and most
> people fit this
> definition, regardless of actual income levels. If
> you earn 100K a
> year from your job and need 100K just to keep your
> head above water,
> you have to work. You are then a member of the
> working class, even
> with a good wage.
>
> I remember a lot of resistance to this idea when I
> first heard it
> discussed. I'll bet most debt-ridden, savings-light,
> work-a-day
> Americans who are pulling down 60K consider
> themselves middle class,
> too. But, lots of them are just eight paychecks away
> from poverty.
>
> Keith
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com