Re:TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
by nommm-nommm on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @09:56AM
(#11620657)
Probably because our history and collective cultural values are very different in that regard. And we don't have, like, actual royality.
The US has a very "anyone can get rich" kind of cultural ethos so it makes sense our definitions would be very different.
There's also a distinction between upper class and the "frigging filthy rich" (salary in the millions) in the US. Lately they've been called "the 1%."
Would you say that the "1%" is above "upper class" or an upper-upper-class? Why not just say "he earns $200k" or "he inherited $10M" rather than "he's a part of the upper class"? The former examples seems to provide much more info.
[Answer is probably "language isn't logical" but I'd settle for your reason not to use the more informative approach.]
Re:TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
by StevePerkins on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:11AM
(#11621334)
The "1%" starts at $193K, which would easily include a household with two 30-year old software developers (or similar professionals).
Re:TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
by nommm-nommm on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:27AM
(#11621482)
That is for individual income, not household income - household income the 1% seems to start at $450,000 a year.
What I don't understand is why you'd turn class into a proxy for personal wealth, there are already lots of ways to refer to that - wages, household income, net worth - whereas class [in the UK] is a far more nuanced measure of ancestry, culture, occupation and attitudes to all of those things.