Even in the Bay Area (which these two are NOT in), they are making DOUBLE the typical Bay-Area median household.
You can't make DOUBLE the amount of money of the median family and then claim to be "middle class". It just doesn't work that way.
And FYI: there's a reason why there's a ton of anti-gentrification going on in San Francisco. The actual middle-class, who is trying to live on ~$80k combined income in that region, is not able to find a house (let alone the lower-class, who will earn much less than the median)
If that family isn't middle class, what are they then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class
$150k is a lower-estimate for this family, they probably beat the $165k to qualify for top 5% household incomes in the country.
High amount of autonomy in their work, advanced degrees (beyond college: masters degree plus continuing education), significantly higher wages than everyone else... yeah, upper-middle class.
Ok, I think we keep talking past each other, because to me, upper middle class is just a subset of middle class. I don't think it's wrong for people who belong to it to describe themselves as middle class, because if you're in the upper middle class, you have a lot more in common with the rest of the middle class, than you have with the upper class.
The problem is that wealth/income is not normally distributed! It is heavily - heavily! - skewed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
I would not worry about any family with <250k annual income when thinking about "what do we do about the uneven distribution of income", I would let those people be. They are not the problem. Look at the top 0.01% (see http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129...).