Yeah, they rarely go around saying, "I'm the 1%".

I know several one percenters who say they’re not wealthy. They always know someone richer than them, so they can’t possibly be that rich.

> So far I have tried to quantify what income level you need to be rich. I’ve tried to give you numbers that you could use to compare yourself to other people. However, in my many years of writing about money, I’ve come to realize something—being rich is more than a number. Being rich is a feeling.

> Because even if the numbers say that you are doing well, if you don’t feel rich, then it doesn’t matter. You could be making $10M a year, but if you feel like you need to make $20M, then you will feel poorer than someone making $100,000 who only feels like they need to make $50,000.

* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/what-is-considered-rich/

> This is why when I ask, “Who feels rich really?” the answer is—no one.

> Because you can always point to someone else who is doing better.

* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/who-feels-rich-really/

> "The highest form of wealth is the ability to wake up every morning and say, 'I can do whatever I want today.'"

Which is something only those wealthy enough to have paid off their house and have sufficient expenses for the rest of their life or passive income. A reality that has nothing to do with whether you feel rich, it's simply an economic reality

> You could be making $10M a year, but if you feel like you need to make $20M, then you will feel poorer than someone making $100,000 who only feels like they need to make $50,000.

Yeah, but there is still very material difference between these two people. The difference is not just the feeling in the moment. It is difference in "if I get sick, how much healthcare I can pay" or "if I get into legal trouble, can I afford justice or layer" ... and either of those situations will change their feelings quickly.

> "if I get sick, how much healthcare I can pay"

As a Canadian I do not have this thought at all. I'm sure many Europeans are the same.

I think that's because the difference between the top of that 1% and bottom of that 1% is a magnitude of thousands. It goes from a few million to hundreds of millions, and up to many billions.

The bottom of that 1% doesn't have to worry about spending money for daily things, but going higher, the upper portions can spend on _anything_. So, the difference at least feels large between the rich and "obscenely" rich, as opposed to the 50%ers vs the 75%ers.

This constantly comes up because people have different understandings of what “middle class” means, or perhaps more importantly, should mean.

I think a reasonable meaning (that the author might accept given the quoted statement) might go like “I live in a neighborhood with a bunch of other successful business owners or highly paid professionals, I must be pretty middle class”. As you rightly point out, that makes you pretty dang successful — more than “middle” seems to imply.

Of course, historically, that is the middle class. But no one cares about history.

From what I can tell, anyone richer than me is clearly not middle class; those bastards are rich. I’m clearly middle class, and hardworking, too. And damn it would suck to be poor in the US.

I didnt know that, based on use I had assumed it meant "homeowner or highly paid professional", and now that I think on it it seems clearly incongruous that middle class shouldnt include successful business owner. Neat.

If you are successful enough of business owner, you become upper class.

Middle class definition has nothing to do with history. It is sociological term used to describe groups inside human societies. It is about where you are at relative to other people.

Historically, that is what it meant to be middle class. Before there was an established middle class, there was only the upper class - aristocracy who inherited wealth and land - and the poor. You might find a rich merchant from time to time but they were the exception and not a class. Once the industrial revolution kicked in, it became possible for a large amount of people to amass wealth without having inherited it. If you were able to do that, you were part of the new "middle class". Of course, there is often much sniffing and consternation over the super-wealthy middle class occasionally trying to elbow their way up the social ladder into the upper class. See Cornelius Vanderbilt, for example.

If this woman's father bought her a trip in 1959, then he may have made his money in the 20s, when the middle class was only just firming up. It would have been correct to think of him as middle class, even though to us he seems fabulously wealthy. That's because his class status is defined by him being a businessperson who presumably did it himself, as opposed to having inherited wealth, land, or title.

The rise of the middle class was the cause of much cultural introspection at the time. There's a lot of thoughtful and beautiful literature about it, like Howards End[1] and The Forsyte Saga[2].

Of course, today "I'm middle class" merely means "I'm not homeless and can sometimes afford a vacation." But that's a modern shift in thinking and not what it meant for this woman's father.

[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/e-m-forster/howards-end

[2] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-galsworthy/the-forsyt...

Medieval times had middle class too. So did usa during civil war. Middle class is not something that formed up in 20th century first time.

An illustrative question is whether the working class is the middle class. I think that's less true today in the US than it was in years past.