Where do you *feel* you stand in society?

[The Brain]

First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.

Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.

For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.

Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.

You are seriously arguing that someone with a half million plus yearly income is not "upper class"?

What about the President of M&T, probably pulls in several million a year? Not upper class since he actually works?

Steve Jobs was not upper class, because he worked for a living?

Bill Gates while he was running Microsoft and worth literally billions? Not upper class?

OR you could read what Tampax wrote.

Many people who work don't have to work for a living.

[Malthus]

The class divisions traditionally used simply do not fit modern society very well. In the traditional divisions, a person who worked for a salary (however wealthy) would be "middle class", same as any person working a white-collar office job.

However, in the modern world, the person working a white-collar office job could well be some sort of contract worker devoid of job security or benefits, while another "working on salary" could be part of a managerial elite making millions who could easily move from one position to another, show up on a board of directors somewhere. It is odd to think of them as in the same class.

I think of modern classes as follows:

- Underclass. Exist on welfare, criminality, odd jobs.

- Have-nots. Work on salary, but lack anything like job security; benefits are limited. Low bargaining power. Example of a group traditionally considered "middle class" or even "upper middle class" that are now "have-nots": Many university employees who are not tenured, work on contract, and have limited benefits (they used to be infinitely higher class than, say, a plumber). Others are the afore-mentioned contract office worker. Many in the former "middle class" are being thrust into this category and are not enjoying that very much. 

- Haves. Most work on salary to be sure, but have connections, skills, or opportunities that increase their bargaining power to the point they are able to get, at the lower end, permanent employment with good benefits and automatic job security (that is, can walk out of one job knowing they can find another easily based on skills and connections), and at the upper end, equity stakes in businesses (like massive stock options and the like). Also, owners of successful small businesses, no matter how menial: your successful plumber goes here.  Some in the former middle class (or even "working class") are rising into this category.

- The super-wealthy. Celebrities, owners of large businesses; at the upper end, billionaires who could buy small countries.

[Berkut]

First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.

Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.

For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.

Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.

You are seriously arguing that someone with a half million plus yearly income is not "upper class"?

What about the President of M&T, probably pulls in several million a year? Not upper class since he actually works?

Steve Jobs was not upper class, because he worked for a living?

Bill Gates while he was running Microsoft and worth literally billions? Not upper class?

OR you could read what Tampax wrote.

Many people who work don't have to work for a living.

SO the key is whether you "have to" work?

So if you are willing to survive on welfare, you are upper class?

If your parents left you a couple hundred thousand dollars, and you are content to live on the $15,000/year in interest that gives you, you are "upper class"?

But if you have a lavish lifestyle requiring a million a year to support, and you make a million a year to support it, you are NOT upper class, because you are required to work to support the lifestyle you choose?

None of that makes any sense. This idea that "upper class" is defined as the wealthy non-working pretty much disappeared about a hundred years ago or so in western society.

Executives in large companies are upper class in American society at least, whether they "have to work" or not.

[Tamas]

You treat this as a purely financial bracketing system. But there is nothing to debate there then. Just define the values of annual income and there you go.
I was looking at the social angle of it.

One thing is true though: there are no clear-cut boundaries. Your CTO can sure mingle with the upper class and where you put him is purely a subjective matter.
Similar examples could be made for the lower ends.

I like Malthus' system, all in all.

[Hamilcar]

First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.

Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.

For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.

Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.

The cutoff is whether you need a job at all.

[derspiess]

Well then we have quite a few upper class folks on welfare

[Hamilcar]

Well then we have quite a few upper class folks on welfare

*sigh*

If you have to work for your 1% lifestyle, then you're not upper class.

[Savonarola]

Middle Class, Moderate

The last time I took the I Side With quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party.  In America the only moderates are kooks.   

[Hamilcar]

Middle Class, Moderate

The last time I took the I Side With quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party.  In America the only moderates are kooks.   

You can still vote for Zoltan! 

[lustindarkness]

Where do you *feel* you stand in society?

Just your gut feeling; i.e. without looking at where your income/net worth falls, or measuring your political opinions.

But I'm sitting down, not standing.

[Savonarola]

Middle Class, Moderate

The last time I took the I Side With quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party.  In America the only moderates are kooks.   

You can still vote for Zoltan! 

The only candidate who promises to bring us Back to Methuselah.

[derspiess]

Middle Class, Moderate

The last time I took the I Side With quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party.  In America the only moderates are kooks.   

That is awesome.  Make America (whatever Transhumanists believe) Again.

[Hamilcar]

Middle Class, Moderate

The last time I took the I Side With quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party.  In America the only moderates are kooks.   

That is awesome.  Make America (whatever Transhumanists believe) Again.

Everyone has the right to live as an immortal hyperrobot.

[Martinus]

Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party is my favourite candidate. Mainly because Augustus Sol Invictus does not run for the President. 

[Siege]

Lowest of the lowest.
Right of center.