I like the discussion of defining classes. I have no idea where the cutoff is on these things. it sounds like the middle class (and it's upper and lower groups) is like 95% of the country which seems stupid. I feel like it should be spread more evenly among all the levels. like 10% lower class. 25% low middle. 25% middle. 25% upper middle. 10% upper. 5% super upper. and that should have to be adjusted for cost of living. there should be a thing you enter stuff about yourself so you know who are your fiscal betters and worse'ers. and there should be a strict cutoff so you know exactly when you enter a new level. like level'ing up in video games.
Social class is not only determined by income by most sociologists, including the late, great KSU prof Richard Coleman. But if we wanted to move in the direction of clarifying simplicity---income distribution is already broken down by quintile.
That gives us 5 categories:
Poor-Lower Middle/Working Class-Middle Class-Upper Middle Class-Rich/Upper Class
But you are always going to run in to obvious problems because of the inequality within these classes. Household income of $250K withe Warren Buffet? So maybe add a class on the top end with a cut off of 1%~ $1 million/yr? But again, this is income, not wealth so we miss out on a lot of what is going on with the lower middle class and middle class with regards to upward mobility and the terrible balance sheets that they would be taking on to pursue higher ed or to be able to raise capital for a small business or the lack of savings in general.
I prefer the quintile system because it is what it is and it at least illustrates how disingenuous the talk of the "middle class" really is.
