You refer to 90th to 95th percentiles referring to the percentages of the population earning that average level of income, then to the 95th to 99th. I assume that the 95 age group wasn't to be including in both, that there's a misquote and the actual figures related to 90 to 94 and 95 to 99 or similar comparison.

If the original financial planner writer had adjusted for inflation, the contrasts would be even larger.

I don't recall where I heard it, and the verification but that the top 10% - or 1%? - own half of the world's assets.

When we hear that the owners of about 4 or 5 of the world's largest tech companies have more income than about 2 of the world's most wealthy countries' governments, we can foresee some trouble ahead.

Sorry - I can't offer verification of that claim, either.

As they say, this increasing forgetfulness that accompanies advancing age isn't any fun!

Increasing age ain't for sissies!

ole joyful

P.S. With income in the neighbourhood of 50 thou' ... this bird sure isn't anywhere near the "middle class"!

o j

To me it depends on what is considered middle class. Is it social middle class or financial middle class. A plumber because of income could be considered financial middle class and live in a social middle class neighborhood but would still be considered to be working class because of the working with hands. While an artist who also works with their hands are generally considered middle or higher class depending on the type of art. Is someone working as a clerk at as an example a middle class person even if they earn just above minimum wage?

I consider myself middle class for Los Angeles; i.e., I live in a neighborhood (Westchester) where the average price for a three bedroom/two bathroom house is only $1.2 million, making it the most affordable neighborhood on the West Side and near the beach. In Venice, where we lived before, our house would cost more than twice as much, but in general, houses are smaller in Venice, and I am just going by per square foot prices.

Our second home (which we had originally intended to rent as VRBO) is worth one third of the Westchester house and is in the very middle class Cathedral City. We could not afford what we wanted in Palm Springs. I think it is pretty normal for middle class people in our age bracket to have two homes - with the week-end or vacation home being much less expensive. The lot in L.A. is the main value of that property, whereas in CC, the house is worth much more than the land.

I think you can sort of decide whether someone is middle class or not by the neighborhood where they live, and the income and cost of property for the middle class will vary greatly from one geographic region to another.

@joyfulguy,

top 1% has > 30%

bottom 50% has < 2%

"When we hear that the owners of about 4 or 5 of the world's largest tech companies have more income than about 2 of the world's most wealthy countries' governments, we can foresee some trouble ahead.

Sorry - I can't offer verification of that claim, either."

No, I'm sure you can't, because I suspect it's very incorrect.

The vast, vast majority of the largest companies in the world, tech and otherwise, are publicly traded.

In the case of American tech companies, share ownership is VERY widely distributed, especially when you consider ownership by mutual funds and pension funds, that each probably has the equivalent of many hundreds of thousands of shareholders or more. The "owners" of such companies are every American who has any savings, whether for retirement held personally, or accounts in pension plans, or however.

There is no one definition of "middle class" and it varies from place to place. It's socio-economic, it's cultural, it's other things too, and it's irrelevant.

I'm not classy. I am earthy. And watery. And sometimes funny.

I have a relative like that who uses the word "classy" all the time. Mostly when she is putting down other people as having no class. She often delivers these condemnations in a snide, nasal tone of voice. I burst out laughing if she does the nose sniff.

What I really enjoy is that she doesn't understand why I am laughing.

Financial-wise, I consider myself middle-middle. We don't have the biggest house, fanciest toys, designer clothes, etc, but we truly like where we live, and the material possessions we do have. We have sufficient assets to make those types of choices, and our finances are stable. I'd call myself "rich" except for other people having a lot more money!

(Have you ever been to a Thai restaurant and the waiter asks "Do you want that American hot, or Thai hot"? "American middle class" = "rich" in so many other parts of the world.)

Social status has never been a concern of mine -- again luck of birth that I was born into the dominant culture, and no one ever looked down at me because of skin color, accent, etc. Sometimes men at the office looked down at women's work, but I shrugged those snubs off -- more fool them.

I think being middle class is having enough to not worry about having money for clothing, food and housing. When I was married, for a while we were dirt poor. It's no fun worrying about how you're going to feed your family.

I think mdln's stats are more useful, as they include total *wealth*, not just income.

OJ -- Yes, I wondered about listing 95% in two different groups.

My interest is in the wealth *disparity* within the US today. Isn't this a big change...putting us back to days when 'robber barons' were permitted to exploit resources without limits? Wealth builds wealth in ways the paycheck-to-paycheck family can seldom achieve. (Consider the 'bootstraps' argument, or where your 'starting block' is placed.)

I grew up thinking America was dependent on greater distribution of wealth, resulting in a strong Middle Class. This looks more like an oligarchy than a republic.

chisue, that's an interesting question. I don't have the answer, but will follow this thread hoping someone can recommend a book or authoritative source about wealth disparity through the ages, compared with today.

Hmmmm-interesting question. We're comfortable--we have everything we need, and many things we want. One thing we DON'T have is any debt, we just refuse to buy anything we can't pay cash for.

Having said that, we worked really hard for our "comfortable" lifestyle! And what is comfortable for us would likely seem pitiful for someone very wealthy, it's all a matter of perspective.

Now for that issue of being "classy" or not...................

tvq1..... Very well put! ☺

The obsession with income inequality is tiresome. I look at the average American's spending and earning to gauge the health of the economy.

We have laws against monopolies, unfair business practices and bribery of politicians, those should be shored up and better enforced.

The pandemic has knocked many from the middle class into lower middle class, or even poverty. And the lack of timely help for those affected by pandemic unemployment has not improved the situation. Politicians (who are usually 1%ers) are supposed to work for "the people", but they really only work for themselves and their own agenda.

"The obsession with income inequality is tiresome."

I completely agree.

To begin - Yes, many are subject to discrimination and racism. Many are born into disadvantaged circumstances. That makes that task of forging a comfortable and successful life more difficult because it's a start with a handicap to overcome that others may not have. More difficult but still possible.

The number of people whose lives are set for them because of inheritance and family wealth is quite limited. For the rest of us, myself included, what we have or DON'T HAVE can be traced to decisions and choices made along the way and the desire and so effort expended to achieve. Those are the internal factors that I think matter most. The most important external factors are timing and luck, things over which most individuals have only limited control.

A lot of income inequality points to good decisions and hard work at one extreme versus poor decisions and limited effort at the low end. And luck and timing for both. I think there should be safety nets for people who try and fail from time to time and more importantly for their children. People who consistently make poor decisions and/or have limited self motivation and discipline are not of concern to me. There are tens of millions of these.

Human socio-economic circumstance is a bell curve just like all other measurable phenomena. A large bulge in the middle and then decreasing numbers as the curve moves to both the upper end and the lower end. This is a factual phenomenon that will always be with us. I believe that where anyone is on the curve can be greatly influenced by what they choose to do or not do.

There is a quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson that cannot be proven to be so. The source doesn't matter, the message does:

"I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."

A few months ago, I read some article about how the ultra-rich (Jeff Bezos, for example) had gained even more wealth during this time when normal folks were suffering because of the pandemic. There was a link to this income/class calculator by the Pew Research Corporation. The link is to the Pew Research Corporation's website.

I do not worry about the ultra rich because they have always been here and always will. Among that group have also been the reasons that some of the things like libraries are enjoyed by many and not just the ones that can afford them.

The times have changed and hopefully will not go backward as women leave the job market to take care of family as I am reading. I remember when women were not considered equal for jobs which did hold back many. It is fine to state equal opportunity has always been there. While it has for some companies too many for too long simply did not advance employees who were not like the top executives. I doubt if many men have been asked if they planned on marrying and if they did if they were planning on having children. By the 1960s because of the availability of the birth control pill having children were considered optional.

"I read some article about how the ultra-rich (Jeff Bezos, for example) had gained even more wealth during this time when normal folks were suffering because of the pandemic"

I don't understand your comment. If you own any equities directly or in pension plans, YOUR net worth went up during 2020 too. Because the stock market went up.

All of the "ultra rich" own stocks and often one or two are the source of their wealth. Their wealth increases when the market goes up and decreases when the market goes down. Both movements are well reported in the media.

"I don't understand your comment. If you own any equities directly or in pension plans, YOUR net worth went up during 2020 too. Because the stock market went up."

elmer there are plenty of people who do not "own any equities directly or in pension plans." There are plenty of people who don't own homes, who only have one vehicle for both spouses to share, etc. Yes, I know MY net worth went up during 2020 - Hubs and I both receive a monthly pension from our retirement as well as a monthly Social Security retirement payment. We own our home and both vehicles free and clear. We have no debt. Per the income calculator that I linked, we are in the upper class. But I am aware enough to know that there are plenty of people who are much worse off than we are, and that Hubs and I are fortunate. And from what you've posted about your two homes and luxury vehicles and frequent European vacation (prior to Covid), I know you are, too. Are you that dense that you don't understand that there are people suffering - not just healthwise - from the pandemic?

Lindsey you state you have nothing in the stock market but then state that you receive a pension. Unless your pension comes only from the equity of that company you do have something in the stock market. Most pension plans although not all are now handled by outside companies because companies used to look upon pension funds as their bank account. Those outside companies invest the money from the pension account into the various equity markets. Look at any 1099s for where your pension money is invested.

Just a word about having everything free and clear. While it sounds nice and I would not suggest that anyone have large amount of debt but if something would happen and you would need to borrow money to fix something you might be turned down for loans because you do not have any active credit accounts. When I went to get rid of the larger vehicle that was needed for my husband to enter and exit I was turned down and offered a much higher rate because of this. I was lucky although what I purchased was not my first choice my 800+ credit rating allowed me to have a zero interest loan from another car company.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. Your comment that I first quoted was VERY misleading, insinuating there was something nefarious or special going on with very wealthy people because of net worth increases during a time others were doing less well. My response was that anyone who owned equities during 2020, no matter how modest and no matter how limited, had the same experience.

What happened to Bezos also happened to school janitors and union workers and clerks working for a government somewhere or anyone else with a blue collar job with retirement benefits, and most everyone in between, because the market went up. There are plenty of ordinary people with an interest, direct or indirect, in the stock market. That was my comment.

I try not to be dense. I also try to not be foolishly belligerent. Try it yourself.

Edit to add:

I missed one comment - if you were living in a different and coastal/more desirable part of Calif. with higher costs of living than you experience in the Central Valley and where government jobs don't predominate, you'd find that the combined income of two state workers doesn't come close to reaching an upper tier. I don't care what that website says. I'm talking about SF, the Peninsula and Silicon Valley, the LA basin, the better parts of Orange County and the better parts of the San Diego area. Not close.

I don't care about the wealthy either, but I do care that what I considered the bedrock of my nation, the Middle Class, is living in deep debt, following 'the American dream' (apparently that of being owned by a bank).

Look at those lines at food banks. That's not *new*, just bigger. Look at our homeless. Look at a swath of Americans so alienated that they'll buy the self-serving, divisive rants of a TV personality-cum-evangalist.

I think that WE have a problem, with roots in the erosion of a MIddle Class. The pandemic has only provided the spotlight.

Elmer -- Surely you are not equating the stock market with 'the people'. The market is a reflection of corporate wealth. Corporations aren't people.

chisue, the vast, vast majority of share ownership in the US is ultimately held by individuals. The value of stock is the wealth of its shareholders, only very indirectly "corporate wealth". The "book value" or "wealth" of any given one share of any company, total net worth of the company divided by the shares outstanding, plays no role at all in determining the value of that share of stock on the stock market. None.

This Pew Research piece linked below says that more than half of US households have some investment in stock markets. Because the stat is "households", the percentage of individuals with "some investment" would be higher than 50% because two people in a household, one couple, would be counted as one. So yes, that's the people to me - far more than half.

More than half of households own an interest in the stock market

@maifleur03 - Our monthly pension payments are from the Public Employees Retirement System, as we both were employed by the State of California. Our monthly payments remain the same no matter what the stock market does. No matter which of us dies first, that person's monthly payment will then be paid to the surviving spouse, in addition to the spouse's monthly payment. You say, "Look at any 1099s for where your pension money is invested." We each receive a 1099-R which shows "Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc." The forms do not, however, give any indication as to where CalPERS money is invested.

You also said, "Just a word about having everything free and clear. While it sounds nice and I would not suggest that anyone have large amount of debt but if something would happen and you would need to borrow money to fix something you might be turned down for loans because you do not have any active credit accounts." Yes, my FICO score dropped from 850 to 846 after we paid off the mortgage. I guess I'm screwed, eh?

I never said it shows where it is invested. You stated it was not invested in stocks and bonds. If not invested in stocks and bonds where do you think it is invested? The statement you wrote is not what I wanted you to look at. The address is what is important. My husband's is a local government pension but it comes out of Chicago. The 1099 gives the company name along with the organization name.

It normally takes from 3-5 months for FICO scores to return to normal. I was hit with an increase in my car insurance because of the drop after I paid off the mortgage. That 5% added a whole lot to that periods insurance. The rating place did not see where it was important but the AAA did. Then with being turned down for a car loan in 2019 was an eyeopener.

If I have my info right, the Public Employees Retirement System is a multifaceted pension system administered by CalPers, one of the largest stock market institutional investors in the world and it also has a wide range of other investments too.

CalPers is currently facing a HUGE unfunded liability, something north of $100 billion. If its investment returns don't make up the gap, there's no doubt that benefits will be cut at some future date.

Current beneficiaries can express "not my benefits", but there's no way to know when the plug gets pulled. It can be expected that taxpayers would refuse to fund shortfalls.

Other pension funds can also be in 403(b) plans too with private sector sponsors but other than self-directed investment funds, and even with many of those, stock market investments are very common.

People whose retirement funds are not significantly in the stock market will have inferior returns, often lower than inflation rates.

When I say that the stock market isn't *people*, I'm referring to the falacy that a 'healthy' market is the same as a 'healthy' society. The past year is eloquent proof of that. "The market" has boomed while individual Americans are scrabbling for food and housing -- most of them through no fault of their own, other than buying into the 'dream'.

I get tired of the 'bootstraps' attitude. It's most often espoused by people who inherited theirs -- whether they inherited a prior generation's savings or because they reaped the advantages that come with being born into a financially stable family.

"When I say that the stock market isn't *people*, I'm referring to the falacy that a 'healthy' market is the same as a 'healthy' society."

I'm not sure who advances that but I would agree maybe for a different reason - the stock market is investment money for the future. It has little effect on "today" for most people, and often the reverse is true too. Daily news coverage (and like MSNBC) isn't very meaningful. Long term trends and levels matter, daily ones don't.

I similarly tire of the "woe is us" attitude. There are many things the US could do better but somethings just won't happen because of a lack of common values and common goals It is what it is. I don't view the middle class as being the bedrock of anything. You're in the part of the country where unions pretended to make blue collar workers into members of the middle class. What they accomplished by raising wage costs to unsupportable levels in a relatively short period of time was the closing of factories, off-shoring of manufacturing and job losses.

After all that, I suspect we agree on most things! Have a good day, I hope you're feeling well and doing well.

We can agree on 'everything in moderation', Elmer. Goes for Capitalism and the Unions.

(I'm doing fine with my infusions against the MM; numbers improving. The arthritis and spinal compression are another story!)

Yes, yes. Except for unions. I worked in a grocery store during college and union membership was mandatory. It cost me a lot of money, not only expensive membership dues to a corrupt mob-infiltrated organization but also limitations on what the employer could do for me (I was a hustler they appreciated,, not lethargic with job protection like too many others). What they wound up doing was punching my time card in and out at least one day a week I didn't work, as a bonus. It shouldn't have been necessary. It taught me a lesson.

I know I'm not alone in being very happy to hear of your improvements. The other stuff we all suffer with.

Well, there's the 'in moderation' part. Early on, unions were necessary against exploitive employers. Seems as though everything has a tendency to get inflated. (Glad your employer saw your worth and found 'a way around'.)