Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yes -- but when you're talking about "middle class" -- like Sebby was -- that concept necessarily applies to some group in the "middle" of the population (as Wonk was pointing out).
So, it is kind of nuts to say (as Sebby did) that folks in the top 2%-4% of income in the country are middle-class. But what he was really getting at was that they ain't "rich" in his view.
S_A_M
|
Yes, "middle" doesn't particularly work (though when was it last the true "middle"?). But that could be a matter of semantics. If "middle class" people can afford less than they used to, standard-of-living-wise, do we just define down what it means to be "middle class"? Or do we lift the dollar-numbers of "middle class" to reflect what it takes to attain what we've typically expected middle-classers (even, say on the upper end of middle-classers) to attain?
