Ugh, another half-assed Vox article.
If you are going to publish an article with the provocative headline “is miserable” I don’t think it is too much to ask to include at least a shred of data to back up the claims. I don’t think we should get too hung up on the definitions. I don’t think it matters too much if some one making $150 (2x median income) or 221K (top 10%) is classified as upper middle class, semi-rich or rich. I think we all agree that you can live quite comfortably on that salary.
Warren Buffett when talking about how much he was going to leave his kids and grandkids, said I want them to have enough to be able to do anything and have anything, but not so much they can do nothing or have everything. Somebody in the top 10%, can have a nice houses,send their kids to top schools, enjoy fabulous vacations, and save enough to be able to retire early. However, they don’t necessarily have enough to do all of those things at the same time.
We are definitely not talking about nannies. Google says there are 217K full nannies in the US that is not even .2% of the US households,and even the broadest definition of nannies including baby-sitter who spend the night occasionally is a couple million. This is 1% problem, not a 10% problem
‘you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.” David Copperfield.
While, I am sure you can find people at any income level who complain about not having enough money. I think that once you make it to middle class, which I’d define as more than 200-300% of the poverty level (FPL). money troubles are primarily a function of being able to live within your means.
Some people are able to others can’t.
My sympathy for those make over 150K, who can’t is very low. It is big reason that I think, all the tax credits and programs should be phased out for those over 150-200K.