What is middle class in Calgary?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Weitz

For the record the OP is asking about Calgary and in Calgary in 2015 it was $102,700.

which is why families making over double that, I have a hard time considering true middle class.

[DoubleF]

TL;DR - Middle class isn't about how much you make nor how much you spend. IMO it's what you display as a lifestyle, the majority of which is what you live in as well as the circles you run in.

EDIT: To further distill my opinion further, IMO, there are very few people in Calgary that are in the lower classes. I definitely agree with the idea that there are probably more tiers than just low, mid, high.

If I had to boil it down, what your home looks like is the vast majority of the determination of whether you are low class or upper class. This irrespective of whether you are renting or owning. Arbitrarily, IMO if your home looks like it hasn't been well maintained/upgraded for the last 10-15 years, I'd say you're looking at lower class irrespective of type of home you live in.

If I had to define it, I would say it is a factor of a few things for class, but much more subjective and social than something like objective like net worth and income.


1. Income/nest egg spending habits for discretionary spending for lifestyle upkeep.

This is a bit wider than previously mentioned but combines the income vs discretionary spending. One guy could be making $200K but living paycheque to pay cheque. The other could be doing nearly nothing, but has a multi-million dollar inheritance/savings they dip into on a regular basis for fancy things. I don't think too many people would argue both individuals likely sit in the middle class if not upper class. This also excludes individuals who have a net worth in excess of the millions, but use none of it and live in a run down home somewhere. Chat with a bank teller. You'd be surprised who has money and who does not.

I am focused on lifestyle upkeep. Someone spending $2K a month on fine dining, traveling etc. is likely considered middle/upper class. Someone with a $2K gambling addition who looks like crap is likely not considered middle/upper but lower class. Same as homes. It's about upkeep, not age nor cost nor ownership of said home. Spending attitudes likely qualifies or disqualifies individuals as middle or upper class irregardless of how much or how little someone has. There is of course significant leeway at times.

This is further exacerbated by the fact the gap between a luxurious lifestyle and lower class life style has blurred significantly. Keeping up with the Joneses and conspicuous consumption has spread across all classes. A dude making $20K a year can easily have access to the latest phone at $1K a pop in the same way a dude making $200K a year has access to that same phone, and it's not weird. I think this is also a statement about how it's not what you consume, but how often you consume to be "middle class".


2. What types of circles to you comfortably and regularly socialize in (starting from the bottom, to the highest class)?

This is also important, because it differentiates someone like the social yuppie with $5K living in a nice downtown condo worth $400k who is very much middle to upper class vs the older hermit retiree with half a million in the bank who lives in a run down home in the inner city worth $600k due mostly to land. The latter can obviously afford a more than the former, but would often not really be perceived as little more than lower class. Someone who rents also should not be taken out of the class equation, nor should some kid living at Chateau mom and pop and taking constant withdrawals from the bank of mom and dad to buy luxury items (assuming chateau mom and pop is a home that looks well maintained). But is a guy who drives a $50K vehicle in a ghetto upper or lower class? IMO many would perceived that guy as lower class with something nice.


3. The class distinction is more of a worldwide perception as opposed to the middle third of the populace in an area.

If you look at some of the richest suburbs/bedroom communities in certain USA metro areas, there's no damn way you try and figure out who is the lower or upper class. All of them are essentially upper class or lower class to the metro area or the US population as a whole. IMO the same applies in Canada and Calgary. For the sake of argument, let's focus on either just Canada or Alberta. A rich suburb vs a poorly run reserve essentially is all upper class or lower class. So I don't think you can always just draw a line in a populace of a metro area and say low and upper are divided here.

Furthermore, though it gets subjective, lower income classes generally do not envy what each other has. The line differs, but the middle class stars probably where an individual has something that the majority in the lower class feels is an upgrade to what they have.

Also, some people will view living in a small town/city as low class, even if the homes there are easily as nice as homes in big cities. I don't think living in Calgary vs Lethbridge vs Claresholm vs Canmore vs a poorly run reserve should immediately qualify nor disqualify you even with major differences in wages and afford-ability. The quality of what you display is more important a factor here.
/insert Edmonton joke here.

Now, I don't know what the definition is for low class in Canada, but I'd take a stab this way. We are lucky in Canada that in general, most individuals should not have issues accessing basic necessities like shelter, food and clothing. According to this, those below the absolute poverty line in Canada is something around 5% which is down from 12%. Relative poverty uses LICO (low income cut-off) to determine economic health of a family. About 13% apply 50% or over of their after tax income for food, shelter and clothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada

If only 5% is below absolute poverty and 13% is relative poverty (I really hope we can make it even lower long term) I'd almost feel like I could say that 75-85% of Canadians are higher than lower class without significant opposition from others. (As in, the % deemed low class in general do not desire the level what each other has). However, I think a person's home is the easiest and biggest percentage of information I would rely on to determine if one's level is not desired by other levels, including their own. But this is circling back to the first point about lifestyle upkeep and luxury items now.


So IMO, if I were to peg middle class, I'd say something along the lines of:

You engage in significant lifestyle upkeep that is considered an upgrade to the lowest denomination. The lowest denomination is around 15-25% and we are assuming they don't really want each other's level. They want the level the other 75-85% has.

Personally, I don't think there are many in Calgary's lowest. If we are using homes as a majority basis, the amount of people who do not live in a homes/condo/apartments etc. that looks like it hasn't been maintained properly for 10-15 years is probably a small population of the city. I'd venture a guess of 10-20%.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

maybe there isn't enough classes.

Don't forget lower upper middle class which is entirely different and better than upper lower middle class.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Even if they dont start at 18 they're still only working for 25 years for their full-ride.

Where are you getting this from? The earliest teachers in Alberta can start collecting their pension is at age 55. I’m fairly certain a person doesn’t need to complete 12 years of post secondary education to become a teacher.

http://www.atrf.com/Publications/StepsToRetirement.pdf

[GordonBlue]

^^^^ I think there is a difference in living like you're middle class as opposed to actually being middle class. there is more to it than how wealthy you appear to be or aspire to be.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I think people that are relatively well off, perhaps like yourself, might view themselves as middle class in their thinking even if the reality is now different.

I dunno about all that, but I live in a duplex in Montgomery. I don't think you can be rich and live in a duplex in Montgomery. Maybe upper class, according to people around here.

It's just such a range though. I have people I work with who own nine houses and could literally walk into Lamborghini Calgary and pay cash for a car without it affecting their finances... and that doesn't even approach the level of some of our clients. My day to day life resembles my parents' (who were teachers) much, much more than it resembles my bosses'. I'm just not sure the three-tiered "lower, middle, upper class" system of ordering really makes any sense. It's all a matter of perspective I guess.

[edslunch]

Upper class means you really don’t need to think about discretionary financial decisions except the really big ones. Middle class is you still have to make trade offs on discretionary decisions, even if at the level of can we afford to go Europe or just Mexico. Lower class means you have no discretionary decisions to make and may not even be able to cover the mandatory spending.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by gasman

edit* I did find one article that indicated to be in the top 20% individually you would need to make about $78k. I think this backs up my assertion that it isn't "common" to have a household income over $200k. It would likely put you in the top 10-15% of households in calgary

I would say it's more like 15-25%.

Even if it's one in ten at the low end of your assessment that's pretty common.

Are people saying a couple that are say a pipefitter and an RN aren't middle class?

Because that's a couple that easily makes 200k a year, and to me that is solidly middle class.

Two people with even minimal skills would make $100,000 combined.

Two people with some degree of education (Diploma level) and ten years experience in their fields should be able to make $150,000 combined easy.
A carpenter and a dental assistant would make $150,000 combined without working any OT.

$200,000 pre-tax is not rich level money anymore.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I dunno about all that, but I live in a duplex in Montgomery. I don't think you can be rich and live in a duplex in Montgomery. Maybe upper class, according to people around here.

It's just such a range though. I have people I work with who own nine houses and could literally walk into Lamborghini Calgary and pay cash for a car without it affecting their finances... and that doesn't even approach the level of some of our clients. My day to day life resembles my parents' (who were teachers) much, much more than it resembles my bosses'. I'm just not sure the three-tiered "lower, middle, upper class" system of ordering really makes any sense. It's all a matter of perspective I guess.

that's probably the most accurate comment here.
no way anyone can ever agree on what middle class is, especially on all our different points of view.

that's why for a politician, it's so easy to say they'll tax the rich and help the lower and middle class. it's so nebulous of a concept, they can never be held to it. can't really be defined.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Oil Stain, you can keep saying it, but the stats show that 16% of households in Calgary have a pre-tax income of over $200,000. This isn't "easy" to obtain.

It's how far you want to extend your qualify of "rich." Is rich the 1%? Top 10%? But in any case, $200,000 dual-income isn't the norm.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I would say it's more like 15-25%.

Even if it's one in ten at the low end of your assessment that's pretty common.

Are people saying a couple that are say a pipefitter and an RN aren't middle class?

Because that's a couple that easily makes 200k a year, and to me that is solidly middle class.

Two people with even minimal skills would make $100,000 combined.

Two people with some degree of education (Diploma level) and ten years experience in their fields should be able to make $150,000 combined easy.
A carpenter and a dental assistant would make $150,000 combined without working any OT.

$200,000 pre-tax is not rich level money anymore.

Rich is a relative term. If only 15-25% of households have a pretax income of over $200k then they are at the very least considered better off than any household that earns less than that. While a household that earns $190k may not consider a $200k earning household to be rich in comparison, I’d argue that most households earning $100k or less would categorize those $200k households as rich.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

guess I have a hard time thinking couples who make over $200,000 a year really should be considered middle class, even with today's cost of living.
even if they may not be true upper class.

if your family is clearing 10K a month, you're doing pretty darn well for yourselves..

I think those couples (which are very common in my circles, and I am not one of them) are on their way to being upper class, if they don't make foolish decisions, and have some things go their way, but aren't there yet. I mean, I think it is obvious that if a household has only made $200k for one year, that's a whole different scenario than a household that has had a decade or two of clearing $200k+ a year.

And then there is the trust fund kid, who maybe makes $200k a year in interest, but is vastly different in terms of lifestyle than the couple of 30 something engineers. The trust fund kid doesn't have to pay a mortgage, the engineers have a sizeable one. The trust fund kid doesn't have a job, the engineers have their time filled with work responsibilities. The trust fund kid has no dependents, the engineers have many.

You are hung up on income. Something that wealthy people aren't. They just don't think about income the same way you (we?) do.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Oil Stain, you can keep saying it, but the stats show that 16% of households in Calgary have a pre-tax income of over $200,000. This isn't "easy" to obtain.

It's how far you want to extend your qualify of "rich." Is rich the 1%? Top 10%? But in any case, $200,000 dual-income isn't the norm.

To be fair, a large number of homes either consist of a single person living alone or a single parent these days. Can't find the stats for Calgary specifically, but only about 2/3 of households consist of families with more than 1 person in them:

There were 14.1 million private households in Canada in 2016, 9.5 million (67.7%) of which were composed of at least one census family. Census families are defined as married or common-law couples, with or without children, and lone-parent families.

Of those multi-unit families, many are going to be single parent households or have at least 1 stay at home parent. It also doesn't take into account families that are just starting out or have already retired family members.

When you look at that 16% as a proportion of households where you have two parents working full time, it's probably much higher and closer to 50%.

[The Yen Man]

I dunno, guess I look at as, if you're not in the top 10% or at the bottom 10%, then you're middle class.

[Jason14h]

It really depends if people think Upper Class is Rich, or the top 15%, etc.


To me, there is a class of their own, which is the "I don't have to work anymore" If you are able to quit your job today and never worry about $$ again, you are (probably) rich. Is this upper class? Or is this above upper class?



I would classify two working professionals making $200K combined as upper middle class. They probably aren't stressing paycheck to paycheck, have savings, have newish stuff, and can vacation. However, if they stop working, they will be in trouble relatively quickly and/or have to drastically change lifestyle


Middle Class is earning enough to comfortably own a home if required, own a car if required, but need to budget and plan, etc.



Lower Middle Class is paycheck to paycheck but still being able to afford basic need things on your income


Lower Class is the people who struggle to live on their paychecks, no assests, no savings, etc


Just a general guideline, and as people have said, someone can appear to be upper middle class and broke, and someone can appear to be middle to lower middle and have tons in the bank.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

100% quadrant based.

Upper - SW
Middle - NW
Lower - NE
Mix N' Match Fun Bag - SE

This stuff is starting to get a little outdated as the years go by. Have you seen some newer communities in the deep NE? Have you seen what's happened to demographics in some SW communities?

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Weitz

For the record the OP is asking about Calgary and in Calgary in 2015 it was $102,700.

Sure we can play semantics over $10k based on location. My main point was that they were indicating the median after tax income was $100,000. it is not.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I dunno about all that, but I live in a duplex in Montgomery. I don't think you can be rich and live in a duplex in Montgomery. Maybe upper class, according to people around here.

Is it a 800k duplex? Also, I need to work where you work if your boss owns 9 houses.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

To be fair, a large number of homes either consist of a single person living alone or a single parent these days. Can't find the stats for Calgary specifically, but only about 2/3 of households consist of families with more than 1 person in them:

Which points to an emerging reality of our society - that enduring marriages with two working adults are becoming essential to membership in the middle class and upper middle class. Conversely, the breakdown in lasting unions among the working class (and now the lower middle class) has been catastrophic for equality and social mobility.

That's why when we narrow the discussion to households with two working adults, we're already dealing with a more affluent population than average. Setting that as the baseline is kinda like setting adults with university degrees as the baseline.

Originally Posted by blankall

When you look at that 16% as a proportion of households where you have two parents working full time, it's probably much higher and closer to 50%.

From the stats I linked to earlier:

Median total income of couple economic families with children: $137k

So more than 16% of households with two working parents make $200k, but nowhere close to 50%.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I would say it's more like 15-25%.

Even if it's one in ten at the low end of your assessment that's pretty common.

Are people saying a couple that are say a pipefitter and an RN aren't middle class?

Because that's a couple that easily makes 200k a year, and to me that is solidly middle class.

Two people with even minimal skills would make $100,000 combined.

Two people with some degree of education (Diploma level) and ten years experience in their fields should be able to make $150,000 combined easy.
A carpenter and a dental assistant would make $150,000 combined without working any OT.

$200,000 pre-tax is not rich level money anymore.

You keep emphasizing these made up scenarios, but there is absolutely no data to back up your assertion. The fact is *most* families make no where near $200,000, just because you can make up scenarios where a household may make more than $200k, does not in it self make it a reality.

To answer you question anyways, yes if the people in your made up scenario are making over $200k as a family they are not middle class, they are upper class.

Middle Class, the class in the middle. Not the class that spans form 1% to 99%.

If you want to look at $200k as top 25%, then that even makes a great place to split. Bottom 25% - Lower Class, 26-75% Middle Class, Top 25% Upper Class