What is middle class in Calgary?

[CMPunk]

Well based on where I live and how much all of you make, I guess I'm lower class.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Sure, but a two income family pulling in $200,000+ (pretax) is not something that is out of reach for the common man in Alberta.

I would say its relatively common.

The median after tax income is around $100,000. So pretax median is maybe 140,000-150,000.

That's for an average joe family.

It is not as common as you think. You think it is because you run in circles where it is common you have a confirmation bias.

Not sure where you got a median after tax of $100,000. In alberta the Median gross household income is 93k (2015) which is pre-tax. That means 50% of families make less than $100k before tax.


I can't find a distribution of incomes other than median, but I am willing to bet that the vast majority of families (>75%) in Calgary make less than $200,000 pre-tax.

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

[Oling_Roachinen]

For Calgary, about a third of all households make under $70,000. Roughly 40% make between $70,000 and $150,000 and that remaining (rough 28%) make over $150,000. As CliffFletcher's link indicate.

That does not account for individual or multi-person families in the households. But it's certainly not the norm to see a household income of over $200,000.

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

The median after tax income is around $100,000. So pretax median is maybe 140,000-150,000.

The median total income of two-or-more-person households in 2015 was $116,969

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

For Calgary, about a third of all households make under $70,000. Roughly 40% make between $70,000 and $150,000 and that remaining (rough 28%) make over $150,000. As CliffFletcher's link indicate.

That does not account for individual or multi-person families in the households. But it's certainly not the norm to see a household income of over $200,000.




The median total income of two-or-more-person households in 2015 was $116,969

It would be really interesting to see how those numbers change when you filter by households that are comprised of a single person versus those with multiple people. I would assume that the vast majority of single person households are represented in the under $70,000 category and it would be single digits in the over $150,000 category.

[OMG!WTF!]

free picture hosting

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It would be really interesting to see how those numbers change when you filter by households that are comprised of a single person versus those with multiple people. I would assume that the vast majority of single person households are represented in the under $70,000 category and it would be single digits in the over $150,000 category.

Best I saw was median total income of one-person households in 2015 was $52,163. The average total income of one-person households in 2015 was $70,974. So yeah, barely half the single earning households make over $50,000. But then you need to factor in age. These numbers would include students working part time and single-person retirees.

But yes, a huge difference in perception when you realize almost half of all single-person households are bringing in less than $50,000 pre-tax. And, for what it's worth, this one-person household category includes 130,000 of Calgary Economic region's population.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by blankall

$100k is about the max, and that takes 10 years to get, and this is for post-secondary teachers.

You're also looking at a minimum of 5 years of education, plus a struggle to find a permanent job. Realistically, though most post-secondary teachers have a full four year bachelor's plus a two year teacher's college degree. Many have a master's on top of that.

So about 17 years total to get to that $100k/year. The program's themselves are competitive to get into and take quite a bit of work. If you're that driven and consistent of a worker, you could probably make $100k/year with benefits in most fields after 17 years.

Middle school and high school teachers can easily make $100k per year. It definitely takes a while but isn’t limited to post secondary.

[Oling_Roachinen]

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/Public%20...012-2016).aspx
Here's the 2012-2016 schedule (sorry for spacing):

Effective September 1, 2015

Years of Teacher Experience Years of Post Secondary Education
Four Five Six
0 59,054 62,514 66,475
1 62,514 65,982 69,932
2 65,982 69,447 73,400
3 69,447 72,900 76,862
4 72,900 76,360 80,319
5 76,360 79,831 83,789
6 79,831 83,293 87,250
7 83,293 86,754 90,709
8 86,754 90,223 94,170
9 90,223 93,681 97,641
10 93,912 97,372 101,331

But yes, 10 years of working and six years of education to break the 100k barrier under the old CBA. Not sure the new schedule.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

It's Alberta. Most people are afforded a pretty good lifestyle.


......


When at least one quarter of the working population in Alberta are pulling in $200K a year in household income, that has to be a middle class earner.

Regardless of the numbers, how many Calgarians actually earn that, how many don't, my question is: is that Upper Class? I mean, to many people that doesn't feel Middle Class, but is it Upper Class? Remember, that household income is different from salary. Many CEO's and people I would consider Upper Class, do not earn that much in their base salary, they get most of their value through stocks and investments.

What's the bottom end of Upper Class???

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Middle school and high school teachers can easily make $100k per year. It definitely takes a while but isn’t limited to post secondary.

This is the crux of the matter (which I see Oalie posted), teachers can make $100K/year and perhaps are upset that they cant (although they can) make more, the fact is though that they are at their top earning potential for 15 of their 25 years of employment. They row through the earning brackets really quickly.

So yeah, all they can make is ~$100k but they're hitting that before being 35 and banking it all the way to retirement, in addition to all of the other benefits of their job.

Top-notch medical, golden pensions, 3 months off, etc.

Its a pretty sweet gig. Most teachers that I know understand that their potential lack of advancement financially after 10 years mitigates a lot of their other perks.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Regardless of the numbers, how many Calgarians actually earn that, how many don't, my question is: is that Upper Class? I mean, to many people that doesn't feel Middle Class, but is it Upper Class? Remember, that household income is different from salary. Many CEO's and people I would consider Upper Class, do not earn that much in their base salary, they get most of their value through stocks and investments.

What's the bottom end of Upper Class???

for me, those families making over $200,000 no matter if that's partly stock options. from my viewpoint, I don't consider that middle class any longer. if your family makes $250,000 and are living paycheque to paycheque, that's a spending problem not an income problem.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There must be a lot of tiers of "upper class" then. No one I would classify as truly "rich" needs to worry about mortgage payments.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is the crux of the matter (which I see Oalie posted), teachers can make $100K/year and perhaps are upset that they cant (although they can) make more, the fact is though that they are at their top earning potential for 15 of their 25 years of employment. They row through the earning brackets really quickly.

So yeah, all they can make is ~$100k but they're hitting that before being 35 and banking it all the way to retirement, in addition to all of the other benefits of their job.

Top-notch medical, golden pensions, 3 months off, etc.

Its a pretty sweet gig. Most teachers that I know understand that their potential lack of advancement financially after 10 years mitigates a lot of their other perks.

Hitting $100k, as a teacher, by 35 still requires you to start working towards that at 18 and have everything go right. There are plenty of jobs were you can do that same. If a tradesman goes right into trades school upon graduation from high school and works continuously from then on, they can expect to earn at least $100k/year by 35. The same is true of most professions actually.

Firefighters hit $100k after 5 years:

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Fire/Page...-benefits.aspx

Police officers attain above $100k, after a single promotion, which occurs between 5-10 years:

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Documents/...Disclosure.pdf

You'll see similar salaries with just about any city jobs, that 's just kind of the going rate for any kind of city job that requires special education or involves a safety hazard:

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/cmo/Documen...osure_list.pdf

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There must be a lot of tiers of "upper class" then. No one I would classify as truly "rich" needs to worry about mortgage payments.

You'd be surprised at people's propensity to over-extend themselves. Even if your worth 20 million, you can find a way to get a mortgage.

It's more of a general personality trait than a class trait. Some people will always live above their means, no matter how big their means are.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Hitting $100k, as a teacher, by 35 still requires you to start working towards that at 18 and have everything go right. There are plenty of jobs were you can do that same. If a tradesman goes right into trades school upon graduation from high school and works continuously from then on, they can expect to earn at least $100k/year by 35. The same is true of most professions actually.

Firefighters hit $100k after 5 years:

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Fire/Page...-benefits.aspx

Police officers attain above $100k, after a single promotion, which occurs between 5-10 years:

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Documents/...Disclosure.pdf

You'll see similar salaries with just about any city jobs, that 's just kind of the going rate for any kind of city job that requires special education or involves a safety hazard:

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/cmo/Documen...osure_list.pdf

So you just picked 3 Unionized Public service jobs and called it a day there?

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

I'm sorry, I must be missing your point here.

Yes. Unionized Government jobs are pretty sweet because the compensation comes quickly although eventually stagnates albeit at a relatively high level, the benefits are first rate and the pensions are out of this world and they can retire far, far sooner than the average person.

Yeah....sounds like hell.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There must be a lot of tiers of "upper class" then. No one I would classify as truly "rich" needs to worry about mortgage payments.

there is, especially from the perspective of a lower class.

we're not talking about what makes one rich, but middles class and perhaps when one is no longer considered middle class.

I think you can be upper class rather than middle class without being considered rich or a millionaire.

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.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's more of a general personality trait than a class trait. Some people will always live above their means, no matter how big their means are.

People buying things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

for me, those families making over $200,000 no matter if that's partly stock options. from my viewpoint, I don't consider that middle class any longer. if your family makes $250,000 and are living paycheque to paycheque, that's a spending problem not an income problem.

Honestly, I think that determining upper class has more to do with net worth than income. When you think of really, truly rich people, many of them don't work at all. That's what makes it hard to determine the lower end of Upper Class - they don't even use the same measuring stick.

It's a fairly safe bet to say that a net worth of $10 million is Upper Class. I would also hazard to say that a net worth of $1 million is too "easy" to achieve to consider that person Upper Class - truly upper class. Heck, with enough savings, and time, anyone making $100,000 a year can make it to $1 million net worth, but their lifestyle and circumstances would be really hard to classify as "upper class". Especially considering that's achievable by high school teachers

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by gasman

It is not as common as you think. You think it is because you run in circles where it is common you have a confirmation bias.

Not sure where you got a median after tax of $100,000. In alberta the Median gross household income is 93k (2015) which is pre-tax. That means 50% of families make less than $100k before tax.


I can't find a distribution of incomes other than median, but I am willing to bet that the vast majority of families (>75%) in Calgary make less than $200,000 pre-tax.

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

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

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Honestly, I think that determining upper class has more to do with net worth than income. When you think of really, truly rich people, many of them don't work at all. That's what makes it hard to determine the lower end of Upper Class - they don't even use the same measuring stick.

It's a fairly safe bet to say that a net worth of $10 million is Upper Class. I would also hazard to say that a net worth of $1 million is too "easy" to achieve to consider that person Upper Class - truly upper class. Heck, with enough savings, and time, anyone making $100,000 a year can make it to $1 million net worth, but their lifestyle and circumstances would be really hard to classify as "upper class". Especially considering that's achievable by high school teachers

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..