What is middle class in Calgary?

[Oling_Roachinen]

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:



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%.

It considered 558,910 households. There were 129,765 one-person private households. So just over 75% with more than one person in the households. And yes, those households would include single parents - but it makes no sense to exclude them.

If you set up so narrowly that you're now pretty much excluding the entirety of the lower class, what's the point in trying to discuss class at all? I think everyone agrees that dual, full-time earners with either a valuable trade or post-secondary education can get over the $200,000 total income benchmark. If that's Oil Stain's argument, sure everyone agrees. That's not the point though, the point is only 16% of households do so. So we need to stop using qualifiers like "easily make over $200,000" because reality and stats don't back that up.

[V]

What a strange discussion. Not sure what the point is either. What is the point of defining classes, and how does it help anything? I'm probably just daft.

[gasman]

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:



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%.

Do you want a hand with those goalposts?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by V

What a strange discussion. Not sure what the point is either. What is the point of defining classes, and how does it help anything? I'm probably just daft.

I just want to make sure I'm on the right side when the proletariat have their uprising.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I just want to make sure I'm on the right side when the proletariat have their uprising.

You already arent. Never identify yourself.

You'll be among the first of the culled masses.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I just want to make sure I'm on the right side when the proletariat have their uprising.

If Hollywood's taught me anything, it's that it's always the upper class that get their seats on the space shuttle once the world goes to crap and we have to relocate to one of the moons on Saturn. But then, that's usually the shuttle that gets hit with the laser blast or meteorite first, so who knows.

[nik-]

Class is defined by the dollar value on your monthly cocaine habit. Once every few months, to constant nose bleed. That's the scale.

Also, if you smoke crack, you're the proletariat.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I just want to make sure I'm on the right side when the proletariat have their uprising.

Note to agents, add this prole to the list.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by 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.

I like these definitions. It’s more about your financial resources vs your lifestyle than a strict dollar amount. I might also factor in your retirement prospects - will you need to keep working, retire but cutback, keep an equivalent lifestyle, or leave a large endowment for your children.

I find the lower/middle/upper class names a bit dated since they historically implied education and refinement vs just financial means. Lower/middle/upper income is a better description.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It considered 558,910 households. There were 129,765 one-person private households. So just over 75% with more than one person in the households. And yes, those households would include single parents - but it makes no sense to exclude them.

If you set up so narrowly that you're now pretty much excluding the entirety of the lower class, what's the point in trying to discuss class at all? I think everyone agrees that dual, full-time earners with either a valuable trade or post-secondary education can get over the $200,000 total income benchmark. If that's Oil Stain's argument, sure everyone agrees. That's not the point though, the point is only 16% of households do so. So we need to stop using qualifiers like "easily make over $200,000" because reality and stats don't back that up.

I was really more just pointing out that you can't define "class" by salary alone. Households are in different circumstances. So using a $200k household income to define whether someone is upper class or not isn't really all that fair. It's quite common for households with dual incomes to reach that level once their careers are going.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It considered 558,910 households. There were 129,765 one-person private households. So just over 75% with more than one person in the households. And yes, those households would include single parents - but it makes no sense to exclude them.

If you set up so narrowly that you're now pretty much excluding the entirety of the lower class, what's the point in trying to discuss class at all? I think everyone agrees that dual, full-time earners with either a valuable trade or post-secondary education can get over the $200,000 total income benchmark. If that's Oil Stain's argument, sure everyone agrees. That's not the point though, the point is only 16% of households do so. So we need to stop using qualifiers like "easily make over $200,000" because reality and stats don't back that up.

Let's say for instance the husband is a welder and makes $160,000 per year, and works in Fort Mac 3 weeks out of every four.

The wife works as a receptionist and makes $35,000 per year.

They have three kids.

That's $195,000.

Is that an upper class family?

I would say that is solidly middle class. The husband is sacrificing work/life balance so the family can get ahead financially, but I wouldn't call that an upper class family and I wouldn't say that they are on easy street.

Compare that to a single computer programmer household without kids that makes $170,000. IMO that programmer is closer to being in the upper class than the aforementioned family.

I think middle class is harder to define now then it was in the 70's when papa worked, mama stayed at home, and they got married at 23.

Household earnings don't fit so neatly into a homogeneous box like they did in 1973.

And I'm not saying that $200,000 per year annual income per year is necessarily easy. I mean, you have to go out and get an education and put time in your career, but it's pretty obtainable for the average Albertan couple if they are motivated and willing to make some sacrifices to get more money.

You can't say that about most places in the world. Here in Alberta, $200,000 per year income between two people is very obtainable for average people if that is what their goal is.

So when I look at middle class earnings in Alberta, I look at whether its possible for average people to obtain those earnings.

A two doctor household earning $500,000 isn't obtainable for most people. Becoming a doctor is exceedingly difficult.

A two teacher household earning $200,000 is something that is obtainable for the average person so I would consider that middle class earnings.

[V]

The actual stats would disagree with you.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by V

What a strange discussion. Not sure what the point is either. What is the point of defining classes, and how does it help anything? I'm probably just daft.

I would think better clarity on where the middle class lies in terms of financial capability is actually really important for organizations like, say, the government. Banks. Businesses from a marketing perspective...

It's not irrelevant at all from those perspectives. One example would be, say, the collapsing US middle class and resulting political and societal upheaval we are slowly witness to. If you can measure the middle class you can keep an eye on social stability or social mobility, etc.

[Enoch Root]

Suggesting an income above $200k makes you upper class is laughable.

Being upper class includes things like education, lifestyle, connections, etc. And as for financial qualifications, it's about net worth, not income.

Say your family is worth $50M and you decide to become a professor or a doctor (GP). You could easily be making less than $200k per year. But that doesn't change your status in the least.

Conversely, a regular Joe that starts making decent coin doesn't suddenly get invited to the Country Club. Even making $500k to $1M a year won't change your status, it'll just get you nicer toys and a (much) bigger middle class home.

[tkflames]

What a weird thread... 3 takeaways:

1. Some people have a very distorted view of what "easily", "average" and "attainable" income is...likely resulting from the echo chamber of educated people they have surrounded themselves with.

2. I don't understand the purpose of this grouping...I so see value in the distribution curve of income and what that looks like but I cannot find that.

3. If we are grading "classes", it is strange to base it on income as opposed to means. Someone with $30M in the bank withdrawing $100k/ year has access to a lot more than a family making $200k

[blankall]

Originally Posted by tkflames

What a weird thread... 3 takeaways:

1. Some people have a very distorted view of what "easily", "average" and "attainable" income is...likely resulting from the echo chamber of educated people they have surrounded themselves with.

2. I don't understand the purpose of this grouping...I so see value in the distribution curve of income and what that looks like but I cannot find that.

3. If we are grading "classes", it is strange to base it on income as opposed to means. Someone with $30M in the bank withdrawing $100k/ year has access to a lot more than a family making $200k

I don't necessarily disagree with most of this. Although many of the people I know who make the most money are those with the least education. People I know who went into trades or construction or work in their own or family businesses earn far more than my friends with University degrees. Many of them also bought properties 10 years ago, and have far more networth too.

This might change as I get into my 40s and the setback from taking time off for school is further behind us. However, education seems to have a lot less value than skills. And the people in construction are now getting appointed to managerial roles or getting seniority in unions now.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Even making $500k to $1M a year won't change your status, it'll just get you nicer toys and a (much) bigger middle class home.

Are you saying that a household earning $500k-$1M annually is still considered middle class? That doesn’t leave much of an upper class, less than 1% of income earners in Alberta make that much.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't necessarily disagree with most of this. Although many of the people I know who make the most money are those with the least education. People I know who went into trades or construction or work in their own or family businesses earn far more than my friends with University degrees. Many of them also bought properties 10 years ago, and have far more networth too.

This might change as I get into my 40s and the setback from taking time off for school is further behind us. However, education seems to have a lot less value than skills. And the people in construction are now getting appointed to managerial roles or getting seniority in unions now.

Just to clarify, when I said educated, this does not imply University degree. This implies any technical education. I would go as far as to suggest that the earning potential of a STEM graduate or any technical trade education is far higher than most non-STEM bachelor degrees (with exceptions), but I digress. The point is, just over 50% of Canadians 25-64 have a post secondary education (highest in the world). This still means that 50% of adults do not have one of these. I wasn't able to find good statistics on this, but if we assume an even distribution of households that contain: 0/2 with post secondary education, 1/2 with post secondary education and 2/2 with post secondary education, this would imply that 66% of people would have 1 or less post secondary educated people in the family. I suspect the statistics are even worse because anecdotally I believe there is a tendency for educated people to connect.

The point of this entire tangent is strictly to point out that not only are we in a bit of an echo chamber here, but we are also misleading ourselves in the number of people that have an "average" income and what average actually is. For the record the median income in 2016 for Calgary/household was $67,700. By definition, 50% of households have it worse than this...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ment-1.4574667

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you saying that a household earning $500k-$1M annually is still considered middle class? That doesn’t leave much of an upper class, less than 1% of income earners in Alberta make that much.

Correct - Top 1% in Canada makes $227,000 or more (2014)

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Correct - Top 1% in Canada makes $227,000 or more (2014)

In Alberta it was $303k to be in the top 1%,

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle36383159/