What is middle class in Calgary?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by gasman

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

I guess I just don't agree with arbitrarily assigning middle class as being between X and Y percent.

Whether its 25-75% or 30-60%.

I believe that the vast majority of Canadians live a middle class existence. There is some poverty and some rich at the extreme ends, but most people live a comfortable enough life, are still required to show up for work weekly and will have to work until 55-60ish years of age.

[iggy_oi]

Albertans in that top income category earned $572,400, on average, up by 20.7 per cent from 2014.

Their share of total income also increased, growing from 17.8 per cent to 19.8 per cent.

In Calgary, specifically, the top one-per-cent's income share grew from 26.9 per cent to 28.6 per cent.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4403421

[nik-]

I think this article in the Atlantic is a good benchmark of where to put the upper class line.

The top 9.9% At this point you start getting serious generational advantages as a result of upbringing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/559130/

However, upper middle class is a thing, and "the middle class" is a notoriously flexible definition.

Also, if you make 200k and are not getting way ahead, you suck at financial management.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by tkflames

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

This...

Although the article you cited is talking take home pay, just to jive it with the 100k before tax number that was floating around here.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think this article in the Atlantic is a good benchmark of where to put the upper class line.

The top 9.9% At this point you start getting serious generational advantages as a result of upbringing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/559130/

However, upper middle class is a thing, and "the middle class" is a notoriously flexible definition.

Also, if you make 200k and are not getting way ahead, you suck at financial management.

Agree mostly with what you have stated. If the groups are to mean anything, there must be some commonality amongst the group. The 9.9 seems to be a level that is much different from the family earning a median income. Not sure what the lower level should be, but I think a similar methodology would make sense, with a view of net worth and a view of how many multiples it would take to scratch the surface of the middle class.

My one quibble is the last line. If you are making 200k, you are probably getting ahead, but now way would you be "way ahead" if the goal is the 9.9. With the concentration of wealth, you are probably inching your way up, with the bar continuing to move up at likely a similar pace.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

My one quibble is the last line. If you are making 200k, you are probably getting ahead, but now way would you be "way ahead" if the goal is the 9.9. With the concentration of wealth, you are probably inching your way up, with the bar continuing to move up at likely a similar pace.

If you're making 200k a year and are financial prudent, you're absolutely able to hit a multi million dollar net worth over a career. And that's multi million dollar net worth in investments, not "my home is worth $500000".

And financially prudent being you "only" spend $6600 a month.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by nik-

However, upper middle class is a thing, and "the middle class" is a notoriously flexible definition.

This.

The problem is people from both ends want to identify as the middle class. To me the upper middle class is more comparable to the middle class than the wealthy (hence the upper middle class part). A family making $200,000/yr may, on paper, seem to be in a completely different world than the median income family. In reality the two lifestyles are pretty similar. At $200,000/yr your SUV may be new instead of used, your house may have wood siding instead of vinyl and your vacation may be 4 star instead of 3 star but in reality you're living the same life. Your kids are typically still in public school, you live in the same communities and you're probably still taking the train downtown. That's upper middle class.

It takes a lot more than $200,000/yr to enter the wealthy. You don't get a house in Mt. Royal or on Crescent Rd with $200,000/year. You're not driving a brand new Range Rover Autowhatever or A8 or 7 Series at $200,000/yr. You're not spending $1,000/night for your two week vacation with $200,000/yr. Those lifestyle choices belong to a completely different class and the jump to that lifestyle is far larger than the jump between median income and $200,000/yr.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by kevman

This.

The problem is people from both ends want to identify as the middle class. To me the upper middle class is more comparable to the middle class than the wealthy (hence the upper middle class part). A family making $200,000/yr may, on paper, seem to be in a completely different world than the median income family. In reality the two lifestyles are pretty similar. At $200,000/yr your SUV may be new instead of used, your house may have wood siding instead of vinyl and your vacation may be 4 star instead of 3 star but in reality you're living the same life. Your kids are typically still in public school, you live in the same communities and you're probably still taking the train downtown. That's upper middle class.

It takes a lot more than $200,000/yr to enter the wealthy. You don't get a house in Mt. Royal or on Crescent Rd with $200,000/year. You're not driving a brand new Range Rover Autowhatever or A8 or 7 Series at $200,000/yr. You're not spending $1,000/night for your two week vacation with $200,000/yr. Those lifestyle choices belong to a completely different class and the jump to that lifestyle is far larger than the jump between median income and $200,000/yr.

I've thought a bit about how to get into the "wealthy". I know a doctor-housewife couple that bought a 2 million dollar house in Patterson, and a doctor-doctor couple that bought in Mt. Royal (probably 2-3 million).

To me, it seems like doctors are the cut-off for when you can just be upper class purely based on income. How much is that? 300k/yr? What is the actual gap between the standard $200k/yr upper middle class lifestyle and the wealthy?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I've thought a bit about how to get into the "wealthy". I know a doctor-housewife couple that bought a 2 million dollar house in Patterson, and a doctor-doctor couple that bought in Mt. Royal (probably 2-3 million).

To me, it seems like doctors are the cut-off for when you can just be upper class purely based on income. How much is that? 300k/yr? What is the actual gap between the standard $200k/yr upper middle class lifestyle and the wealthy?

Doctor's incomes varry wildly. GPs might only make $100k/year. High and surgeons, particularly those that can charge for private services, might make $800k plus.

Once again $300k can mean a lot of different lifestyles, depending on what tax schemes you fall into. Even $300k at a marginal rate of close to 50% is going to put you more info the nicer car range, as opposed to an entirely different class of lifestyle.

[CliffFletcher]

Another good indicator of class is whether the Globe and Mail would consider you for one of their retirement planning articles. You know, the ones where she's a professor and he's a former civil servant who now works as a consultant. The're both in their mid 50s and earning $130k and $150k. Both have a defined benefit pension. They have half share of a vacation property at a lake, and a million dollar home in a leafy Toronto neighbourhood that's paid off. They want to know if they can retire before 60, and the G&M columnist says maybe, but first they'll have to pay off the Audi, stop paying the rent for their 26 year old daughter, and maybe restrict themselves to one overseas vacation a year.

I've always thought it would be good for a laugh if the G&M did a retirement planning article for a more typical middle-class family. He's an electrician making $65k. She makes $48k at a license registry. They're in their mid-50s and neither have a pension. Mortgage on their $400k bungalow won't be paid off for another five years (second marriage for each). They have about $100k in RRSPs between the two of them. When can they retire and what kind of lifestyle will they have?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by red sky

Or just don't have a $500,000 house.

Good luck with that.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Another good indicator of class is whether the Globe and Mail would consider you for one of their retirement planning articles. You know, the ones where she's a professor and he's a former civil servant who now works as a consultant. The're both in their mid 50s and earning $130k and $150k. Both have a defined benefit pension. They have half share of a vacation property at a lake, and a million dollar home in a leafy Toronto neighbourhood that's paid off. They want to know if they can retire before 60, and the G&M columnist says maybe, but first they'll have to pay off the Audi, stop paying the rent for their 26 year old daughter, and maybe restrict themselves to one overseas vacation a year.

I've always thought it would be good for a laugh if the G&M did a retirement planning article for a more typical middle-class family. He's an electrician making $65k. She makes $48k at a license registry. They're in their mid-50s and neither have a pension. Mortgage on their $400k bungalow won't be paid off for another five years (second marriage for each). They have about $100k in RRSPs between the two of them. When can they retire and what kind of lifestyle will they have?

They occassionally throw in, maybe once a year, a couple who is so far down that the concept of retirement is completely out of the question. I would like for them to once, do a profile on a couple that is pulling in the $100 - $200k per year, but no pension plan.



G&M, stop profiling people with pension plans!! There is literally nobody with a pension plan that pays out $50-60k per year that can't retire on that. Even if you saved nothing your entire life, a pension plan is a life raft.

[Sliver]

Class goes way beyond your income. We seem to be focused on a fraction of the equation that sorts out the classes.

Missing are:

• Your education level - High school grad or drop-out? Trade school? College diploma? University degree? Masters? PHD? Each level up moves you up in class.
• Education level/wealth (basically class) of your parents - your stock. How you were raised affects your class.
• Your starting financial advantages - Was your post-secondary schooling paid for or are you saddled with debt before your first professional job? Did your parents buy your first car? What kind of car? Did they help you buy a house? What was the monetary value of all their help? Do you have a savings plan in your name that was funded by others?
• Your net worth. Assets minus liabilities. What is your dollar value?
• The value to which your life is insured.
• Class of your friends.

There's more for sure, but I just pulled these off the top of my head.

Sorting people into classes does have value. It's interesting to know how mobile a society is through the classes. Like, what percentage of people die in the class they were born into and how does that vary between different countries/cultures/political systems? How much opportunity is there for upward mobility? What is a member of a lower class's perception of upward mobility? Is the prospect of upward mobility used to manipulate people in lower classes to the advantage of people in higher classes? How does the legal system differ for people in lower classes than people in upper classes?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by blankall

Doctor's incomes varry wildly. GPs might only make $100k/year. High and surgeons, particularly those that can charge for private services, might make $800k plus.

Once again $300k can mean a lot of different lifestyles, depending on what tax schemes you fall into. Even $300k at a marginal rate of close to 50% is going to put you more info the nicer car range, as opposed to an entirely different class of lifestyle.

There aren't any doctors making 100K a year in Alberta.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

There aren't any doctors making 100K a year in Alberta.

Do you count chiropractors as doctors?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Do you count chiropractors as doctors?

Nobody counts chiropractors as doctors.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Wormius

They occassionally throw in, maybe once a year, a couple who is so far down that the concept of retirement is completely out of the question. I would like for them to once, do a profile on a couple that is pulling in the $100 - $200k per year, but no pension plan.



G&M, stop profiling people with pension plans!! There is literally nobody with a pension plan that pays out $50-60k per year that can't retire on that. Even if you saved nothing your entire life, a pension plan is a life raft.

This book is a fantastic read from someone who spent years advising people on retirement in a wide variety of income brackets. The best part is that he goes into detail how the typical middle class is advised, ad-nasuem, to over save to the point of insanity by investment co's and banks. If you're looking for real insight with examples from real couples saving for both lavish and comfortable retirements, this is an eyeopener as far as what you may have been told to save and what you may actually need to set aside....it's often far less than you'd think if you're honest about your expectations.

https://www.morneaushepell.com/ca-en...eal-retirement

[puckedoff]

^ Is Bill Morneau just telling us not to save so that we continue to consume and pump up the countries GBP numbers?

Edit: Also ironically, when Morneau became finance minister he said the opposite ("Canadians are not doing enough for retirement, Gov't is going to come up with a plan...")

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

This book is a fantastic read from someone who spent years advising people on retirement in a wide variety of income brackets. The best part is that he goes into detail how the typical middle class is advised, ad-nasuem, to over save to the point of insanity by investment co's and banks. If you're looking for real insight with examples from real couples saving for both lavish and comfortable retirements, this is an eyeopener as far as what you may have been told to save and what you may actually need to set aside....it's often far less than you'd think if you're honest about your expectations.

https://www.morneaushepell.com/ca-en...eal-retirement

What are the Coles Notes on this? I've only read how people under save for retirement.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

There aren't any doctors making 100K a year in Alberta.

Maybe not quite that low, but below $150 for sure. There are public stats on what they bill. However if you're an entry level go, you typically work for someone else's clinic and a significant portion of your billings will go to the clinic.