I really don’t think that’s a good metric given that the average house cost in San Francisco is 1.12 million dollars. Someone making $250,000 a year isn’t affording that house any more than someone making $54,000. They’re both priced out. That’s the point everyone else is making. That and the new idea what anyone working for a living is not upper class.
Sounds like you live in HCOL area where $250K is pretty much middle class.
250k household is not middle class anywhere in the United States.
$250K is borderlining middle class in San Francisco and Seattle.
It most assuredly is not.
Median income there is $54k or less in both of those cities. 5x median income is not middle class.
I really don’t think that’s a good metric given that the average house cost in San Francisco is 1.12 million dollars. Someone making $250,000 a year isn’t affording that house any more than someone making $54,000. They’re both priced out. That’s the point everyone else is making. That and the new idea what anyone working for a living is not upper class.
People in upper class society worked even during the height of the Robber Barons, so I’m not sure why you’re pretending that’s new.
Have you just like, not read The Great Gatsby or something? Shit, wealthy landowners in colonial days worked - even those with slaves.
Your points need to be grounded in reality somewhere.
San Francisco specifically being expensive to buy a home in has no bearing on what “middle class” represents whatsoever.
The “tax the rich but oh wait not me” liberals and progressives are the absolute worst