Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

My definitions:

Wealthy -- I don't have to work to maintain my lifestyle.

Poor -- I can't afford basic necessities even when I work.

Middle-class -- everyone else.

Now for sure there is some variation on middle-class (upper/lower/truly middle) and that's basically a function of disposable income.

But this definition at least accounts for variation in regional cost of living and even adjusts for personal lifestyle choices. Your middle class might be my wealthy because my lifestyle is cheaper.

View on HN

These are American definitions and not European ones, where working class are people who work for someone else for a living, while the middle class works for themselves. I guess it depends if you have your FU money or not.

I suspect that if you asked most on the street of your average European city, they would use something close to the "American" definition unless they happened to have a background in the social sciences.

I have never heard that definition anywhere in Europe (it might exist but I would not say it's common).

OPs description matches mostly how the UK does it, except we have an aristocratic hangover that confuses the meaning of "upper class"

We also (perhaps because of this) have the term "upper-middle class" to refer to particularly well-off middle-class people; though beyond a certain level you just become "rich"

Wealth doesn't automatically make you part of the upper class in Europe. Carrying a title and being part of the aristocracy, even if dirt poor, however does.

Rich? Definitely. Upper class? Only if you're accepted by the other members.

    > mostly how the UK does it

With the addendum that it - or your perception - will always have more to do with your parents and upbringing than your salary.

America's socio-econmic classes, by stark contrast, are all about the money.

That class is all about the money in the US is not entirely true. If you have lots of money but don't know the social rituals, people will notice.

"new money" is after all a thing.

How the UK does it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Class_Survey

But it's worth mentioning - unless you'd disagree, and I've misread - that working "for themselves" doesn't have to mean self-employment.

If your lifestyle basically consists of stuff you could do for free, like cycling and internet, does that mean you're wealthy?

The trouble with this definition is that your lifestyle changes with your income. If I were making millions I might need yachts and private jets to maintain the good life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com