> The economy is doing stellar for the upper classes which account for maybe 10 to 15% of the population.
Part of the problem is that the US isn’t one “the economy”, it’s localized, primarily due to housing markets. There is no way that the top 10% of income earners qualify as “upper class” in the US, because the majority are in high COL areas.
When you make $400k/pa, but pay $5k/mo in rent/housing, that’s a very different outcome than making $400k/pa and paying $1k/mo in rent/housing. Both of these situations exist in the US, but the former is much more common than the latter. Looking at income only without accounting for cost of living presents a skewed view of things. The person paying the higher cost of living in this situation is solidly middle class, if and only if they own that property, renters by definition aren’t middle class. The person paying the low cost of living almost certainly owns the property and is able to invest heavily, so is almost certainly upper class or a HENRY.
Earning $90k/pa puts you in the top 10% of income earners, and isn’t even six figures. The new middle class for non-Boomers starts in the top 3%. You only need to earn $300k/pa to be in the vaunted 1%, and in most high COL areas you’ll never be able to afford a house.
Looking at income percentiles without looking at cost of living is a really skewed viewpoint, and it ignores the huge wealth chasm between the top 0.1% and everyone else, even 1%ers struggle to make rent.