[bryanrasmussen]

>If it is reasonable to survive on $51,200 then a family on $100k could reasonably be saving the balance $48,800 a year.

yep, it sure would be possible in theory. Although in practice I don't think that's how it is for most people.

Also in a range of 50 - 150k obviously you have to assume that 50k is in the poorest parts of the country, and of course there is nothing saying that only nuclear families or larger can be middle class so I guess, a young single guy could be middle class.

so let's say

https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/how-much-to...

California $111,206 $80,440

Tennessee $50,629 $56,071

In the case of Tennessee you might be earning enough at 50k a year to be ok, but it seems unlikely that in your region and class you will be getting the chance to invest in Amazon.

on edit: the money per year, first number middle class income in region, second number median income in region

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I remember reading an article that stated if you lived in Palo Alto (as opposed to East Palo Alto), and make $175K, you are considered “poor.”

It was a bit over the top, but uncomfortably close to the truth.

[bryanrasmussen]

before someone else comes in on it I'll note that families often say "we made x amount last year" while individuals say "I made x amount last year", it is up to whoever is putting the numbers together to determine how they want to deal with it.

At any rate a family I am going to suggest a family of three with 120,000 a year is probably around the same as young single guy with 50,000 a year. Which is just barely middle class.

I don't think the barely middle class is investing in anything (except for the ones with superhuman discipline, which I know some), and the ones who are actually in the middle of the middle class probably aren't going to have enough to fund early Amazon either, my disagreement was basically with the opinion that the middle class was much higher than 50k.