Umm, yes? It's the upper middle class, or the professional class if you prefer a different way of categorizing members of the middle class.
Now, there are many alternative models of the US class system, some of which would say that a finance job is in the working class - a well-paid worker, but still working class. However, it seems your complaint was based on the salary, not the type of job.
I need a little help to understand your statement. Do you consider a "finance job paying around 80-100k in NY" to be working class? Blue collar? Upper class? Capitalist class? Blue bloods?
I'd agree with that, with the qualification that $80-100k may actually be a bit low. In the United States overall, the upper quintile of income starts at about $102k [1], so an income between $80 and $100k would place you in the upper-middle class.
However, it's important to keep in mind that the cost of living in San Francisco or New York is much higher than average. Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,795 [2] in San Francisco, that alone is over $33k a year. The SF cost of living index is 161.3 and the Manhattan cost of living index is 223.9. In other words, $100k in Manhattan is equivalent to about $45k in an average place in the US, firmly in the middle quintile. The Living Wage Project suggests it takes at least $100k to be effectively middle class in New York [3].
Umm, yes? It's the upper middle class, or the professional class if you prefer a different way of categorizing members of the middle class.
Now, there are many alternative models of the US class system, some of which would say that a finance job is in the working class - a well-paid worker, but still working class. However, it seems your complaint was based on the salary, not the type of job.
I need a little help to understand your statement. Do you consider a "finance job paying around 80-100k in NY" to be working class? Blue collar? Upper class? Capitalist class? Blue bloods?