[saalweachter]

Once again, the income range quoted in the article seems to correspond to the Thompson & Hickey 2005 definition of "Lower middle class". Mostly likely the people moving in to replace the displayed Lower-middle-classers are Upper-middle-classers making $75,000-$250,000, with only a sprinkling of Upper-classers (aka the 1%).

So once again pitting the middle against itself...

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class)

[sillysaurus2]

$75k in San Fran isn't upper middle class.

[1945]

That's for sure. Pulling a figure out of thin air, but with an understanding of the cost of living (I live in the area), I'd say upper-middle begins at around $150+.

[entendre]

Have fun commuting from Oakland or living with 4 bros on 100k. Middle class is, "can I have a kid comfortably?"

[davidjnelson]

Exactly. Middle class in San Francisco is $250k-$500k. These type of articles are so out of touch with the reality on the ground it's ridiculous. 1 bedroom apartments with a washer and dryer, no mold, no neighbors cigarette smoke, and two parking spots _start_ at $4k per month. And that's after taxes.

[3pt14159]

Some areas are going to be more dense with upper middle class than other. Some people are going to earn more than others. If San Fran hadn't stopped itself from growing, it would have plenty of room for both the upper and lower middle class, like Toronto does. Economics isn't a war between the haves and the have nots, it's a manner to allocate resources. We should be focused on increasing production and efficiency, not on making sure everyone in life is equal. That will never happen.