[kolbe]

I don't think engineers earning six figures are relatively poor. You should learn what poor is before you say something like that. They are solidly middle class in one of the most prosperous times to be middle class. And the middle class is designed to sit between the upper (capital owners) and the lower. You're paid to augment their capital. So if they get filthy rich off of your work, despite their bad decisions, it shouldn't matter to you. You're every bit a part of the problem, and you choose to be a part of it. You don't need to live in the Bay Area. You don't need the best schools. You don't need fancy new tech toys. You don't even need US. You choose to be a part of the middle class in order to receive those luxuries.

[bronbron]

> They are solidly middle class

Not really. If you earn $120k a year (just over 6 figures) you're in the top 10% of income earners in the US. The fact that you think they're 'middle class' (and relatively speaking, I don't think you're wrong) is indicative of how bad the wealth gap has gotten.

[TheCoelacanth]

The bottom 50-90% of the top 10% of earners is very much part of what is traditionally called "middle class". People in high-paying professional occupations such as doctors, lawyers and engineers have always been considered part of the middle class. The upper class is made up of capitalists and high-level executives, not people who work for a living.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class#Academic_...

[bronbron]

Interesting! I didn't know there were different distinctions.

Still, I think your source really just proves my point: by no means is anyone earning 120K a year "solidly middle class". By pretty much all of the definitions you listed, 120K a year would either be "upper middle class", or "the rich" (e.g. find me a homeowner in SF who doesn't have >1 million in home equity).

[gaius]

Dollar figures are useless for this; got to factor in cost of living too.

[bronbron]

Sure, I'm not discounting that. I live in NYC, and the cost of living is certainly an adjustment to your wealth. That said, I think it would still be disingenuous to consider anyone making $120K a year middle class.

[smtddr]

>>You don't need to live in the Bay Area. You don't need the best schools. You don't need fancy new tech toys. You don't even need US. You choose to be a part of the middle class in order to receive those luxuries.

I was with you until this part. You can't just tell people they don't need their current resident city or country or what schools they(or their children) need.

Running away from a problem is almost never the right solution.

[kolbe]

I'm pointing out that they're choices, not needs. They are things you can live without, and if you see a problem, and you feel strongly about changing the world, then you can sacrifice these luxuries.

And it is absurd to claim that I am advocating running away from a problem. I absolutely want you to tackle the problem head-on. But by voluntarily enriching the aristocracy, you are part of the problem. So I find it painfully hypocritical to complain about your bosses earning too much, while at the same time choosing to be their employee.

[stingraycharles]

I think the point he or she was trying to make is that you control your own happiness and shouldn't make that depend on things that are outside of your control.

I agree with that sentiment, it's the advice I generally give people who are in a bad situation. But if you look at it from the country's perspective it feels like avoiding the problem, and isn't a solution.