ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
68% Positive
Analyzed from 3015 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#class#middle#more#upper#school#public#same#don#interests#living
Discussion (58 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
In my view, we have two classes: People who have to work for a living, and people who don't. Most of us are in the first class: Our wealth (net of spending) does not grow unless we are working. We're N missed paychecks away from being broke. That N may be a high number (what some people call middle class) and that N may be a low number, but everyone in this class has a similar set of problems. Yes, small-N is more difficult living than big-N, but we are more similar than different.
The second group, the people whose wealth net of spending grows without them working, live in a totally different world than the rest of us and have totally different life experiences and problems. They simple don't worry about paychecks the way the rest of us do.
So this whole "upper middle class" distinction is IMO not very important. Now, more than ever, we need class solidarity, not more labels.
Economic class is the more useful framing and it's exactly as you say I think, you either work to put your bread on the table or you own things that put your bread on the table for you. There's other features of economic class but that's the dominant one. This is the class difference that matters the most in my opinion when it comes to explaining aggregate motivations.
In feudal times, kings and barons needed lesser gentry to carry out their plans. "Billionaires" likewise need armies of professionals to run their organizations. This group "works for a living," but that's a superficial distinction. In reality, those peoples' financial interests are strongly linked to the interests of the billionaires. There's a lot of people who "work for a living" that sent their kids to college by helping paper up deals that moved factories and jobs to China. The fact that those lawyers and accountants and bankers also "work for a living" was only a superficial similarity they shared with the factory workers whose jobs were outsourced. What dominated was the material interest--one group had skills that enabled them to benefit from globalization. And another group lacked those skills and suffered from globalization. You'll see the same from AI.
Your "class solidarity" has had the opposite effect of what you probably intend. The more the upper middle class started seeing themselves as "part of the 99%," the more they diluted the mission of organizations that advocate for working class interests.
What about the 10 year NVIDIA employee who held on to every stock grant and bought at every opportunity?
But the core of your point certainly stands. "Higher wage" vs "lower wage" does not make a big difference in terms of our fundamental interests, and the interests of workers are far more similar than people realize.
You're confusing "experiences" with "interests." Worrying about paying your mortgage isn't an "interest" you have in common with someone else. It's an "experience." But people with similar experiences can and often do have conflicting interests.
> The ironic part is that the data supports this. … And, as I demonstrated last year, premium travel experiences aren’t what they used to be.
On one hand I see the author’s point but anyone who’s flown the last decade will also see economy has become increasingly a shitty, cramped experience, where you’re treated with a certain level of baseline disdain and distrust from airline staff.
For housing, agree on living below your means, but it’s the same issue. Housing on the low end and middle price ranges is in many places most competitive, with multiple bids over ask for a fixer upper with major issues. For general goods and services, companies are extracting every ounce of value they can from budget offerings, usually by sacrificing quality to drive down cost.
I think the author sees this as an upper middle class issue because that’s their experience and lens but the truth is everyone is getting squeezed, and I’d argue the value prop on purchasing essentially anything gets worse, not better, as you try to save money.
I grew up poor. Not like destitute or anything, we had food and all the necessary basics, but there were 3 of us sharing a 50m^2 apartment on a single income with a dad who wouldn’t pay child support. So it was kinda tight.
Now I’m sorta upper middle class in SFBA. There’s 2 of us sharing 1500sqft, each saving almost 2x/year than my parents salary was back when times were tough. The fear of no-money never quite leaves you.
Here’s what I learned: Buy the most expensive thing you can afford. Use that thing until it dies. Do regular maintenance.
Thought I was super clever when I figured that out, but it’s just the Vimes Economic Theory of Boots – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Also never try to keep up with the joneses or buy things just for status. Unless you can leverage that status into financial opportunities.
For everything or specific products?
> For everything or specific products?
I mean, it depends? You probably dont need gold laced toilet paper but a pair of shoes that lasts 10 years instead of 2 years is probably worth it.
The real way for everyone to escape this perceived hedonic treadmill is to build more housing, invest in public transit infrastructure, and have affordable childcare.
Such an American thing. Not sure what to make of it.
It’s like you’ve commented on the wrong article or something. This article was talking about marginal costs and benefits.
I guess this depends what you mean by issue. One can pay for it but eventually (especially for multiple children) it crowds out other things.
The price forces a consideration of marginal costs and benefits instead of being able to think about it in terms like "my child would be happier here" or "I value education in classics/fine arts/religion/whatever else a private school teaches for non-financial reasons."
Their kids still ride the school busses. Upper-middle class aren't in a position to hire a limo and driver to take the kids to school.
> and have no issues paying for childcare
Typically because both parents are working high pressure jobs, which makes childcare a mandatory expense, not a luxury.
You and some of these other responders are clearly conflating the middle class and the UPPER middle class. The upper middle class made >$160k in 2025.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class_in_the_Unit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class_in_the_Unit...
That kind of depends what you're measuring, doesn't it? A better educated population is presumably generally a good thing. My life is probably more interesting because I spent 4 years at university learning.
Is that worth the price? I don't know, but it's not the same place.
FWIW I think SFUSD changes the public/private math a little: you can live in a 3m house and the neighborhood school for you is 2/10 on great schools or less. I’m not saying this rating scale is perfect but am saying that 2/10 is probably pretty bad. Also FWIW 1/3 of the school age kids in SF go private.
The collective "lifestyle creep" where the consumers are competing can cost everyone more while resulting in worse outcomes overall. Almost like reverse capitalism. Instead of producers / sellers competing (on quality and price), there is just so much demand from consumers that they are forced to sacrifice quality while paying a higher price.
Or lemme put it this way - $1.5 million buys you a single family home with a backyard in outer sunset, but only buys you a townhouse with no backyard in the Tri-Valley, but the family in outer sunset will have to send their kid to a private while the Tri-Valley household kid will attend some of the best public schools in the nation.
Machinery at the dawn of the industrial revolution was supposed to be a time-saving miracle that freed capitalists from having to deal with workers, and also freed workers from backbreaking labor, letting them spend their hours in the pursuit of leisure.
Of course, the opposite happened. Machinery meant workers could produce more output in the same amount of time, so they didn't work less, they worked at least the same and eventually even more to keep up with competition and the demands of consumers. It took decades of unrest and bloody conflict to give us the 8-hour workday.
This article is rediscovering that same history, but for a different class. AI is to white-collar knowledge workers what steam-powered machinery was to the rough-handed working class of the 1800s. It promises capitalists freedom from having to deal with highly-paid knowledge workers, and it promises highly-paid knowledge workers freedom from their labor so they can spend their time in the pursuit of leisure.
Look to history to see how that worked out.
I was reading a book about paying yourself first, "The Richest Man in Babylon." He spotted that and we had a short conversation about money, in which he recommended another book about personal finance, "The Millionaire Next Door," an enormous amount of which is about not buying into the Upper-Middle Class Trap.
I walked directly to a bookstore, bought it, and while I am not wealthy, what I do have I credit largely to that book. Yes, it's a book that could be a podcast episode or series of blog posts. But no matter how you consume the wisdom or where you get it from, consider this my heartfelt endorsement.
And yes, The Volvo V90 Estate in my garage was purchased used. And even then... We vacillated over spending that much to replace our XC70 Estate, also purchased used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door
The upper middle class have a leg-up and motivation for leveraging AI, as we are still involved with optimizing financials, time, and maintenance of lifestyle through careful planning. Like we asked Google before, now we ask Google which redirects us to their LLM to answer the questions more fully, along with actionable plans we can afford to implement. We take this journey multiple times, on a daily basis. We definitely noticed the increase in AI usage YoY for the last couple years.
I'm guessing the upper class and above, generally don't need to worry about practical details in the same way, delegating that responsibility (to someone who will use AI eventually). Maybe it feels like it's a tool best leveraged for our economic position because we're already trapped. Maybe everyone will feel this way.
> Individuals with the highest incomes tend to use AI the most. This is a rational response if you believe that AI is a serious threat to your high-paying career.
I guess the good news is that TFA proves there are still some instances left of good, old-fashioned, human-produced sloppy logic.
So, price per square foot may not be the whole story. They are often nicer homes with the same square footage. Some improvements are superficial but there are real upgrades too.
Who loses? Home buyers who would rather save money by buying a house that hasn’t been fixed up. If you wanted to buy the same house that the people there lived in fifty years ago, you can’t, because that house is gone. But other buyers presumably thought it was worth it.
Lower/middle class isn't exactly having a good time with housing either
Huh? No. If anything, participate harder. I am not going to go into the public school example author gives, because anyone in US ( including left leaning people ), know full well that public school is only good if it is in a 'good' district. If you really want to drop education cost, home school and hire experts to tutor your kid. Dunno, if opting out of life niceties is a good either for that matter.. or from AI..
I get it is an opinion, but it is also such a bad advice overall.
"Just buy less house" sounds very avocado toasty. Anyways, the actual way many people are "escaping the trap" is by not having children and not buying homes. Or at least delaying doing those things.
If anything, the collective action problem is political. But it's very systemic. Simply voting for a good representative isn't enough unless those representatives push for systemic change (and the right kind at that).
They marvel at the fact I have an office job and insist that I must dress very properly. I think one should question that and why their job (which they were proud of) no longer exists here and the ones that do exist don't employ locals. The result is that many of my generation are competing for those "prestigious" "high earning" carreers.