I don't really buy the distinction between "upper middle class" and "lower middle class" and "lower upper class" and "upper lower middle class" or whatever other variations people can dream up. These just seem like people trying to find a more granular place to stick themselves on the economic totem pole.

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.

> This is why the best way to escape the upper middle class trap is to stop participating in it altogether. Opt out of those ultra-competitive sectors that won’t materially change your lifestyle. Send your kids to good public schools instead of costly private ones. Skip first class and fly economy. Buy a little less house than you can afford.

> 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'm not really sure what to make of this. The article is conflating tradeoffs people make. People typically overbid on housing for access to good public schools. Folks sending their kids to private school live in a cheaper home with a better commute. They're optimizing for commute time, perceived safety, education, and access to child care.

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.

"a college degree made you stand out. But now that so many have them, it’s table stakes. Now, we spend four years and tens of thousands of dollars to end up in the same place."

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.

How is this novel? Just sounds like the “lifestyle creep” trap of just always wanting slightly nicer

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.

Like anything it depends. How expensive is the private school, what are your hours, what is your spouse willing to accept. While expensive, I will say that a lot of private schools appear to understand the path past high school and into college. I think you'll get better advice about what to do after and I think it will make your kids a more viable candidate for the selective colleges they might be interested in. This again raises the question of whether the degree they move onto will be worth it, and it's a problem that you'll have to make a spreadsheet for. You're paying to keep your kids' options open.

Wealth management guy discovers the hedonic treadmill.

Most of what is described there just reads like modern cost of living crunch rather than a challenge specific to middle class.

Lower/middle class isn't exactly having a good time with housing either

This article is rediscovering the same phenomenon that happened when the steam-powered machinery was invented, leading to the Luddite movement.

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 don't think upper middle class is that now. It's just middle class, anything below stopped being one

> AI use also varies across income levels, rising from 9% usage among earners below $30,000 to 34% among those making $100,000 or more.

> 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.

A very long time ago, I found myself commuting to work alongside a centi-millionaire who happened to only own one car, a Volvo 740 Estate. His wife drove him to the commuter train station, and he shlepped to work like everyone else.

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 AI use thing is a bit iffy, as the "upper middle class" people are using it heavily simply because the tools currently on offer are made for the type of work they do (and remember: if you are a FAANG engineer, you are very solidly in the "upper middle class").

The ending note was the most interesting. In regards to the offhand about AI, I was literally was talking to my wife about a topic very close to it last night. Strange.

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.

A side effect of higher prices in the California real estate market is that houses are often remodeled before putting them on the market, because the price bump is more than the cost of the remodeling.

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.

<< This is why the best way to escape the upper middle class trap is to stop participating in it altogether.

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.

[delayed]

Beats the absolute tar out of poverty, tho!

shrinkflation is real I'm afraid. and so is inflation. better school better area may give some edge to kids. Or would teaching them principles and the way of life be more useful? Or teach them real skills that schools don't teach, like how to manage their own finance and building wealth. They don't teach that stuff at school.

I worked my ass off for a decade in one of the highest earning careers available just to be able to barely afford more or less the same house as my grandparents, who worked odd jobs and were able to build it themselves while raising a family. Mediocrity is the new success, and misery is what's left for the rest.

[flagged]