Interesting data on relative fates of lower, middle, upper classes in bunch of cities. Needs better visualization nytimes.com/interactive/20
Conversation
Replying to
. But it's silly. Middle defined as b/w 2/3 of median and double the median. Why is keeping the number in that range good?
1
4
Replying to
gotta start somewhere... arbitrary boundaries better than no boundaries, worse than definitionally implied boundaries
1
2
Show replies
No. It has to be arbitrary. But that's not the problem. Problem is if people get richer, middle can shrink. Silly.
1
Replying to
It need only be arbitrary if you do pure econ. There's sociological structure here.
It's generally a sociological concept, not economics... based on white-collar work/college education/risk-aversion
Lower, upper classes best defined by risk-taking imo. Lower because they must, upper becuz low marginal utility of $
2
Replying to
. Might not look so rosy w/different cutoff points but it's an example of y you'd want to interpret the Pew #s carefully.
1
2

