But ... I think the point was not that her million-dollar property was especially big or luxurious, just that she *has* assets worth a million dollars, right?

No, the point is that "owns a MILLION DOLLAR CONDO" means that means that we should handwave away any sense that coming up as a minority woman from the projects and getting to where she is is anything you might give her some credit for. It's proof, really, that she's no different than any given upper white class man. Except for maybe the leg up from affirmative action.

[TB, that's not directed at you, really. But I know where I've seen this point raised before in recent weeks. And it's not good company to be in.]

I think, before everything went to hell, first year associates in large firms were starting at about $120,000.

Yep.

For New York, really, that isn't huge. It's in the range of not having to worry too much about money, but still way below, say, Real Housewives territory. That's upper-middle class for New York, I'd say.

We need actual definitions for these things, you know? Are there any? I'd give a single person with that salary even in NYC a little more of a bump than upper middle class.

Of course, here in America it seems like most people think they are middle class. And in a few years they'll be rich.

It's proof, really, that she's no different than any given upper white class man. Except for maybe the leg up from affirmative action.

THIS is why I suggest the little red lapel stars. Nothing flashy. It just keeps you from getting away with the every man schtick or acting like John Edwards is blowing you out of the water financially.

It was clear that I was being sarcastic there, right?

I'm totally with you on the stars - but she's not remotely in that category.

Oh no, I got your sarcasm.

We need actual definitions for these things, you know? Are there any? I'd give a single person with that salary even in NYC a little more of a bump than upper middle class.

True. I wasn't really considering that she's single with no kids. But on the other hand, does age matter? Like, would a 25-year-old and a 50-year-old with the same salary be the same "class"? For some reason, it seems to me like the older person would be a lower class than the younger person, but I really can't explain why. I need to think about this more.

Well, the older person with the same salary may not have the same earning potential. That probably counts for something.

I think I'd consider "upper-middle class" to be somewhere that it's possible to get to with a standard white-collar job, like working your way up as a lawyer or doctor or something, and "rich" would be something that requires more than that -- either inherited money or getting way to the top of a corporation or something.

I'm not sure where I'd put the numbers, but in terms of stuff, I'd say small vacation house on the Jersey Shore is upper-middle, big vacation house in the Hamptons is rich; apartment just big enough to comfortably house your family, but no bigger, is upper-middle, apartment with extra rooms is rich; once a week maid is upper-middle, live-in nanny is rich. (All this for people living in Manhattan. Outer boroughs or suburbs have totally different gauges.)

I would hope that a high-level successful professional would make the kind of money to make them (at least) upper middle class, even in public service. And I would hope that a Supreme Court Justice would be a high-level successful professional. Much like I hope they would be smarter than me.

Anyway. I already had my major event of the weekend, spending the day out in the suburbs with a friend, her hilarious toddler, and delightful husband.