The issue is equivalencies and what is the point.

Semantics always matter. Why? Because people with an agenda attempt to use semantics to sully reality.

The first third is this side of destitute, the second third is a couple of paychecks away from destitution, and the top third ranges from 100 thousand plus to billionaires? (there’s a few classes, if not castes, in that range)

I would agree that that is a fairly accurate description, although the area of the country one lives in matters substantially. (In SF or NYC, everyone under 100K is destitute.)

The difference between 35k and 100k spanned more class distinctions then as opposed to now (a lot has to do with purchasing options)

Hm. I’d have to see some data before I agree with that.

Then an adjusted wage of 35k allowed the basic necessities and a little more…

THEN, 35K made you relatively rich.

now, a family of 35k may be technically in a middle third position, but this serves the point… 100k isn’t really upper middle class.

One of the interesting things about today’s “class definitions” is that people in the upper 20% of earners (e.g., “upper class”) but not in the top 5% consider themselves not “upper class” but “upper middle class”. We’ve incorrectly defined “upper class” in the common vernacular as “people who can spend what they want on whatever”, which is really only the top 1% of net worth.

Here’s reality: if your household earns more than 120K in a year, statistically, you’re “upper class”. You’re in the top 20% of wage earners. If you have a net worth of more than 500K, you’re “upper class”; you’re in the top 20% of net worth.

A person in the “upper class”, then, can still obviously have financial pressure on them. 120K and 500K are not “independently wealthy”, obviously.