[Alex]

What's odd is how over recent decades "middle class" has become almost entirely a statement of income when that was only a component of what the term has historically meant (originally it was more a statement of power than necessarily wealth). Just like I always tell Lani that "white trash" is a lifestyle not an economic class, I'd say the same is true of "middle class."

When defined solely by money and possessions I don't think it is a phrase with any remaining descriptive power. As a result I find Obama's harping on "the middle class" to be one of the more inane aspects of his campaign.

As for what it means in various locations:

Los Angeles (LA, Riverside, Orange Counties) if you have a household income above $46,000 then you are making more than half of all Los Angeles households.
San Francisco the same is $63,000.
Phoenix the same is $43,000.
Wisconsin urban areas are around $46,000.

One can debate whether those are "middle class" but if the definition is purely one of income and possessions, it seems to me that if you are doing better than half the people in that regard that you must be at least in that category. But then Lani and I are in the decile of household incomes in the Bay Area (that doesn't imply as much money as most people would probably guess, generally people way overestimate how much money people make here) and by most standards we're simply living a middle class lifestyle (one significant vacation a year, one lower end car, rented 1-bedroom apartment, etc.).

By the historical meaning of the phrase we're very solidly middle class. By the more current income-only definition of the phrase I guess we'd be bumped up a bit. But I've never seen a country club, don't know any glitterati, have never heard of the people on the society page so I'm not getting my money's worth.