That's because they are middle class. If they were upper class or working class, they would not think of themselves as such. Income does not determine social class.
Without saying where they live that's meaningless. In San Francisco they are not even upper middle class, if at all, and they will be struggling even with their 150k. But even in cheaper areas, 150k to me is middle class.
The problem is that wealth/income is not normally distributed! It is heavily - heavily! - skewed.
I would not worry about any family with <250k annual income when thinking about "what do we do about the uneven distribution of income", I would let those people be. They are not the problem. Look at the top 0.01% (see http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129...).
Even in the Bay Area (which these two are NOT in), they are making DOUBLE the typical Bay-Area median household.
You can't make DOUBLE the amount of money of the median family and then claim to be "middle class". It just doesn't work that way.
And FYI: there's a reason why there's a ton of anti-gentrification going on in San Francisco. The actual middle-class, who is trying to live on ~$80k combined income in that region, is not able to find a house (let alone the lower-class, who will earn much less than the median)
My family makes significantly over 150k per year, and we still consider ourselves middle class. Class isn't about income, it's about values and culture, as numerous articles linked elsewhere in the comments explain.
$150k is a lower-estimate for this family, they probably beat the $165k to qualify for top 5% household incomes in the country.
High amount of autonomy in their work, advanced degrees (beyond college: masters degree plus continuing education), significantly higher wages than everyone else... yeah, upper-middle class.
Ok, I think we keep talking past each other, because to me, upper middle class is just a subset of middle class. I don't think it's wrong for people who belong to it to describe themselves as middle class, because if you're in the upper middle class, you have a lot more in common with the rest of the middle class, than you have with the upper class.
Well, two people making $150k/year together are making $75k/year each, which is actually reasonably middle-class-ish, and they're definitely both working-class in the strict material-relations sense because they sell their labor-power to survive.
That's both salaries mother and father combined. You've got to be kidding me if having a takehome income literally TRIPLE the median constitutes "middle class".
There's no official or scientific definition of "middle class". Maybe it means the middle 95 percent. Triple the median still puts you well below the top 1 percent and below millionaire or billionaire. Since current political rhetoric singles those folks out as rich, it's no wonder most folks below that level would call themselves "middle class".
>That's both salaries mother and father combined. You've got to be kidding me if having a takehome income literally TRIPLE the median constitutes "middle class".
Look, I don't even think "middle class" is a meaningful term. Don't ask me.
> and they're definitely both working-class in the strict material-relations sense
Despite the name, having to work for a living isn't what puts you in the working class. What you work with, and how you value different types of work and education is what puts you there.
That's utter baloney.
I know people with $150,000 / year combined income who think of themselves as middle class, despite being in the upper 10% of income in this country.