The Middle-Class Manifesto, page 2
The phrase “middle class” is used herein in a logical, common-sense way, and can be grasped most rapidly if illustrated by a classic “bell curve”, where the horizontal axis indicates the amount of money/income a family has (among families in the United States; the curve for an impoverished country would look very different, with a much large bulge near the left tip). Extremely poor people are at the far left tip; extremely wealthy people are at the far right tip; everyone else falls somewhere in between.
The main point shown on that graph is that "middle class" does not merely exclude people in dire poverty; it also excludes people at slightly higher but nevertheless unstable and seriously vulnerable economic levels (sometimes referred to by phrases such as, "one accident or illness away from disaster"). That "severely vulnerable" group includes, for example, "primary breadwinners" who work for minimum wages; single parents who are struggling hard to raise children; people who cannot afford adequately-maintained homes, and who must struggle to get from paycheck to paycheck; and, people who do not have savings of at least a few thousand dollars (or the functional equivalent, in other times and societies). People in those categories generally are not regarded as "middle class", as that term is normally used, and as used and intended herein.
Similarly, at the far right end of the curve, "middle class" excludes extremely wealthy and/or powerful people; and, it also excludes a second, not-quite-wealthy group, such as people who do not need to work, to live comfortably and eat well. Such people include, for example, the offspring (and mistresses) of the wealthy; and, people who made enough money, early in their lives, so that they could retire early without suffering a serious drop in their standard of living.
If the goal is to provide a detailed description, various clarifying and qualifying factors also need to be addressed. For example, families that live together – rather than individuals – must be considered as the main functional unit. If a married man makes enough money to rank in "the middle class", a powerful presumption arises that his wife and offspring (assuming they live in the same house as the husband/father) also will belong to the middle class. In addition, if the goal is to create a detailed and accurate description, various special groups and classes of people would need to be addressed (such as soldiers; priests, pastors, or rabbis; and, people who receive relatively large disability, insurance, or other payments), since none of those groups fit readily or neatly into the economic categories that apply to most families.
There are no clear and distinct boundary lines which separate any group shown in the curve above, from any adjacent group; and, there have been huge differences in how income, possessions, wealth, etc. have been divided, and measured, in different locations, and eras. Nevertheless, any adult who is familiar with the phrase "middle class" should have a common-sense understanding of what it generally means, in modern America, and how it is used herein.
FUNCTIONAL TRAITS OF "THE MIDDLE CLASS"
In functional terms, "middle class" can reasonably be defined to include the immediate family (living in the same home) of any "man" (that term is not used with sexist intent, but with an eye toward historical roles in societies that have been male-dominated for millenia) who:
(1) holds a job, or otherwise performs a service or works at a trade, and who gets paid for his work (this excludes soldiers, who belong in a special category of government employees);
(2) pays taxes (or some social equivalent) on his income; and,
(3) helps raise his own children, in housing he provides for them; but,
(4) does not qualify as "wealthy", and does not have any special level or type of priestly, political, or other power over people outside his family.
In simplified, stripped-down terms, "middle class" can be defined, with reasonable accuracy, to include any man who holds a job (and who needs that job, to pay his bills), who pays taxes, and who helps raise his own kids. The term "include" is used literally; other groups can be and should be included, but they do not change or alter the general accuracy and validity of the statement above.
A crucial conclusion and claim arise from the functional definition set forth above:
The middle class, in any society, does (and has always done, throughout history) more than either
the wealthy class, or the poor/impoverished class, to contribute to – and to help strengthen
and stabilize – the society, and the form of government, that surrounds and includes them.
Although that assertion is not (yet) supported by statistics (at least, not in this first-draft essay), it is genuinely and sincerely believed to be true, to at least a 95% level, for two main reasons, which are logical, intuitive, and common-sense:
(1) First . . . BECAUSE THEY CAN.
Compared to the "severely poor" end of the spectrum, middle class people have enough resources to be able to contribute to, and help support, the society that surrounds them. Rather than being so poor that they can barely maintain their own homes, people who have enough resources to truly belong in "the middle class" want, not just their own homes, but their entire neighborhoods (and even their entire villages, towns, or cities), to look nice, and to actually be nice. And, to middle class people, a community qualifies as "nice to live in," if it is functional, reasonably safe, reasonably efficient, and is able to provide them and their neighbors with the goods and services they need, and if it also is infused with at least some level of cheerful cooperation and friendliness (at least, toward those who belong there, and who are willing to also contribute to the welfare of the neighborhood, village, etc.).
At the impoverished end of the spectrum, those who must struggle to make ends meet simply do not have enough money, or other resources, to match the levels at which the middle class can and will work to maintain, not just their own homes, but their neighborhoods, and their villages, towns, or cities.
And, at the opposite end of the spectrum, the wealthy tend to be more concerned (usually, much more concerned) with maintaining their wealth, and their privileged status, than with homilies and platitudes about how good and noble it is, or might be, to help the poor. They will hire servants, and pay for their services, but only if those servants agree to remain servants. The children of the wealthy have always gotten special privileges when wars are approaching or ongoing; and, tax deductions for "charitable donations" can be ignored, in any historical review of the statement above, since they are only a very recent invention, in history. While there are and always have been exceptions, one of the most fundamental and core desires, and drives, among the historically wealthy, is (and always has been) to have such a large estate, with so many servants and protectors, that they simply do not have to worry about what some neighborhood might look like, outside their estate. To the truly wealthy, what some neighborhood looks like, is not their problem, since they live on their estates, rather than in those neighborhoods. To the wealthy, what some neighborhood looks like, is someone else's problem.
(2) Second . . . BECAUSE MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE LIVE IN CONDITIONS WHICH ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE THEM TO HELP, AND WORK ALONGSIDE, OTHER MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE.
In contrast to the wealthy, most people in the middle class usually realize – quite accurately – that they can and will be more prosperous, if their neighbors, and everyone else in the middle class, also are prosperous. Any merchant, artisan, craftsman, laborer, etc., will want as many people as possible to have enough money to be able to buy the product or service he is selling, regardless of what particular type of product or service he is trying to sell. Even those artisans and craftsmen who serve only the wealthy, on a day-to-day basis, would like to have higher levels of demand, and larger and more prosperous markets, for their goods or services, because that will put them in better positions to ask the wealthy to pay more, for those goods or services. That is basic common sense, and the middle class recognize and respect that type of sensible attitude. Therefore, the middle class, as a group, instinctively wants to do what it can, to help create a larger and more stable middle class (even as its individual members want to gather more money for themselves, and become wealthy). And, the only way to create an even larger middle class, with more people helping move things forward, is by helping that village, city-state, empire, or nation prosper, regardless of where it stands at any given time, under any particular set of circumstances.
Furthermore, people in the middle class are forced (by their circumstances, and finances) to develop a sense of, "No one person is strong enough to do it all, alone. Instead, we all are in this, together." Humans are "social animals" to an extreme degree; indeed, we are the most social animals that have ever existed, in the entire history of this planet. Nota bene: To fend off potential criticisms from biologists, the "social insects" (bees, ants, etc.) can cooperate, but in almost all cases, only within a limited group whose members all descended from a single "queen". By contrast, humans will form tight social bonds even with much less related "genetic outsiders"; and, our sophisticated language capabilities, and the ability to read and write, help create and strengthen even more social bonding, among humans, and especially among the middle class.
With the above as support, we will circle back to the claim and assertion made above, and we challenge anyone to try to prove it wrong: In every society that has ever existed, the middle class has done more than either the wealthy class, or the poor/impoverished class, to contribute to – and to help strengthen and stabilize – the society, and the form of government, that surrounds and includes them.