6

Andrew Gelman claims on his blog:

Upper-income people still don't realize they're upper-income

If people are directly asked whether they consider themselves to be upper income, do they underrate their relative wealth?

Christian
  • 33,271
  • 15
  • 112
  • 266
  • 3
    I can't vote this down but if I could I would give -1 for being off-topic. I'm not sure what this has to do with skepticism, and it seems to be more of a loaded political question, to me anyway. – erikthebassist Apr 20 '11 at 22:15
  • 2
    As far as I have been able to tell, it's about feeling secure. I know families that make US$250k/year and have a net worth in the neighborhood of US$1M, and they don't feel financially *safe*; they don't feel that they can step off the treadmill. The people I know who make US$30k/year and have roughly 0 net worth find this baffling. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 20 '11 at 23:18
  • 6
    @erikthebassist - He's quoting a claim about how upper-income people perceive themselves on the income scale, and are asking for evidence - I don't at all see how that's off-topic or for that matter how it's politically loaded. Also this isn't a site about skepticism, it's about applying skepticism. – Kit Sunde Apr 20 '11 at 23:45
  • dmckee, I think you are correct, it's about security. People tend to spend as much as they make so even when someone earns a lot more it doesn't mean they have a lot of cash lying around. – Craig Apr 21 '11 at 02:10
  • 1
    Reminds me of [this](http://i.imgur.com/17jxH.jpg) *(note: I don't care about politics, and have no political affiliation. I just thought this was funny)* – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Apr 21 '11 at 06:24
  • 1
    I've seen more evidence of the opposite. Lower income people think they are upper income. – Apreche Apr 21 '11 at 12:10
  • Do you see now why I thought this was a politically loaded question? Not only that, it's answered by the link provided by the OP, in the question it's self. – erikthebassist Apr 21 '11 at 13:03
  • Please keep the politics out of this and focus on the specific claim in the question – Mad Scientist Apr 21 '11 at 20:28
  • 1
    Is this about upper-income families (by one definition) using a different definition of upper-income families, or is this about upper-income families not thinking they have enough money? – David Thornley Apr 22 '11 at 02:18
  • 1
    @David: Neither. It's about them judging there relative wealth compared to others in the society. A study might say that the top 1% are upper income. If on average people in the top 2% believe the belong to that group they are overrating their relative wealth. If on average only those in the top 0.5% believe that they are in the top 1% they are underrating their relative wealth. – Christian Apr 22 '11 at 09:29
  • Just 2 comments. 1) Among my acquaintances, I don't know anyone who considers themselves wealthy, but compared to the world as a whole, we are probably in the top 1%. 2) When you can't afford something (fuel, education, health care, etc.) the reason is because someone else can; so if you're competing for limited stuff with someone else with deeper pockets, you're going to feel poorer. – Mike Dunlavey Apr 27 '11 at 18:27
  • I think there is likely a nearest-wealthy-neighbor effect going on here. Even very wealthy people and companies are "poor" compared to even wealthier people. There's always going to be something or someone more wealthy and powerful than you, or at the very least competitors for revenue. In times of crisis and upheaval, or even just recession, even the very fortunate or powerful may feel weak and vulnerable. I think there's a solid sociological reason why even the very wealthy may experience their situation as "adverse," however perverse that may sound for the rest of us. – Joseph Weissman May 28 '11 at 16:38
  • People tend to think they are closer to middle income than they are. This is true both for high and low income people: see for example [the graph on this blog](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/everyone-is-middle-class-right/) or [page 31 of this academic paper](http://www.politiquessociales.net/IMG/pdf/dp5699.pdf) – Henry Feb 13 '13 at 08:42

1 Answers1

6

The blog makes that claim that upper income people don't think they are upper income because of discrepancies in the answers to two questions, asked of "upper income people". Specifically, "Is the amount of tax you pay too high, too low, or about right?" (to which most answered "too high") and "Do upper income people pay more or less than their fair share of tax?" (to which they mostly answered "less"). But there's a disconnect between the two questions. It's perfectly possible to believe that taxes are generally too high (including taxes on themselves, as upper-income people), but that upper-income people (including themselves) pay less than their fair share.

"Upper-income" is not a well-defined term, so if people don't consider themselves "upper-income" that's their opinion, and doesn't reflect a "lack of understanding" at all.

Looking for evidence to actually answer the question, I found this. It shows that people massively underestimate the fraction of wealth owned by the top few wealthy percent. In that sense people maybe overestimate how far up the income ladder (technically wealth ladder) they are.

RegDwight
  • 263
  • 2
  • 7
DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • My post doesn't raise the question of whether people think that upper income people raise their fair share. I don't think that underestimating the share of wealth has something directly to do with being able to judge your own situation. – Christian Apr 28 '11 at 14:25
  • Yes,your question didn't raise that. But the article which you cite as evidence for your claim did raise it. That's one of the reasons why the answer to the question "do they underrate their relative wealth?" might be no. – DJClayworth May 03 '11 at 14:58