The Odd Hatred Of America’s Middle Classes

Growing up in the 1980s into the 1990s, I only remember of one socioeconomic class war: Rich versus everyone else. Us against them. Those with millions of dollars in direct opposition to the rest of us. There seemed to be a clear line between those who were from the poor to upper-middle classes, up against the wealthiest folks in America.

That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

The middle and upper-middle classes are quickly becoming the most hated group in America and the target for much of the blame when it comes to the social and economic inequalities we see across the country. During the past few years there has been a rise in hate towards this group by those once aligned with them, including, more often than not, those who are either in the middle-class tier or very close.

It wasn’t too long ago that the poor, middle, and upper-middle classes banded together against the rich.

In 2011, the Occupy Movement launched protests against wealth inequality throughout America, specifically targeting those top earners in the one percent. The movement’s foundation argued that 99 percent of Americans were paying the costs and incurring the financial and social consequences from the mistakes or questionable activities of the nation’s top earners.

The Occupy Movement seems to be the last major movement that looked like the class battle I was familiar with. The last time the majority of the population, poor to upper-middle class, went against the one percent of Americans that own the majority of wealth in America.

What happened? That may be hard to answer.

The problem may find its seeds just a year later, in 2012, when the Barack Obama administration moved to create tax cuts for the middle class. The issue was how his administration defined middle class: Those making up to $250,000 a year. In 2012, the average American income was around $52,000 a year. Granted, while this average covers a lot of ground and encompasses a wide range, it’s probably safe to say that most Americans in 2012 were not making $250,000 a year. Most Americans probably were making well under $100,000. This move by Obama basically extended the George W. Bush-era tax cuts that many saw favoring the wealthiest folks.

At this point, two factors come into play: One, how we define middle class and, two, moving the goal posts of what middle class looks like.

Suddenly, the middle class, especially the upper-middle class, was looking more like the rich.

However, the shift in hatred toward the middle class may not have happened if it weren’t for social media adding to the changing face of wealth. In the last decade or so, more and more folks that would be deemed middle or upper-middle class have become targets for their perceived privilege, entitled behavior, and their often tone-def attitudes towards those who are not doing as well socially or financially.

This may be best illustrated by the rise against the “Karens” and “Kens” of the world: The pseudonyms for the white, middle to upper-middle class, soccer mom-types who have become the newest model for ultimate white privilege. This person is seen as oblivious to his/her own entitlement, his/her lack of any understanding of real struggle, lack of awareness to the discrimination that still plagues our country, and only can see the world through his/her eyes that peer out from his/her advantaged bubble.

This used to be how folks viewed the wealthiest people, but thanks to social media, the middle and upper-middle classes have now assumed this role… and along with it, the blame for the social and financial ills in our country.

This anger grew into detestation with how middle and upper-middle class folks invest and make their money. It started a type of hatred toward people that were slowly moving from lower-middle class, to middle, to upper-middle class over a period of years through typical investing strategies, professional advancement, and entrepreneurship. As wealth was being built, the hatred toward these folks seem to grow for doing nothing more than what the middle class is suppose to do: Building a nest egg and financial security for themselves and, in some cases, generating real wealth after decades of work, gaining skills, taking risks, building better income, saving, and investing.

This may be best highlighted by the growing hatred toward those who invest in real estate. In the last year or so, landlords have been a target of attacks on social media. As housing prices skyrocketed during the last two years to levels that make home ownership difficult, if not impossible, for many Americans, the middle and upper-middle class have become the target for the housing problem.

While some point to large investment companies, like BlackRock, as the problem, the majority of hate seems to be targeted toward individuals that own and rent properties… individuals that are doing nothing more than what most average middle-class Americans have done for decades: Invest their money.

The guy down the street that owns one or two rental properties is being blamed for the mass purchase of homes and the price fixing that denies folks the ability to enter the home-ownership game and traps them into high rents that prevent them from saving enough money to buy a house of their own.

What’s odd is how far this is from the truth.

According to a Pew Research study, 18.4 percent of American homes are owned by investors. Of that 18.4 percent, only 6.7 percent are owned by individual tax filers holding an average of 1.72 homes. In essence, less than seven percent of the investment properties are owned by individuals, and of those individuals, the average number of rental properties they own is somewhere between one and two.

This is not odd or anything new. For generations folks have bought a first house, lived in it for years, eventually upgraded and rented the old house out… then rinse and repeat. Hardly the corporate giants that warrant a class attack.

But here we are.

Younger generations also have launched all-out attacks on the Boomers and Generation X’ers who they see as a group that could build wealth “back in their day” with peanuts and good paying jobs that were falling from the sky. On top of that, according to Millennials and Generation Z, everything was so cheap back then, they could afford a mansion on a minimum wage.

Fact is, none of that is entirely accurate. Most of these older folks today struggled financially for many, many years until their investments matured. Because they are upper-middle class to rich now doesn’t mean they were in that same position a decade earlier… and I can guarantee you most weren’t. Take these same folks back into their early 20s, and they were just as broke and struggling to make ends meet as anyone in their 20s today. That either doesn’t seem to matter to younger folks, is ignored, or they often use the minority of folks that were born into money or inherited wealth as their measuring stick to support their complaints.

Combine all of this and we find what’s truly odd about the whole situation: Just how directed the attack on the average middle-class to upper-middle class American has become, as if they were the ones that created a problem and the ones that should answer for these perceived inequalities.

Fact is, middle to upper-middle classes have little to no say in anything that would directly affect the poor or younger generations that are struggling, and their investments are not the reason those who are struggling financially continue to struggle.

For the nation’s wealthiest folks, this must be a dream come true. While the super rich and big business still get their fair share of hate, social media has allowed the blame to be redirected in a way that is very attractive to them. This wasn’t by their design, just a natural progression of things, from which they benefitted.

You see, since social media allows one person to see and interact directly with another, we have access to just about anyone. Middle and upper-middle class folks are not as insulated as the super rich and have a face unlike big business. They are easy to see, easy to reach, and easier to expose. One can simply interact with a guy making $250,000-a-year via facebook and make actual contact, versus yelling at Elon Musk’s Twitter feed, knowing he’ll likely never read or respond to it, or screaming at Blackrock’s Instagram profile… if they even have one.

The guy or gal on the other side of town that is living that middle to upper-middle class life is accessible, easy to find, easy to criticize, and ultimately, much easier to blame. It’s more tangible and feels much more real.

The downside to all of this is who ultimately suffers and who gets away scot-free. If 99 percent of Americans fight each other about who created the problem and who’s perpetuating it, one side will eventually win that battle… however, the one percent that is actually responsible for the majority of the problems will ultimately win the war.