I think this misses a critical point. There is much more to one's social class than income. There are countless other markers than class that make a shortage of money more of a transitory inconvenience than a signifier of class. How you speak, who you know, what situations you are comfortable in, what you are interested in, and in general, how you carry yourself, are all critical markers. A hundred things other than money determine your social class. If a person of low social class wins the lottery they don't become upper class--they just become rich, often only temporarily because they are strangers in the world of money. Likewise, if an upper class person goes broke, he or she doesn't become working class. A thousand novels and plays have been written about just that! It's the entire story in "Two Broke Girls" for instance. Class markers determine who will talk to you, where you will be taken seriously, what circles you are admitted to, and therefore, how easy it is to escape from financial trouble. These markers determine the probable outcome of interactions with lenders, police, the courts, creditors, landlords, etc. An adjunct professor probably makes less per year than someone working at a car wash, but has entree into the circles of people with money and status--the professor is definitely are not lower class or working class. When people talk about "generational wealth" they miss the key point. The generational money is nice, for sure, but the thing that gives people from upper middle class and upper class families the biggest advantage is their inherited social class markers. Saying "ax" instead of "ask" or "Manhatt-uh" instead of "Manhattan" can be worth 10's of thousands of dollars per year in the salary a person commands.