Yeah, but the days where that was arguably even approximately true -- when a majority or something reasonably close to it of Americans were in middle class (as well as professionals and executives, yeoman farmers -- a formerly very common thing in the US, but now vanishingly rare -- are part of the middle class -- as are others whose primary support is independent business that they own but which is still dependent on their labor [if it wasn't, they'd be straight-up upper class capitalists]) -- are past. Now, most of the Americans who identify as middle class are working class whose identification reflects aspiration rather than reality.
For me to agree with you, I would have to agree with the premise that we know better about class labels than Americans at large. I would not presume so much.
If 100% of Americans consider themselves "middle-class", it doesn't bother me. At the end of the day it's all semantics and disagreeing about what "middle-class" means is not interesting.
You clearly have some opinions about shortcomings of the American labor market. Perhaps there's a better way to phrase your concerns that would further the discussion in a more substantive direction.
> You clearly have some opinions about shortcomings of the American labor market.
Not that are relevant to this discussion -- I just have a belief that there is a difference between being middle class (the class between the working class and the capitalist class, at least, in the usual definition applicable in post-feudal economies) and identifying as middle class.
Historically, the working class being larger than the other two combined is the norm and America's brief period with a very large middle class was something of an aberration resulting from the rapid application of agriculture by a small population to a large land area before that agriculture was effectively consolidated by large commercial entities.
