Lotana wrote: 'For example, "middle class". I am sure it has different mening in every country. How would you define it in Australia?'
I think most Australians would consider themselves 'middle-class' and like to think of society as having only small lower and upper classes. I believe there was a book called 'Class in Australia' that goes into all this, but I haven't read it.
Following is not one, but four snapshots of class which may assist you to form a definition.
KARL MARX AND ROBERT KIYOSAKI
Marx defined class in relation to the ownership of the means of production. If you own it, you're bourgeoise; if you don't, you are a member of the (numerically large) proletariot.
I don't see Marx's analysis as being that different from the distinctions people like Robert Kiyosaki draw between wage and passive income. Those without income-producing capital must be workers, while those with sufficient capital to live off rents and dividends are financially independent. In this, I would regard rental property as a means of production (ie housing for people).
There are some groups that are not straightforward fits. Ie self-employed tradesmen may be contractors, work for several people and own their tools. Their income might be quite high. However they are not necessarily financially independent unless they have built a business that they can either (i) get others to manage or (ii) sell for a profit.
Also some self-funded retirees might only receive $20k income per year from a couple of properties and some super. The income is fairly low, but if they can support themselves on that income, I would regard this as being financially independent.
This line of thinking would have lower and middle classes working or recieving social security, while the upper-class would require ownership of the means of production and/or financial independence.
MAX WEBER, STATUS AND AIR CONDITIONERS
This is the line of thinking most in tune what most people regard as class. It has less to do with your owernership of the means of production, but more to do with your position in it.
This is the age of the 'organisational man'. Occupation is everything and determines social relationships. Little kids who can hardly read are asked 'what do you want to do when you grow up?'.
Measures might include (i) income (ii) responsibilities and (iii) formal education.
A school headmaster, academic, police officer, or business owner would be regarded as middle class. The more senior or higher-paid of these plus lawyers and doctors would be upper class.
A factory worker or operative might fit into the lower class, even though their income might exceed that of the numerically larger lower middle classes (eg shop assistants).
If you stand at work, have no air conditioning and don't wear a tie, your job might be considered lower class. If you sit, wear a tie and have air conditioning your job is probably at least lower-middle class.
I forgot who it was, but someone said that 'people who stand get paid less than those who sit down'. No doubt schoolteachers would agree!
Note that some workplaces (eg retail) may have a mix of the two - salesmen with ties who work airconditioned versus dock staff without airconditioning. In summer the areas where the higher status people work can easily be traced as it's the coolest!!!
Outsourcing, competitive tendering, contractors and continual restructuring has led to the eating away of the stultifying, monolithic orgainsation and making status harder to define than it once was.
PURE INCOME
You are right that this varies around the country. Country areas are primarily lower-middle-class whereas the big cities have a greater representation of higher-status/higher income occupations. A personal income much over $50k would be rare in a small country town (the local doctor and a few others), but very common in the wealthy suburbs of a capital city.
Nevertheless if we are to define class on the basis of annual income, I would suggest the following:
<$15k: Low income
$15-25k: Working poor
$25-40k: Lower middle-class
$40-60k: Upper middle-class
$60-80k: Upper class
$80k+: Really upper class
Some on this forum (many of whom earn $60k or more) will no doubt (in the Australian way) howl that they're really middle class, but if you look at the ABS earnings stats, only a small percentage of the population earn incomes above that.
POLITICIANS
Politicians love to appeal to the swinging middle class. John Howard's 'mainstream Australia' is much the same as 'middle Australia' that he wanted to incentivate in the '80s.
They have huge mortgages, two or three cars in the garage, are non-unionised or self-employed and more personal debt than is good for them. Alternatively they are self-funded retirees in million dollar houses not averse to a tax break or two.
The older sections of 'Middle Australia' live in established suburbs like Camberwell, while the younger component live in outer family suburbs like Rowville and are dubbed as 'aspirationals'. They want their kids to get a good education, but earn too much to receive Austudy.
Their brothers and sisters might have no or fewer kids, live in trendy inner suburbs and vote for greens as well as eating them. But these people could also be middle class, demonstrating that the middle-class covers a diverse range of occupations, lifestyles and attitudes.
Regards,
Peter