What does 'middle class' mean in Canada, and who does it leave behind?

“Based on the most recent Statistics Canada data, that's a wide range anywhere from $52,875 to $141,000.”
And
“Her definition of "middle class" is simply having enough money to survive for two weeks without a paycheque. Right now, her family doesn't meet that threshold. “
TIL I am both upper class and maybe still middle class. That can’t be right.
My household makes more than the threshold, but only misses the definition because we drive junkers that are 10+ years old with no payments. One vehicle payment and I’m not sure what we would need to start cutting. Food?
We mortgaged a lot less for a house than most because of when we bought it too. So anyone doing it now would be in over their head.
Knowing what struggles we have, which obviously aren’t as bad, how in the hell is anyone else making it work?
Being middle class growing up was not having the nicer boat or nicer motorcycle, like the uppity crowd had.
This seems like the system is trying to keep these numbers low, so the people getting hit the hardest can at least say they are not “low class”.
We collectively need to rethink the classes to just “rich” and “not rich”. That’s the only ones that matter anymore in my opinion.
Anyone that can live a stable life without worrying constantly about the cost of everyday items should be middle class.
Any household that can thrive without the need to work is rich.
- People have thrown around the term "middle class" to mean "comfortable" or "financially secure" for generations now, but there's nothing "middle" about that. It makes complete sense that as wages fail to keep up with the cost of living, the "middle" is going to struggle more and more.
  This isn't a problem with the formal definition, but one of the cultural expectations. The fact that those injured by the lie of the cultural expectation aren't burning down the homes and businesses of the rich is still a small wonder to me.
  
  I can’t fathom how many people are out there stressed to the max over money right now. Knowing how much it stresses me when it’s tight makes me sad it has come to this for everyone.
  Not to bring politics into this, but I don’t think any of the current governmental systems or powers are equipped or willing to tackle this.
- Same boat, in the middle range, luckily I bought my house before the crazy price, now I would not be able to get a mortgage.
- Yeah any household below 100k a year is still working poor. At least in Ontario 200k+ is about the lowest where you can feasible get a mortgage and eventually own your house. I don't know how different it is elsewhere in Canada though, Ontario is definitely one of the more expensive provinces to live in.
- Hmm, how many people are in your household?

While there is no established, traditional definition, I'm pretty comfortable with the one I invented (claiming no originality, but so far not finding it elsewhere):
the intersection of working class and capital class
I think it captures the underlying idea that a middle class person is somewhere between the two real classes (rulers/owners and subjects/workers) in a way that dovetails with democratic ideals: collective self-rule/governance and economic self-determination/independence.
- My frustration is that the "class" in "middle class" as they are using the phrase is not even a member of the same set of classes as the "working" and "capital class" you are describing. It is a member of the set that includes "lower" and "upper class" that describe social status, and doesn't say anything about control of the means of production. It reflects a social pecking order and pretends there is no real underlying hard power dynamic. Their "middle class" has none of the political implications of Marxist theory. American mythology says these classes are fluid and people move between them through effort or lack of sufficient character, and doesn't have anything insightful to say about the nature of capital.
  It's frustrating because whether intentional or not, it serves to confound understanding and discussion of social dynamics in terms of capital and labour.
  
  Fair point. It also highlights why I consistently will use any other words than upper and lower (though I don't think I've consciously acknowledged or analyzed that before). I never really had a reaction to middle because it is largely defined in terms of relationship to those between which it sits anyway. But upper and lower carry so little information about the power dynamic as to be deliberately vague.
  And while I don't think "class" as a designation of social status is really meant to imply no hierarchy of power, it certainly does downplay and obscure the underlying mechanism. I think the reason I like keeping it is that it ties the social hierarchies people recognize (and with "capital" the economic system they at least acknowledge) to the actual mechanisms giving one control over the other.

the intersection of working class and capital class