@JessTheUnstill I think part of the problem is the wording. When we say "Middle", "Upper", and "lower", it's easy to think that means the middle of a Gaussian distribution, everyone above one standard deviation, and everyone below one standard deviation. But that's not the way wealth works and never has been.
If you look at Victorian England, for instance, we typically define the "middle class" to be the doctors, lawyers, and independent business owners. The upper class people are all the idiots who's biggest worry in life is how they're going to perform at the next ball and the lower class are the people who basically never make it on camera in Bridgerton.
What our royalty-obsessed view of Victorian England never shows, though, is that there are a fuckton of "lower class" people. The large majority, in fact. How else do you think a single upper-class family was able to keep a dozen or more full-time staff? And being on staff for a rich family put you in upper lower class because that's the only reason anyone would be willing to go live in the house, rarely see their family, and have no opportunity to have one of their own. The servants were paid relatively well. Which doesn't mean that servitude is a good thing. It just goes to show how much it royally sucked for everyone else.
And then America got sold on the idea that everyone would be "middle class". Everyone can own their own house and have their own buisiness and... Yeah, that's not what happened. I mean, it got closer than maybe it ever has in the 60s when the US had one of the few functioning economies in the Western world. But then people realized this meant Black people could also own homes and, well...
And IDK if it's better to re-name the classes or if it's better to just admit that "middle" means 80-99%. đ€·đ»ââïž I'm not really trying to make either point here.
And none of this is me saying "Words are hard. Get over it" There is enough wealth to house everyone. It's an entirely possible dream. But not if we allow for racism and infinite greed.