Business

Americans can’t agree on what ‘middle class’ means anymore, and they’re debating it in the comments of TikTok home tours

Published

2 months ago

November 26, 2025

The comment sections of TikTok’s “middle-class house tours” feature thousands of Americans arguing about what qualifies as middle class in 2025. Viral videos of average homes are sparking comment threads filled with passionate arguments, as users weigh in on everything from income definitions and house size to family struggles and lifestyle choices. Users boldly label themselves as, alternately, “lower middle class,” “middle middle class,” or “upper middle class”—but the comment sections reveal fierce debates about whoʼs really where on the economic ladder.

Some viewers feel showcased homes look more affluent than their own reality, prompting debate over whether the poster is truly middle class or, as one commenter put it, “upper class hiding behind modest decor.” Posts that offer relatable glimpses of chipped baseboards, mismatched furniture, and paper window shades are championed by those who feel social media is otherwise awash in unattainable luxury. Others point out that the middle class can’t be defined solely by appearances, given regional cost differences and inflation.

Itʼs a vivid new window into just how confused people are about class in 2025. Many Americans seem genuinely unsure what distinguishes the different class gradations, or where their own household falls. The confusion is heightened by cost-of-living differences across the country and shifting economic benchmarks caused by persistent inflation and wage stagnation.

No consensus on income

Many Americans now argue that the income thresholds associated with middle-class status no longer match reality. While the Pew Research Center defines middle class as falling between two-thirds and double the median household income—which can vary in U.S. metro areas from about $53,000 to $161,000 annually—a viral TikTok recently featured one creator asserting, “$50 an hour is the new middle class,” reflecting how rising living costs have shifted public perceptions. With the median household income coming to roughly $83,000 as of September 2025, and steadily climbing as inflation has pushed up household costs, any resident of California or Massachusetts will tell you that the threshold for middle class status is even higher, and a home that looks upper class in one state could count as only middle class in another.

As more Americans take to TikTok to share—and comment on—their version of middle-class life, opinions remain divided. Some users argue that “middle class” is aspirational and increasingly out of reach, a sentiment strengthened by home tours that seem far from attainable for many families. Others believe the label should adapt to reflect a comfort and stability, even as incomes stagnate and home ownership feels elusive.

The ‘average home tour’ trend

A wave of content creators are responding to the pressure to show off spotless homes by filming unvarnished “average” or “normal” house tours. These videos highlight the mundane details and minor imperfections of a lived-in space—pantry doors left unfinished, creative workarounds for broken blinds, and evidence of daily chaos in the form of junk drawers and cluttered countertops. The creators’ message is clear: Being middle class is less about perfection and more about making do, sharing moments of love and memory, and managing the squeeze of costs that leave little room for luxury.

Despite some relief in headline inflation rates, the cost of daily living is still climbing, and cumulative price increases have become a permanent burden for many households. Wages havenʼt kept up, with the JPMorgan Chase Institute recently finding real income growth stagnating to its slowest rate since the Great Recession. Meanwhile, the wealthiest Americans have seen net worth rise owing to asset appreciation. While the top 10% can absorb higher housing costs and continue discretionary spending, many in the so-called middle class are scaling back, feeling squeezed by rising grocery, utility, and housing costs.

Fortune’s recent story profiling author and Ritholtz Wealth COO Nick Maggiulli emphasizes that asset mix (businesses and stocks versus cars and homes); a broken housing market with record numbers of millionaire renters; and an aging-driven wealth transfer are reshaping what wealth means in practical and psychological terms. Maggiulli highlights his “Wealth Ladder” framework and “the new economic classes” of the U.S. He divides Americans into six wealth levels and spotlights the rapid rise—and growing angst—of what he calls “level 4”: the upper-middle-class person who is wealthy on paper but not in their feelings. UBS calls this the “everyday millionaire.”

Maggiulli argued that “something weird’s going on” because people who are objectively very successful seem to be struggling to enjoy the fruits of their labor. “They’ve done well in life … but on a relative basis in the United States, the competition for these higher-end goods is very high, so now it feels like we’re all canceling each other out with all this extra wealth.” An economy that wasn’t built for so many affluent households is straining under intensified competition for scarce high-end goods, housing, and lifestyle perks, leaving many statistically rich families feeling squeezed rather than secure. In the contemporary U.S., he added, “the poor own cars, the middle class own homes, and the rich own businesses.” The average-home tours of TikTok are revealing that middle-class homes seem to look and feel different from what many people expect.

Maggiulli’s generalization assumes that the middle class can even afford to buy a home, and some top housing CEOs say that’s no sure thing these days. CEO Sean Dobson of the Amherst Group, one of America’s biggest institutional landlords, recently told the ResiDay conference in New York that “we’ve probably made housing unaffordable for a whole generation of Americans” with our recent economic policies. The math suggests to Amherst that, with the median homebuyer now 40 years old and the median home price around $400,000, affordability would require home prices to fall by more than a third, interest rates by around 4.6%, or income to increase by about 55%.

“What are our goals?” Dobson asked Fortune hypothetically, on the sidelines of the conference. “Is our goal to get everyone long real estate? Or is our goal to get everybody to live where their kids can go [to a good school] and be successful?” He said there’s a big, glaring problem for the traditional driver of middle-class wealth: “In reality, the problem is that homeownership is too difficult to reach, and there aren’t enough homes—across all types and price points—to meet consumer needs.”

Source link

Business

What a Walmart CEO contender’s exit reveals about when to move on

Published

23 minutes ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

There’s no such thing as a silver medal in a CEO succession race.

In November, Walmart named U.S. chief John Furner as its next CEO, crowning him the sixth leader in the history of the world’s largest retailer. The decision also quietly closed the door on another highly regarded contender for the corner office: Kath McLay, Walmart International’s CEO and a decade-long veteran of the company. On Thursday, Walmart disclosed that McLay would depart, staying on briefly to ensure a smooth transition.

The sequence was swift, orderly, and entirely unsurprising to those who study corporate succession. Boards rarely say it out loud, but experienced executives understand intuitively that once a CEO is chosen, the long-term prospects for previously whispered-about internal candidates dim almost immediately as power consolidates around the new chief executive.

That’s why many of the most ambitious leaders in American business don’t linger after a succession decision. They move deliberately, and often quickly, because the moment immediately after a board makes its choice is paradoxically when a near-CEO executive’s market value is at its peak. The executive has just been validated at the highest level—close enough to be seriously considered for the top job—without yet absorbing the reputational drag that can follow prolonged proximity to a decision that didn’t go their way.

In that narrow window, the story is still about capability. Search firms and directors see a leader who was trusted with scale, complexity, and board scrutiny, not someone who failed to clear the final hurdle.

When Jeff Immelt was named CEO of General Electric in 2001, the decision concluded one of the most closely watched succession contests in modern corporate history. Among the executives developed as credible successors was Bob Nardelli, then president and CEO of GE Power Systems. Nardelli didn’t stay to see how it might play out. Within months, he left GE to become Home Depot’s CEO.

A decade later, a different scenario unfolded at Apple, but with a similar outcome. Retail chief Ron Johnson had transformed Apple’s stores into an industry-defining, highly profitable global business and was widely viewed internally as CEO-caliber. Apple’s board had long centered its succession plans on Tim Cook, and when Cook was formally named successor to Steve Jobs, it effectively closed the door on a CEO path for Johnson. He left soon after to take the top job at J.C. Penney.

The executives who leave quickly aren’t being disloyal; they’re being realistic. Remaining too long after a succession decision can quietly erode an executive’s standing, both internally and externally, as the narrative shifts from “next in line” to “still waiting.”

At Ford Motor Co., president Joe Hinrichs was widely viewed as a leading CEO contender. When the board selected Jim Hackett in 2017, Hinrichs left not long afterward. Five years later, he resurfaced as CEO of transportation company CSX. Similarly, several senior Disney executives left or were sidelined after Bob Chapek was chosen as CEO in 2020. Most notably, Kevin Mayer, Disney’s head of direct-to-consumer and international, and a widely assumed CEO contender, departed within months to briefly become CEO of TikTok.

There are exceptions. But they tend to follow a different arc.

Although longtime Nike insider Elliott Hill was not passed over in a formal succession contest, he was widely viewed as CEO-ready when the board opted for an external hire in 2020. Hill stayed on for several years and later retired. Only after performance pressures mounted and the company embarked on a strategic reset did Nike’s board reverse course, asking Hill to return as CEO in 2024. Even then, such boomerangs remain exceedingly rare.

McLay’s departure from Walmart fits the dominant pattern. By exiting promptly while remaining to support a defined transition, she preserves both her reputation and her leverage. She leaves as an executive who was close enough to be seriously considered—not one who stayed long enough to be diminished by the process.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.

Source link

Business

Crypto market reels in face of tariff turmoil, Bitcoin falls below $90,000 as key legislation stalls

Published

54 minutes ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

If you don’t like the price of Bitcoin, wait five minutes, and it will change. The major cryptocurrency’s volatility has been on full display to start the year, this time dipping about 7% since last week to its current price of just under $90,000 as of mid-day Tuesday.

Other cryptocurrencies have also slid. Ethereum is down 11% in the last six days to its current price of about $3,000, and Solana is down about 14% during that time to its price of about $127.

The dip comes as President Donald Trump threatened European nations with tariffs as they pushed back against his plans to take over Greenland, causing markets to scramble. Meanwhile, crypto markets faced an additional headwind as key legislation for the industry, known as the Clarity Act, became stalled after industry giant Coinbase unexpectedly withdrew its support late last week.

“President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Europe has put Bitcoin under pressure,” said Russell Thompson, chief investment officer at Hilbert Group. “The postponement of the Clarity Act in the Senate committee mainly due to concerns from Coinbase eliminated a large amount of positive sentiment in the market.”

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong objected to the Clarity Act primarily on grounds that crypto owners would not be able to earn yield from stablecoins. The new uncertainty over the bill, which many assumed was on a smooth path towards a Presidential signature, has shaken the price not just of crypto assets but also the share price of companies exposed to digital assets.

It’s uncertain whether the current headwinds will fade anytime soon. Trump has made his intentions of taking control of Greenland clear. When a group of European nations expressed solidarity with the Danish, he threatened those countries with tariffs, saying he would not back down until Greenland was purchased. Bitcoin and other risk assets subsequently fell, along with major stock indices, while the price of gold rose.

It’s not all gloom and doom for crypto, at least according to some analysts, who view Bitcoin’s correlation with macroeconomic forces as confirmation that digital assets have finally gone mainstream.

“Bitcoin’s reactivity is another sign of its increasing integration with broader macroeconomic forces, signaling maturation rather than fragility, even as short-term volatility continues,” said Beto Aparicio, senior manager of strategic finance at Offchain Labs.

Source link

Business

The 9 most disruptive deals of Trump’s first year back in the White House

Published

1 hour ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

President Trump lives on deals: “That’s what I do—I do deals,” he once told Bob Woodward. On the one-year anniversary of his second presidency, he’s pushing hard to make his biggest, most disruptive deal ever, one that would bring Greenland under the control of the U.S.—and the global business community is still scrambling to adapt to his approach. Here are nine of Trump’s most unorthodox deals from the past year.

Nine deals that shook the business world

April 2, 2025: Reciprocal tariffs

Trump imposes “reciprocal tariffs” on 57 countries, with each tariff understood as an opening bid in a negotiation. Several countries have since made deals. The one-on-one negotiations, unlike the multilateral system of the past 80 years, can be chaotic for companies and economies

June 13: U.S. Steel “Golden Share”

In return for allowing Nippon Steel to buy U.S. Steel, Trump requires that the U.S. receive several powers over the company, including total power over all the board’s independent directors and vetoes over locations of offices and factories.

July 10: MP Materials

The U.S. pays $400 million for a large equity share in MP and signs a contract to buy all of MP’s rare earth magnets for 10 years. The reason for the equity stake was not disclosed.

July 14: Nvidia, Part 1

JADE GAO—AFP/Getty Images

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling Nvidia H20 chips to China in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 15% of the revenue.

July 23: Columbia University

The Trump administration restores $400 million of canceled federal research funding for the university under an unprecedented multipoint deal. For example, Columbia must supply data to the federal government for all applicants, broken down by race, “color,” GPA, and standardized test performance. A few other schools later make similar deals.

August 6: Apple

At a public appearance with Trump, CEO Tim Cook announces Apple will invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S. over four years; Trump announces Apple will be exempt from a planned tariff on imported chips that would have doubled the price of iPhones in the U.S.

August 22: Intel

Intel trades the U.S. government a 9.9% equity stake in exchange for $8.9 billion that might already be owed to Intel under the CHIPS and Science Act. The deal is unusual because the company was not in immediate danger or significantly affecting the economy.

December 8: Nvidia, Part 2:

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling powerful Nvidia H200 chips in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 25% of the revenue. Both Nvidia deals are unusual because the payments to the U.S., based on exports, appear to be forbidden by the Constitution.

December 19: Pharma

Nine pharmaceutical companies make deals with Trump that are intended to lower drug prices. This is unusual because Trump negotiated separate deals with each company, and the terms have not been released.

All eyes this week will be watching President Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the president has hinted he’ll announce some high-stakes agreements. Expect the unexpected.

A version of this piece appears in the February/March 2026 issue of Fortune.

Source link