Upper or Lower class?

In a newspaper article in the Chicago Tribune that I saw last week there was an article about Rahm Emanuel and his family, coinciding with the start of Emanuel's job as mayor. It talked about how Rahm's parents raised him and a little about the family history. (Read it here). What I found interesting was that the article stressed that Rahm's relatives came from hardship, escaping the Nazi's when they immigrated to the US. The article stated that the parents, "granted the rare interview in their Wilmette home, the modest split-level where they have lived since the late '60s". The author didn't have to write "modest split-level home". I feel like this is almost trying to make it seem as if Rahm didn't grow up in a house that might be a standard north shore house in order to cover up the fact that by most people's standards he had a privileged childhood. In class, it seemed like many people felt the same way about their own wealth considering that a staggering 27 people said that they considered themselves in the middle class.

Although I am not criticizing anyone of the class they put themselves in, I must argue that by the standards of the test that Mr. Bolos took, I'd be surprised if anyone in our class was in anything lower then then the upper end of the upper middle. Of course I do not know everyone's personal information but using this test from the New York Times, I think most people in our class would at least be in Upper Middle. So what I am wondering is why so many people said Middle, and why saying whether you put middle or upper was so taboo in our class. People seem afraid to admit that they are wealthy (although I do recognize that some may have middle class because of standards other then wealth and education).

As for the Rahm Emanuel story, the author might have wanted to make Rahm Emanuel follow more of a rag to riches story or downplay the fact that he was raised on the North Shore, having been criticized heavily for that. In this campaign video (sorry I don't know how to embed it) he says "I'm glad we can help other middle class families send their kids to college" (at 1:00). It's like he is referring to himself as middle class. This was a reoccurring theme in his campaign; he was just a average person helping the other average person, average especially when it came to wealth. At the same time that the Chicago Tribune article came out, I saw an article in the Wilmette Life about how Rahm Emanuel had been back on the north shore for a charity event. I'm sorry that I don't have the article but my mom through the paper away and I can't find it online. Basically it was just saying that he had come back in Wilmette and was at a benefit. What struck me the most were the pictures. There were many pictures of what would be considered "upper class" attendees. To give the reader a better idea, imagine pictures like the one on the right, in the format of the picture to the left. Or basically imagine the people in the right super dressed up instead or country club dress (which is still very upper class looking). What I found interesting was that in the north shore newspaper, Rahm Emanuel was portrayed as being in the upper class. This suggests that he uses his appearance of wealth to fit in with people of a certain wealth. I'm just using him as an example, I feel like a lot of times wealth is used to fit in and that it is not properly represented. It seems as if our society forces it to be that way.