Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think class distinctions are very subjective in America compared to, say, UK where even your first name often signifies your class level. (e.g. Would "Paris Hilton" be an upper class name?).
In the U.S., I think educational-level, income, and type of work opportunities are strong indicators of middle class level. Upper-middle class typically have high education levels (MD, JD, PhD etc.) versus lower-middle class levels. Expectations of appropriate material possessions seem particularly middle-class to me (e.g. must drive a certain car, have a certain diamond wedding ring or TV, live in a certain subdivision, travel to certain places, be in a certain country club, etc). I believe the upper-middle class is most concerned with these status symbols.
I think power (control of significant portions of the economy/companies/politicians) and high access to capital (through individual wealth or social networks) are what defines the upper class. Certain status symbols, education-levels, and career track are not as important. While many Presidents, CEO's, politicians, etc. had an Ivy League education, there are also many upper class CEO's, investors, inventors, celebrities, heirs, etc. who were college drop-outs.
Lower class: Highly dependent on government transfers, part-time jobs, informal economic activity, or all of the above. At most a high-school education. Typical household income of a family headed by a middle-aged adult in a low to moderate COL area: under $25,000, not including government benefits. Disproportionately black and Hispanic. (Anecdotal hypothesis: The class that has the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies)
Lower working class / "working poor": Members of the lower working class work in retail, construction, hospitality, or other low-prestige service-sector jobs. They may or may not partly be dependent on government transfers. Limited opportunities for career mobility / advancement. Average education: high school or GED. Typical household income of a family headed by a middle-aged adult in a low to moderate COL area: $20,000 to $50,000. (Anecdotal hypothesis: Culturally between the lower class and upper working class)
Upper working class: Families in the upper working class are typically headed by a bricklayer, plumber, electrician, union factory employee, or other worker in a well-paying but blue-collar job. Women in this class often work low-prestige service-sector jobs. Typical education is high school or vocational school. Normally not dependent on government transfers. Typical household income of a family headed by a middle-aged adult in a low to moderate COL area: $40,000 to $100,000+ (Anecdotal hypothesis: the group that most embodies "blue collar / working class" values)
Lower / middle middle class: A typical lower middle-class family has both parents employed in moderate-prestige occupations, such as in nursing, teaching, policing, lower-level management, accounting, or other fields requiring a college diploma or specialized training. Accordingly, adult members of this class usually have a B.A. or at least some college. Not dependent on government transfers except during very hard times (unemployment payments). Typical household income of a family headed by a middle-aged adult in a low to moderate COL area: $50,000 to $120,000. Probably the most populous group on C-D forums.
Upper middle class: This class is composed of doctors, lawyers, architects, mid-level managers, engineers, and other prestigious occupations with a high degree of professional autonomy. Professional degrees (PhD, MA, JD, or MD) are typical of this group. Typical household income of a family headed by a middle-aged adult in a low to moderate COL area: $80,000 to over $250,000. Disproportionately Asian / South Asian. (Anecdotal hypothesis: Along with the lower middle class, the class that most values educational achievement. Class most likely to be interested in the arts and culture.)
Upper class: Wealthy families capable of living off their investments. By far the rarest class, comprising no more than 1-2% of the total population by most estimations.
I agree with the majority of your post except for the bolded sentence. Just curious how you came to that particular hypothesis?
This is an interesting discussion, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what the definition of class is, must less how to compartmentalize people into the stratum.
If it is income then as soon as someone loses their job they change class, that doesn't seem right.
If it is wealth then the young attorney making 150k with lots of student loan debt might be lower class, despite driving nice car belonging to country club etc.
Off topic = I'm curious about country clubs what exactly is the appeal? I know they are expensive (and class symbols) but aside from the obvious golf course what goes on in one? People hanging out chatting about good cigars and the stock market?
Lower class: Highly dependent on government transfers, part-time jobs, informal economic activity, or all of the above. At most a high-school education. Typical household income of a family headed by a middle-aged adult in a low to moderate COL area: under $25,000, not including government benefits. Disproportionately black and Hispanic. (Anecdotal hypothesis: The class that has the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies)
Racist, much?
I love how people enjoy using the term "disproportionately." Blacks are 12% of the population. It's sad you don't have better things to do with your time other than insulting us. But I understand that for insecure people, pointing the finger of blame at others makes them feel better about themselves.
It appears that based on: HINC-02--Part 6 there are five times as many whites with household incomes under 24,999K per year than there are blacks. I can't remember the info in the OP's post, but IMO that's a low income household.
Not that I care, since I am apparently "upper middle class" but I feel a need to point out another unnecessary, unhelpful and divisive racial fact. Let's all continue to do that, huh?
I also find it ironic that less-affluent people in the US are somehow looked down upon as morally deficient for their poverty. Granted, I guess I do the same thing, but I am trying not to. But it is entirely possible that people in the US work hard, are strictly religious and celibate (personally I think this is ridiculous, but some people like to try to pin "negative" stereotypes on people in poverty. Newsflash. Rich people are just as "bad," they just have more money.) but somehow find themselves unemployed or in serious debt and become poor.
I mean, look at black Americans, for instance. They worked hard for quite a long time, building the wealth in the US, only to have it taken away from them. Granted, the poverty rate for blacks is nowhere near where it was during American slavery, but it's proof (which people who have not lived in a third world country may need) that hard work and desert do not equal wealth.
This is an interesting discussion, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what the definition of class is, must less how to compartmentalize people into the stratum.
If it is income then as soon as someone loses their job they change class, that doesn't seem right.
If it is wealth then the young attorney making 150k with lots of student loan debt might be lower class, despite driving nice car belonging to country club etc.
Off topic = I'm curious about country clubs what exactly is the appeal? I know they are expensive (and class symbols) but aside from the obvious golf course what goes on in one? People hanging out chatting about good cigars and the stock market?
Classes in the U.S. are essentially socioeconomic strata not only defined by income, but also education and occupational prestige (and influence therefore power). The concept of "class" varies between societies, but it seems to always involve social prestige. Furthermore, because individuals tend to prefer to associate with other individuals of the same class, hence forming a sort of subculture, there are certain shared attitudes and behaviors that help to demarcate each class. My somewhat educated opinion is that the true degree to which class divides American society is not visible to most Americans for two reasons: first, they are indoctrinated from a young age with the illusion that American society is "classless" and that "anybody can be anything" (which is true in many cases, but upwardly-mobile individuals face difficulties that those already comfortably in the class they are transiting to do not face), and second, people within a certain class tend to associate with each other, creating a false sense of homogeneity. I recommend the book Limbo by Alfred Lubrano for an excellent first-hand perspective on this subject. Though incredibly dense and translated from French (which seems to always make for bad prose), Bourdieu's Distinction provides valuable insights on this topic, especially how class influences consumption choices.
I love how people enjoy using the term "disproportionately." Blacks are 12% of the population. It's sad you don't have better things to do with your time other than insulting us. But I understand that for insecure people, pointing the finger of blame at others makes them feel better about themselves.
Since when is it racist to state the facts? Blacks make up 12% of the population but a larger share of those who are poor. That's just a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
It appears that based on: HINC-02--Part 6 there are five times as many whites with household incomes under 24,999K per year than there are blacks. I can't remember the info in the OP's post, but IMO that's a low income household.
It's possible that both sets of facts are true. Whites are the majority of the population, and therefore, a majority of poor people. However, whites in poverty are underrepresented. (eg, they are majorities in both cases, but represent a smaller share of the poor compared with their numbers in the general population).
The facts presented above are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
I also find it ironic that less-affluent people in the US are somehow looked down upon as morally deficient for their poverty.
Well, to paraphrase another poster who talked about this issue:
1. The rich resent the poor because they pay most of the taxes and they wish the poor would make better choices so that they would be able to contribute more and take less. They have a point.
2. The poor resent the rich because they are the ones who can most easily afford to pay the taxes to help them with various programs/subsidies. They feel the system is rigged against them (they grow up in areas with poor schools, public services, etc). They have a point.
3. The middle class feels like the rug is constantly being pulled out from under them by the rich (eg--having to pay full cost of health care & education while getting little or no government subsidies, jobs being shipped to low wage countries, etc.), and they feel like they have to work harder and harder to avoid being depdenent on government handouts. The harder they work, the larger the share of their incomes go to taxes. All the while they see some poor people live better than they do by living off the government safety net. They, too, have a point.
Everyone thinks their perspective is the only correct one and blames someone else besides themselves for the problems we face.
At the end of the day, the class warfare thing isn't getting us anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
I mean, look at black Americans, for instance. They worked hard for quite a long time, building the wealth in the US, only to have it taken away from them. Granted, the poverty rate for blacks is nowhere near where it was during American slavery, but it's proof (which people who have not lived in a third world country may need) that hard work and desert do not equal wealth.
I'm looking at blacks, and the biggest problem I see is the sky-high out of wedlock birth rate and divorce rates among them. This is also a huge problem in America more generally, but is most acute among Blacks. The research is overwhelming on this topic. Those who have kids out of wedlocak and/or divorce do not save or build wealth. They tend to have lower incomes as well. That is the biggest thing holding blacks back economically. Economically successful racial/ethnic groups tend to have low divorce/out of wedlock birth rates.
And it's not just me saying that. Blacks like radio commentator Larry Elder, & comedians like Bill Cosby & Chris Rock have been saying the same things. It's not some radical racist, right wing thing. It's just obvious. Kids take a lot of time and money. If one parent isn't involved at all, or you have 2 parents in different households, that's going to be a large and permanent financial strain.
You might care to read this op-ed piece about how mainstream sociologists at places like Princeton University (hardly a radical right wing place) are now saying the same thing about out of wedlock births and how it is creating a caste system in our soceity.
Another problem I see is the guilt trip being laid on whilte people for the sins of their ancestors.. The Civl War was a long time ago. if you keep living in the past. you will repeat it. Lots of fortunes have been made & lost by lots of people since the Civil War. More than 80% of today's millionaires made their wealth in one generation and did not inherit it.
At some point, you have to make a conscious decision to let the past be the past. How long will that take? Another 100 years? 200 years? 500 years?
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 01-19-2011 at 12:10 AM..
I love when people selectively state facts. There are mountains of statistical data available. I find it telling when certain people decide to post only specific facts.
Hey, if you feel guilty I'm sorry, but I personally am tired of encountering racists wherever I go on the internet. Blacks are 12% of the population, so doesn't it take a really small-minded and insecure person to try to bash blacks at every opportunity? Pay attention to yourself if you have nothing constructive to say.
If you know anything about American history, the natives of this continent, which includes "hispanics," btw had everything stolen from them. I'm surprised they're not extremely bitter. In consideration of the facts, they're taking it amazingly well.
While some people seem to get inordinate enjoyment out of quoting negative statistics about black people, the fact is that both African-derived Americans, and indigenous Spanish-speaking Americans have made enormous strides in terms of English literacy, personal wealth and political power within a few hundred years. Considering our societies were destroyed, I think that's a pretty big achievement. Considering the paradigm shift in terms of currency, social structures and language that's definitely an enormous achievement.
Anyone in this country who is above the poverty level needs to thank a Black American, especially those whose families have been here for three or four hundred years. Their blood sweat and tears are the root of a big part of the wealth our country enjoys today.
Also, I can tell you that high rates of marriage do not make any difference in terms of poverty. Try to visit some other countries in the world and you may get an idea. Discrimination, competition for limited goods and social injustice would ensure that many of these people remain poor no matter how many or few children they had or no matter their marital status.
On the other hand, look at many Scandinavian countries where couples have children without marriage. They're fairly well off. What's the difference? Even the poor make the best choices they can in terms of the options in front of them. Marriage is not a benefit for many low-income women based on the choices of partners available.
Blacks are 12% of the population, so doesn't it take a really small-minded and insecure person to try to bash blacks at every opportunity?
For only 12% of the population, it's funny that "At midyear 2006 more black men (836,800) were in custody in State or Federal prison or local jail than white men (718,100) or Hispanic men (426,900). Black men comprised 41% of the more than 2 million men in custody."
For only 12% of the population, it's funny that blacks were victims of "49% of all murders in America. Most of the black murder victims — 93 percent — were killed by other black people." (Looking at victims is a more accurate measure.)
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Minton, Todd D., and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2007), NCJ217675, p. 9.
If you know anything about American history, the natives of this continent, which includes "hispanics," btw had everything stolen from them. I'm surprised they're not extremely bitter. In consideration of the facts, they're taking it amazingly well.
What a bunch of garbage. The Hispanics speak Spanish and are Roman Catholics. If they got a beef with their colonizers, they ought to take it up with Spain and the Spaniards. They are no more native of this continent today than Michelle Obama.
All is fair in war. We won. End of discussion. If they aren't taking it well, they are free to leave the country, band their own army and fight the United States for lost lands or perceived injustices. Put up or shut up. Countries like Israel and China took destiny into their own hands instead of whining on Internet forums while disproportionately sucking off the "oppressor" government's tit. Until the last century there wasn't even a Chinese nation-state or common language; much of China was carved out to Western and Japanese powers. The best payback is getting your own act together, not reinforcing the exact negative stereotypes that got you down in the first place.
I love when people selectively state facts. There are mountains of statistical data available. I find it telling when certain people decide to post only specific facts..
Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror before you're so quick to criticize. You not only are selective in your statements of fact, but some of the things you state as fact are blatantly false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
Hey, if you feel guilty I'm sorry, but I personally am tired of encountering racists.
Actually, I don't feel guity. And for that, I and others get labelled racist. Whenever anyone points out any kind of criticism of the shortocmings of Blacks in America, they get hit with the racist label. I get that I'll never completely understand the racist thing because I haven't lived it. But does that really make me 100% wrong? I think not. Espeically when other blacks are saying some of the same thigns (Oh, I know, they're self loathing and have internalized white racism..blah, blah, blah. I hear some of the same kind of stuff about gays who offer criticism of some of the dysfunctional things that go on in the gay community).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
herever I go on the internet. Blacks are 12% of the population, so doesn't it take a really small-minded and insecure person to try to bash blacks at every opportunity? Pay attention to yourself if you have nothing constructive to say..
Actually, you're the one with your filters up. IF no one agrees that all of the problems that blacks face are not 100% caused by discrimination, you'll say that person has nothing constructive to say and is racist.Every racial/ethic group has its cultural failings that can not be blamed on outside forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
If you know anything about American history, the natives of this continent, which includes "hispanics," btw had everything stolen from them. I'm surprised they're not extremely bitter. In consideration of the facts, they're taking it amazingly well..
This game of who stole from whom goes back to the dawn of time. Human history is so filled with all kinds of negativity. Do we really want to dwell and dissect whose fault it all is for the rest of our lives? What purpose does it serve?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
While some people seem to get inordinate enjoyment out of quoting negative statistics about black people, the fact is that both African-derived Americans, and indigenous Spanish-speaking Americans have made enormous strides in terms of English literacy, personal wealth and political power within a few hundred years. Considering our societies were destroyed, I think that's a pretty big achievement. Considering the paradigm shift in terms of currency, social structures and language that's definitely an enormous achievement..
No disagreements there. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
[quote=kinkytoes;17486728Anyone in this country who is above the poverty level needs to thank a Black American, especially those whose families have been here for three or four hundred years. Their blood sweat and tears are the root of a big part of the wealth our country enjoys today..[/quote]
The Black Americans you're referring to are all dead. A lot of the families who made fortunes off the slave trade are dead as well. Inherited wealth tends not to last more than 3 generations. i'm sure there are a few who've held onto their wealth, as there always are....but not many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
Also, I can tell you that high rates of marriage do not make any difference in terms of poverty..
Take it up with the sociologists, economists, & psychologists who say otherwise. The relationship between marriage and income/wealth accumulation is very strong. Same goes for divorrce & out of wedlock births. People who divorce and/or have kids out of wedlock earn less and save less, regardless of race. It'seally just simple math more than anything. But humans don't like being logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
Try to visit some other countries in the world and you may get an idea. Discrimination, competition for limited goods and social injustice would ensure that many of these people remain poor no matter how many or few children they had or no matter their marital status..
Actually, I have done that. I've been to Peru where I saw poor peasants in the Andes, who grow potatoes on mountain slopes doing backbreaking work (to say the least). Yet I saw these dirt poor school children, dressed cleanly and neatly in their school uniforms. I saw them listen to thei teachers and line up when told to, etc. It put American kids of any racial or ethnic group to shame. Why is it that many of these poor Peruvians take schooll more seriously than American kids, even thought their life chances are so poor? Why is it that these kids do the right thing even though the benefits are not immediately apparent?
America's poverty problem is primarily values and behavior driven. That's generally not true in a lot of 3rd World countries.
[quote=kinkytoes;17486728On the other hand, look at many Scandinavian countries where couples have children without marriage. They're fairly well off. What's the difference? Even the poor make the best choices they can in terms of the options in front of them. Marriage is not a benefit for many low-income women based on the choices of partners available.[/quote]
I will grant you that Scandinavia is the exception that proves the rule. The mindset in Scandinavia is not the same as what it is in the rest of the world. If America's poor (Actually, I should say Americans of any social class) valued education like they do in Scandinavia, our country would be a lot better off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's all continue to do that, huh? 
