SOCIAL CLASS IN THE UNITED STATES
- + Add to Faves
- + Translate
- + Share
العربية
ä¸å›½
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€
Italiano
日本語
Português
РуÑÑкий
Español
(Redirected from Social structure of the United States)
There is considerable controversy regarding 'social class in the United States', and it remains a vaguely defined intellectual concept with many theories. To this day social scientists have not devised exact guidelines for classes in the United States.[1] Social scientists have developed class models on the socio-economic stratification of American society which feature more or less congruent theories. While many Americans believe in a three-class model that includes the "rich", the middle class, and the "poor", in reality American society is much more economically and culturally diverse. The differences in wealth, income, education and occupation are indeed so great that one could justify the application of a social class model including dozens of classes.[2][3] A common popular approach to the economic and cultural diversity is belief in a large middle class that encompasses all households in between status extremes. Yet, this concept may be critizised for ignoring the relatively vast socio-economic differences found among those in between either end of the social strata.[4] Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson and Joseph Hickey as well as James Henslin have proposed class systems with six distinct social classes. These class models feature an upper or capitalist class consisting of the rich and powerful, an upper middle class consisting of highly educated and well-paid professionals, a lower middle class consisting of semi-professionals, a working class constituted by clerical as well as blue collar employees whose work is highly routinized and a lower class which is according to Gilbert is divided between the working poor and underclass.[5][6]
According to the nominal approach, however, American society is sociologically and economically fragmented in such a manner that no clear class distinctions can be formed. This means that there are no pronounced breaks in socio-economic strata, which makes class division highly subjective and disputable.[1] Others such as sociologist Dennis Gilbert, however, dispute the idea pointing to distinct social networks, clearly identifiable as classes.
Despite the lack of distinctive class boundaries and the vast majority of Americans being under the belief that they are members of the middle class, certain general assumptions have been expressed by leading social scientists, think tanks, research institutions, and social critics. While it is generally agreed that American society has a highly developed and complicated class system, Americans often attempt to deny the existence of social class.[8]
Social class is the hierarchy in which individuals find themselves. The social class system is mainly a description of how the society has distributed its members among positions of varying importance, influence, and prestige. Those taking the functionalist approach to sociology and economics view social classes as components essential for the survival of complex societies such as American society. Class may be described as an indication of the positions a person may occupy within society, positions which are not equal, some are more agreeable than others and satisfy the incumbent intrinsically, while other occupations are more menial, repetitive and unpleasant. Some occupations or other societal positions may be, to some extent, influential and essential to the well-being of society itself, requiring a highly qualified incumbent. Societal functions are commonly rewarded with prestige and income, which may serve as class indicator alongside the training required to obtain such a function. One should note that a person's function in society does not only refer to his or her occupational role. A skill and function as well as position can also be non-occupational such as the role of being a parent or volunteer mentor, for example, and carrying out the function of aiding in the socialization of society's newest members. Yet other positions or statuses within society, such as being the son or daughter of a wealthy individual, seem to lack directly functional characteristics beyond guiding social interactions which that individual may encounter. So while not all functions and positions in society are those associated with occupation, the job role remains one of the most important status features in the United States. Social class continues to play a prominent role in the mundane lives of the members of American society.
Occupational positions do, however, form the perhaps best examples. For example occupations that feature no influence over society whatsoever, requiring only minimal qualifications on the part of prospective incumbents. It is therefore improbable to have a classless society. The scarcer qualified applicants are and the more essential the given task is, the larger the incentives will be, income and prestige which are often used to tell a person's social class are merely the incentives given to that person for meeting all qualifications to complete a task which is of importance to the society due to its functional value.[9] One should note that a person's function in society does not only refer to his or her occupational role. A skill and function as well as position can also be non-occupational such as the role of being a parent or volunteer mentor, for example, and carrying out the function of aiding in the socialization of society's newest members. So while not all functions and positions in society are those associated with occupation, the job role remains the one of the most important status features in the United States.
The idea of a classless society somewhat persists in the United States; which explains the notion of the vast majority of Americans who place themselves in the same class, the middle class. The truth however, is that complex societies such as the United States need an equally complex social hierarchy. Social class itself is as old as civilization itself and has been present in nearly every society from before the Roman Empire, through medieval times, and to the modern-day United States.[8] Even though the lack of set guidelines makes defining social class a subjective topic, there are certain prominent theories which can be used, to some extent, to outline the American class system.
Main articles: Personal income in the United States, Household income in the United States
Income in the United States is most commonly measured by US Census Bureau in terms of either household or individual and remains one of the most prominent indicators of class status. As 42% of all households, 76% of those in the top quintiles, had two income earners the discrepancy between household and personal income is quite considerable. In 2005 the top 15% of income earners made $62,500 or more, while 18% of households had incomes over $100,000. Personal income is largely the result of scarcity. As individuals who hold higher status positions tend to possess rare skills or assume positions society deems very essential, have higher incomes. Overall the median household income was $46,326 in 2005[11] while the median personal income (including only those above the age of 25) was $32,140.[12]
Per capita household income, the income a household is able to allocate to each member of the household is also an important variable in determining a given household's standard of living. A high household income may be off-set by a large household size; thus, resulting in a low per capita household income. In 2005, the median household income per capita was $24,672.[11]
As mentioned above, income is one of the most prominent features of social class; it is not one of its causes. In other words, income does not determine the status of an individual or household but rather reflects on that status. Income and prestige are the incentives provided by society in order to fill needed positions with the most qualified and motivated personnel possible.
The New York Times has used income quintiles to define class. It has assigned the quintiles from lowest to highest as lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class.[14] These definitions equate class with income, permitting people to move from class to class as their income changes.
Income is one of the most commonly used attributes of a household to determine its class status. The relationship between income, which mostly arises from the scarcity of a certain skill, may however, prove to be more complex than initially perceived. While the idea is that income reflects status, household income may just be the product of two or more incomes. In 2005, 42% of American households had two income earners. The vast majority (77%) of households in the top quintile had two or more income earners. This means that the majority of household income in the top quintile are the result of two income earners pooling their resources, establishing a close link between perceived affluence and the number of income earners in a given household.[15][6] The question of whether or not the combination of incomes results in higher social status. Of course, there is no definite answer as class is a vague sociological concept.
Sociologist Dennis Gilbert states that it is possible for households to out-earn other households over higher class standing through increasing their number of income earners. He furthermore states that household size also played an essential role, as the standard of living for two persons living of one upper middle class personal income may very well be higher than that of a household with four members living of two working class personal incomes. The combination of two or more incomes, allow for households to increase their income substantially without moving higher on the occupational ladder or attaining higher educational degrees. Thus it is important to remember that the seemingly favorable economic position of households in the top two quintiles is in most cases merely the result of combined income.[15]
Main articles: Educational attainment in the United States
Tertiary education or "Higher education," is required for many middle-class professions, depending on how the term middle class is to be defined. Tertiary education is rarely free, but the costs vary widely: tuition at elite private colleges often exceeds $120,000 for a four-year program. On the other hand, public colleges and universities typically charge much less (for state residents), and many, such as the University of California system, rival the elite private schools in reputation and quality. Also, scholarships offered by universities and government do exist, and low-interest loans are available. Still, the average cost of education, by all accounts, is increasing. The attainment of post-secondary and graduate degrees is the perhaps most important feature of a middle and upper middle class person with the university being regarded as the most essential institution and gatekeeper of the professional middle class.[20] Educational attainment is also directly linked to income.
In 2005, the vast majority of those with doctorate and professional degrees were among the nation's top 15% of income earners.income distribution of individuals, employed full-time, year round, age 25-64, 2006"> US Census Bureau, income distribution of individuals, employed full-time, year round, age 25-64, 2006 Those with Bachelor degrees had incomes considerably above the national median while the median income for those with some college education remained near the national median. According to US Census Bureau, 9% of persons aged 25 or older had a graduate degree, 27.9% had a Bachelor's degree or more with 53% having attended college.[21][22] With 85% of the population having graduated high school, it becomes apparent that the average American does not have a college degree, but is likely to have attended college for some time and has graduated high school. Overall, educational attainment serves as the perhaps most essential class feature of most Americans, being directly linked to income and occupation.[19]
'SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2005'[24]
Social classes feature their own sub-cultures and have therefore developed slightly different manners of socializing their off-spring. Due to class mobility individuals may also assimilate to the culture of another class when ascending or descending in the social order. One does however need to remember that all social classes in the United States, except the upper class, consist of tens-of-millions of people. Thus social classes form social groups so large that they feature considerable diversity within and any statement regarding a given social class' culture needs to be seen as a broad generalization. Since 1970, sociologists such as Paula LeMasters and Melvin Kohl have set out repeatedly to research class based cultures. Class culture has been shown to have a strong influence on the mundane lives of people, affecting everything from the manner in which they raise their children, initiation and maintenance of romantic relationship to the color in which they paint their houses. The strongest cultural differences seem to run along the professional middle class-working class divide. A recent increase in residential class segregation and the overall tendency of individual to associate mostly with those of equal standing as themselves has further strengthened class differences.[25]
Parental views are the perhaps most essential factor in determining the socialization process which shapes new members of society. The values and standards used in child rearing are commonly closely related to the parent's occupational status. Parents from the professional class tend to raise their children to become curious independent thinkers, while working class parents raise their children to have a more communal perspective with a strong respect for authority. Middle class parents tend to emphasize internal standards and values while working class parents emphasize external values. Sociologist Dennis Gilbert uses a list of values identified by Melvin Kohn to be typical of the professional middle and working class. Middle class parents values for their children and themselves included: ''"Consideration of Others, Self-Control, Curiosity, Happiness, Honesty, Tolerance of Nonconformity, Open to Innovation... Self-Direction."'' This contrast to surveyed working class individuals who reported ''"Manners, Obedience... Neatness, Cleanliness, Strong Punishment of Deviant Behavior, Stock to Old Ways, People not Trustworthy... Strict Leadership"'' as values for themselves and their children. There is a strong correlation between these values and the occupational activities of the respondents. The job characteristics of middle class respondents included: ''"Work Independently, Varied Tasks, Work with People or Data,"'' versus working class parents of reported ''"Close Supervision and Repetitive Work..."''
Gender roles are also viewed differently by those in the higher and lower social classes. Middle class individuals, who were more open towards "Nonconformity" and emphasized individual self-direction as well as critical thinking, were also less stringent in their application of gender roles. Working class individuals, on the other hand, emphasized gender roles. While working class people have more and more assimilated to middle class culture regarding their view and application of gender roles, differences remain. Professional class people are more likely to have an equalitarian distribution of work in their household with both spouses being equals in heterosexual marriages. According to Dennis Gilbert, ''"College life, generally a prologue to upper-middle class careers, delays marriage and encourages informal, relatively egalitarian association between men and women."''[6]
The following are commonly used terms by social scientists and critics. It is again important to remember that each term bears the roots of ideologies which may conflict with each other. Overall, the use and definition of these terms often greatly varies with each speaker, due to their tastes or ideologies. Therefore the clarification of terminology is only possible as a gross generalization of what is most commonly used by research institutes as well as social critics.
This term is applied to a wide array of elites that exist in the United States. The term commonly includes all "'blue bloods'" (multi-generational wealth combined with leadership of high society) such as the Astor or Roosevelt families. There is disagreement over whether the "'nouveau riche'" should be included as members of the upper class or whether this term should exclusively be used for established families. Twentieth century sociologist W. Lloyd Warner divided the upper class into two sections: the 'upper-upper class' and 'lower-upper class'. The former includes established upper-class families while the latter includes those with great wealth. As there is no defined lower threshold for the upper class it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to determine the exact number or percentage of American households that could be identified as being members of the upper-class(es).
Income and wealth statistics may serve as a helpful guideline as they can be measured in a more objective manner. In 2005, approximately one and half percent (1.5%) of households in the United States had incomes exceeding $250,000 with the top 5% having incomes exceeding $157,000.[27] Furthermore only 2.6% of household held assets (excluding home equity) of more than one-million dollars. One could therefore fall under the assumption that less than five percent of American society are members of rich households.
Members of the upper class control and own significant portions of the corporate America and may exercise indirect power through the investment of capital. In recent years the salaries and, especially, the potential wealth through stock options, has greatly increased for the 'corporate elite'. Inherited wealth leading to idleness is held in low regard and people who have it usually have prestigious occupations.[28]
Yet another important feature of the upper class is that of inherited privilege. While most Americans, including those in the upper-middle class need to actively maintain their status, upper class persons do not need to work in order to maintain their status. Status tends to be passed on from generation to generation without each generation having to re-certify its status. Overall, the upper class is the financially best compensated and one of the most influential socio-economic classes in American society.
The high salaries and, especially, the potential wealth through stock options, has supported the term 'corporate elite'. Top executives, including Chief Executive Officers, are among the financially best compensated occupations in the United States. The median annual earnings for a CEO in the United States were $140,350[29] (exceeding the income of more than 90% of US households). The ''Wall Street Journal'' reports the median compensation for CEOs of 350 major corporations was $6,000,000 in 2005 with most the money coming from stock options.[30] In New York City in 2005, the median income (including bonuses) of a corporate "Chief Operating Officer" (the #2 job) was $377,000.[31] The total compensation for a "Top IT Officer" in charge of information technology in New York City was $218,000.[32] Thus even below the CEO level of top corporations, financial compensation will usually be sufficient to propel a households with a mere one income earner in the top 1%. In 2005 only 1.5% of American households had incomes above $250,000 with many reaching this level only through having two income earners.[33][34][35]
Many politically powerful people make money before coming to office, but in general the political power elite have official incomes in the $150,000 to $185,000 range; members of Congress are paid $165,000, and are effectively required to have a residence in their district as well as one in Washington.[36]
Main articles: American middle class
The middle class is perhaps the mostly vaguely defined of the social classes. The term can be used either to describe a relative elite of professionals and managers (also called the upper middle class) or it can be used to describe those in-between the extremes of wealth, disregarding considerable differences in income, culture, educational attainment, influence, and occupation. As with all the social classes in the US there are no definite answers as to what is and what is not middle class. Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, James Henslin, William Thompson and Joseph Hickey have brought forth class models in which the middle class is divided into two sections that combined constitute 47% to 49% of the population. The upper middle or professional class constitutes the upper end of the middle class which consists of highly educated, well-paid professionals with considerable work autonomy. The lower end of the middle class, called either lower middle class or just middle class consists of semi-professionals, craftsmen and salesmen who often have just some college education and are more closely supervised.[6]
Although income thresholds cannot be determined since social classes lack distinct boundaries and tend to overlap, sociologists and economist have put forth certain income figures they find indicative of middle class households. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a husband making roughly $57,000 and a wife making roughly $40,000 with a household income of roughly $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[38] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey identify household incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 as typical for the lower middle and $100,000 or more as typical for the upper middle class. Though it needs to be noted that household income distribution neither relfects standard of living nor class status with complete accuracy.
This class consists of highly educated salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have graduate degrees with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly may exceed $100,000, with some smaller one-income earners household having incomes in the high 5-figure range. Salaries are commonly in the high five-figure range. Members of this class commonly hold advanced academic degrees and are often in involved with professional organizations. Due to the nature of professional and managerial occupations, the upper middle class tends to have great influence over the course of society. Occupations which are essential to the forming of public opinion such journalists, authors, commentators, professors, scientist and advertisers are largely upper middle class. The very well educated, are seen as trend setters with movements such as anti-smoking movements, pro-fitness movement, organic food movement, environmentalism being largely indigenous to this particular socio-economic grouping. Education serves as perhaps the most important value and also the most dominant entry barrier of the upper middle class.[25]
Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, Willam Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate the upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population. The main hallmark and most distinguishing feature of this class is its high educational attainment. Using the 15% figure one may conclude that the American upper middle class consist of professionals making more than $67,500 who often, but not always, reside in households with a six figure income.[40][41]
Those households more or less at the center of society may be referred to as being part of the American middle or middle-middle class in vernacular language use. In the academic models featured in this article, however, the middle class does not constitute a strong majority of the population. Those in the middle of the socio-economic strata -the proverbial Average Joe- are commonly in the area where the working and lower middle class overlap. The most prominent academic models split the middle class into two sections. Yet, it remains common for the term middle class to be applied for anyone in between either extreme of the socio-economic strata. The middle class is then often sub-divided into an upper-middle, middle-middle and lower-middle class. In colloquial descriptions of the class system the middle-middle class may described as consisting of those in the middle of the social strata. Politicians and news anchors such as Lou Dobbs can be seen using the term middle class in this manner, especially when discussing the middle class squeeze.[42] The wide discrepancy between the academic models and public opinions that lump highly educated professionals together in the same class with secretaries, may lead to the conclusion that public opinion on the subject has become largely ambiguous.
Main articles: Lower middle class
The lower middle class is, as the name implies, generally defined as those less privileged than the middle class. People in this class commonly work in supporting occupations and seldom hold advanced academic degrees. There is also considerable debate of whether or not this class is truly part of the middle class and whether or not its members should be identified as being working class or even poor instead of middle class.[4]
Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson and Joseph Hickey, however, only divide the middle class into two groups. In their class modes the middle class only consists of an upper and lower middle class. The upper middle class, as described above, constitutes roughly 15% of the population with highly educated white collar professionals who commonly have salaries in the high 5-figure range and household incomes in the low six figure range. Semi-professionals with Bachelor's degrees and some college degrees constitute the lower middle class. Their class models show the lower middle class positioned slightly above the middle of the socio-economic strata. Those in blue and pink collar as well as clerical occupations are referred to as working class in these class models.
The working class in the United States is as vaguely defined as the middle class with whom it overlaps according to some definitions. Sociologist estimate that anywhere from 32% to 45% of households are working class.[38] While some might argue that the working class is synonymous with the lower middle class, it may also be argued that the working class constitutes the majority of the American population (aka: the 'Silent majority').[45] A distinctive feature of this class may include that fact that workers from this class merely take orders and are neither compensated for their ideas nor are they involved in the decision making process of the organization for which they work. Yet another more dated definition is that the working class commonly consists of blue-collar workers, while non-professional white collar workers are lower middle class. The guideline stating that working class workers are not paid to think, but rather perform tasks, persists however through many ideologies regarding this class. Much like the lower middle class (which may be the same class according to some theories) the working class has little economic security and is extremely susceptible to fluctuations in the economy. Out-sourcing and cost-cutting related lay-offs are much more a pressing issues for persons of this class, than in the higher classes.
While Karl Marx's statement may be over one-hundred fifty years old, it still related to modern society in that working class persons are very much prone to economic downturns. While the actual persons are not a commodity themselves, their labor is. Labor is one of the primary factors of production alongside, land, capital, and entrepreneurship.[46] Unlike professionals, who are paid to conceptualize, create, think, and advise, working class employees usually complete assigned tasks, as they often lack the proper training necessary for more influential positions. Today, however, this division of labor is largely due to the fact that the direction of resources requires expertise that often cannot be gained without a college education. As working class persons tend to lack higher education they are commonly not qualified to design, create, or advise. Thus today's market labor division arose from necessity not political reasons. It should also be noted, that the modern working class works less than the upper middle class or the top 5%. While 81% of persons in the top quintile worked more than fifty hours a week, only two-thirds of those in the second quintile worked more than fifty hours a week.[27]
The term lower class is commonly applied to those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Definitions of this term vary greatly. While Lloyd Warner found the vast majority of the American population to be in either the upper-lower class or lower-lower class in 1949, modern-day experts such as Michael Zweig, an economist for SUNY–Stony Brook, argue that the working class constitutes most of the population.[45] Dennis Gilbert places 13% of households among the "'working poor'" with 12% being in the "'underclass'." Thompson & Hickey place roughly 17% to 20% of households in the lower classes. The lower classes constituting roughly a fifth to a quarter of American society consists mainly of low-rung retail and service workers as well as the frequently unemployed and those not able to work.[6] Overall, 13% of the population fall below the poverty threshold. Hunger and food insecurity were present in the mundane lives of 3.9% of American households, while roughly twenty-five million Americans (ca. 9%) participated in the food stamp program.[50]
The American norm has always been the "yeoman farmer" — a self-sufficient, politically independent landowner. A main successful political goal of Jeffersonian democracy and Jacksonian Democracy was expansion of the political rights of the yeomen, and also geographical expansion of the nation to provide them farms. This culminated in the Homestead Act of 1862 which provided hundreds of thousands of free farms. Before 1865 large southern plantations used slaves. After emancipation, a system of sharecropping and tenant farming for both whites and blacks in the South provided a semi-independent status for farmers who did not own their land. In contemporary times migrant agricultural workers, mostly Hispanic, perform field and packing work.[51]
Only 0.7% of the population of the United States is employed in the agricultural sector.[52] Most are proprietors of independent farms. Once the dominant American social class, this group diminished in overall numbers during the 20th century, as farm holdings grew more consolidated, farming operations became more mechanized, and most of the population migrated to urban areas. Today, the agricultural sector has essentially taken on the characteristics of business and industry generally. In contemporary usage, a "farmer" is someone who owns and operates a farm, which more often than not will be a sizable business enterprise; "agricultural workers" or "farm workers", who perform the actual work associated with farming, typically come out of the lower classes; indeed, they are often near-destitute immigrants or migrant farm workers. In this respect, farming mirrors big business: like any enterprise, a farm has owners (who may be a family or a corporation), salaried managers, supervisors, foremen and workers. With the number of farms steadily diminishing, the stereotypical humble homestead is increasingly the exception, for viable farming now means agribusiness; the large amounts of capital required to operate a competitive farm require large-scale organization. The large landowners in California's Central Valley, Coachella Valley and Imperial Valley fall squarely within the upper class. Among farmers, "income" in the conventional sense is not an accurate standard of wealth measurement, because farmers typically keep their official income low by placing their assets into farming corporations rather than drawing the money directly. The stereotypical poor, marginal farmer "eking out a living" from the soil, an image deeply ingrained in most Americans' minds by folklore, films, and even history texts, has now been largely displaced by agribusiness, which has bought them out and consolidated their holdings.[53]
For over 100 years, a common fear is that a spreading wealth gap is causing a "collapse of the middle" in American society. Thus, the 1906 cartoon showing the middle class family in dire straits.
In the 21st century, this fear takes the form of alarm at super salaries for celebrities and top executives, illegal immigration, downsizing in many sectors of the American economy, competition from lower-paid foreign workers and contractors, and the decline of unionized labor. The scenario most commonly recorded by the country's top news publications is that the statistical middle is splitting into two; a well-off, high-income middle class —the professional middle class— and a lower-income middle class. This phenomenon has led to a two-tier labor market in which educational attainment has become the primary divide. The two tier labor market has led to increasingly class segregated neighborhoods.[54] It should, however, be noted that the title of "middle class squeeze" primarily affects those, who according to the academic class models featured in this article, are working class. Whether or not the middle class squeeze affects middle or working class household is subject to the speakers understanding of what is middle class.
The rising costs of items often deemed as ironically middle class, such as a suburban three bedroom home, a college education, and private schooling. Those at the middle of the economic strata have become increasingly overspent, causing them to accumulate large amounts of consumer debt. Furthermore, many mid-income households now rely on two income earners instead of one. This means that the second income is no longer merely supplementary but essential in order for the household to maintain an iconic middle class standard of living. Both a decline in real wages and the rising costs of "middle class essentials" are commonly cited as reasons for increasing bankruptcy rates, overspending, and reliance on two income earners.[42]
Class ascendancy is a central theme in American literature and culture. The more classic understanding of the American dream, however, is that each successive generation will have a higher standard of living than its predecessor. This theme is not, however, unique to American culture; literary examples from other contexts include Jane Austen's ''Pride and Prejudice'' and Stendhal's ''The Red and the Black''. Some have posited that the dream of class ascendancy is the essence of the American dream. While social class in the United States is based on a set of achieved, rather than described status, climbing the social ladder may present itself to be a difficult venture. Occupation, perhaps the most important class component, educational attainment, as well as income can be earned and increased through a lifetime. It is however widely recognized that the playing field is not even and that attaining a certain status within the American social structure may be easier for those who are already in relatively advantageous positions. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has suggested that the growing income inequality and low class mobility of the U.S. economy may eventually threaten social stability in the future.[56] The locally funded education system is stipulated to provide lower quality education to those in poor jurisdictions than to those in more affluent jurisdictions.[57][58]
★ American middle class
★ Personal income in the United States
★ Household income in the United States
★ Affluence in the United States
★ Social stratification
★ Social class in American history
★ Social Class
★ Highest income places in the United States
★ Poorest places in the United States
1. Occupation and Class Consciousness in America, , Douglas, Eichar, Greenwood Press, 1989, 0-313-26111-3
2. The American Class Structure, , Dennis, Gilbert, Wadsworth Publishing, 1998, 0-534-50520-1
3. Middle class according to The Drum Major Institute for public policy
4. The Christian Science Monitor, What is middle class?
5. Society in Focus, , William, Thompson, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-41365-X
6. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
7. Occupation and Class Consciousness in America, , Douglas, Eichar, Greenwood Press, 1989, 0-313-26111-3
8. What is Social Class in America, Lloyd Warner, , Lloyd, Warner, Irvington Publishers, 1949,
9. Social Class and Stratification, , Rhonda, Levine, Rowman & Littlefield, 1998, 0-8476-8543-8
10. What is Social Class in America, Lloyd Warner, , Lloyd, Warner, Irvington Publishers, 1949,
11. US Census Bureau, household income, 2006
12. US Census Bureau, median income of persons, age 25 or older
13. US Census Bureau, household income, 2006
14. New York Times definition of class according to the quintiles
15. US Census Bureau, Income earners by quintile
16. US Census Bureau, Income earners by quintile
17. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
18. US Census Bureau, Income earners by quintile
19. US Census Bureau report on educational attainment in the United States, 2003
20. Fear of Falling, The Inner Life of the Middle Class, , Barbara, Ehrenreich, Harper Collins, 1989, 0-06-0973331
21. US Census Bureau, 2005, data published on Infoplease.com
22. US Census Bureau, income distribution of individuals, employed full-time, year round, age 25-64, 2006
23. US Census Bureau report on educational attainment in the United States, 2003
24. US Census Bureau, educational attainment and income, age 25+, 2006
25. What's Class Got To Do With It, American Society in the Twenty-First Century, , Michael, Zweig, Cornell University Press, 2004, 0-8014-8899-0
26. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
27. US Census Bureau, income quintiles and Top 5%, 2004
28. Peter W. Cookson and Caroline Hodges Persell, ''Preparing for Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools'' (1987)
29. Median annual earnings of CEOs according to the US Department of Labor
30. Income sources of top corporate personnel
31. Salaries for top level corporate personnel
32. Salaries of CEOs
33. US Census Bureau, income quintiles and Top 5%, 2004
34. US Census 2005 Economic Survey, income data
35. Salaries of politicians lower than that of top-level corporate personnel
36. Economic statutes pertaining to congressmen
37. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
38. The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States, , Leonard, Beeghley, Pearson, 2004, 0-205-37558-8
39. What's Class Got To Do With It, American Society in the Twenty-First Century, , Michael, Zweig, Cornell University Press, 2004, 0-8014-8899-0
40. US Census Bureau, income quintile and top 5% household income distribution and demographic characteristics, 2006
41. US Census Bureau, distribution of personal income, 2006
42. Middle income can't buy Middle class lifestyle
43. The Christian Science Monitor, What is middle class?
44. The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States, , Leonard, Beeghley, Pearson, 2004, 0-205-37558-8
45. The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret, , Michael, Zweig, IRL Press, 2001, 0801487277
46. Factors of production
47. US Census Bureau, income quintiles and Top 5%, 2004
48. The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret, , Michael, Zweig, IRL Press, 2001, 0801487277
49. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
50. Results, Center on Hunger and Poverty, hunger and poverty statistics for the United State
51. John L. Shover. ''First Majority, Last Minority: The Transforming of Rural Life in America'' (1976)
52. CIA factbook, US labor force by economic sector
53. R. Douglas Hurt, ''American Agriculture: A Brief History'' (2002); John T Schlebecker. ''Whereby we thrive: A history of American farming, 1607-1972'' (1972) (ISBN 0-8138-0090-0)
54. Washington Post, America is losing its middle income neighborhoods
55. Middle income can't buy Middle class lifestyle
56. "Rich-Poor Gap Gaining Attention" Peter Greier. Christian Science Monitor. 14 June 2005. "URL accessed 21 August 2006."
57. "What Research Says About Unequal Funding for Schools in America" Bruce Biddle and David C. Berliner. Winter 2002. "URL accessed 21 August 2006."
58. "An Economic Perspective on Urban Education" William G. Gale, Meghan McNally, and Janet Rothenberg Pack. June 2003. "URL accessed 21 August 2006."
★ Leonard Beeghley; ''The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States'' Pearson, 2004
★ Dennis Gilbert; ''The American Class Structure'' Wadsworth, 2002
★ Rhonda Levine; ''Social Class and Stratification'' Rowman & Littlefield, 1998
★ Michael Zweig; ''What's Class Got To Do With It?'' Cornell University Press, 2003
★ Christopher Beach; ''Class, Language, and American Film Comedy'' Cambridge University Press, 2002
★ Harold J. Bershady ed; ''Social Class and Democratic Leadership: Essays in Honor of E. Digby Baltzell'' 1989
★ Daniel Bertaux, and Paul Thompson; ''Pathways to Social Class: A Qualitative Approach to Social Mobility'' Clarendon Press, 1997
★ Barbara Ehrenreich. ''Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America'' (2002), author disguises herself as working class
★ David B. Grusky (Editor) ''Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective'' (2000)
★ Alan C. Kerckhoff; ''Socialization and Social Class'' 1972, textbook
★ Jim Lardner, James Lardner, David A. Smith, editors, ''Inequality Matters: The Growing Economic Divide In America And Its Poisonous Consequences'', WW Norton (January, 2006), hardcover, 224 pages, ISBN 1-56584-995-7
★ Erik Olin Wright. ''Classe'' (1997) - a detailed Marxian guide to define working class/middle class etc.
★ David Popenoe, ''Sociology'', (ninth edition, Prentice Hall, 1993 ISBN 0-13-819798-9 ) pb. pp. 232-236,
★ Wealth, Income, and Power - wealth distribution in the U.S. from a Power Structure Research perspective
★ Myth: Income mobility makes up for income inequality - analysis from Liberal point of view
★ Kalra, Paul (1996). ''The American Class System: Divide and Rule''. ISBN 0-96-471735-2.
★ US Census Bureau's offical online income statistics forum
★ Income distribution and income by race, US Census Bureau 2005
★ Household income by educational attainment, US Census Bureau
★ Personal income in 2004, US Census Bureau
★ Median Family Income by Family Size (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars) from Census.gov
★ Median Family Income by Number of Earners in Family (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars) from Census.gov
★ Working Definitions ClassMatters.com
★ How Class Works, The New York Times
A monument to the working and supporting classes along Market Street in the heart of San Francisco's Financial District, home to tens of thousands of professional and managerial middle class workers each day.
There is considerable controversy regarding 'social class in the United States', and it remains a vaguely defined intellectual concept with many theories. To this day social scientists have not devised exact guidelines for classes in the United States.[1] Social scientists have developed class models on the socio-economic stratification of American society which feature more or less congruent theories. While many Americans believe in a three-class model that includes the "rich", the middle class, and the "poor", in reality American society is much more economically and culturally diverse. The differences in wealth, income, education and occupation are indeed so great that one could justify the application of a social class model including dozens of classes.[2][3] A common popular approach to the economic and cultural diversity is belief in a large middle class that encompasses all households in between status extremes. Yet, this concept may be critizised for ignoring the relatively vast socio-economic differences found among those in between either end of the social strata.[4] Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson and Joseph Hickey as well as James Henslin have proposed class systems with six distinct social classes. These class models feature an upper or capitalist class consisting of the rich and powerful, an upper middle class consisting of highly educated and well-paid professionals, a lower middle class consisting of semi-professionals, a working class constituted by clerical as well as blue collar employees whose work is highly routinized and a lower class which is according to Gilbert is divided between the working poor and underclass.[5][6]
According to the nominal approach, however, American society is sociologically and economically fragmented in such a manner that no clear class distinctions can be formed. This means that there are no pronounced breaks in socio-economic strata, which makes class division highly subjective and disputable.[1] Others such as sociologist Dennis Gilbert, however, dispute the idea pointing to distinct social networks, clearly identifiable as classes.
Despite the lack of distinctive class boundaries and the vast majority of Americans being under the belief that they are members of the middle class, certain general assumptions have been expressed by leading social scientists, think tanks, research institutions, and social critics. While it is generally agreed that American society has a highly developed and complicated class system, Americans often attempt to deny the existence of social class.[8]
What is social class?
Class in the US, featuring occupational descriptions by Thompson & Hickey as well as US Census Bureau data pertaining to personal income and educational attainment for those age 25 or older.
Social class is the hierarchy in which individuals find themselves. The social class system is mainly a description of how the society has distributed its members among positions of varying importance, influence, and prestige. Those taking the functionalist approach to sociology and economics view social classes as components essential for the survival of complex societies such as American society. Class may be described as an indication of the positions a person may occupy within society, positions which are not equal, some are more agreeable than others and satisfy the incumbent intrinsically, while other occupations are more menial, repetitive and unpleasant. Some occupations or other societal positions may be, to some extent, influential and essential to the well-being of society itself, requiring a highly qualified incumbent. Societal functions are commonly rewarded with prestige and income, which may serve as class indicator alongside the training required to obtain such a function. One should note that a person's function in society does not only refer to his or her occupational role. A skill and function as well as position can also be non-occupational such as the role of being a parent or volunteer mentor, for example, and carrying out the function of aiding in the socialization of society's newest members. Yet other positions or statuses within society, such as being the son or daughter of a wealthy individual, seem to lack directly functional characteristics beyond guiding social interactions which that individual may encounter. So while not all functions and positions in society are those associated with occupation, the job role remains one of the most important status features in the United States. Social class continues to play a prominent role in the mundane lives of the members of American society.
Occupational positions do, however, form the perhaps best examples. For example occupations that feature no influence over society whatsoever, requiring only minimal qualifications on the part of prospective incumbents. It is therefore improbable to have a classless society. The scarcer qualified applicants are and the more essential the given task is, the larger the incentives will be, income and prestige which are often used to tell a person's social class are merely the incentives given to that person for meeting all qualifications to complete a task which is of importance to the society due to its functional value.[9] One should note that a person's function in society does not only refer to his or her occupational role. A skill and function as well as position can also be non-occupational such as the role of being a parent or volunteer mentor, for example, and carrying out the function of aiding in the socialization of society's newest members. So while not all functions and positions in society are those associated with occupation, the job role remains the one of the most important status features in the United States.
The idea of a classless society somewhat persists in the United States; which explains the notion of the vast majority of Americans who place themselves in the same class, the middle class. The truth however, is that complex societies such as the United States need an equally complex social hierarchy. Social class itself is as old as civilization itself and has been present in nearly every society from before the Roman Empire, through medieval times, and to the modern-day United States.[8] Even though the lack of set guidelines makes defining social class a subjective topic, there are certain prominent theories which can be used, to some extent, to outline the American class system.
Income
Main articles: Personal income in the United States, Household income in the United States
Income in the United States is most commonly measured by US Census Bureau in terms of either household or individual and remains one of the most prominent indicators of class status. As 42% of all households, 76% of those in the top quintiles, had two income earners the discrepancy between household and personal income is quite considerable. In 2005 the top 15% of income earners made $62,500 or more, while 18% of households had incomes over $100,000. Personal income is largely the result of scarcity. As individuals who hold higher status positions tend to possess rare skills or assume positions society deems very essential, have higher incomes. Overall the median household income was $46,326 in 2005[11] while the median personal income (including only those above the age of 25) was $32,140.[12]
Per capita household income, the income a household is able to allocate to each member of the household is also an important variable in determining a given household's standard of living. A high household income may be off-set by a large household size; thus, resulting in a low per capita household income. In 2005, the median household income per capita was $24,672.[11]
As mentioned above, income is one of the most prominent features of social class; it is not one of its causes. In other words, income does not determine the status of an individual or household but rather reflects on that status. Income and prestige are the incentives provided by society in order to fill needed positions with the most qualified and motivated personnel possible.
The New York Times has used income quintiles to define class. It has assigned the quintiles from lowest to highest as lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class.[14] These definitions equate class with income, permitting people to move from class to class as their income changes.
Dual income controversy
Percentage of 2+ income households in each of the quintiles.[15]
Income is one of the most commonly used attributes of a household to determine its class status. The relationship between income, which mostly arises from the scarcity of a certain skill, may however, prove to be more complex than initially perceived. While the idea is that income reflects status, household income may just be the product of two or more incomes. In 2005, 42% of American households had two income earners. The vast majority (77%) of households in the top quintile had two or more income earners. This means that the majority of household income in the top quintile are the result of two income earners pooling their resources, establishing a close link between perceived affluence and the number of income earners in a given household.[15][6] The question of whether or not the combination of incomes results in higher social status. Of course, there is no definite answer as class is a vague sociological concept.
Sociologist Dennis Gilbert states that it is possible for households to out-earn other households over higher class standing through increasing their number of income earners. He furthermore states that household size also played an essential role, as the standard of living for two persons living of one upper middle class personal income may very well be higher than that of a household with four members living of two working class personal incomes. The combination of two or more incomes, allow for households to increase their income substantially without moving higher on the occupational ladder or attaining higher educational degrees. Thus it is important to remember that the seemingly favorable economic position of households in the top two quintiles is in most cases merely the result of combined income.[15]
Education
Main articles: Educational attainment in the United States
Educational attainment is related to both occupation, as seen above, and income. This graph shows the educational attainment of individuals age 25-64, employed full-time, by occupational field.[19]
Tertiary education or "Higher education," is required for many middle-class professions, depending on how the term middle class is to be defined. Tertiary education is rarely free, but the costs vary widely: tuition at elite private colleges often exceeds $120,000 for a four-year program. On the other hand, public colleges and universities typically charge much less (for state residents), and many, such as the University of California system, rival the elite private schools in reputation and quality. Also, scholarships offered by universities and government do exist, and low-interest loans are available. Still, the average cost of education, by all accounts, is increasing. The attainment of post-secondary and graduate degrees is the perhaps most important feature of a middle and upper middle class person with the university being regarded as the most essential institution and gatekeeper of the professional middle class.[20] Educational attainment is also directly linked to income.
In 2005, the vast majority of those with doctorate and professional degrees were among the nation's top 15% of income earners.income distribution of individuals, employed full-time, year round, age 25-64, 2006"> US Census Bureau, income distribution of individuals, employed full-time, year round, age 25-64, 2006 Those with Bachelor degrees had incomes considerably above the national median while the median income for those with some college education remained near the national median. According to US Census Bureau, 9% of persons aged 25 or older had a graduate degree, 27.9% had a Bachelor's degree or more with 53% having attended college.[21][22] With 85% of the population having graduated high school, it becomes apparent that the average American does not have a college degree, but is likely to have attended college for some time and has graduated high school. Overall, educational attainment serves as the perhaps most essential class feature of most Americans, being directly linked to income and occupation.[19]
| Year | Less than 9th grade | No high school diploma | High school graduate | Some college | Associates degree | Bachelor's degree or more | Bachelor's degree | Graduate degree | Masters degree | Professionals degree | Doctorate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 6.1% | 8.4% | 31.7% | 16.7% | 8.73% | 27.9% | 18.3% | 9.7% | 6.8% | 1.6% | 1.3% |
| Median personal income | $17,422 | $20,321 | $26,505 | $31,054 | $35,009 | $49,303 | $43,143 | X | $52,390 | $82,473 | $70,853 |
'SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2005'[24]
Culture
Social classes feature their own sub-cultures and have therefore developed slightly different manners of socializing their off-spring. Due to class mobility individuals may also assimilate to the culture of another class when ascending or descending in the social order. One does however need to remember that all social classes in the United States, except the upper class, consist of tens-of-millions of people. Thus social classes form social groups so large that they feature considerable diversity within and any statement regarding a given social class' culture needs to be seen as a broad generalization. Since 1970, sociologists such as Paula LeMasters and Melvin Kohl have set out repeatedly to research class based cultures. Class culture has been shown to have a strong influence on the mundane lives of people, affecting everything from the manner in which they raise their children, initiation and maintenance of romantic relationship to the color in which they paint their houses. The strongest cultural differences seem to run along the professional middle class-working class divide. A recent increase in residential class segregation and the overall tendency of individual to associate mostly with those of equal standing as themselves has further strengthened class differences.[25]
Parental views are the perhaps most essential factor in determining the socialization process which shapes new members of society. The values and standards used in child rearing are commonly closely related to the parent's occupational status. Parents from the professional class tend to raise their children to become curious independent thinkers, while working class parents raise their children to have a more communal perspective with a strong respect for authority. Middle class parents tend to emphasize internal standards and values while working class parents emphasize external values. Sociologist Dennis Gilbert uses a list of values identified by Melvin Kohn to be typical of the professional middle and working class. Middle class parents values for their children and themselves included: ''"Consideration of Others, Self-Control, Curiosity, Happiness, Honesty, Tolerance of Nonconformity, Open to Innovation... Self-Direction."'' This contrast to surveyed working class individuals who reported ''"Manners, Obedience... Neatness, Cleanliness, Strong Punishment of Deviant Behavior, Stock to Old Ways, People not Trustworthy... Strict Leadership"'' as values for themselves and their children. There is a strong correlation between these values and the occupational activities of the respondents. The job characteristics of middle class respondents included: ''"Work Independently, Varied Tasks, Work with People or Data,"'' versus working class parents of reported ''"Close Supervision and Repetitive Work..."''
Gender roles are also viewed differently by those in the higher and lower social classes. Middle class individuals, who were more open towards "Nonconformity" and emphasized individual self-direction as well as critical thinking, were also less stringent in their application of gender roles. Working class individuals, on the other hand, emphasized gender roles. While working class people have more and more assimilated to middle class culture regarding their view and application of gender roles, differences remain. Professional class people are more likely to have an equalitarian distribution of work in their household with both spouses being equals in heterosexual marriages. According to Dennis Gilbert, ''"College life, generally a prologue to upper-middle class careers, delays marriage and encourages informal, relatively egalitarian association between men and women."''[6]
Commonly used terminology
The following are commonly used terms by social scientists and critics. It is again important to remember that each term bears the roots of ideologies which may conflict with each other. Overall, the use and definition of these terms often greatly varies with each speaker, due to their tastes or ideologies. Therefore the clarification of terminology is only possible as a gross generalization of what is most commonly used by research institutes as well as social critics.
Upper class
This term is applied to a wide array of elites that exist in the United States. The term commonly includes all "'blue bloods'" (multi-generational wealth combined with leadership of high society) such as the Astor or Roosevelt families. There is disagreement over whether the "'nouveau riche'" should be included as members of the upper class or whether this term should exclusively be used for established families. Twentieth century sociologist W. Lloyd Warner divided the upper class into two sections: the 'upper-upper class' and 'lower-upper class'. The former includes established upper-class families while the latter includes those with great wealth. As there is no defined lower threshold for the upper class it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to determine the exact number or percentage of American households that could be identified as being members of the upper-class(es).
Income and wealth statistics may serve as a helpful guideline as they can be measured in a more objective manner. In 2005, approximately one and half percent (1.5%) of households in the United States had incomes exceeding $250,000 with the top 5% having incomes exceeding $157,000.[27] Furthermore only 2.6% of household held assets (excluding home equity) of more than one-million dollars. One could therefore fall under the assumption that less than five percent of American society are members of rich households.
Members of the upper class control and own significant portions of the corporate America and may exercise indirect power through the investment of capital. In recent years the salaries and, especially, the potential wealth through stock options, has greatly increased for the 'corporate elite'. Inherited wealth leading to idleness is held in low regard and people who have it usually have prestigious occupations.[28]
Yet another important feature of the upper class is that of inherited privilege. While most Americans, including those in the upper-middle class need to actively maintain their status, upper class persons do not need to work in order to maintain their status. Status tends to be passed on from generation to generation without each generation having to re-certify its status. Overall, the upper class is the financially best compensated and one of the most influential socio-economic classes in American society.
Corporate elite
The high salaries and, especially, the potential wealth through stock options, has supported the term 'corporate elite'. Top executives, including Chief Executive Officers, are among the financially best compensated occupations in the United States. The median annual earnings for a CEO in the United States were $140,350[29] (exceeding the income of more than 90% of US households). The ''Wall Street Journal'' reports the median compensation for CEOs of 350 major corporations was $6,000,000 in 2005 with most the money coming from stock options.[30] In New York City in 2005, the median income (including bonuses) of a corporate "Chief Operating Officer" (the #2 job) was $377,000.[31] The total compensation for a "Top IT Officer" in charge of information technology in New York City was $218,000.[32] Thus even below the CEO level of top corporations, financial compensation will usually be sufficient to propel a households with a mere one income earner in the top 1%. In 2005 only 1.5% of American households had incomes above $250,000 with many reaching this level only through having two income earners.[33][34][35]
Many politically powerful people make money before coming to office, but in general the political power elite have official incomes in the $150,000 to $185,000 range; members of Congress are paid $165,000, and are effectively required to have a residence in their district as well as one in Washington.[36]
Middle class
Main articles: American middle class
The middle class is perhaps the mostly vaguely defined of the social classes. The term can be used either to describe a relative elite of professionals and managers (also called the upper middle class) or it can be used to describe those in-between the extremes of wealth, disregarding considerable differences in income, culture, educational attainment, influence, and occupation. As with all the social classes in the US there are no definite answers as to what is and what is not middle class. Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, James Henslin, William Thompson and Joseph Hickey have brought forth class models in which the middle class is divided into two sections that combined constitute 47% to 49% of the population. The upper middle or professional class constitutes the upper end of the middle class which consists of highly educated, well-paid professionals with considerable work autonomy. The lower end of the middle class, called either lower middle class or just middle class consists of semi-professionals, craftsmen and salesmen who often have just some college education and are more closely supervised.[6]
Although income thresholds cannot be determined since social classes lack distinct boundaries and tend to overlap, sociologists and economist have put forth certain income figures they find indicative of middle class households. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a husband making roughly $57,000 and a wife making roughly $40,000 with a household income of roughly $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[38] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey identify household incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 as typical for the lower middle and $100,000 or more as typical for the upper middle class. Though it needs to be noted that household income distribution neither relfects standard of living nor class status with complete accuracy.
Upper middle
This class consists of highly educated salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have graduate degrees with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly may exceed $100,000, with some smaller one-income earners household having incomes in the high 5-figure range. Salaries are commonly in the high five-figure range. Members of this class commonly hold advanced academic degrees and are often in involved with professional organizations. Due to the nature of professional and managerial occupations, the upper middle class tends to have great influence over the course of society. Occupations which are essential to the forming of public opinion such journalists, authors, commentators, professors, scientist and advertisers are largely upper middle class. The very well educated, are seen as trend setters with movements such as anti-smoking movements, pro-fitness movement, organic food movement, environmentalism being largely indigenous to this particular socio-economic grouping. Education serves as perhaps the most important value and also the most dominant entry barrier of the upper middle class.[25]
Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, Willam Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate the upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population. The main hallmark and most distinguishing feature of this class is its high educational attainment. Using the 15% figure one may conclude that the American upper middle class consist of professionals making more than $67,500 who often, but not always, reside in households with a six figure income.[40][41]
Vernacular middle class
Those households more or less at the center of society may be referred to as being part of the American middle or middle-middle class in vernacular language use. In the academic models featured in this article, however, the middle class does not constitute a strong majority of the population. Those in the middle of the socio-economic strata -the proverbial Average Joe- are commonly in the area where the working and lower middle class overlap. The most prominent academic models split the middle class into two sections. Yet, it remains common for the term middle class to be applied for anyone in between either extreme of the socio-economic strata. The middle class is then often sub-divided into an upper-middle, middle-middle and lower-middle class. In colloquial descriptions of the class system the middle-middle class may described as consisting of those in the middle of the social strata. Politicians and news anchors such as Lou Dobbs can be seen using the term middle class in this manner, especially when discussing the middle class squeeze.[42] The wide discrepancy between the academic models and public opinions that lump highly educated professionals together in the same class with secretaries, may lead to the conclusion that public opinion on the subject has become largely ambiguous.
Lower middle class
Main articles: Lower middle class
The lower middle class is, as the name implies, generally defined as those less privileged than the middle class. People in this class commonly work in supporting occupations and seldom hold advanced academic degrees. There is also considerable debate of whether or not this class is truly part of the middle class and whether or not its members should be identified as being working class or even poor instead of middle class.[4]
Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson and Joseph Hickey, however, only divide the middle class into two groups. In their class modes the middle class only consists of an upper and lower middle class. The upper middle class, as described above, constitutes roughly 15% of the population with highly educated white collar professionals who commonly have salaries in the high 5-figure range and household incomes in the low six figure range. Semi-professionals with Bachelor's degrees and some college degrees constitute the lower middle class. Their class models show the lower middle class positioned slightly above the middle of the socio-economic strata. Those in blue and pink collar as well as clerical occupations are referred to as working class in these class models.
Working class
The working class in the United States is as vaguely defined as the middle class with whom it overlaps according to some definitions. Sociologist estimate that anywhere from 32% to 45% of households are working class.[38] While some might argue that the working class is synonymous with the lower middle class, it may also be argued that the working class constitutes the majority of the American population (aka: the 'Silent majority').[45] A distinctive feature of this class may include that fact that workers from this class merely take orders and are neither compensated for their ideas nor are they involved in the decision making process of the organization for which they work. Yet another more dated definition is that the working class commonly consists of blue-collar workers, while non-professional white collar workers are lower middle class. The guideline stating that working class workers are not paid to think, but rather perform tasks, persists however through many ideologies regarding this class. Much like the lower middle class (which may be the same class according to some theories) the working class has little economic security and is extremely susceptible to fluctuations in the economy. Out-sourcing and cost-cutting related lay-offs are much more a pressing issues for persons of this class, than in the higher classes.
While Karl Marx's statement may be over one-hundred fifty years old, it still related to modern society in that working class persons are very much prone to economic downturns. While the actual persons are not a commodity themselves, their labor is. Labor is one of the primary factors of production alongside, land, capital, and entrepreneurship.[46] Unlike professionals, who are paid to conceptualize, create, think, and advise, working class employees usually complete assigned tasks, as they often lack the proper training necessary for more influential positions. Today, however, this division of labor is largely due to the fact that the direction of resources requires expertise that often cannot be gained without a college education. As working class persons tend to lack higher education they are commonly not qualified to design, create, or advise. Thus today's market labor division arose from necessity not political reasons. It should also be noted, that the modern working class works less than the upper middle class or the top 5%. While 81% of persons in the top quintile worked more than fifty hours a week, only two-thirds of those in the second quintile worked more than fifty hours a week.[27]
Lower class
The term lower class is commonly applied to those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Definitions of this term vary greatly. While Lloyd Warner found the vast majority of the American population to be in either the upper-lower class or lower-lower class in 1949, modern-day experts such as Michael Zweig, an economist for SUNY–Stony Brook, argue that the working class constitutes most of the population.[45] Dennis Gilbert places 13% of households among the "'working poor'" with 12% being in the "'underclass'." Thompson & Hickey place roughly 17% to 20% of households in the lower classes. The lower classes constituting roughly a fifth to a quarter of American society consists mainly of low-rung retail and service workers as well as the frequently unemployed and those not able to work.[6] Overall, 13% of the population fall below the poverty threshold. Hunger and food insecurity were present in the mundane lives of 3.9% of American households, while roughly twenty-five million Americans (ca. 9%) participated in the food stamp program.[50]
Agriculture
Farmworkers
The American norm has always been the "yeoman farmer" — a self-sufficient, politically independent landowner. A main successful political goal of Jeffersonian democracy and Jacksonian Democracy was expansion of the political rights of the yeomen, and also geographical expansion of the nation to provide them farms. This culminated in the Homestead Act of 1862 which provided hundreds of thousands of free farms. Before 1865 large southern plantations used slaves. After emancipation, a system of sharecropping and tenant farming for both whites and blacks in the South provided a semi-independent status for farmers who did not own their land. In contemporary times migrant agricultural workers, mostly Hispanic, perform field and packing work.[51]
Farmers
Only 0.7% of the population of the United States is employed in the agricultural sector.[52] Most are proprietors of independent farms. Once the dominant American social class, this group diminished in overall numbers during the 20th century, as farm holdings grew more consolidated, farming operations became more mechanized, and most of the population migrated to urban areas. Today, the agricultural sector has essentially taken on the characteristics of business and industry generally. In contemporary usage, a "farmer" is someone who owns and operates a farm, which more often than not will be a sizable business enterprise; "agricultural workers" or "farm workers", who perform the actual work associated with farming, typically come out of the lower classes; indeed, they are often near-destitute immigrants or migrant farm workers. In this respect, farming mirrors big business: like any enterprise, a farm has owners (who may be a family or a corporation), salaried managers, supervisors, foremen and workers. With the number of farms steadily diminishing, the stereotypical humble homestead is increasingly the exception, for viable farming now means agribusiness; the large amounts of capital required to operate a competitive farm require large-scale organization. The large landowners in California's Central Valley, Coachella Valley and Imperial Valley fall squarely within the upper class. Among farmers, "income" in the conventional sense is not an accurate standard of wealth measurement, because farmers typically keep their official income low by placing their assets into farming corporations rather than drawing the money directly. The stereotypical poor, marginal farmer "eking out a living" from the soil, an image deeply ingrained in most Americans' minds by folklore, films, and even history texts, has now been largely displaced by agribusiness, which has bought them out and consolidated their holdings.[53]
Middle class squeeze
1906 ''Puck'' cartoon shows middle class family in dire straits, surrounded by sharks, representing financial misfortune.
For over 100 years, a common fear is that a spreading wealth gap is causing a "collapse of the middle" in American society. Thus, the 1906 cartoon showing the middle class family in dire straits.
In the 21st century, this fear takes the form of alarm at super salaries for celebrities and top executives, illegal immigration, downsizing in many sectors of the American economy, competition from lower-paid foreign workers and contractors, and the decline of unionized labor. The scenario most commonly recorded by the country's top news publications is that the statistical middle is splitting into two; a well-off, high-income middle class —the professional middle class— and a lower-income middle class. This phenomenon has led to a two-tier labor market in which educational attainment has become the primary divide. The two tier labor market has led to increasingly class segregated neighborhoods.[54] It should, however, be noted that the title of "middle class squeeze" primarily affects those, who according to the academic class models featured in this article, are working class. Whether or not the middle class squeeze affects middle or working class household is subject to the speakers understanding of what is middle class.
The rising costs of items often deemed as ironically middle class, such as a suburban three bedroom home, a college education, and private schooling. Those at the middle of the economic strata have become increasingly overspent, causing them to accumulate large amounts of consumer debt. Furthermore, many mid-income households now rely on two income earners instead of one. This means that the second income is no longer merely supplementary but essential in order for the household to maintain an iconic middle class standard of living. Both a decline in real wages and the rising costs of "middle class essentials" are commonly cited as reasons for increasing bankruptcy rates, overspending, and reliance on two income earners.[42]
Class ascendancy
Class ascendancy is a central theme in American literature and culture. The more classic understanding of the American dream, however, is that each successive generation will have a higher standard of living than its predecessor. This theme is not, however, unique to American culture; literary examples from other contexts include Jane Austen's ''Pride and Prejudice'' and Stendhal's ''The Red and the Black''. Some have posited that the dream of class ascendancy is the essence of the American dream. While social class in the United States is based on a set of achieved, rather than described status, climbing the social ladder may present itself to be a difficult venture. Occupation, perhaps the most important class component, educational attainment, as well as income can be earned and increased through a lifetime. It is however widely recognized that the playing field is not even and that attaining a certain status within the American social structure may be easier for those who are already in relatively advantageous positions. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has suggested that the growing income inequality and low class mobility of the U.S. economy may eventually threaten social stability in the future.[56] The locally funded education system is stipulated to provide lower quality education to those in poor jurisdictions than to those in more affluent jurisdictions.[57][58]
Academic models
See also
★ American middle class
★ Personal income in the United States
★ Household income in the United States
★ Affluence in the United States
★ Social stratification
★ Social class in American history
★ Social Class
★ Highest income places in the United States
★ Poorest places in the United States
References
1. Occupation and Class Consciousness in America, , Douglas, Eichar, Greenwood Press, 1989, 0-313-26111-3
2. The American Class Structure, , Dennis, Gilbert, Wadsworth Publishing, 1998, 0-534-50520-1
3. Middle class according to The Drum Major Institute for public policy
4. The Christian Science Monitor, What is middle class?
5. Society in Focus, , William, Thompson, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-41365-X
6. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
7. Occupation and Class Consciousness in America, , Douglas, Eichar, Greenwood Press, 1989, 0-313-26111-3
8. What is Social Class in America, Lloyd Warner, , Lloyd, Warner, Irvington Publishers, 1949,
9. Social Class and Stratification, , Rhonda, Levine, Rowman & Littlefield, 1998, 0-8476-8543-8
10. What is Social Class in America, Lloyd Warner, , Lloyd, Warner, Irvington Publishers, 1949,
11. US Census Bureau, household income, 2006
12. US Census Bureau, median income of persons, age 25 or older
13. US Census Bureau, household income, 2006
14. New York Times definition of class according to the quintiles
15. US Census Bureau, Income earners by quintile
16. US Census Bureau, Income earners by quintile
17. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
18. US Census Bureau, Income earners by quintile
19. US Census Bureau report on educational attainment in the United States, 2003
20. Fear of Falling, The Inner Life of the Middle Class, , Barbara, Ehrenreich, Harper Collins, 1989, 0-06-0973331
21. US Census Bureau, 2005, data published on Infoplease.com
22. US Census Bureau, income distribution of individuals, employed full-time, year round, age 25-64, 2006
23. US Census Bureau report on educational attainment in the United States, 2003
24. US Census Bureau, educational attainment and income, age 25+, 2006
25. What's Class Got To Do With It, American Society in the Twenty-First Century, , Michael, Zweig, Cornell University Press, 2004, 0-8014-8899-0
26. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
27. US Census Bureau, income quintiles and Top 5%, 2004
28. Peter W. Cookson and Caroline Hodges Persell, ''Preparing for Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools'' (1987)
29. Median annual earnings of CEOs according to the US Department of Labor
30. Income sources of top corporate personnel
31. Salaries for top level corporate personnel
32. Salaries of CEOs
33. US Census Bureau, income quintiles and Top 5%, 2004
34. US Census 2005 Economic Survey, income data
35. Salaries of politicians lower than that of top-level corporate personnel
36. Economic statutes pertaining to congressmen
37. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
38. The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States, , Leonard, Beeghley, Pearson, 2004, 0-205-37558-8
39. What's Class Got To Do With It, American Society in the Twenty-First Century, , Michael, Zweig, Cornell University Press, 2004, 0-8014-8899-0
40. US Census Bureau, income quintile and top 5% household income distribution and demographic characteristics, 2006
41. US Census Bureau, distribution of personal income, 2006
42. Middle income can't buy Middle class lifestyle
43. The Christian Science Monitor, What is middle class?
44. The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States, , Leonard, Beeghley, Pearson, 2004, 0-205-37558-8
45. The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret, , Michael, Zweig, IRL Press, 2001, 0801487277
46. Factors of production
47. US Census Bureau, income quintiles and Top 5%, 2004
48. The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret, , Michael, Zweig, IRL Press, 2001, 0801487277
49. Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, , Brian, Williams, Pearson, 2005, 0-205-36674-0
50. Results, Center on Hunger and Poverty, hunger and poverty statistics for the United State
51. John L. Shover. ''First Majority, Last Minority: The Transforming of Rural Life in America'' (1976)
52. CIA factbook, US labor force by economic sector
53. R. Douglas Hurt, ''American Agriculture: A Brief History'' (2002); John T Schlebecker. ''Whereby we thrive: A history of American farming, 1607-1972'' (1972) (ISBN 0-8138-0090-0)
54. Washington Post, America is losing its middle income neighborhoods
55. Middle income can't buy Middle class lifestyle
56. "Rich-Poor Gap Gaining Attention" Peter Greier. Christian Science Monitor. 14 June 2005. "URL accessed 21 August 2006."
57. "What Research Says About Unequal Funding for Schools in America" Bruce Biddle and David C. Berliner. Winter 2002. "URL accessed 21 August 2006."
58. "An Economic Perspective on Urban Education" William G. Gale, Meghan McNally, and Janet Rothenberg Pack. June 2003. "URL accessed 21 August 2006."
Further reading
★ Leonard Beeghley; ''The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States'' Pearson, 2004
★ Dennis Gilbert; ''The American Class Structure'' Wadsworth, 2002
★ Rhonda Levine; ''Social Class and Stratification'' Rowman & Littlefield, 1998
★ Michael Zweig; ''What's Class Got To Do With It?'' Cornell University Press, 2003
★ Christopher Beach; ''Class, Language, and American Film Comedy'' Cambridge University Press, 2002
★ Harold J. Bershady ed; ''Social Class and Democratic Leadership: Essays in Honor of E. Digby Baltzell'' 1989
★ Daniel Bertaux, and Paul Thompson; ''Pathways to Social Class: A Qualitative Approach to Social Mobility'' Clarendon Press, 1997
★ Barbara Ehrenreich. ''Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America'' (2002), author disguises herself as working class
★ David B. Grusky (Editor) ''Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective'' (2000)
★ Alan C. Kerckhoff; ''Socialization and Social Class'' 1972, textbook
★ Jim Lardner, James Lardner, David A. Smith, editors, ''Inequality Matters: The Growing Economic Divide In America And Its Poisonous Consequences'', WW Norton (January, 2006), hardcover, 224 pages, ISBN 1-56584-995-7
★ Erik Olin Wright. ''Classe'' (1997) - a detailed Marxian guide to define working class/middle class etc.
★ David Popenoe, ''Sociology'', (ninth edition, Prentice Hall, 1993 ISBN 0-13-819798-9 ) pb. pp. 232-236,
★ Wealth, Income, and Power - wealth distribution in the U.S. from a Power Structure Research perspective
★ Myth: Income mobility makes up for income inequality - analysis from Liberal point of view
★ Kalra, Paul (1996). ''The American Class System: Divide and Rule''. ISBN 0-96-471735-2.
External links
★ US Census Bureau's offical online income statistics forum
★ Income distribution and income by race, US Census Bureau 2005
★ Household income by educational attainment, US Census Bureau
★ Personal income in 2004, US Census Bureau
★ Median Family Income by Family Size (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars) from Census.gov
★ Median Family Income by Number of Earners in Family (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars) from Census.gov
★ Working Definitions ClassMatters.com
★ How Class Works, The New York Times
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
