Talk:American upper class

message: This article is still under contruction and wihtin a short amount of time will grow to a justified lenght. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not finished

message: The Wall Street Journal has a new article titled, The New Rules for the Rich. It details how the rules of dress and behavior for the wealthy have changed over time. There is also a WSJ blog post on the same topic. Here is a quote from the article:
:"Yet today, the rules for high society are breaking down. There are simply so many new millionaires and billionaires -- from diverse backgrounds and lifestyles -- that the old signifiers of status have become obsolete. The guy in jeans at the Sotheby's auction is more likely to buy a $40 million Picasso than the guy in the suit, who is probably just an art dealer. And the vast majority of today's richest Americans didn't go to Ivy League schools; others, like Bill Gates, even dropped out. As for Veblen's "breeding" and "manners?" One look at the all-you-can-eat Sunday brunch buffet at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach will tell you that manners no longer maketh the rich man (or woman)."
--JHP 23:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find. The article makes a very sharp observation. Our society today is much freer (to some extent this can be attributed to the 60s - most of the rich are baby boomers or the children of b-bomrs.) than it was decades ago. The rich dress and behave depending more on their individual moods and tastes rather than social norms. This is not just the case w/ the rich - even in academia and the upper middle class dress and taste rules have become more and more relaxed. Today, a professor, therapist, physican or scientists who wears tie probably does so becuase he/she likes it, not because it's the "thing to do." Anyways, I'll try and incorporate into the article over the next couple of days. (I'm budy in real life and am going to be for the next couple of weeks so it may take some time). Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The New Rules for the Rich

message: Why does this article not deal with the fact of old money family. The United States has families of the upper class that pre-date 1776. It has always been know that are 18th century and early 19th century families who have or had a vast about of money are old money. The Astors and Hilton were considered the new rich. I think the author needs to do more research. Even though the USA allows people with millions of dollars to place thenselves into the Upper class, it should not be forgotten that those who made money in the later half of the 19th century are still new money. 
--Margrave1206 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article clearly puts in the first sentance: 'The American upper class is a social group within the United States consisting of people who have the highest social rank, primarily due to the use of their wealth to achieve social status', i.e. those families who have a member in the political establishment by using money to get there, which means capitalist class anyway. 'Old money' (those who's ancestors were once rich) do not apply. As far as I know, USA does not have (and can't have) any formally established class system which would contradict the democratic principles. So, talking about anything like "upper class' in the US, we automatically refer to social psychology and lifestyle more than anything else. Otherwise, it is silly to bring about social stratification in a country where every citizen is 'equal' by Constitution! There's nothing like hereditary upper class in America. American society is all about money: when it's gone, the social status gets to the middle-class automatically, in my opinion. --OlKob (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Money

message: Capitalist Class is currently a redirect to this article, which seems odd because this article deals with only one, regional, instance of capitalist class. There's nothing in this article to suggest that the American capitalist class is particularly representative or dominant over the class as a whole. I'm not sure what would be a better article for this to redirect to, but the current redirect makes little sense and would probably be just as well removed. djr13 (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalist Class redirect 

message: I've just fully protected this article for three days due to the edit warring. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Though Wikipedia is not perfect, I'm sure all of us here strive to make it as close to a comprehensive, formal encyclopedia as possible. It has come to my attention (multiple times) that the "Charts Comparing Class Structure in the United States between 1984 and 2014" needs considerable improvement and/or removal altogether due to a variety of issues that damage the viability of the page in itself. So, let's start with the basics - believe it or not, the chart needs elementary copy editing. Words like uber, hundred, and possessions are all misspelled, not to mention the grammar issues prevalent throughout. I'm sure we all learned in secondary school that all titles and subtitles, for charts or otherwise, must be capitalized correctly and consistently. In this case, 'comparing', 'class', and 'structure' are all in dire need of correction. I could continue on and on about the writing convention issues that need modification.
But these issues are just the tip of the iceberg. Without trying to sound overly disagreeable, let me just point out that the entire graph is in need of restructuring. I accept that some depict four classes of the U.S. economic spectrum, but in Macroeconomics, no one ever hears about "Wealthy Classes", "Homeowner Classes", or "Lower Classes". I was always taught from the basis of the "Upper Class", "Middle Class", "Working Class", and "Underclass". The graph also displays inconsistencies; for example, a member of the Upper Middle Class could have multiple property investments, someone with 600,000+ Annual Household Taxable Income could be from a public college, and a member of what the graph calls "Upper Lower Class" might not be a car owner. In addition, the graph notes that the "rich" have no annual household taxable income and no education, yet have a net worth of over USD $1.5 million. From this perspective these charts seem to have been created either by a fourth grader, or a highly disgruntled worker. Besides, since when do the Working Poor have economic insecurity, risk of poverty, and haven't graduated high school? While likely true in some, if not many, respects, that is prejudice against the less fortunate. Wikipedia is a place for information, not uneducated bias.
Finally, I'd like to ask where all these numbers and "statistics" come from. If you remember Economics 101 from college, you may recall that the Upper Class is usually considered the top 1 or 2 percent of households in the country by income. Depending on the study, this can be anywhere from USD $300,000-500,000. The numbers used in the chart make not the least bit of sense, overlapping at some points as well. In fact, it also comes to my attention that the range for Upper Middle Class incomes is more than ten times the range of the Middle Class incomes. Quite simply, that's nonsense.
While all of the editors here appreciate everyone's constructive edits here, the easiest way to fix this chart would be to delete it. I will do so if we are all in consensus. 
EmperorNapoléonI (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Social Class and Income" chart - deletion or modification please 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American upper class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915194622/http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The introduction as currently constituted is poorly written due to the redundancy of mentioning how the upper class is the top on or two percent of all family incomes in America.  This is repeated redundantly with nearly the same wording, whereas if the point is so necessarily as to bear that much repetition, there must be a better way of wording it.  2600:1004:B1A9:3D65:29BC:5C82:4A3E:86CC (talk) 2600:1004:B1A9:3D65:29BC:5C82:4A3E:86CC (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Someone should link the Wikipedia article “Davis–Moore hypothesis” which is relevant to the “Theories regarding social class” section. I don’t yet know how. =avallone (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also addition 

message: While it's true that mainline Protestants were disproportionately of a higher socioeconomic status 100 years ago, I'm skeptical if this is still the case. What are the sources supporting this? Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion?