Talk:Upper class/Archive 1

message: There is some question about the statement that income alone may be enough to get someone into the upper class in the United States; this statement should be finessed to acknowledge, for instance, that many of those in that "class" would deny being in it, &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Income debate

message: The image at the top of the article, :Image:DSC07308.JPG, was recently removed and re-instated by other editors (re-instated by the photo's author I see). I have to say I wasn't sorry to see the picture go - it looks like a shanty town. There is one large house visible, surrounded by what looks like factory sheds. Loads of trees, and not a single swimming pool or tennis court in site. Who says that this area belongs to the upper class? Could we find a better picture please? -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are multi-million dollar homes (we're talking $5,000k+), look at the picture again! This is the most expensive neighborhood in the state of Hawai'i. Those factory sehds are single family homes with ocean front view, every roof is one single home, please also there is more than one large home distinctly visible, follow down the cul-de-sac and look at the houses closely. I have many other pictures but this the neighborhood in the Hawai'i image is not a shanty town. Perhaps this image :Image:DSC073082-graphic.jpg will help. If you're still not convinced that the neighborhood in the picture comes across as upper class, then I'll gladly add another one, just take another look at this picture please. Signaturebrendel 18:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken out all three pictures. They all represented an American conception that wealth and class are the same thing, and that made the U.S. centrism of the article even worse than it is in the text. This article is better off without pictures imo. Chicheley 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Beg to Differ! Don't take the pictures out, add new one's from other parts of the world. Only having American pictures is still better than not having any pictures at all. A Rolls-Royce is in the US and Germany commonly seen as a sign of great wealth, if it is vulgar in Great Britan, well than add that to the text somewhere. But this is bordering vandalism. Yes in the US wealth is the most commonly used measurement (In other countries such as Germany as well) for class and as we also serve an American audience the pictures are relevant. FWI: I'm pretty sure the average Englishman also thinks of wealth when he hears the term upper class. Please consider that we have a section called "Outside the United States," here you can address the difference in the perception of class between the US and other countires such as the UK. Signaturebrendel 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Lower upper class yes. The Nouveau riche are part of the upper class, the lower upper class. Of course you raise one good question are the poictures US-centric. They most likely are as in the US money alone can make you upper-class vs. many other socities (i.e. the UK). Anyways we noe have the Donald, and I;m going to add some pics of golfers in Pebble Beach. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Carroll upper-middle-class Lower upper class? (edit: Sorry I mis-read you said Lower upper class - a term I've never heard of, but the point remains). I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Trump is fair enough for a US example I suppose, but the caption needs a tweek. Add pictures of golfers and I will remove them, because anyone , drug dealers and rap-artists for example, can be a member of an exclusive golf club if they grease the right palms. The Trump article doesn't go into enough detail about his background for me to make a judgement about whether he would be considered upper-middle class  or whatever in Britain. Jooler 14:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carrol might not be upper class in the UK and I understand that, but in the US he would. Please take a look at the Weberian class system you will see that Max Weber distinctly indentified a lower upper class and a upper upper class. Unless you think Max Weber is also "ridiculous." What is wrong with golfers in Pebble Beach, that's a typical upper class activity. What pictures do you suggest, the Queen? Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply having money does not equate with class on either side of the Atlantic. Your contetion that Michael Carroll would be considered upper class is betyond a joke. He is a Chav. Do you think Britney spears is upper class? - No I do not suggest a picture of The Queen but how about The Duke of Westminster or Jodie Kidd or Tara Palmer-Tomkinson or Jemima Goldsmith or Zac Goldsmith or John Jacob Astor IV or J. Paul Getty or Howard Hughes etc. Jooler 05:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is Britney Spears, upper middle class alongside lawyers, doctors and architects. Hardly, if money doesn't count Ms. Spears would be a prole. But as money can get you into the lower upper class, please see Max Weber and the Weberian system for more on this, she is lower upper class. But, you're right she certainly doesn't have class and I wouldn't use her as an example. BTW: Donald Trump does fit the category, he is a Harvard grad, his father was a powerful member of the community who was a real estate developer as well. Trump is sometimes referred to as the prince of New York due to his powerful inlfuence over the city. If he does fit the criteria on both sides of the Altantic= Family Background + Ivy league education + Wealth + influence in the community + prestige. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this side of the Atlantic, Britney Spears is a prole, and the fact that she has a lot of money doesn't change this.  Which is why a one-size-fits-all article doesn't seem appropriate.  Kudos to whoever has split out the US and the UK, albeit in reverse alphabetical order. Matthew 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, quite frankly I tend to confuse the two, Werner/Weber ;-). The lower upper class is used in class model you can download at www.socialclass.org, the model is from an authoritive source. Since you're far more familiar with the topic than I, why don't you do the rewrite of the article. Also, what about Paul Fussel, he had quite a different class sytem than all others, and the most recent 1983? (I know he only focused on the US) In his book for example he uses "top-out-of-sigt class for the top such as Trump, etc... Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, Zzuuzz, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the topic! That's just what those articles need - a discussion of the concept based on thorough research of the works where they were presented. Perhaps if the concepts itselves are not consistent accross authors and some of them are outdated, it would be more appropriate to merge them into a single article discussing social class concepts over the years and authors. Then when some concepts' discussion will outgrow the capacities of an article section, they could be separated into articles, like "Weber's social class concepts" or whatever. Excuse my ignorance on the topic, but I guess this is too important and controversial to just be left alone - please consider devoting more of your time to improving the coverage of this topics on Wikipedia. Bravada, talk - 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There actually is an article for that as well, Social class. Ah, the controversial topics, they can be fun can't they ;-) Signaturebrendel 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Drug adictions aside the Kennedy's are very iconic of America's upper class- just look at the number of Senators and Congreemen in the family. Of course we can always keep looking for another prominent upper class family. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as images that are suitable for this page go, may I suggest this link:   http://www.staleywise.com/collection/aarons/aarons.html - Someone might even ask the gallery concerned to grant access to the photographs featured, otherwise it might be best to just link to the page. Regards, --Guccipuppy1986 07:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: These images might give some insight into the kind of people that should, in my opinion, be featured under this title. Where are the Babe Paleys, the Peggy Guggenheims, the Hearsts, Astors, Vanderbilts et al. ?
Could we delete the bill clinton picture please (too obviously put there by an american)? there is no need for pictures - you could provide any amount of billionaires or political leaders but the articles wouldn't be improved, if people need example so much then they can create a list of billionaires page. I don't know how to rewrite it but the article, in my opinion, should be on the World followed by individual examples in the UK and US. 124.187.203.144 02:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I've tried to repair what I see as some damage that has been done to this article since I first read it a while back, but it is still awful. It lacks balance, historical awareness and comparison with related concepts. References are missing and some of the citation requests made seemed pretty pointless. Overall it's just a vague set of impressions without intellectual rigour. But I can't rewrite it myself because I'm no expert either. Chicheley 16:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, which section is the worst? CPlease note that the perception of class it self is somewhat vague and differs greatly among not only persons but also experts in the field. While I too find the article a bit confusing in many parts I have doubts how well defined an article could be. You are right, however, this article does need more citations and references. Aslo before using terms such as WASP consider that the common usage of the term Anglo-Saxon in the US is antrhopologically incorrect. Anglo-Saxon only describes persons who are descendened from the Saxons that invaded the British island (see Saxons for history of the great European migration). The term does not include the Irish, Scottish, or Germans, including Germans of saxon ancestry. Consider that the Kennedy's, who are without doubt iconic of the American upper class are Irish, and thereby not Anglo-Saxon and Catholic. So they'd actually be WCC (White celtic catholics). Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This article needs an urgent rewrite, in my opinion, because it omits some very important points. 
What about Class History? Since Roman times and even long before -I'm sketchy on the details-, the plebians and the patricians have existed and grappled with their stations in life, the evolution of this structure in contemporary society should be investigated. 
Why did people initially differentiate in this way? What makes us humans want to set ourselves above another?
There should be a clear concise definition of "Upper Class" before the new article is even started. 
Also, I don't think it wise to structure the article around Regions, maybe have a section titled "Different perceptions around the world" or somesuch thing. -btw. the Dominican Republic's social hierarchy is of little relevance in this article-
I suggest following the Idea of Upper Class through the ages, so that one may view it in HISTORICAL CONTEXT. This approach would curb personal ideologies before they run rampant, let the reader reach his/her own conclusions and make for far better reading than the present drama. 
The current article presumes to tell the reader what to think, it gives the impression that what is on the page is a fact when in reality it is 1) A highly subjective article 2) A subjective topic which has not been approached with the neccessary finesse.
These are the kind of things, along with the legion of others I'm forgetting, that will make this article interesting, informative and valuable to a reader.Guccipuppy1986 08:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete rewrite request

message: While the article still requires a complete rewrite, I agree with the person who removed the images. I know of a few people who own villas and luxury cars, but the articles on them aren't illustrated with either, but with pictures of themselves. I guess this article should be illustrated with PEOPLE of upper class. These can be images of people off upper class doing various things considered "approporate" or "typical" for upper class, including e.g. driving (or bering driven in) luxurious automobiles (or carriages), or perhaps attending or hosting a party in a posh home. But I believe to have the only pictures in the article portray remotely related issues is a bit inappropriate. Bravada, talk - 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me- There are no upper-class sociologists? Ture most are upper middle class but there are at least a couple in the upper class. Don't mistake a class discussion for snobbery. FYI: Disdain for class discussion is actually very middle-middle class. Uppers are usually comfortable with the issue of class because they know their place (Paul Fussel). Signaturebrendel 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "<I>FYI: Disdain for class discussion is actually very middle-middle class. Uppers are usually comfortable with the issue of class because they know their place (Paul Fussel)</I>" That's circular reasoning. It assumes that the reason someone has a disdain for class discussion is because of their own class; it's unlikely that many intellectuals outside of the field of sociology would have a disdain for the subject because of their own class, assuming it is an emotional disdain because the subject has not been brought to them before. By assuming this is the reason, you allow yourself to reason in circles subjectively, trapping yourself in delusion; if a person denies that their disdain is a class issue, you can claim they are middle class (which brings obvious connotations of "inferior") and the only way to get into your club of self-assurance is to become accepting of your own issue. I have edited a few things in response to this utter subjectivity. If you are going to attempt to measure an individual's class then you need to abandon this archaic, aristocratic measurement when viewing how the United States functions. Maybe if this were 18th century Britain the article would be accurate, but it is ridiculous to say that Bill Gates is not upper class in comparison to Donald Trump or you have really not seen the potential of Gates. His purchasing power and global influence is enormous compared to Trump, which is petty in comparison. Trump is more aristocratic in the sense that yes, he was born into it, but the article seems notoriously POV in the sense that it maintains this ideal. Many successful politicians in the U.S., whom are too numerous to name, have come from families that were ambitious yet did not fall into that position simply by being born into it. Some quick research on the Eugenics debate shows that many Asian Americans, as well as other minorities, many of whom were not born into any sort of "nobility", make up a significant percentage of Harvard's student body, especially recently due to Affirmative Action and families who make under a certain income. If we judge class by the the criteria of income, net worth, and education, eliminating some ridiculously subjective notion of "prestige", then, yes, it is entirely possible for one to attain an "upper class" status in the United States. I am entirely ignorant as to how the UK or France function in this regard but as far as the U.S. is concerned it is almost nihilistic to think otherwise. 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, but how can you tell an upper class person from a person of a different class. See, in the California where I life upper class people have a tendency to yes, live in a posh home, but run around in T-shirts and jeans, so... (they're expensive T-shirts and jeans alright, but you try and tell the difference ;-)) I guess I can look for a picture of a gathering. I do get your point though and its good one, I just beleive that we the pictures we currently have are better than none. We do need to consider esthetics, they give integrity to the article. I think the Rolls is appropriate, it is one of the most commonly used items in the media to display high social status. Perhaps, you have some pictures of more "traditional" upper class people and they let you post them here, that would be great- until then I do what I dread, use celebrity pictures (I eventually will shot some free images myself. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was also desperately seeking in the commons for some depictions of 18th and 19th century upper class, like court ladies, some high society during a social function or even an early 20th century automobile rally (a sport for the upper class definitely at that time). This should bring a more inter-temporal perspective to the article. I was also wondering whether the "upper class" term is applicable for earlier periods, as well as societies such as Japanese, Chinese or even perhaps the Aztek Empire? Bravada, talk - 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it could, but there is also an article called the Ruling class. But adding Japanese and other cultures would defenitely enhance this article. But good idea, some more historic pictures... Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "Overall the American upper class is mostly comprised of individuals residing in households with net worths over one million dollars, who constitute roughly 3% of the population, and most commonly hold a graduate degree, PhD, or professionals degree from a prestigious university."
This sentence seems to be confusing upper middle class with upper class. Professionals, e.g. lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. (unless they are exceptional or otherwise originally well endowed) clearly fall into the definition of "upper middle class". "Intellecutals" are not "upper class". They can be very poor, relatively speaking. The starting salary for a liberal arts PhD is around $50000. The defining criterion in education is the prestige of the institution, not the level of degree received.
I also question the notion that "households with net worths over one million dollars" would be in the upper class. This just isnt true anymore. If this were so, then most established professionals (e.g. doctors) would qualify too.
"According to CNN Money, however, 8.2 million housholds in the US alone had a net worth exceeding one million dollars. Millionaire households thus constituted roughly seven percent of all American households. The study also found that half of all millionaire households in the US were headed by retirees. Another finding was a record "33 percent increase over the 6.2 million households that met that criteria in 2003," fueled largely by the country's real estate boom." (as cited at Millionaire) --Jiang 08:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right 7% of households have a net worth of 1mil, but the upper class constitutes not near 7% of the population. So, no only a small fraction of millionaire households are actually upper class. In regards to the degrees, please consider that most politicans and corperate head honchos have graduate degrees. (Before you get to run your father's hedge fund, you might want to have an MBA). Donald Trump has a graduate degree. As stated correctly in this article the upper class is connected to the Ivy League. Another good example is the skull and bones club, all whose members are upper class and all of whom are Yale graduates. (G. W. Bush, J. Kerry, etc...) Rergards, Signaturebrendel 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Given the prevalence of millionaires, I think it is ridiculous to assume that all millionaires (let alone all millionaire households) are upper class." - I Agree, most millionaire households are retired upper middle class. "JDs and MBAs are certainly prevalent"' - Again, yes. This is worth mentioning as the attendence of Ivy League universities is iconic of the upper class. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right the, "more definitional character" would help this article greatly, unfortunately the perception of class changes from person to person. If you find some authorative sources on the issue please go ahead. I'm currently working on other projects, but am going to look for sources myself. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic degrees 

message: An interesting issue to do with the class system is the fact that the US has a very different definition from just about everywhere else.  An argument above speaks of how much money is needed to "attain upper class status" in the US.  Seeing as attaining class status through sheer amount of cash is a completely alien idea in most other countries (it's about as silly as claiming you can change sex or height just through amounts of money), should all references to doing this be pulled out of the main section and banished to a US-only section?
Furthermore, the idea that class in the US is solely money-based is common but not necessarily accurate; If this were the sole requirement of being upper class, wouldn't upper class be just another term for rich?  The idea of "class" would be redundant.  Is 50 Cent upper class?  In Europe he'd be considered not even middle but lower class, despite his great personal wealth.  I am of the opinion that the US does have an upper class, albeit a silent one.  The New-England historically rich families.  They are the upper class of the US... the problem being that they are so removed from the rest of American society that most Americans are unaware of them and their different culture.--Zoso Jade 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Class in the US is a very vague concept, sometimes the word class here is just used instead of wealth. In the eyes of some Americans the term upper class is just another term for rich. In the US class is usually defined as a combination of occupation, educational attainment and income. As to the actual upper class, yes in contrast to popular opinion there indeed is an upper class in the US and not just in New England. Today's ancestors of the industrial tycoons, espcially the Big 7 who pretty much ruled California at the time of the frontier are also upper class. The Hearst family for example. Signaturebrendel 17:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separating America?

message: There is nothing on Google about any Jennifer or Stephany Sanchez, and barely anything about any Sanchez family at all. I may be wrong, but it sounds like someone is just talking about themself. Unless she can come up with references about this Dominican Republic "royalty", it does not belong here. But of course lets discuss it here, instead of just reverting and deleting. Thanks! 67.164.64.40 02:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanchez family

message: it seems as though the american upper class is different than a lot of other countries-should the article be split? --Colorfulharp233 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually, yes a split is a good idea. I recently did something similar with the middle class. I created the article American middle class pretty much from scratch and turned the US section on the middle class article into an intro leading to the actual American middle class article. If you have enough info on the American upper class you can go ahead and start an American upper class article and use the US section here as an intro lead into that article. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: separating articles?

message: The sentence: "that those with a high net worth (as opposed to just having a high income) most often come from poor and middle class backgrounds." is somewhat misleading. 7% of Americans have net worths exceeding 1 million and 16% have incomes exceeding $100k-these are more priveleged members of the middle class. There are two basic faults in the introduction of this article: a) Many high net worth individuals are still middle class b) it is not taken into a account that the middle class (if defined as constituting the middle of the income range) is an economically highly fragmented group including those making $40k/year and those making $120k/year and thus cannot be refered to as one homogenous group. The references to middle class are to vague-it might easily be possible for a middle class persons to rise into the upper-class if he or she was born into a household at the upper edge of the middle class-different for someone at the middle of the middle class. I propose the following:
*Only discuss the term millionaire here from a historical perspective or mention the current state of affairs and
*Use more precise termonology than just stating middle class (perhaps say those with income within 20% of the median)
Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove millionaire discussion