Talk:Class in the contemporary United States

message: The current title of this article is "Class in the United States, circa 2004". I believe that a more appropriate title would be "Class in the Contemporary United States", since 2004 is about to be retro. Does anyone have the ability to rename this page? EventHorizon 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears I actually have the ability to do that myself. A more appropriate question: Will anyone mind if I move this page to "Class in the Contemporary United States"? EventHorizon 06:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to be bold and change the name. Kingturtle 02:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004? 

message: How can you talk about class in the U.S. without talking about race or gender? Please fix this. Kingturtle 02:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. --Dpr 03:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  race? gender? 

message: I'm sick of the flamewar, so I'm tempted not to respond at all. I reverted the changes of the past couple days because the signal-to-noise ratio was almost zero. Leave the fascist garbage at home. (And I use "fascist" neutrally because it accurately describes the perspective of the past two days' edits; of course "garbage" is value-laden.)
By the way, y'all know that when fascism was first introduced, it was often described as "corporatism"? Good.   EventHorizon  talk 19:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, fascism was not often descried as corporatism. Its economic dimension was described as corporatism, although this is not the same corporatism that leftists rail against these days. TDC 20:21, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
No, not the same corporatism. Then again, pretty much nothing (racism, fascism, socialism, democracy, capitalism) is a form now, in 2005, anything like what it was 70 years ago. The modern corporate ethos is not the same as 1930s fascism, but is the 21st century analogue.  EventHorizon  talk 04:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued discussion 

message: I mentioned this a few months ago, but no one has done anything about it. An article about class is wholely incomplete if it does not grapple with race and with gender. please fix this. Kingturtle 05:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think gender has much to do with social class. Most people will mary both will be considered to be on the same level. If a man if a man is the bread winner it don't mean the women is lower class. Seano1 08:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people will mary both will be considered to be on the same level.--do you mean that most people, after marrying, are considered to both be on the same social level?  Kingturtle's certainly right about race. Re. gender...its not as clear as Seano1 states; people of different social classes marry or couple and still retain behavioral/philosophical traits of their origins, giving rise to many effects. And we should analyze single individuals, namely single mothers, and their socio-economic position. --Dpr 03:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless we shouldn't ignore the fact that a) women's salaries on average are different (i.e. lower) than that of mens's, and b) single women, especially those with custody of children, often are in a much lower socio-economic status than men. --Dpr 04:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RACE and GENDER 

message: This article is already good enough. Why merge?
::Yes, this is a good article. However, much of the tone is speculative, or very much seems to represent an ongoing area of study and discussion. It seems to answer the question "what is the current state of the discussion and study of class in America?" instead of "in what way is class part of America?". So yes - it's both a good enough article unto itself to not be merged, and as well seems to represent a parallel, but distinct, topic to class in America. (anon Oct 2, 2005)(Finally created an account, so Dxco 20:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dxco, you seems to be right...this article is more on "perspectives and views on class in the US" instead of "class phenomena and structures in the US". --Dpr 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no need for two articles on almost the same topic. Merge. Rjensen 01:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: :The contemporary United States has no legally-recognized social classes. 
How many countries/jurisdictions do have legally-recognized social classes today? --Dpr 01:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is an inappropriate opening sentence.  It is often said that the U.S. doesn't have a class system the way the UK does, but I don't think that such statements usually specifically mean the absence of peerages (which have little legal consequence in modern Britain anyway).  The "British class system" (why is there no article on that BTW?) is studied mostly in relation to the middle class(es).  As to other countries, most have, like the U.S., no peers at all. Joestynes 18:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: De jure class=