Talk:Social class in the United States/Archive 1

message: Generally, I think the article is sound, but it overlooks some of the persistent difficulties facing anyone who wants to paint a comprehensive picture of America's class structure. I'm an historian, not a sociologist, but I'd like to have a go at it:
* The conundrums of race and ethnicity muddy the class issue but do not define it or render traditional categorizations irrelevant. Many middle- and upper-middle class blacks have a subculture of their own that may share characteristics of the mainstream white one but is not identical to it. On the whole, blacks and Hispanics, having lower incomes and less education than whites as a whole, make up a disproportionate number of the working classes and the poor, but by no means does "black" invariably equal "poor." Furthermore, since different ethnicities tend to gravitate towards different fields, working-class or poor blacks have less access to the already-dwindling pool of good, solid blue-collar jobs that may enable working-class people to live an essentially middle-class lifestyle. 
::Yes, but the definition of "Middle-class lifetsyle" is highly subjective. A recent Harvard study, for example, showed that those households in the middle of the income strata cannot actually afford the "Middle-class lifestyle." (Of course, some may argue that the majority of Americans is working class) Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ture there is overlap in tems of income. There are, however, two things to consider: a) Class is more than income b) Class requires generalization as it is a vegue conept and as you stated "it is generally true that professionals and the highly educated, whose lives focus around their work (vs. recreational activities and family, as is the case with working-class people and the working poor), earn substantially more money than blue-collar people". Signaturebrendel 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the median income for a lawyer is $95k a year according to the Departement of Labor. Also, professionals do have far higher job security. Its simple economicts: Scarcity creates value. There most likely more professionals with tenure that there are those fearing their jobs. Also, professional do not need to fear economic downturns as much as regular workers. Signaturebrendel 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No offense but that's quite a bit stereotyping. Many of the top 1.5% are highly educated (MBA, JD, etc...) Ture education may be of the highest value to the upper middle class, but is also important to the top 5% and top 1.5%. Consider that most households in the top 5% have college degrees are there often beucase there are two income eaners in the households. For example two economists: one making $85,000, the other making $75,000-togther that's $157k-voila-top 5%. Signaturebrendel 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wealth does accumulate in upper middle families. (1st gen inherits $50k, 2nd gen inherits $100k, etc... -this is often discussed when trying to tackle the issue of why the children from better-off households are more likely to succeed) True, however, upper middle class off-spring needs to work to maintain their status.  If UMC off-springs doen't keep act together it may result in a dramatic class drop. I also have a little anecdote-the son of one of our aquintances (an MBA financial analyst-UMC) hated studying, didn't go to college and is now blue collar for $16/hr. But you must also consider that the road from A to B is not the same lenght for everybody. For example, upper-middles may be able to support their kids so they don't have to work during college, they may also be able give their kids a down-payment on a house after they move out- making the lives of UMC off-spring quite a bit more comfortable than that of middle-middles and lower-middles. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complicating factors 

message: The traditional assumption of 20th century political theorists (particularly those examining the United States) has been that upper-class individuals will tend to be more conservative while lower-class individuals are more liberal. In this paradigm, conservatism would tend toward opposing greater social mobility and distribution of wealth, while liberalism would support an expanded welfare state. By the late 20th century and early 21st century, there is evidence that this correlation has reversed: upper-class individuals may be more likely to be liberal or leftist in their politics. There are several possible theories for this reversal:
* Wealthier people may be more cosmopolitan, and therefore exposed to more liberal, urban environments.
* Wealthier people tend to be more able to afford formal education, which correlates with liberal-to-left politics.
**Some allege that this is due to systemic bias within academia: repeated polls of university professors show that, even in traditionally "conservative" disciplines like economics, members of "left" parties ( Democrats,  Greens, etc.) outnumber members of "right" parties (Republicans, etc.) by anywhere between 3:1 and 25:1, depending on the discipline.
**Others attribute the correlation between education and liberal politics to a more global (as opposed to an ethnocentric) target of ethical concern among more cognitively advanced individuals (see: AQAL).
* Upper-middle class people have developed leftist tendencies out of a fear of "middle-class squeeze." 
* The increased political salience of "culture war" issues has given social conservatism a populist appeal among many working-class and lower-middle-class Americans.
This reversal is probably less statistically significant than some may think, because conservatives on average are better paid than liberals.  Also, there is evidence which shows that wealthy neighborhoods are more likely to vote conservatively than liberally. What may be evident, however, is the reality of the "limousine liberal," a grouping of extremely wealthy people who tend toward Left views, particularly, in the stereotype, among members of the Hollywood culture. Statistically, the reality seems to be a division among both the wealthy and the less wealthy. Portions of both groups are conservative, while portions are liberal. Many less-wealthy, and therefore less-educated, people are attracted to conservative politics because of their traditional cultural and social attitudes, while other less-wealthy and less-educated individuals are attracted to liberalism in the hope to achieving greater social equality. Among the more wealthy, some associate education and open-mindedness with the welfare state and social justice programs espoused by liberal political movements, while others among the wealthy tend to hold to a more traditionalist viewpoint, some in the attempt (consciously or unconsciously) to retain their high socio-economic position; the latter view paradigm of the attitudes of the wealthy is particularly stereotypical. Some correlations also exist in various wings of religious affiliations, either replacing class as a primary factor, or in addition to class.
:There are valid insights here which could doubtless be sourced, but as it stands it is no good. I do think we could support the not surprising revelation that upper class people are generally well-educated and sophisticated, which is what it boils down to. Fred Bauder 03:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class and political leaning 

message: I can't tell what approach is being used. It seems  more like a political piece, I guess. Maybe the name should be changed. The name makes it sound like a formal academic topic in sociology. ABSmyth 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a mishmash combination of two articles which were "merged". Both made sense by themselves. Fred Bauder 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Social class generally falls under the great umbrella of the social sciences. Several factors including income, wealth, educational attainment, and occupation determine class. The issue is indeed so complex that it consists of several social sciences such as sociology, economics, and, also, political science. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article about sociology or cultural anthropology or what? 

message: On August 29th I started a re-write that led to more than 75% of the article being re-written in late August and early September. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note