Talk:Social class in the United States/Archive 3

message: There haven't been any discussions on this talk page since November. I have therefore archive all discussions. Please note that the last couple of sections that consitute roughly a fith or quarter of the article still do not have references-which they need in order for this article to make it up to GA status. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: I have re-written the last few unreferenced section and nominated the article for GA status. Regards, Signaturebrendel 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: This section seems to come out of the blue...who advocates this idea?  Does anyone think the "withdrawal" scenario is plausible, or is advocating for it?  How would it be possible to withdraw from society, and yet still be part of the economy?  Or is this simply a rhetorical device to define a certain type of unfairness? The section also seems to confuse "assets" with "income".  The idea that everyone *should* have the same income also has its critics, on the grounds it destroys economic incentives.  See e.g. "Optimal level of inequality" at Income inequality metrics. -- Beland 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not plausable! It is a "a rhetorical device to define a certain type of" income inequality (not unfairness). I put in a statement that clearly states that the theory should not be used in attempting to determine fairness. No one is advocating the concept. It is an absteact theory meant to give you a guidelines which you can use to decide whose a have and whose not. Please don't take that section literally-it does not say that everyone should have the same income-I doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't! Again, It is merely a hypothetical abstract sczenario by which to determine whose a have and who isn't. Signaturebrendel 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the apparently misleading name "withdrawal theory" come from?  Does anyone other than Douglas Eichar call it that?  What about alternative views about how to define "haves" vs "have nots"? What about critics of the "have vs. have not" distinction? -- Beland 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately all other views of haves and have nots are even more subjective. All socioligists (there are quite a few as you can see in the reference) I know of endorse the have/have not principle (as people are well-off and others arn't). The name Withdrawl comes from the hypothetical scenario that "if workers were to withdraw from the economy with their per capita income share..." That's why withdrawal. As I added a new section and needed to trim this article, I removed the Withdrawal theory. Perhaps I'm going to put it in its own article-I'll see-I was aware when I added it that someday, someone would mis-read it ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawal theory 

message: This article only covers one aspect of "social structure" - wouldn't a better name be something like "Economic class in the United States"? -- Beland 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because there is at least one caste, illegal immigrants, who by law, have a distinctive legal status. Also, class involves factors other than economic status, while social structure involves factors other than class. If it didn't you wouldn't be able to tell a "swamp yankee" from a "cracker". Fred Bauder 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly covers occupation and educational attainment. Granted such class factors are somewhat economic, but class is a mainly socio-economic topic to beging with. I will soon add a section describing class-based sociolization, which will add a purely social perspective on the social structure. Overall this article does not put more emphazis on economics as do reputable textbooks on the subject such as Dennis Gilbert's The American Class System. The article is meant to reflect the manner in which textbooks view the nation's social-structure. At the bottom we have academic class systems lifted from the books almost work by word (in the case of Gilbert & Kahl I actually quoted their finidings). What aspects of social class arn't covered? Let me know if there is a prominent class factor mentioned in a popular college textbook that I have missed and I'll added ASAP. Signaturebrendel 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I think than we have different definitions of social structure. The article that includes things such as "structure of families; conventions of friendship; the work/home distinction" is Culture of the United States. I first though you were implying that this article is an incomplete discussion of America's class system ;-). But I now understand what you are saying and, yes, this article pertains to the social class system or social strata if you will. Personally I am not opposed to re-naming this article, "Socal class in the United States." There'll be a lot of re-directs but I would not be opposed to that change. Signaturebrendel 08:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll make the move and help fix the redirects. -- Beland 17:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved, and all the double redirects have been fixed. -- Beland 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, the only things that's left now is to fix the re-directs in articles that mention "social structure" instead of social class. Those will likely be fixed by other editors over time (and I'll change them when I come across one). I actually like this title as it is more likely to be searched for on the internet and a bit more direct. Signaturebrendel 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: I failed the article for now, just until the changes are completed and since it has exceeded its seven days. Let me know when all of the items are fixed, and I'll be happy to review it again before promoting it. Good job so far, but keep at it. --Nehrams2020 09:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your patience and continued assistance. I was quite unexpecately busy (as you have probably gotten from my posts) the last few days and have a project coming up next week. I will, however, check the above list of improvements once more and proof-read the article within the next week. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: In an environment in which first year associates at NY and Chicago and Los Angeles make $167,000 just for showing up the first day, the broad categories contained in this article are in deep need of revision.  CEOs and Politicians and second year associates at $200,000!
:Those persons are exceptions. This article talks about what is typical, not what is exceptional- 50% of CEOs make less than $140k. Signaturebrendel 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerical Adjustment Required 

message: I just wanted to say that whatever one's view of the subject, this appears to be an interesting and well written page.  I'm sure I will enjoy reading further.  Thanks for your work. --Kenneth M Burke 07:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for those kind words. Signaturebrendel 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Must be all those stuck up rich people. My family only makes $25,000 a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber555 (talk • contribs) 
:What is this supposed to mean? I probably should delete this comment but instead will use the opportunity to briefly mention the ambiguouity that sourrounds social class. As there are no offical or well defined class tresholds the concepts and perceptions persons have of class vary widely - especially when discussing the middle class. Thus it is understandable if some readers disagree with the current academic theories on the subject and "common" income figures identified by contemporary social scientists. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck its that high? 

message: Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment