Talk:Upper class

message: "The main distinguishing feature of the class is its ability to derive enormous incomes from wealth rather than work.[1][2][3] CEOs, Doctors, investment bankers, some Lawyers, heirs to fortunes, some Politicians, successful venture capitalists, Stockbrokers as well as celebrities, are considered members of this class by contemporary sociologists..."
I'm interested that the first sentence and the second sentence seem to be completely irreconcilable.  "CEO's, doctors, investment bankers, some lawyers.." and every single other item on that list (with the obvious exception of 'heirs to fortunes') are type of profession.  This completely contradicts the previous sentence's strange but sincere conviction that the upper class is defined by *not having a profession*.  Unless we've now decided that being a doctor of an investment banker does not imply that one performs any work, this is nonsense.  Alternatively if this fact can indeed be documented, I'd appreciate it if someone would do so as I know any number of very sleep deprived individuals who would be gratified to know that they their job does not require any work.  
Someone needs to put a little thought into a definitional scheme that makes some sense in context with the evidence, or else just expunge the possibly crypto-marxist intro altogether.  The only obvious logical possibility is to either say that upper class status is conferred only upon inherited wealth (in which case investment bankers as a profession, among others, would be excluded from the upper class definitionally) or to say that it can be the result of earned or inherited wealth.  If the latter, then obviously it implies that upper class status comes from wealth and it being earned or inherited is incidental...
blah blah blah.  Once could go on, but suffice it to say that the current article makes no sense and should be fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.191.1 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Contradictory Definition 

message: Anyone else feel that the presence of a picture of Ted Kennedy as an example of an "upper class" American is trying to push a point? Rather than a photo of a political figure, wouldn't we be better off a picture that gives an example of upper-class American wealth (say, in the Upper East Side of Manhattan or Beverly Hills, California) without targeting specific individuals? Andrew Levine 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tired posting a picture of a couple of mansions, but then editors said I should try and post a picture of an upper class person. First I used Donald Trump, but that was a too nuveau riche choice for some. Then I thought Astor, but we only have an old picture of John Jacob Astor from the 19th century. Finally I thought of the Kennedy's, undoubtely one of America's most prestigous families (old money, legacy and generations of prominent politicans). I am a Democrat but I am not agruing a political point with the Ted Kennedy picture-yes he is a congressment, but that only examplifies his position within American society. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted Kennedy 

message: In the UK you can pretty much tell what class a person belongs to as soon as they open their mouths.  David Beckham could have amassed a bigger fortune than Her Majesty the Queen by the time he reaches her age but he will still be as working class as the day he was born.  Accent and dress probably have far less significance in the States which is why there is confusion over Donald Trump.
Use of language is another area in which there are differences associated with class.  The working class go to the toilet - the middle and upper classes to the loo or the lavatory.  It really is as simple as that.  
Just in case you don't get the opportunity to listen to them the working class also wear clothing that help distinguish them from the higher classes - the ubiquitious shiny track-suit for example or brightly coloured 'trainers' (sports shoes).  The interesting thing about this is that for many of them this is all they ever wear when they are not at work - a working class uniform equivalent to the middle class off-duty garb of leather loafers and chinos. This is far too simplistic, and does not take account of the famous English "upper class" eccentricity. 
The significance of class is changing - the existence of class is not.  In the UK it is very difficult to move from working class to middle class and well nigh impossible to move from middle to upper. The class system in the UK has nothing to do with wealth or power and it has been impossible to move from the Middle Class into the Upper Class since the demise of ancestral estates and hereditary peerages.  Most of the British "upper class" have no real power and may or may not possess any wealth at all. However, members of the Upper Classes are still recognisable by their sentimental attachment to old-fashioned etiquette and manners that have little or no logic in today's world.
One aspect of this changing significance is that the higher classes are quite happy to mingle with members of the working class (or any other lower class) who are also members of the new class - the celebrity class! - disagreed.
Just a few thoughts, mainly from the UK perspective.  I hope this helps whoever is re-writing the article on this fascinating subject.
I'm from the UK and am actually shocked to see the article effectively adopting the usage of the term 'upper class' that the Americans use. I agree entirely with the text about UK usage that has been scored out with a note saying 'disagreed' - I certainly agree this is the correct UK usage. It is about being a member of the gentry or peerage. It is utterly irrelevant how rich you are unless you are a Lord, Lady, Sir, Dame, Viscount, or even feudal titles like Lord of the Manor, or a Feudal Earl or Baron in Scotland then you are not in the 'upper class'. Instead UK usage divides the middle class into middle class and 'upper middle class' - which includes the affluent and even the extremely rich. By UK usage Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg are not upper class. They may be rich, ultra high net worth, billionaires, elite etc - but that is not what in UK usage makes you Upper Class. If I become a multimillionaire I will not be upper class by UK usage. We really should alter this article to better reflect UK usage....don't know why the other commentator disagrees. Suspect it's an effect of overhearing too much US usage. As a UK listener I was extremely confused when reading 'The Meritocracy Trap' in which I was first jarringly exposed to American usage of the term. It took me quite some time to work out that they were using the word as if it meant 'upper middle class'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:CA3A:C200:C533:8CFE:29D0:1414 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accents, Language and Dress - Significance of Class 

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, the majority of whom have attained a graduate or professional degree from a prestigious university.[citation needed] "
I suspect you will not find a citation to support this assertion.  The recent book "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko makes a convincing case that most US millionaires do not have graduate or professional degrees from any university, much less a prestigious one.  They support their contention that most current millionaires earned their money by operating a small business. 
There are lots of other issues that could be raised here.  Why is one million dollars the cut off?  What about the hundreds of thousands of houses whose value has risen above one million dollars?  Does a retired school teacher in Silicon Valley whose two bedroom bungalo has risen in value from $20,000 to $1,000,000 really consitute a member of the upper class?
:The term upper class refers to those who have a lot of incluence, authority, and economic cloud. Class is a person's position and function within society. Prestige and income are indicators of high status and commonly a graduate degree is an indicator of an upper middle class whiter collar professional status. As for the upper class, their hallmark is that they're the grand conceptualizers. Upper middle class persons are experts, consultants and managers; upper class persons are the CEOs, board members, trustees, upper management or big time stckholders that bring the big picture into place. That said, a persons class is often told, by many individuals, by prestige which for most people translates into molah. Thus a sugreon who makes $300,000/year may be considered upper class, despite his function in society being of similar nature to that of a professor making $70,000/year. As for millionaires consider that there is a great difference between those who have 1 million in liquid assets (2.6% of households) and those who have it in net-worth (7% of households). Those who have it in liquid assets have much greater economic clout as they can move, invest and spend their money. Money in the form of net worth is frozen and therefore does not create any economic clout, except when you sell your home. I hope that answers some of your questions. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What gets people into the upper class. 

message: How are the upper class in France depicted? Angie Y. 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Unfortunately I do not know enough about French socio-economic stratificaion in order to go beyond the generic western-society theories. Signaturebrendel 17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Upper class in France

message: As I found it, the UK section appeared to have been written by someone under the impression that British society has not changed since Nancy Mitford wrote Noblesse Oblige, but that was over 50 years ago now. I have added an introductory paragraph setting out some core ideas on the status of the upper class, but the whole thing needs a lot more work. Dominictimms 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK section is out of date

message: To describe Alan Greenspan as a social scientist is, well, new to me. Anyone have a good citation for this? Is there another Alan G?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.73.77 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Greenspan

message: *The rootless world of the super-rich - interesting look at the contemporary lifestyle, which seems to be lacking in this article. II | (t - c) 02:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant articles? 

message: Class Hierarchy (All you ever need to know about the subject):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Class:
Defining Characteristic - Egalitarianism
Middle Class:
The marked differences between upper class and lower class are a continuum, therefore, there is no defining characteristic for the middle class except to say it would be somewhat of a blend between the two.
Lower Class:
Defining Characteristic - Pompousness
Note:
Class structure has historically been defined by wealth, however, in the current era of high wealth fluctuation and marked differences in personality traits it becomes apparent wealth is a poor indicator of class standing.
It should also be noted ones possessions do not indicate one as upper or lower class, as this is only defined by personality - egalitarian versus pompous. It should never be presumed ones class standing without the individual directly communicating either egalitarian or pompous sentiment through spoken or written language.
Boorish behavior - Usually correlated with the lower class, but not a defining characteristic of the lower class. Hence, one could be boorish and upper class.
Explanation - Boorish behavior is situational (could be written off as a medical condition, public flatulence or belching), pompous behavior is less situational and more indicative of the underlying personality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Brow vs. Low Brow - Neither would be used as a defining characteristic of the class hierarchy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Brow - Intellectually Stimulating
Low Brow - Intellectually Dampening / Unintellectual  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.220.76 (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to class hierarchy definitions to fit modern society 

message: The introductory paragraph suggests that Upper Class usually consists of 1-2% of Americans. It then goes on to say that on a "daily" basis the upper class will likely see their family names on streets, schools, colleges and even monuments. I find this to be a stretch. Not only is this a bit of an exaggeration as to what a person of the upper class may encounter but it implies that all members of the upper class have long lineages of successful people also of the upper class. I was raised in an upper class family but neither of my parents were and I've never seen anything named after my family.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.234.210.157 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph Contradiction 

message: "the upper class views itself ... as members of families that have been long distinguished ... by generations of leadership in public service, education, charity, the military, and the arts"
Two possibilities:
1) The above statement is a hilarious generalization that paints an absurd caricature of everyone in the upper class being throwbacks to Titanic---in which case, someone more knowledgeable than I should rewrite said statement, OR...
2) The above by is actually true, in which case, dear God man, we need a citation.
Accordingly, I have removed it.
Eunomiac (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alarming Percentage of "Nope" Detected In Intro Paragraph 

message: Persons who can afford 100$ per day can be considered upper class.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.55.56 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper Class 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Upper class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106144217/http://www.expandglobal.com/General_info/education_and_income.htm to http://www.expandglobal.com/General_info/education_and_income.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified