Note[edit]

On August 29^th. of 2006, I started a re-write of the article. By early September, 75%-80% of the article was re-written. Discussion points on or before the 29^th. of August are found in the first Archive. Thank you, Signature ^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farmworkers[edit]

Since when are farmworkers a social class. Occupation is one of the defining features of class but I have never read or heard about farmworkers being a social class by themselves. Could anyone provide a reference for this, otherwise I'll delete it. Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since peasants became a part of society. Fred Bauder 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes pesants were a social class, but modern farmworkers arn't. Then we should say pesants not farmworkers. Signature ^brendel 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say modern farmworkers are not a social class. What authority is there for such a position? Fred Bauder 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The authors who include them under the label of blue-collar working class. Besides justification is not needed to remove unsourced material. Justification is needed to keep or add material on this page. So, the qeustion is what authority is there to back up presenting farm workers as their own social class.Signature ^brendel 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Please everyone, provide sources. All paragraph should have a citation-this is a controversial subject matter and guessing from statements such as "The working class constitutes 70% of the American population," extremely prone to POV pushing. This article is not an outlet for your or my view on class-we need to list all the ideologies mentioned in reputable sources so please don't forget citations. Thanks everyone. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there are three sections left with no refs. I have added the reference tags so users are aware that it is just those parts that arn't references; thus reassuring them that the first several sections are good places for research. I'll see when I get around to writing about the Middle class squeeze again. Also, do we need a section for that here. I already wrote about it on my article about the American middle class. Nonetheless I'm going to re-write it with sources when I find the energy. Just to keep you posted ;-) Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested sources[edit]

What's (Not) the Matter With the Middle Class?, The American Prospect

A questionable statement[edit]

"Yet another interesting parallel between the industrial economy and the modern economy is that working class employes, unlike professionals, are not paid to think but rather complete tasks assigned by a more educated manager with a better understanding of the tasks at hand and their complexities."

I was once an electronics technician. I don't recall ever having a supervisor who understood the work I was doing. Their job was customer relations and making sure all the work got done in a timely manner. Organizational work. Fred Bauder 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what-that sentence was completely misleading. You mis-read it and they way I phrased that sentence I don't blame you. I replaced it-Sorry. Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for GA?[edit]

Hi, I am considering to nominate this article for GA. In order to do this I will need to remove uncited info; thus I will re-write the middle class squeeze section. My problem is the agriculture section; no sources are cited and the section either needs to go or be referenced for this article to gain GA status. (Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh) I will try and do some research but am pretty busy in real life. So, would the author of this section please add citations (we just need one)- Thx in advance. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions as to improvments we should add before going to nominate this article for GA status. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 07:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Rjensen re-wrote the agriculture section with references, so that problem is fixed. I'll do the re-write of the "middle class squeeze section" in the next two days. The only section still lacking refs is the "Class acedency section" (I forgot to mention this one above). Regards, Signature ^brendel 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate: education and "upper" middle class[edit]

Trensetters? The UMC in general or just the highly educated?[edit]

"no -- lots of people have masters degrees -- it's education that makes them trend setters" - Ture. But wouldn't you say that trend-setting is part of being influencial. In other words being a trend-setter results in high honor which results in higher class (Douglas M. Eicher). In other words its their education that causes them to be trendsetter (as you said) and it is both their education and their role of being trend-setter which gains them higher social status, with few exceptions. You see what I mean? BTW: Less than 10% of Americans over the age of 25 have graduate degrees (1.4% have Ph.Ds), so its quite a select group. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points! I was thinking for example of 3.8 million teachers with BA or MA degrees out there in K12 world. They make $45,ooo a year.[1] Add in lots of low-pay religion ministers. Dare I mention 1.6 million college profs?--they earn average $52,000 [2] Calling them well educated is true; calling them UPPER middle class on a $45ooo to 50,ooo salary seems to be a real stretch. The point is what makes you a trend-setter? I think it's the education, not the income or job power that does the trick. So where does the "upper" come from--that is the issue. Rjensen 07:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well here are two intersting statistics on income and educational attainment by the Census Bureau: [3] (Page 2) and [4]. Here the median personal incomes according to educational attainment with Masters degree holding men, emplyed full-time having a median income of $61k, compared to the overall median income for fullt-time employed men of $33k [5]. Many college profs are UMC becuase they do have influence and certain amounts of "Social honor" as well as life chances. Besdies, many college profs get married, $52 X 2 = $104k. Meaning that throught he marriage of a professional equal most college educators join the ranks of the top 16%. So I'd say, $52 as a personal salary is quite a bit above the average and can be seen as a UMC salary (the median for a full-time emoplyed American males is $33k.) One must also consider all the profs who work part time. But I think class is more than income, its the nature of once occupation, the social honor as well as influence that are the "tell-tell signs" of class. All three are true for the vast majority of graduate degree holders. I'd say most full-time college profs are UMC and so are many ministers. Besdies there is also the concept of life-chances, even a part-time assitant prof, can move into a better occupation quicker that someone without that background. I'd say they are UMC through influence (which shows in them being trendsetters), occupation, social honor and income as the majority of graduate degree holders have household incomes of more than $80,000. (Consider that the median income for a male with a PhD employed full-time ($73k) is higher than the median income for two-income households, which is $65k. So, if one person by themselves can outearn most of America's two-income household (Or can comes close to it, for people with Master's) they are in a way UMC. Let me know what you think. Best Regardsm Signature ^brendel 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "upper"?? If the middle class is 50%, upper middle class should be maybe 10% of the population?? The problem of course is that $$, honor, status, and education are all jumbled together here. We can measure $$ and education, but we do not do a very good job of measuring honor. That makes for messy data analysis. If you add in the part time adjuncts (like myself) the pay of college teachers is MUCH lower than $52,000. Say $20,ooo. Not to mention rather lower status ratings on campus. Then add in the TA's and grad students who have very high education levels, but very low pay and low status. They are adults in their late 20s and count in the social structure too--but where? Their "future" prospects used to be OK but no longer....I note the Yale English department is placing only a third of its PhD.s and they are angry and trying to unionize with the Auto Workers Union. Signs of low status? :) Rjensen 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is not clear answer. Professionals including most full-time profs are UMC according to most publications on the subject. Most holders of graduate degrees also qualify financially. The thing is that there is no percentage cut-off. But with a median household income exceeding $80,000, and a personal median income exceeding $60,000, most persons who are educated to the graduate level are clearly above the median or average. Consider that most PhDs do outearn the vast majority of two-income households by themselves. So that is clearly not middle-middle. I'd say whether or not a college prof is really UMC depends on the closer ciscumstances. Most full-time associate and some assistant profs at 4-year institutes are, however, UMC. Life chances do depend on majory, see this study for economists: [6]. Most graduate degree holders do make twice as much as the average (median) American, so they can't be average joes ;-) Consdider the stats once more. The median personal income for fullt-time employed male, age 25+: $33k overall, $61k w/ Masters, $73k w/ PhD, $88k with Professionals degree. For households: $45k overall median, $78k w/ Masters, $96k w/ docotrate, $100k w/ professionals degree. So where are the graduate degree holders on average if not in the UMC? And in issues regarding to something so subjective as the American social structure I think we have no other choice then to make generalizations based on "The Majority" of a given group. Did that make things clearer or more complicated ;-) Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problemn is that we cannot neglect the 4-10 year training period at low wage, low-prestige positions. Many of these folks drop out before getting their advanced degree. Others are unemployed--it's notoriously bad in many fields and has been for decades. So let's average them in. "full time emplyed" data is nice but lots (one third maybe??) are not full-time employed. Rjensen 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ture, ture. But I made an error in presenting those stats. So, here they are correctly presented:

Median for full-time employed males 25+ only:..............$33,000[7]
Median for all holders of Masters degrees:..........$61,000 ($78,000 median household income)[8]
Median for all holders of DonctoratesPhDs:......................$73,000 ($96,000 median household income)[9]
Median for all holders of Professional degrees:......$88,000 ($100,000 median household income)[10]

I'm sorry for the mistake above. That said, most holders of graduate degrees qualify as UMC. As for the training period, Ehrenreich, my personal favorite, called them "An internal underclass of the professional middle class." Their life-chances are higher than that of those not undergoing the same training and their educational attainment even during training is higher. They are often UMCs in training. It also depends on birth; some have to work at Starbucks and live in a crappy apartement while getting their degree, while others live in upscale condos and tons of leisure time. Both are certainly different socio-economic positions. They are however often all trend-setters. So that's hard one... The unemplyed are a minority depending on major. For economics majors it was 2.1% for example. Certainly the unemplyed and drop-outs do not have "social honor" nor do they posses UMC income/prestige. Again I'm sorry for misrepresenting those stats above, I hope this clears things up. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the highly educated people under age 30 or 35 are the main trend setters in society. Many of them are still "in training" and have low incomes--like MD interns and residents and graduate students and post-docs. Few make $100,000, I suggest. (No I have not looked at age/ed/income breakdowns.) They are "upper class" in terms of education and in terms of trend setting. Many of them live close to the poverty line. (Top universities offer $15ooo to $18ooo for brilliant graduate students. Lesser universities offer most of their grad students nothing at all. I think most law schools and med schools offer zip. That means they borrow very heavily and live very cheap. Rjensen 23:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, your saying that the main trend-setters are those who do not yet earn "adult wages" (e.g. Teaching aides, MD residents, etc...). Mmm... there is definitely quite a bit of truth to that. Well they are a minority among the highly educated, as most with advanced degrees are full-time prfoessionals. 76% of Masters degree holder work full-time, its 83.6% for Professional degree holders and 80.9% for PhDs. The "UMC-apprentices" don not yet have the UMC income/prestige/lifestyle; only the life-chances through education. Many probably do "live close to the poverty line... and live very cheap" unless they're from a wealthy background. Okay, so that is why you don't want us to say "UMCs" are the terndsetters but rather the "highly educated" which would include middle-aged and older UMC trendsetters anyways. Okay, I guess just saying "highly educated: is a fair compromise. Or we could say the UMC along with many graduate students and post-docs are trendsetter? Of course there is some influence and social honor in being a trend-setter, but I guess not enough to be UMC despite the lack of "Adult wages." That said, MD residents, and law interns are still higher in the socioal hirachy than say a blue collar worker w/ higher income as they are allotted a higher degree of social honor. BTW: The "age/ed/income breakdowns" are here: [11] and here: [12] Signature ^brendel 23:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my point was that trend-setters are young--age 20-35, I'd say; and very well educated. Most of these folks are still in training and have low incomes. It's common for MD's and PhD's to be in training to age 30-35. So we have very well educated but low income folks who set the trends. The advertising experts often comment on the age factor--folks over 40 don't set the trends in America no matter how rich they are. Rjensen 05:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that advertsing phenomenon. Many trendsetters are young professionals in training; thus also low income. Those who are already UMC due to inherit privelege are a small minority. Personally I like to say, students are in class of their own becuase they are not like other low-income persons in terms of how they are viewed by society and hteir life chances. Nonetheless I am able to see it from your vantage point now and agree with your revision of the setence. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note[edit]

I just edited the article, adding a more pronounced mention of the nominal appraoch to social class. I did, however, forget to log in and thus conducted the edits under the IP 71.149.250.204. Just to let everyone know. Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar/conventions[edit]

I can't speak to the general topic discussion here, but the language in much of the article is confusing and distracting (overly comma-dependent; many chunky, pointless clauses). Also, there are many spelling errors and typos throughout the article. I took a whack at cleaning up the first few Ps and will be back to do a bit more later. Eve Adams 17:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for doing so. The comme-dependent sentence structures are largely the result of the subject matter's complexity. In order to be correct many variables need to mentioned in one sentence. Anyways, I appreciate your effort! Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction[edit]

In the article, occupational latter changed to occupational ladder. - Kevinskogg 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for doing so. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 18:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling/Usage error[edit]

In Upper Class Section: Yet another important feature of the upper class is that of inherit privilege

I'm pretty sure that either "inherited" or "inherent" was intended, but not knowing which, I hesitate to edit it myself.

Inherited is meant. Sorry-I'm going to run a spell check using Word '03 on this article now. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 00:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]