Talk:Social class in the United States/Archive 1

Vocabulary
Hi, can someone please explain the jargon a bit on the article? I looked at the dictionary and "blue-collar"


 * of, relating to, or constituting the class of wage earners whose duties call for the wearing of work clothes or protective clothing -- compare WHITE-COLLAR

"white collar":


 * of, relating to, or constituting the class of salaried employees whose duties do not call for the wearing of work clothes or protective clothing -- compare BLUE-COLLAR


 * Many workers, expecially the legions of women working in offices are considered white-collar but may be fairly considered part of the working class and contrary to the above definition are paid wages. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I guess that's not what the article refers to. If it is, that's a very vague thing to say. With these definitions, an engineer who works in a nuclear plant will probably wear "protective clothing", so I guess he/she is "white collar", but someone who works in a bar will probably be "blue-collar"...


 * The relevant question is, are they working class as opposed to professional or management personnel. An engineer in a nuclear power plant may very well fairly be considered a highly skilled working class employee, but it can be a close question in individual cases. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And also the terms "lower-class", "middle-class", "lower middle", "upper-middle" etc. We don't use a similar system in Israel, so can anyone rewrite that more precise, demographical terms? say "income in the lowest 20%", "income in the highest 5%" etc? -- Rotem Dan 15:30 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The article is about the social structure of the United States, not Israel. The classes I used are found in almost any elementary sociology text. My lumping together of blue-collar and wage earning white-collar workers together a the working class is my only novel addition, but is generally in line with labor union organizing practices, eg. the teachers union, or AFSME. (American Federation of State and Municipal Employees) Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Those are the basic definitions of white-collar and blue-collar that the article is using. Obviously they're not perfect. The impression I've had is that blue-collar work tends to be more hands-on manual work, or operating machinery, whereas white-collar work is usually some kind of desk job. You'll also see "white-collar crime" referred to sometimes, usually relating to embezzlement, fraud, or some other crime committed "on paper" without physical force or violence or threat of same being used.


 * As for the lower-class, middle-class, etc. distinctions, I don't think those designations are fixed to specific income levels or percentages. They're just to give a feel for the levels of social strata; the order or ranking is more important. In fact, these terms often get used very loosely in political debates about economic and social policy. Wesley 16:11 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * As noted in the article, some workers, for example, longshoremen or plumbers, earn more money than the average salaried white-collar employee. In political debates the majority of the population is described as "middle class". This goes over better but has no sociological basis. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, but don't you think a scientific approach is more appropriate rather than categorization of a society according to some arbitrary and vague stereotypes? This is an encyclopedia after all (to me this sounds like it is taken from a newspaper).. -- Rotem Dan 16:47 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The information in the article tracks an introductory sociology textbook. It is scientifically based, to the extent anything in sociology can be considered so. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fred, great article. My only quibble is that your percentages add up to 111%.
 * 70% working class
 * 30% lower middle class
 * 10% upper middle class
 * 1% upper class

(I guess you meant that some of these groups overlap, but it wasn't clear from the article text.)


 * No, you are in arithmetical error:
 * ~20% lower class
 * ~70% working class of which 40% are blue-collar, 30% white-collar
 * ~10% upper-middle class
 * 1-3 % upper class, depending on how you define the class Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Shall we say that 30% are middle class are above? And that 10% are upper-middle or upper? That would make the math come out right.

Uncle Ed 16:50 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I object to the first paragraph of the article. Recent studies have shown that the US has one of the _lowest_ levels of income mobility (and also income inequality) among advanced democracies (lost the link; I'd make the change myself if I had the data). And please don't give me artsy-fartsy social prestige BS. Income mobility can be measured, and it is often measured... less so for the other components.


 * The U.S. is relatively open, although large leaps are rare, even Bill Gates jumped only from upper-middle class, his father is a successful lawyer, to upper class.

In particular... barriers to income mobility in the US include: massively iequablity in government spending at the local level (police protection and schools are funded locally, where there are huge and persisting differences); persistant regressive taxation at the local and state levels, and increasing regressive taxation at the federal level; low levels of social spending to break cycles of poverty, and latent racism in the level of social spending (proportionately, the more blacks there are in a state, the lower the level of social spending), etc.


 * This applies especially to those trapped in the lower class. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If I have time, I'll find the necessary links and make the changes...


 * I hope you do not go too far, the characterization of the United States as an open society is not meant to contrast with other relatively open societies such as as the European democracies, but for example with Mexico which has sharply defined social classes. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't see how any of that disproves Fred's thesis. However, by all means put it in if you can cite experts who advocate those arguments. You might start with the book "Nickled and Dime to Death in the US" (or something like that) which I believe argues that minimum wage jobs are a hopeless dead end for the working class. But that really should be balanced with the views of economists and/or socioligists who who have found that individual workers frequently improve their earning power and make more money as they gain experience.


 * Social mobility over occurs over generations, individual workers in entry level positions have very little mobility. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps what Fred was saying that opportunities exinh in abundance for those who wish to exercise them; while you are saying that the small numbers of people who climb the ladder of success is rather proof of few such opportunities. Is that what you're saying? If so, I would certainly support putting that point and counterpoint in the article. --Uncle Ed 22:00 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Again mobility is more common on a generational basis. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Speaking of links, here's one of the first 3 links I found in a google search on "income mobility": http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-mobility.htm

It contains a chart which shows that in less than ten years, 80% of people in the bottom quintile moved up it least one quintile!! And over 30% of those in either the 2nd or 3rd quintile also moved up a quintle! The curious thing about the webpage cited is that it's actually a liberal argument trying to prove just what anonymous above was saying: that there's not enough income mobility. Yet, as I myself interpret the supplied chart, there seems to be quite a bit of income mobility. What do they want, rags to riches in a single year? --Uncle Ed 22:16 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Interesting, but who replaced that 80% who moved out of the bottom quintile? (after all, by definition, that is the bottom 20%). Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you all for your interest and comments. Fred Bauder 03:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think this article needs a total rewrite. The class definitions it uses are not the same as the ones that I see being used around me (in America). It seems to use a similar definition as the used in history textbooks to define middle-ages class structures (i.e. middle-class = shopkeepers), with a the addition of some modern class jargon (blue-collar/white-collar). I'm very skeptical of the claim that 70% of Americans are working class, the majority of Americans probably consider themselves to be in some subdivision of middle class, and relatively few identifying themselves as either working class or upper class.

A better rough "guide" to American class structure probably would be more like this: the poor are the lower class, blue-collar workers are lower-middle class, white-collar workers are (middle-) middle class, professionals are upper-middle class, and the rich are upper class. This is only a guide, because class is not at the forefront of most Americans' minds, so classes are arbitrary, ill defined, and porous.

-My User Name

Yes, I have heard that one survey established that 26% of the US population believes that they are in the top 5% in income and another 23% believes they will be. Politicians of both major parties refer to to anyone that makes $30,000 or more and owns a home as middle-class, in fact working class is hardly used in public dialogue. But this article is not the result of a survey asking what people consider themselves. The relevant question is: Does the group of people earn their major support from work or from investment of capital?. If their major source of income is wages or salary they are working class. If a significant portion of their income comes from investment of capital they are middle class (really in my scheme upper class). The source for this kind of discription of class structure lies in sociology. Fred Bauder 22:31 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Isn't more likely that someone would consult an article such as this to understand public dialogue than to learn the result of applying someone's strict definition of economic class onto Americans? You're right, the term "working class" is hardly ever used, so why define 70% of the population into it? Doing that only confuses things. When one speaks of the middle class in America, they're likely to be referring to "anyone that makes $30,000 or more and owns a home" not just professionals and business owners. Economic class is rarely a topic outside of public dialogue in America, so you should use the same terms it uses, or as close of ones as possible, to describe it. I'm not saying that you should base this off of what people think, like an opinion poll, but you should use the terms as generally understood in America. That basically means that the middle class swallows up most of your middle class along with most of your working class.

-- My User Name

"Understanding public dialogue" is an aspect of American popular culture, perhaps this could be worked into that article. (As you edited the article, an American describing America would describe almost all working people as "middle class"). Certainly a politician running for office would not be wise to describe either the social structure of the United States or the American system of government in an objective manner should she hope to be elected. Fred Bauder 11:27 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Culture is a better term for it. Culture of the United States touches on the reasons for this definition (equality ideal). American popular culture is a category that I'd place things like Survivor and The Simpsons, not how a culture views itself.

-- my user name

Whatever the mob believes is popular culture. Fred Bauder 17:41 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It's "the mob" that defines a culture, it is not defined academics and the elite. I'm changing those links back. -- my user name

Wicked my user name!! When you "change the links back" you need to respect the other edits which have occured in the meantime, not simply revert back to the last edit you made. On the matter in hand, I will try to get to the popular culture article and make it a meaningful link. As to your comment 'It's "the mob" that defines a culture, it is not defined academics and the elite', American culture consists of our best academic efforts and the imput of our elites as well as the populist view of things. The notion that you can simply ignore more sophisticated views or that somehow knowledge is to be filtered through majority vote is not suitable for encyclopedia contributions however well it may go over in talk radio. Fred Bauder 11:52 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

While "popular culture" may be more precise, on the technical level (it's a popular cultural belief, therefore it's popular culture!), I think culture is the more correct term. There's a value judgement inherent in labeling something a being popular culture; it says that it is part of the "less valuable" component of a culture, so there's a NPOV issue. Also, this American belief that the middle class* includes most Americans is prevalent throughout the entire society, from top to bottom, not just in "the mob."

Vanu 06:44 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

this article is very biased and pro-american. Why not full discussion of america's poverty, poor health care, extreme rich and poor? Is this from American CIA book I see quoted so often on wikipidia? Why not Honduran, Hiaitan, British, Argentine yearbook used, just american, all over? This needs total rewriting to add balance. Maybe I come back to it tomorrow and begin changes? 213.202.165.161
 * Feel free to come back and edit (be bold in updating pages), as long as you remember NPOV and keep in mind that info on the US should be logically split between different articles. Most of the info on economic structure should be at economics of the United States; this is a page about the social structure in the US -- obviously, class distinctions are important, just something to keep in mind.... Tuf-Kat


 * I'm pretty sure your referring to the CIA Factbook, which is a compilation of basic statistics (population, GDP, land area, etc) of the nations of the world. It is used because it is the most well known and easily accessible resource of this type. 24.117.213.161 18:40 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Gee, I was afraid it would be criticized for being very biased and anti-American. But let's see your stuff.... Fred Bauder 17:41 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I don't think it's pro-American at all.

Terminology
Given that the audience of this article will likely *not* be familiar with or expecting the neo-Marxist class breakdown featured here (with "working class" being separate from "middle class") shouldn't this terminology either be explained or changed to suit the audience. Also, in this post-socialist age, is a mention of "petty Bourgeoisie" or any explicit use of Marxist jargon even appropriate? --Bkalafut 07:31, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Most people would not except "working class" as separate from "middle class"? I doubt that pretty strongly, and quite frankly, that means about as much as saying most people are not familiar with or expecting to read an Einsteinian theory of gravity...mass ignorance of a theory or "fact" does not in any remote way invalidate it.  These are precisely the sort of things reading an encyclopedia should correct.  Also, the separation of working class and middle class is not, in and of itself, neo-Marxist, though the particular formulations of what these classes constitute definitely seem to be in this case.  -- Chris


 * Marx more or less created the idea of social class. How could we call people who have minimal income from capital, who go to work every day, perhaps wearing a suit, "middle class". That they may so designate themselves and vote the interests of the top 1% rather than their own interests is understandable, but can we print false information here? Explaining why is another matter and ought to be done. Marxist analysis of class is pretty well founded, class as depicted in American popular culture is not. As to the petty bourgeoisie, anyone who has encountered them finds much truth in the Marxist characterization. Fred Bauder 13:08, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * That doesn't change the fact that these are not accepted classifications among anyone except Marxists. If we are going to present that viewpoint, this ought to be moved to Marxist analysis of the Social structure of the United States, and document the prevailing view among Marxists.  If it is to be a more general analysis, it cannot even start from the presumption that "class" is a meaningful or extant concept, as this is not universally agreed upon, and even among those who accept it, what exactly it means varies widely. --Delirium 11:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

You would go too far. However I would agree that this article can be fairly be described as original research. Fred Bauder 14:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that the specific class formulations in this article are inappropriate. This is not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with this particular variety of neo-Marxist analysis, but this is very much something that by NPOV standard should be designated as a "minority viewpoint." Seventy percent of the United States as working class? Not in any conventional sociology textbook. Also, the divisions of the middle class are unconventional and do not correlate terribly well to how they would normally be described, though "upper-middle" is closer than "lower-middle." I would have to agree that this article needs a pretty thorough rewrite. The one thing I would say that is a bit extreme is the notion that "class" is not a relevant point to begin -- we have to begin somwhere, and I think that virtually everyone can agree that class is a meaningful concept with pracitcal implications. If you don't begin with this stipulation, you get into far more complicated issues that are, quite frankly, beyond the scope of this article and a bit crank-ish. It's like starting an article on the structure of the atom by questioning whether or not neutron exist. Maybe everyone is wrong and they don't, but there must be some sort of reasonable point of departure. --Chris

In reference to the comment referring to income mobility in the USA, you cited that 80% of people in the bottom quintile move at least one quintile within a year -- quintiles, however, reflect a relative position, not income...if 80% of the people in the bottom quintile retained the same income level, which was below subistence, but the quintile above (let's say, due to the decline of an industry and the massive loss of jobs) rapidly declined in income, then chances are that large numbers of people from the bottom quintile would no longer be in that quintile, although that doesn't necessarily mean an increase in income. In fact, the 'quintile mobility' which you quoted, indicating higher income mobility near the bottom of the chain, reflects the USA's current economic slump. -denny

Duplicates
There are two articles about this topic, this and Class in the contemporary United States. I think they should be merged in some way.

Complicating factors
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,  Signature brendel  19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To elaborate on the last point: while 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, that is not uniformly the case. In other words, there is considerable overlap in salary and income ranges. To take an extreme example, in some cities a public-school janitor with seniority may earn $70,000 a year or more, while an assistant district attorney with eight or nine years' additional formal education may earn only $45,000 or so. True, the assistant district attorney may earn more money once he reaches a comparable level of seniority in his own profession. But under the traditional class structure prevailing in both Europe and America until the twentieth century, the richest janitor would never earn more than the humblest lawyer. Blue-collar people who manage to get a leg up entrepreneurally, even in a modest way--e.g., a solid auto-repair business--may earn considerably more money than middle-managers, salespeople, etc., even though the latter have a middle-class education and outlook. For that matter, a salesman with a B.A. in communications from a third-rate college, if he's very aggressive and has the right attributes for sales, may earn more than a medical doctor. A Master Chief Petty Officer in the Navy with a salary grade of E-9--a "high-prole," to borrow Fussell's pithy formulation--has worked himself up from Seaman Recruit (E-1) and probably did not have a college education when he joined, although he may have acquired one along the way, most likely a two-year Associate's degree. Yet an MCPO earns more than the first three or four junior officer grades (Ensign, Lt. j.g., Lieutenant, even Lieutenant Commander), even though the latter almost certainly had college educations upon joining and probably came from better-off social strata.


 * 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".  Signature brendel  19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, nowadays many professionals must confront the same degree of insecurity once relegated only to the working classes, and professionals are often coerced into working longer hours for the same pay because, after all, they are "professionals," not mere hourly workers, and thus are expected to do the job "professionally" irrespective of the amount of time it may actually require. By contrast, a working-class person cannot be forced to work additional hours for no additional pay. A lawyer who makes even $80,000 year (by no means typical; most lawyers actually earn far less, believe it or not), may have to put in 75 actual hours a week in the office in order to hold onto his job. By the standards of the eight-hour day, therefore, he is actually earning only about $45,000, a sum by no means out of the question for many working-class people.


 * 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.  Signature brendel  19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As many have observed over the years, when one compares the bottom stratum to the top, one comes full circle and certain commonalities appear. Excessive drunkenness, drug abuse, familial violence and dissolution are rife among the very poor and the very rich--the principal difference being, of course, that the latter can buy their way out of any trouble. By the same token, education, generally seen as the key to advancement, is essentially a phenomenon of the lower-middle to upper-middle classes. The very poor have no education at all and don't aspire to any; the true uppers--strictly speaking, not even Bill Gates, because his wealth was acquired through work--don't care, because they don't need it. Years ago I knew a middle-aged man who was heir to one of the largest fortunes in my city; they were worth about $120,000,000, which probably makes them wealthier than all but perhaps 500,000 people, or fewer, in the United States. This man and his mother refused to send the man's only child to college, because the man was divorced and the ex-wife (who had no money at all) had had custody of the daughter. She was attending a junior college and working in a convenience store. By contrast, it is the middle- and upper-middle classes who endure major financial sacrifices to send their children to the most prestigious universities possible.


 * 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%.  Signature brendel  19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The inevitable corollary of upward mobility is downward mobility. We don't like to talk about it, but it's everywhere. And it's not simply because of the overall macroeconomic situation, reflected in the oft-repeated mantra that "this generation will be the first in American history to do worse than its parents." Actually, on the whole that isn't true, because the expectations as to what constitutes a decent standard of living keep ratcheting up. Real downward mobility is more often connected with personal difficulties. Simply coming from a well-educated or affluent family does not guarantee that a person will be able to surpass or even duplicate his parents' success. Perhaps the parents had a singular lucky break that the child simply never found in his own career. Perhaps the child succumbed to alcohol and/or drugs, never finished school or did quite poorly, and ended up in a much less remunerative occupation. Perhaps the child was less talented--or, due to complacency, less ambitious--than the parents. Sometimes offspring deliberately take a class nosedive as a way of rebelling against their parents or because of genuinely felt philosophical differences. One schoolmate of mine, for example, comes from a very driven, hardhitting family--his father was the CEO of one of the largest defense contractors--but my friend simply lacked the talent or temperament for such a career. As a result, he became an artist and earns about the same as an elementary school teacher. His parents have never forgiven him for this and give him absolutely no money at all. None of these outcomes is inevitable, but they do occur. As a result, some people's occupations and incomes qualify them as working-class or even working poor, even though by dint of their upbringing they rate as upper-middle or even upper-class. Sometimes the tastes and attitudes of their upbringing stay with them and continue to affect their outlook and manner, but more often than not their personalities, over time, come to be shaped by their new circumstances. Unlike the truly rich, the upper-middles, who obtain their money from work rather than from investments and large holdings, cannot sustain significant levels of wealth in their families over time, that is, for the benefit of their descendants, unless the children's own accomplishments meet or exceed their own. And frequently this fails to happen: "From overalls to overalls in three generations."


 * 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,  Signature brendel  19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

--bamjd3d 1346 PST 2 July 2005

broken link!
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-mobility.htm doesn't work.

Remove section
I am deleting the Class and political leaning section. It cites absolutly no sources (not a single source is cited). Also, liberals/conservatives as defined in section have a US-centric bias, liberals actually support capitalism. Also, left as defined in this article may refer more to econoic views, or to moral issuses, the section is not clear about that. This article is about an important topic, and recent minor political trends in certain regions do not merit inclusion in an important article. Therefore, this section does not merit inclusion in this article and should be removed. 72.139.119.165 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved the section to talk:

Class and political leaning
''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)

Is this article about sociology or cultural anthropology or what?
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)


 * It is a mishmash combination of two articles which were "merged". Both made sense by themselves. Fred Bauder 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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,  Signature brendel  19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants as a caste
The sentence "The contemporary United States has only one legally-recognized social class, actually a caste, of illegal immigrants ( euphemistically called "undocumented workers") numbering some 12 million." has come into question. The question is not whether it is true, but whether it can be shown to have a basis in a reliable source. This large group of people have a different legal status from the rest of the population, that is they have different, generally inferior legal rights, for example, they are not allowed to work. That they do work, after producing forged documents, is only confirmation of their status. Fred Bauder 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Potential sources include: editorial in the New Republic describing guest workers as an inferior caste " "codified...as second-class citizens" "The Immigrant as Pariah" by Owen Fiss, Boston Review October/November, 1998 "The Writing on the Wall: Immigration bill needs to break U.S. caste system", opinion by Brian Goodman, opinion editor, April 3, 2006, The Breeze John Madison University Student Newspaper..


 * Yes, ture they are a legally-rognized group that differs from the mainstream in a negative manner. Illegal immigrants do pay taxes and don't receive any benefits-true they are a subdivision of the underclass. I just don't knwo whether or not that should be opening sentence. This is definitely worth mentioning. But the opening paragraph? I don't think so. If you think about the poor are also a legal defined class of people-special rules apply to them-though they are not as far removed from the mainstream as illegal immigrants. Regards,  Signature brendel  22:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The significance is that contrary to the language in the introduction there is a group that is legally recognized. Perhaps that is what needs to be removed. Fred Bauder 22:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that this sentence should be removed, I think it should definitely stay-as you can see I have started re-writing this article because much of it is unsourced OR and some of it really comes out of thin air. The sentence about Illegals at least has a reference. Regards,  Signature brendel  22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you meaning "caste" like in India where it is branded on your forehead? NLOleson 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. I mean they are group with special legal status and could be seen as a class. Regards,  Signature brendel  00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the opening nonsense about illegal immigrants being a class is false, it's unsourced original research, it's POV, and it greatly weakens the article. Has to go. Rjensen 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of people have special legal status. This article does NOT cover legal issues and therefore the illegals should not be mentioned. Rjensen 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true and in the US class is actually not defined by laws. Regards,  Signature brendel  04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A legally established group of people is the very definition of class. Consider the nobility, the clergy and the commoners of pre-revolutionary France, the Estates of the realm. Fred Bauder 00:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhh... In the US there is no real definition-its quite a vague what a class is but from a certain vantage point I can see what you mean. Regards,  Signature brendel  00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bad analogies with Europe is bad preparation for this article. Rjensen 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No one even knows who is legal and who is illegal. Congress etc. argue about the numbers with vastly different estimates. That doesn't sound firm enough to be a class. Besides, some illegals (the 9/11 people) were not poor or uneducated so there are not identifying financial criteria. So if we can't identify them, and there is no unifying characteristic except they are "illegal" -- and even there you have differences like those who have stayed beyond their green card vs. those who swam across a river to get here vs. the woman who would have been legal the next day if her prospective husband hadn't died in a car accident the day before her wedding. Very iffy to me. NLOleson 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, class overall does not have firm definitions and is by nature an iffy issue, at least in the US. People always argue over how many are in a class-some say the working class is the majority and the "middle" class (those with that lifestyle) are a quasi-elite of professionals and managers. Others say those professionals and managers are upper middle and take the term middle literally. Thus debate and the lack of hard facts dominante any discussion over class in this country. As for illegals, from a certain perspective they could be seen as a class (however we need a source stating that)-on the other hand, they are perhaps part of other socio-economic classes. Also, ture, perhaps one unifying charateristic isn't enough. Regards,  Signature brendel  17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

=Note= 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,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)