U.S. Class System

[J. J.]

Class is much more complicated than money.  It includes family background, education, profession, and job status.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Class is much more complicated than money.  It includes family background, education, profession, and job status.

^^^

The first sane post in the whole thread

[opebo]

Class is much more complicated than money.  It includes family background, education, profession, and job status.

^^^

The first sane post in the whole thread

Except for the fact that it merely repeats what has been said in several previous posts, gnome.  Your biases are showing.

[memphis]

Neither poor nor wealthy is completely subjective and relative. Oprah isn't wealthy compared to Bill Gates. The Bronx isn't poor comapred to Haiti. If we're talking about the American class system, the middle class must mean those in the middle. Polling has consistantly shown that nearly everybody considers themselves "middle class," probably because they are of the same means as everybody else in their neighborhood. Nonetheless, this does not make it true.

You're misunderstanding, memphis, and what's more your rightism is showing.  When we talk about 'middle' we are using the classical English analysis, not the silly, deceptive American one.  We are talking about Classes, not percentages of population. 

Classification is about differences, distinction.  If 90% of the population are workers, it makes no sense to say that the mass statistically in the middle of that group are different in kind from the mass just above or below them.  I do not change my function in the social structure when I recieve a raise from $18/hour to $25/hour (this was the error made by many working class people when unions gave them a comfortable life - they stopped realizing where their interests lay, and thus did not vote left-wing). 

No, the disctinctions are far more meaningful than that mere rates of pay:

Upper class people never have to work.  They are in a position of control and power - 'ownership'.  They direct everyone else.

Middle class people are somewhat privileged but far less so than the above.  They are either small capitalists, or professionals whose educational investments, licensure, etc., place them in a position of relative security.   

The working class, which is by far the bulk of the population, simply work for a living, without the benefit of capital or signifiers such as expensive private/professional education.

No clarity or useful analysis, memphis, is lost by placing 75%-80% of the population in the lower class, 18-22% in the middle, and just a couple of percent in the upper, because that is structurally their role and function, or in the case of the upper, their privilege.

It makes no sense to use the British class system, which has qualifications completely foreign to American society to discuss class in America. As others have pointed out, there is more to this story than income. However, income is the most critical component to class for all but the "idle rich."

[opebo]

It makes no sense to use the British class system, which has qualifications completely foreign to American society to discuss class in America. As others have pointed out, there is more to this story than income. However, income is the most critical component to class for all but the "idle rich."

No, it makes perfect sense, memphis, though I was a bit off in calling it a British analysis.. lets just say it is the one prevalent in the rest of the world.  The way in which class is described in america is simply propaganda, while the analysis I gave you attempt to describe actual functional differences in status and power of different groups in any capitalist society.

The main difference between america and other 'developed' countries is that it has a much smaller middle class, and a much larger group of 'fully excluded' workers.

[J. J.]

I've known a number of "powerful" people that were not rich and some very wealthy people that were not powerful.  I actually had more political power when I has substantially less money in the bank.

I would also add that some of the people that could "never work," do work, because they want to contribute.  That has always impressed me.

[Verily]

It makes no sense to use the British class system, which has qualifications completely foreign to American society to discuss class in America. As others have pointed out, there is more to this story than income. However, income is the most critical component to class for all but the "idle rich."

No, it makes perfect sense, memphis, though I was a bit off in calling it a British analysis.. lets just say it is the one prevalent in the rest of the world.  The way in which class is described in america is simply propaganda, while the analysis I gave you attempt to describe actual functional differences in status and power of different groups in any capitalist society.

Errr... well, aside from the whole notion of it being an evil plot, I pretty much agree with opebo on this one. He has a much better grip of what "middle class" means than most people on this thread.

[opebo]

I've known a number of "powerful" people that were not rich and some very wealthy people that were not powerful.  I actually had more political power when I has substantially less money in the bank.

I am skeptical of the idea that you ever had any political power, J.J.  As for your attempt to separate power and wealth I don't think you understand what power is - politicians don't have much individual power as they cannot change anything and must 'toe the line'.  The owners have every effort of the State at their beck and call to pretect their interests ("private property").

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant.  Lots of rich people are masochists, but it doesn't change the fact that they are the masters.

[J. J.]

I've known a number of "powerful" people that were not rich and some very wealthy people that were not powerful.  I actually had more political power when I has substantially less money in the bank.

I am skeptical of the idea that you ever had any political power, J.J.  As for your attempt to separate power and wealth I don't think you understand what power is - politicians don't have much individual power as they cannot change anything and must 'toe the line'.  The owners have every effort of the State at their beck and call to pretect their interests ("private property").

You needn't be.  Actually, power is usually defined as the ability to get A to do something that A wouldn't normally do.  That I ave done in some communities.

To give another example, prior to leaving office, Clinton could never have been considered "rich."  Certainly Perot and GHW Bush had more money.  Clinton, however, was powerful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant.  Lots of rich people are masochists, but it doesn't change the fact that they are the masters.

No, a lot of rich people want to contribute to society.  I'm thinking of the two wealthiest families in my state, the Annenburgs and the Pitcairns; both work.  Neither has to.

[Storebought]

I agree with memphis: It's absurd to even compare a British-type class system to the US -- the US doesn't have a peerage, or a gentry, or cotters, or a peasantry, all of which are hereditary and based on the geographic site where one was born.

But I will admit that the US is a plutocracy, and that wealth buys power (through bribery .. I mean ... political campaign contributions to incumbents), and that the wealthy, and the middle class, are, by and large, property owners. As it should be.

As for the 'greate Moultitudes, who toyle and suffyre Miserie and Wante', on actuarial average, they nevertheless see about $1 million pass through their hands during their working lives. But for various reasons, they don't keep it long enough to benefit from wealth accumulation.

[opebo]

But I will admit that the US is a plutocracy, and that wealth buys power (through bribery .. I mean ... political campaign contributions to incumbents), and that the wealthy, and the middle class, are, by and large, property owners. As it should be.

No, not through 'bribery', Storebought.  The power of wealth is realized through the direct power that 'owning' gives you over others.  Owning allows you to tell others what to do, which is the essence of power in any society.  You may thnk that title to a peice of physical property or ownership of a stock or bond gives you some magical source of production - but that production comes from power over others - the ones who are controlled by that 'property'.  Try to jettison the senseless focus on buildings, land, technology, and 'resources', and focus on what really places you in the heirarchy - your postion relative to the other monkey-men.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What an irrelevant comment, Storebought.  You have just pointed out that the working class receive just enough income to (on actuarial average) subsist.  No one is denying this, and it is their owners who allow them this, so that they will continue to be a source of labour.  I'm sure every owners dreams of 'free' labour, but, alas, the creatures seem to require to eat. 

[Person Man]

I agree with memphis: It's absurd to even compare a British-type class system to the US -- the US doesn't have a peerage, or a gentry, or cotters, or a peasantry, all of which are hereditary and based on the geographic site where one was born.

But I will admit that the US is a plutocracy, and that wealth buys power (through bribery .. I mean ... political campaign contributions to incumbents), and that the wealthy, and the middle class, are, by and large, property owners. As it should be.

As for the 'greate Moultitudes, who toyle and suffyre Miserie and Wante', on actuarial average, they nevertheless see about $1 million pass through their hands during their working lives. But for various reasons, they don't keep it long enough to benefit from wealth accumulation.

Hey! "Missouri" spoken quickly gives you "Miserie".