Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: drewtam on October 06, 2013, 11:55:00 PM
-
Understanding the state of the middle class is important on a philosophical level. Many believe the stability and success of the middle class determines the future and current strength of a nation. The middle class has been essential in the power of Rome, the reinvention of Europe during the renaissance, bringing about the American Revolution, French Revolution, Marxist revolution, and numerous other broad and dramatic social events.
But defining the middle class so it can be measured and analyzed is a controversial issue.
Wikipedia has a good introduction to the fuzzy ideas that surrounds what we call "middle class", particularly from the French tradition of the "bourgeois", which has its root word meaning town dwellers. There are many contradictory ideas from various social and political backgrounds that Wikipedia tries to fuse together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class)
Wikipedia comes up with several criteria that one might conceivably use to measure who is and is not in the middle class:
- Achievement of tertiary education.
- Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, chartered engineers, politicians, and doctors, regardless of leisure or wealth.
- Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be secure.
- Lifestyle. In the United Kingdom, social status has historically been linked less directly to wealth than in the United States,[4] and has also been judged by signifiers such as accent, manners, place of education, occupation, and the class of a person's family, circle of friends and acquaintances.
- Cultural identification. Often in the United States, the middle class are the most eager participants in pop culture whereas the reverse is true in Britain.[7] The second generation of new immigrants will often enthusiastically forsake their traditional folk culture as a sign of having arrived in the middle class.
But I think this list is either incomplete or incorrect for the US and western civ. For example, I would consider a person with a self made business without college degree, without professional certification, and without family and home to be a part of the middle class. To miss the majority or all of these bullet points but still able to be a part of the middle class in a vague sense seems to indicate that the definition provided by Wikipedia doesn't really work.
Others will define middle class (for the US) strictly by income. They will say, 0-25k/y is poor. 25-40k/yr is working poor, 40-100k is middle, 100k-300k is upper middle, and 300k+ is rich. This divides income is in a nice bell curve of fifths. And for other nations, they would extend this idea of dividing income by fifths as the starting point for analysis.
My criticism of this approach is that the 0 income college student would be misidentified by this 1 dimensional approach. As would my previous example business owner in a single bad year, or anyone else in a transitional period.
My thinking on this issue is that we are missing the dimension of political power.
The poor are in such a weak social and political situation that the rich can take legal and illegal advantage of them with no recourse, and the gov't official can abuse them individually or as a class with no political power to resist. In this line of thought, the serf, indentured servants, sharecroppers, outcasts, and similar are a poor and working poor class who are very vulnerable to abuse.
The middle class are a group that individually does not have political connections or significant influence. But they have enough social connection and unity that they can protect themselves as a class, and have enough wealth to prevent fraudulent abuse by the rich at a minimal level.
The rich by nature have political connection individually as well as enough wealth to protect themselves or direct the influence of gov't in their favor.
I would further add the dimension that these political definitions of class change depending on the region or population being considered.
Consider a bank president of a local town bank. Locally he is well connected to the mayor, city council, or county gov't. Compared to most of the town, he is probably one of the wealthiest guys in the region. If the local deputy or Sheriff ever pulled him over for drunk driving, he would most likely be allowed to get away with it, one way or another. If local zoning laws are in the way of some interest he has, he can get those laws changed. So from a regional point of view, he is of the rich class.
But from a state or multi-state point of view, the small town bank president is insignificant. He shifts from being a well connected wealthy man, to one of the upper middle class. He doesn't have the power to shift State and National laws. And if caught in fraud business by FDIC, SEC or others, he would be nailed to the wall.
There are many more who are wealthy on a multi-state, national and international level, with connections to Presidents, Senators, and lead political powers that can influence enough to avoid those attacks.
I think adding this dimension of political power makes a coherent definition of classes that works in most of western civilization history, from Roman to Germanic barbarism, to Renaissance, to Modern era. And also works in scale, from a very local level to a national level. And finally, works with layman intuition, as shown by the bank president example.
Criticisms?
-
On an economic basis, their income (or is it net worth, given the amount of debt thery carry?) is more than mine but less than the folks I consider (obscenely) rich.
Socially/sociologically, they claim to be the guardians of the mores against the depravity of both the lower and the upper classes - much like the Methodist Ladies Society sipping scotch out of teacups.
stay safe.
-
Don't forget that while the vast majority of Americans idetify as middle class, most are actually working class, which seems completely missing from your list of socio economic grouos.
I'm not pulling out the text book right now, but it goes-
Underclass - unemployed, part-time, welfare, less then $10000
Working poor- laborers, service workers, low paid sales, approx $17000
Working - factory, clerical, low paid retail, craftspeople, approx $35000
Lower Middle - semi proffesionals, lower managment, formen and craftspeople. About $60000
Upper Middle - proffessionals, upper management $100000 +
Capitalist - investers, heirs, some top execs. $500,000 +
(this is off the fifth edition, copyright 2004, so the numbers may be a bit off)
*so I got out the textbook.
** basic definitions added at request of the OP
-
The idea of 'class' in America is a construct of idealogues. In reality, its meaningless here.
In some other countries, the 'class' you are born into is very consequential.
-
Don't forget that while the vast majority of Americans idetify as middle class, most are actually working class, which seems completely missing from your list of socio economic grouos.
I'm not pulling out the text book right now, but it goes-
Underclass
Working poor
Working
Lower Middle
Upper Middle
Capitalist
*so I got out the textbook.
Yes, I am avoiding the question of how many classes there are. But I would challenge you to reliably define the borders or meaning of each. Creating more classes to categorize, doesn't actually define what they are.
I think this definition of each class is a major part of the argument where we each fit.
-
Yes, I am avoiding the question of how many classes there are. But I would challenge you to reliably define the borders or meaning of each. Creating more classes to categorize, doesn't actually define what they are.
I think this definition of each class is a major part of the argument where we each fit.
*sigh* dude, I didn't make this stuff up. And we're talking Sociology. You ain't going to get hard answers for any of this.
Sociology: A Down To Earth Approach James M. Henslin
Enjoy.
(and let it be noted I only brought up the Weber model, not the Marx model)
-
Something that has been in my head since I first read the OP.
I'm not trying to belittle the working class, it seems like one goes to college and earns a BA or BS to be in the working class now. Yes some BS (and BA) degrees start out at higher salaries to put one the middle class income or a few years of working, but most do not. I'm not talking about degrees like History, Philosophy or Phycology either.
-
@Charby
I don't think Art, History, Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics etc were originally intended to be a skilled labor degree like computers, engineering, chemistry, medicine, accounting and business.
They were studies for the sake of liberal arts and intellectual development. Especially targeted at the highest classes which could afford such "noble" pursuits. I think that original mission got terribly muddled during the later industrial revolutions due to the economic success of such highly skilled labor. My thinking is that due to the successful integration of pure science and math majors into industry, other liberal arts were slowly pulled into that orbit. By shifting to such a purely economic perspective, these fields of study also became more accessible to the middle classes as a viably "useful" degree.
This is reinforced by a legal structure that makes it unlawful or extremely difficult to perform direct IQ tests on applicants. Instead, the work ethic and intelligence required to complete any quality college degree becomes a proxy for hiring.
-
@Charby
I don't think Art, History, Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics etc were originally intended to be a skilled labor degree like computers, engineering, chemistry, medicine, accounting and business.
They were studies for the sake of liberal arts and intellectual development. Especially targeted at the highest classes which could afford such "noble" pursuits. I think that original mission got terribly muddled during the later industrial revolutions due to the economic success of such highly skilled labor. My thinking is that due to the successful integration of pure science and math majors into industry, other liberal arts were slowly pulled into that orbit. By shifting to such a purely economic perspective, these fields of study also became more accessible to the middle classes as a viably "useful" degree.
This is reinforced by a legal structure that makes it unlawful or extremely difficult to perform direct IQ tests on applicants. Instead, the work ethic and intelligence required to complete any quality college degree becomes a proxy for hiring.
All of that. I believe that the liberal arts degree (and to a lesser extent, hard science degrees), which was valuable up until at least 10 years ago has lost its value due to grade inflation. Universities have more or less become 'degree mills' where they haven't become outright indoctrination camps of the left.
-
Huh, I wasn't aware it was illegal/difficult to do IQ tests on job applicants. Why is that?
-
Something that has been in my head since I first read the OP.
I'm not trying to belittle the working class, it seems like one goes to college and earns a BA or BS to be in the working class now. Yes some BS (and BA) degrees start out at higher salaries to put one the middle class income or a few years of working, but most do not. I'm not talking about degrees like History, Philosophy or Phycology either.
I would say the model is the thing that is inexact. The one I used is an "updated" version of Weber from 9 years ago. Even at the time the worth of a undergrad degree (and even graduate degrees) had signifigently declined.
The first thing you have to understand about socio econmic class definitions is that they are very fluid and have a lot of exemptions.
Especially in the US, where social class jumps are highly noted.
I think this particular instance is a societal change caused by the avalibility of college education.
The old dream of earning a degree as a means to climbing to a new socio economic class is no longer valid. Instead of creating a larger middle class, it's just created a more educated working class.
-
Huh, I wasn't aware it was illegal/difficult to do IQ tests on job applicants. Why is that?
Its prone to EEOC complaint.
According to this site, it is not strictly illegal, but the test is specifically must be for job that is being applied.
http://www.hiresuccess.com/is-employment-testing-legal.htm (http://www.hiresuccess.com/is-employment-testing-legal.htm)
Even those who sell these tests have disclaimers about checking with legal counsel, or claim competitors tests are not legal. That right there tells you its going to be more difficult and risky. Any time lawyers have to get involved, the process turns into a PITA.
-
Like anything else, when there is too much of something, it's price (value) goes down. That's where we are with the "Everyone can go to college!!" generation(s). Used to be that very few people went. And it was for either members of the lucky sperm club or those that were exceptionally (or at least much more) smart then the average bear, who went and either found a trade or a factory to work in.
There were some schools that catered to particular skills that were more "advanced trade schools"; teacher's colleges, nursing schools, and the like.
Back when I was in High Screwl, there were nine schools districts that banded together and built an all-in one trade school about equidistant from the nine districts. Students spent half the day at their regular high school and half their day at Central-9 (Yep, a very clever name) Vocational-Technical School. They offer things from Auto Repair, Auto Body, Printing, Building Trades (Carpentry, Plumbing, HVAC), to Accounting, Secretarial and Computer Science (both Data Entry and Programming) and probably a few more I'm disremembering. http://www.central9.k12.in.us/index.html
And I do remember having to take drafting, metal shop, and wood shop in middle school. The high school even offered those classes (along with Typing, Home Ec, Electronics, Electricity, and some auto craft classes.) I think I came out fairly well rounded having taken classes from across the spectrum (yes, I also took Typing and Home Ec. Why? That's where the girls were, duh.)
Point being, when my daughter was freshman in her high school, they had no industrial arts classes, no Home Ec (unless your goal was to be a chef, they had classes for that, but it did not cover how to sew, either by hand or with a sewing machine.) It was all "stuff your brain" classes, no "use your hands to make something" classes (except a variety of Art ;/ classes).
I was disappointed.
And the local community college (Where they just spent a butt load of my tax money building the Reichsfurher SS Junkerschule, errr Homeland Security Center) has gone from being the local "trade school" and adult continuing education center, (The Metals 101 class you could take over and over and over. It was also known as the Aurora Sportsmen's Club Gunsmithing shop), to another "Stuff your brain" school. They have been trying for years to become a 4-year school.
-
Its prone to EEOC complaint.
According to this site, it is not strictly illegal, but the test is specifically must be for job that is being applied.
http://www.hiresuccess.com/is-employment-testing-legal.htm (http://www.hiresuccess.com/is-employment-testing-legal.htm)
Even those who sell these tests have disclaimers about checking with legal counsel, or claim competitors tests are not legal. That right there tells you its going to be more difficult and risky. Any time lawyers have to get involved, the process turns into a PITA.
We routinely require basic mechanical aptitude tests for applicants. It does help out. Some people just have no idea how equipment works or can't visualize it.
-
IMO, class in this country is based on money almost completely. An uneducated man who makes a boat load of money in his business would be up there higher than a Phd. Maybe not in the same social circles, but still up there.
Also, when you figure how many families have multiple incomes, how does that affect those incomes mentioned above?
-
Middle class = not rich, not poor. Ain't all that difficult.
But then again, it cannot be based just on income...maybe income, assets, and liabilities.
Where would someone like Michael Jackson (when he was alive) stand? Does owning stuff by over extending your credit make you rich, poor or neither?
Truthfully, I'd say middle class means that you are middle income, and invest the majority of that income in a home, car, and the daily living expenses of self and family.
-
Hard to use a money/income figure to define middle class.
$90K* where I live is pretty damn good money. In DC, NYC or San Francisco it ain't so good.
My income puts me solid mid range middle class where I live. In other places I'd be scratching a bit and likely would not be debt free and have the things I have.
*not my income.