Social structure of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This graphic shows the distribution of gross annual household income. The building's thirty exposed floors are easily divided into quintiles, each income quintile is thereby represented by six floors. Each floor represents the tenth of a third (3.33%) of households in the US and each section of 10 floors represent roughly one third of American society. The floors above the top black line represent those households with incomes of or exceeding $100,000. The floors below the bottom black line, however, represent those households who fell below the poverty threshold. In order to live on the top floor of the American income strata, a household's annual gross income needs to exceed $200,000.

There is considerable controversy regarding the Social structure of the United States and it remains a vaguely defined intellectual concept with many contradicting theories. To this day economists and sociologists have not devised exact guidelines for classes in the United States. With no set class boundaries, the interpretation of class and social status is largely left up to the individual.^[1] While many Americans believe in a three-class model that includes the "rich", the middle-class, and the "poor", in reality American society is much more economically and culturally fragmented. The differences in wealth, income, education and occupation are indeed so great that one could justify the application of a social class model including dozens of classes.^[2][3] A common approach to the economic and cultural diversity of those in between the extremes of wealth - those in the statistical middle class - has been to divide the middle class into three sections: the upper-middle, middle-middle and lower middle. This "five-class" model which can partially be traced to sociologist W. Lloyd Warner is, however, still an overly simplified portrayal of the American social class system.^[2][3] According to the nominal approach, American society is sociologically and economically fragmented in such a manner that no clear class distinctions can be formed. This means that there are no pronounced breaks in socio-economic strata, which makes class division highly subjective and disputable.^[1]

"In the United States, the dimensions of inequality such as income and education do not correlate highly enough to produce coherent social groups; nor does any single, continuous dimension exhibit any natural breaks. Any boundaries or cutoff points are therefore arbitrary."-Douglas M. Eichar, 1989[1]

Despite the lack of distinctive class boundaries and the vast majority of Americans being under the belief that they are members of the middle class, certain general assumptions have been expressed by leading social scientists, think tanks, research institutions, and social critics.^[3] While it is generally agreed upon that American society has a highly developed and complicated class system, Americans often attempt to deny the existence of social class.^[4]

[edit] What is social class?

Percent of households according to income group.^[5]

Social class is the hierarchy in which individuals find themselves. The social class system is mainly a description of how the society has distributed its members among positions of varying importance, influence, and prestige. Those taking the functionalist approach to sociology and economics view social classes as components essential for the survival of complex societies such as American society.^[6] Class may be described as an indication of the different positions a person may occupy within society, positions which are not equal, some are more agreeable than others and satisfy the incumbent intrinsically, while other occupations are more menial, repetitive and unpleasant. Some occupations or other societal may be, to some extent, influential and essential to the well-being of society itself, requiring a highly qualified incumbent. Societal functions are commonly rewarded with prestige and income, which may serve as class indicator alongside the training require to obtain such a function. One should note that a person's function in society does not only refer to his or her occupational role. A skill and function as well as position can also be non-occupational such as the role of being a parent or volunteer mentor, for example, and carrying out the function of aiding in the socialization of society's newest members. Yet other positions or statuses within society, such as being the son or daughter of a wealthy individual, seem to lack many directly functional characteristics beyond guiding some social interactions which that individual may encounter. So while not all functions and positions in society are those associated with occupation, the job role remains the one of the most important status features in the United States. Social class continues to play a prominent role in the mundane lives of the members of American society. ^[6]

It is impossible to understand people's behavior... without the concept of social stratification, because class position has a pervasive influence on almost everything... the clothes we wear... the television shows we watch... the colors we paint our homes in and the names we give our pets... Our position in the social hierarchy affects our health, happiness, and even how long we will live." -William Thompson, Joseph Hickey; Society in Focus, 2005.[6]

Occupational positions do, however, form the perhaps best examples. For example occupations that feature no influence over society whatsoever, requiring only minimal qualifications on the part of prospective incumbents. It is therefore improbable to have a classless society. Social classes distribute persons so that a) only the most qualified are able to gain positions of power and b) all persons fulfill their occupation duties to the greatest extent of their ability. In order to make sure that important and complex tasks are handled by qualified and motivated personnel, society offers incentives such as income and prestige. The scarcer qualified applicants are and the more essential the given task is, the larger the incentives will be, income and prestige which are often used to tell a person's social class are merely the incentives given to that person for meeting all qualifications to complete a task which is of importance to the society due to its functional value.^[7] One should note that a person's function in society does not only refer to his or her occupational role. A skill and function as well as position can also be non-occupational such as the role of being a parent or volunteer mentor, for example, and carrying out the function of aiding in the socialization of society's newest members. So while not all functions and positions in society are those associated with occupation, the job role remains the one of the most important status features in the United States. ^[6]

"It should be stressed... that a position does not bring power and prestige because it draws a high income. Rather, it draws a high income because it is functionally important and the available personnel are for one reason or another scarce. It is therefore superficial and erroneous to regard high income as the cause of a man's power and prestige, just as it is erroneous to think that a man's fever is the cause of his disease... The economic source of power and prestige is not income primarily, but the ownership of capital goods (including patents, good will, and professional reputation). Such ownership should be distinguished from the possession of consumers' goods, which is an index rather than a cause of social standing." - Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, Principles of Stratification.

As mentioned above, income is one of the most prominent features of social class, it is not one of its causes. In other words, income does not determine the status of an individual or household but rather reflects upon that status. Income and prestige are the incentives provided by society in order to fill needed positions with the most qualified and motivated personnel possible.^[7]

"We are proud of those facts of American life that fit the pattern we are thought but somehow we are often ashamed of those equally important social facts which demonstrate the presence of social class. Consequently, we tend to deny them, or worse, denounce them and by doing so we tend to deny their existence and magically make them disappear from consciousness."- W. Lloyd Warner, What Social Class Is In America

The idea of a classless society somewhat persists in the United States; which explains the notion of the vast majority of Americans who place themselves in the same class, the middle class. The truth however, is that all complex societies such as the United States need an equally complex social hierarchy. Social class itself is as old as civilization itself and has been present in nearly every society from before the Roman Empire, through medieval times, and to the modern-day United States.^[4] Even though the lack of set guidelines makes defining social class a subjective topic, there are certain prominent theories which can be used, to some extent, to outline the American class system.

[edit] Income controversy

Percentage of 2+ income households in each of the quintiles.^[8]

Income is one of the most commonly used attributes of a household to determine its class status. The relationship between income, which mostly arises from the scarcity of a certain skill, may however, prove to be more complex than initially perceived.^[7] While the idea is that income reflects status, household income may just be the product of two or more incomes. In 2005, 42% of all American households had two income earners. The vast majority of households in the top quintile had two or more income earners. This means that most, 77.16%, households with an annual gross income of over $88,000 annually would not boast such incomes if it were not for them having two income earners. As seen on the graph to the right, 36% of all households with two or more income earners were in the top quintile, earning more than $88,000 a year. Only 2.7% ranked as being members of the bottom quintile, earning less than $18,500. As a result the perceived affluence of many households is merely the result of the combination of two incomes.^[8] The question of whether or not the combination of incomes results in higher social status. Of course, there is no definite answer as class is a vague sociological concept.^[6] For example, according to the US Department of Labor, two registered nurses could quite easily command a household income of $126,000 annually,^[9] while the median income for a lawyer was $94,930.^[10] Therefore it is quite plausible for a household with two registered nurses out earning a household with one attorney as its sole income earner. The combination of two or more incomes, allow for households to increase their income substantially without moving higher on the occupational ladder or attaining higher educational degrees. Thus it is important to remember that the seemingly favorable economic position of households in the top two quintiles is in most cases merely the result of combined income.^[8]

[edit] Commonly used terminology

An example of class model regarding the social structure of the United States. This particular model was introduced by William Thompson and Joseph Hickey in Society in Focus in 2005.^[6]

The following are commonly used terms by social scientists and critics. It is again important to remember that each term bears the roots of several different ideologies which may conflict with each other. Overall, the use and definition of these terms often greatly varies with each speaker, due to their tastes or ideologies. Therefore the clarification of terminology is only possible as a gross generalization of what is most commonly used by research institutes as well as social critics.

[edit] Upper class

See the Upper class article for a more complete overview of the upper class.
This term is applied to a wide array of elites that exist in the United States. The term commonly includes all "blue bloods" (multi-generational wealth combined with leadership of high society) such as the Astor or Roosevelt families. There is disagreement over whether or not the "nouveau riche" should be included as members of the upper class or whether or not this term should exclusively be used for established families. W. Lloyd Warner, perhaps one of the most prominent American sociologists of the twentieth century, divided the upper class into two sections: the upper-upper class and lower-upper class. The former includes established upper-class families while the latter includes all those with great wealth. As there is no defined lower threshold for the upper class it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to determine the exact number or percentage of American households that could be identified as being members of the upper-class(es).

Income and wealth statistics may serve as a helpful guideline as they can be measured in a more objective manner. In 2005, approximately one and half percent (1.5%) of households in the United States had incomes exceeding $250,000 with the top 5% having incomes exceeding $157,000.^[11] Furthermore only 2.6% of household held assets (excluding home equity) of more than one-million dollars. One could therefore fall under the assumption that less than five percent of American society are members of rich households.

Members of the upper class control and own significant portions of the corporate America and may exercise indirect power through the investment of capital. In recent years the salaries and, especially, the potential wealth through stock options, has greatly increased for the corporate elite. Inherited wealth leading to idleness is held in low regard and people who have it usually have prestigious occupations. ^[12]

Yet another important feature of the upper class is that of inherited privilege. While most Americans, including those in the upper-middle class need to actively maintain their status, upper class persons do not need to work in order to maintain their status. Status tends to be passed on from generation to generation without each generation having to re-certify its status.^[13] Overall, the upper class is the financially best compensated and one of the most influential socio-economic classes in American society.

[edit] Corporate elite

The high salaries and, especially, the potential wealth through stock options, has supported the term corporate elite Top executives and, of course, Chief Executive Officers are among the financially best compensated occupations in the United States. While the median annual earnings for a CEO in the United States were $140,350^[14] (already exceeding the income of more than 90% of US households), the Wall Street Journal reports the median compensation for CEOs of 350 major corporations was $6,000,000 in 2005. Most of the money came from stock options.^[15]. In New York City in 2005, the median income (including bonuses) of a corporate "Chief Operating Officer" (the #2 job) was $377,000.^[16] The total compensation for a "Top IT Officer" in charge of information technology in New York City was $218,000.^[17] Thus even below the CEO level of top corporations, financial compensation will usually be sufficient to propel a households with a mere one income earner in the top one percent. In 2005 only 1.5% of American households had incomes above $250,000 with many reaching this level only through having two income earners.^[11][18][19]

"Top executives are among the highest paid workers in the U.S. economy. However, salary levels vary substantially depending on the level of managerial responsibility; length of service; and type, size, and location of the firm. For example, a top manager in a very large corporation can earn significantly more than a counterpart in a small firm. Median annual earnings of general and operations managers in May 2004 were $77,420. The middle 50 percent earned between $52,420 and $118,310. Because the specific responsibilities of general and operations managers vary significantly within industries, earnings also tend to vary considerably... [the] Median annual earnings of chief executives in May 2004 were $140,350; although chief executives in some industries earned considerably more... the median income of chief executive officers in the nonprofit sector was $88,006 in 2005, but some of the highest paid made more than $700,000. "- US Department of Labor

However political power has a curious condition: salaries of powerful public officials are capped and they are forbidden to accept gifts. Of course some politically powerful people make money before coming to office, but in general the political power elite have official incomes in the $150,000 to $185,000 range; members of Congress are paid $165,000, and are effectively required to have a residence in their district as well as one in Washington.[1]

[edit] The top percentiles

Main articles: Household income in the United States and Personal income in the United States

This graph shows the income distribution in the United States by $10,000 increments. ($50,000 increments after exceeding $100,000)

Another way of defining the "top" of American society has been through the usage of percentages. As income and wealth statistics are generally objective means of conveying information, percentages are often used in order to avoid the complications that may arise form using the term, upper-class or any of its constituents. Politicians can often be heard making statements in regards to the top 2%, top 1%, etc... These terms are commonly based on income data as gross income is subject to taxation and thus plays an important role in the establishment of a progressive tax structure as well as economic policy with the aim of redistributing wealth from the top to the bottom. More inclusive wealth measurements such as the income quintiles are also often used to illustrate the distribution of income in the United States. The table below features the lower thresholds for the top third, top quarter, top quintile (20%), top 15%, top 5%, top 3%, top 1.5%.^[11] It should also be noted that nearly all of those households in the top quintile and the top 15% are more privileged members of the statistical middle class not actually part of the upper class.

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005

[edit] Middle class

Main article: American middle class

The middle class is perhaps the mostly vaguely defined of all the social class.^[3] The term can be used either to describe a relative elite of professionals and managers^[13] (also called the upper middle class) or it can be used to describe all those in-between the extremes of wealth, disregarding considerable differences in income, wealth, educational attainment, influence and occupation. As with all the social classes in the US there are no set guidelines and the interpretation of what is understood as middle class varies greatly from individual to individual.^[3] As many have realized the vast economic and educational fragmentation of this class, subdivisions have been created. One needs to differentiate between the two main sentiments regarding the middle class.

Perhaps the most common way to define middle class is that of including everyone who is at neither extreme of the income and wealth strata. Many recent studies have shown the vast majority of American identifying themselves as middle class, indicating that the belief of all those who are neither rich nor poor being middle class persists in the minds of many Americans. The problem with this definition is, however, that is ignores the significant economic and social divisions that form across the extended middle of the socio-economic strata. If applied this definition lumps together professionals holding graduate degrees with incomes in the top quintile ($88k+) and office admins who dropped out of college with incomes in the 2nd ($18k to $35k) or middle quintile ($35k to $50k).^[3]

"Everyone wants to believe they are middle class. For people on the bottom and the top of the wage scale the phrase connotes a certain Regular Joe cachet. But this eagerness to be part of the group has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord"- Dante Chinni, the Christian Science Monitor

Despite the fact that the former earns roughly twice as much as the latter, as posses a much higher academic degree both can be seen relatively poor in comparison to what is commonly seen as upper-class and both can be seen as relatively wealthy when compared with those below the poverty threshold.^[13] Due to the economic diversity of this particular group, however, subdivisions have been created including:

Yet another vantage point is that of seeing the middle class as a relative elite of professionals and managers.^[13] According to this concept those commonly defined as upper middle class in the statistical middle class approach, outlined above, are seen as being middle while the majority of American is seen lower middle and working class.^[13] This view is supported by recent studies claiming that households in the middle of the income strata can no longer afford the middle class lifestyle^[20] and that what is commonly presented as being middle class really only applies to the more privileged members of the statistical middle class. The middle class as seen of this perspective is a small minority constituting perhaps a third or a fifth of the total population. Another term used to describe the middle class as a quasi-elite is "Professional and Managerial middle class" which clearly outlines the premises of this ideology; the middle class consisting of relatively privileged minority of professionals and managers.^[13]

[edit] Professional/Upper middle class

See American Professional and Managerial middle class for a complete overview of this and other middle class sub-groups in the United States.
This term is applied to the more privileged, financially better compensated and more educated members of the statistical middle class. This term most commonly includes professionals and managers, whose work is largely independent and tends to involves either one or a combination of tasks relating conceptualizing, giving counsel, supervising, and instructing.^[13] Members of this class commonly hold advanced academic degrees and are often in involved with professional organizations such as the ASA, APA, or ACTFL. Due to the nature of professional and managerial occupations, the upper middle class tends to have great influence over the course of society. Many of those occupations which are essential to the forming of public opinion such Journalists, authors, commentators, professors, scientist and advertisers are largely upper middle class.^[13] The very well educated, are seen as trend setters with movements such as anti-smoking movements, pro-fitness movement, organic food movement, environmentalism being largely indigenous to this particular socio-economic grouping. Education serves as perhaps the most important value and also the most dominant entry barrier of the upper middle class. This sub-class, the professional middle class, is also sometimes seen as being the true middle class, while those below, at the center of society are seen as being working class. ^[13]

[edit] American middle/middle-middle class

See Statistical middle class for a complete overview of this and other sub-groups of the middle class.
Those households located more or less at the center of society may be referred to as being part of the American middle or middle-middle class. It may also be stated that the proportion of the American population who are members of the middle-middle class is declining. The middle-middle class could be seen as splitting into two direction with more upwardly mobile becoming part of the professional/upper middle class while the others may find themselves in the realms of the lower middle or working class.^[13] Recent studies have also suggested that the middle-middle class can no longer afford the middle class lifestyle. This split alongside with the seemingly decreasing purchasing power of the middle-middle class is sometimes referred to as the "Middle-class squeeze." Another financial characteristic of middle-middle class families is that they tend to need two income earners to make ends meet.^[3][20]

"Based on those [income data] numbers, the statistical middle class can't afford the middle-class lifestyle. I think that's why there is so much confusion about what it is and why so many people have trouble identifying themselves as anything but middle class." - Anirban Basu, chairman and CEO of Optimal Solutions Group

There are varying definitions for the middle-middle class. Again, income statistics may help create some quasi-guideline for setting boundaries for the middle-middle class. Those households in the middle income quintile for example had annual gross incomes ranging from $34,738 to $55,331, while those in the center third had incomes ranging from $30,000 to $65,000.^[11]

[edit] Lower middle class

Main article: Lower middle class

The lower middle class is, as the name implies, generally defined as those less privileged than the middle class. People in this class commonly work in supporting occupations and seldom hold advanced academic degrees. There is also considerable debate of whether or not this class is truly part of the middle class and whether or not its members should be identified as being working class or even poor instead of middle class.^[21] If the lower middle class is defined as being the second lowest quintile its incomes would gross annual household incomes would range from $18,500 to $34,738. This class also overlap with the definition of the working class.^[11]

[edit] Working class

The working class in the United States is as vaguely defined as the middle class with which it overlaps according to some definitions. While some might argue that the working class is synonymous with the lower middle class, it may also be argued that the working class constitutes the majority of the American population (aka: the Silent majority).^[13][22] A distinctive feature of this class may include that fact that workers from this class merely take orders and are neither compensated for their ideas nor are they involved in the decision making process of the organization for which they work.^[13] Yet another, more dated, definition is that the working class commonly consists of blue-collar workers, while non-professional white collar workers are lower middle class. The guideline stating that working class workers are not paid to think but rather carry out tasks persists however, through many different ideologies regarding this class. If seen as the majority, the working class may also be sub-divided as done so by Paul Fussel who uses the Marxist terminology referring to the working class as proletariat, differentiated between the High-proletarian, Mid-proletarian, and Low-proletarian.^[2] Much like the lower middle class (which may be the same class according to some theories) the working class has little economic security and is extremely susceptible to fluctuations in the economy. Currently out-sourcing and cost-cutting related lay-offs are much more a pressing issues for persons of this class, than in the higher classes.^[7]

"Laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to... all the fluctuations of the market... owing to the... division of labor, the work of proletarians has lost all individual character... the workman... becomes an appendage of the... easily acquired knack, that is required of him." - Karl Marx, 1848

While Karl Marx's statement may be over one-hundred fifty years old, it still related to modern society in that working class persons are very much prone to economic downturns. While the actual persons are not a commodity themselves, their labor is. Labor is one of the primary factors of production alongside, land, capital, and entrepreneurship.^[23] Unlike professionals, who are paid to conceptualize, create, think and advise, working class employees usually complete assigned tasks, as they often lack the proper training necessary for more influential positions. Today, however, this division of labor is largely due to the fact that the direction of resources requires expertise that often cannot be gained without a college education. As working class persons tend to lack higher education they are commonly not qualified to design, create and advise.^[13] Thus today's market labor division arose from necessity not political reasons. It should also be noted, that the modern working class works less than the upper middle class or the top 5%. While 81% of persons in the top quintile worked more than fifty hours a week, only two thirds of those in the second quintile worker more than fifty hours a week.^[11]

[edit] Lower class

The term lower class is commonly applied to those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Definitions of this term vary greatly. While Lloyd Warner found the vast majority of the American population to be in either the upper-lower class or lower-lower class in 1949, many modern-day experts such as, Michael Zweig an economist for NYU-Stony Brook, argue that the working class constitutes the majority of the population.^[22] However, it may also be stated that the statistical middle class is the largest of the social classes in the United States. One can look at several economic guidelines related to income to find some unifying feature of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, if this term is to be applied to these households and individuals. Overall, 13% of the population fall below the poverty threshold, hunger and food insecurity were present in the mundane lives of 3.9% of American households, while roughly twenty-five million Americans (ca. 9%) participated in the food stamp program.^[24] Households in the lowest income quintile had a mean of zero income earners (56.4% reporting no income earners) and annual gross incomes of less than $18,500. The polarized age distribution might also be cited as one of the reasons for these quintiles economic misfortunes. While 45.1% of householders were aged 75 and above, another 48.7% of householders were between the ages of 18 and 34.^[11]

[edit] Withdrawal theory

The withdrawal theory may be used in association with application of the terms, "Have" and "Have not", as well as theories regarding class conflict. While there are varying definitions of what constitutes a have and a have not in American society, the withdrawal rule is perhaps the only approach allowing for the setting of an actual guideline. The withdrawal theory states that some individuals would be better off if they received their per capita share of economic resources. Such a guideline divides American society into those who have more than the per capita share of resources and those who have less.^[1] One does need to note that this theory relies on a very hypothetical scenario--the theoretical possibility of dividing economic resources in equal per capita shares. It gives guidelines stating that those with more than an exact per capita share of economic resources are defacto haves, and those who have less than an equal per capita share of economic resources are defacto have nots, who would profit from a theoretical, yet impossible, redistribution of resources (a per capita withdrawal).^[1]

"Essentially a group can be said to be exploited if it would be better off withdrawing... with assets specified by a withdraw rule. Hypothetically... workers would be better off if they would withdraw from society with their per capita share of society's... assets."- Douglas M. Eichar, 1989[1]

Appling the withdrawal rule to income, one could attempt at finding a threshold. Such findings should not, however, be perceived as being absolute, nor should they appear as an accurate reflection of life-style. The following figures merely illustrate the threshold at which an individual would not profit from the withdrawal rule and are thus de facto "Haves" according to this theory. In 2003/04 the Census Bureau estimated that the aggregate personal income off all Americans was roughly 9.7 trillion dollars ($9,705,504,000,000).^[25] During the same period of time there were an estimated 113 million households with 293,655,404 persons in them. Dividing the $9.7 trillion in total earned income by the 293 million individuals in the country,^[26] yields a per capita personal income of $33,050. Dividing the $9.7 trillion by the 133 million households yielded a per household share of income of $85,889. This means that if income was distributed equally among all households, each household would have received a share of $85,889 in the year 2004. This means that roughly 78% of the household in the United States would profit from withdrawing with their per capita share of the total aggregate income as they earn less than $85,889 a year.^[27] Such theoretical interpretation of income data may allow for the idea of only recognizing roughly a fifth of households being actual "Haves" as they would not profit if households were to only received equal shares of income.^[13] Dividing the country's total aggregate income by the number of people or households does not reflect any type of class conflict and can thus not serve as the buttress for any assertion of an exploitation relationship.

While the above is neither intended nor suited to form the basis for any argument in regards to the ethical nature of the allocation of economic resources in the United States, the Withdrawal theory may also be used to determine class principles of exploitation. In the above scenario simply presents possible financial thresholds which may serve as an indicator to whom the term Have or Have not could be applied. The withdrawal theory may also be used to determine class conflict. Here the theory states that a worker would benefit if he or she was given the option to retire from working and was given a share of the economy based purely on his or her skill, rather than the individual's contributions. Here an individual may be stated to be exploited if he or she does not receive a share of assets that does not correspond with the individual's contributions; thus making withdrawal an economically feasible option for the exploited employee.^[1]

[edit] Income

Main article: Household income in the United States

[edit] Agriculture

Further information: Agricultural history of the United States and Social class in American history

[edit] Farmworkers

The American norm has always been the "yeoman farmer" -- a self-sufficient, politically independent landowner. Large numbers of immigrants in the colonial period came as indentured servants as teenagers, and by age 30 or so became independent farmers. A main, successful political goal of Jeffersonian democracy and Jacksonian Democracy was expansion of the political rights of the yeomen, and also geographical expansion of the nation to provide them farms. This culminated in the Homestead Act of 1862 which provided hundreds of thousands of free farms. Before 1865 large southern plantations used slaves. After emancipation, a system of sharecropping and tenant farming for both whites and blacks in the South provided a semi-independent status for farmers who did not own their land. In contemporary times migrant agricultural workers, mostly Hispanic, perform field and packing work. ^[28]

[edit] Farmers

Less than 2% of the population of the United States is engaged in farming. Most are proprietors of independent farms. Once the dominant American social class, this group diminished in overall numbers during the 20th century, as farm holdings grew more consolidated, farming operations became more mechanized, and the majority of the population migrated to urban areas. Today, the agricultural sector has essentially taken on the characteristics of business and industry generally. In contemporary usage, a "farmer" is someone who owns and operates a farm, which more often than not will be a sizable business enterprise; "agricultural workers" or "farm workers", who perform the actual work associated with farming, typically come out of the lower classes; indeed, they are often near-destitute immigrants or migrant farm workers. In this respect, farming mirrors big business: like any enterprise, a farm has owners (who may be a family or a corporation), salaried managers, supervisors, foremen and workers. With the number of farms steadily diminishing, the stereotypical humble homestead is increasingly the exception, for viable farming now means agribusiness; the large amounts of capital required to operate a competitive farm require large-scale organization. Modern American agribusiness farmers, though their "income" in the strict sense is relatively low, are at least upper-middle-class; more often than not they are very wealthy and highly educated, especially in California and other Western states with large holdings operated intensively. The large landowners in California's Central Valley, Coachella Valley and Imperial Valley fall squarely within the upper class. Among farmers, "income" in the conventional sense is not an accurate standard of wealth measurement, because many farmers typically keep their official income low by placing their assets into farming corporations rather than drawing the money directly. The stereotypical poor, marginal farmer "eking out a living" from the soil, an image deeply ingrained in most Americans' minds by folklore, films, and even history texts, has now been largely displaced by agribusiness, which has bought them out and consolidated their holdings.^[29]

[edit] Middle class squeeze

For over 100 years a common fear is that a spreading wealth gap is causing a "collapse of the middle" in American society. Thus the 1906 cartoon showing the middle class family in dire straits.

1906 Puck cartoon shows middle class family in dire straits.

In the 21st century this fear takes the form of alarm at super salaries for celebrities and top executives, illegal immigration, downsizing in many sectors of the American economy, competition from lower-paid foreign workers and contractors, and the decline of unionized labor. The scenario most commonly reordered currently by the country's top news publications is that the statistical middle is splitting into two, a well-off, high-income middle class -the professional middle class- and a lower-income middle class. The high-income middle class is commonly defined as those out-earning those at the center of society. A change in the income distribution of American cities may serve as an example of the statistical middle class splitting into the well-paid professional and managerial middle class and the statistical middle of society.^[30]

[edit] Cost of living

"Middle-class squeeze" refers to a multitude of related issues facing the middle-class. Some fear that these issues will constrict the middle-class, even to the extent that they knock people out of the upper-middle and middle-middle classes. Most prominent among these issues are cost-of-living issues (including healthcare and housing costs), unemployment, especially among the young, and quality-of-life issues (work hours, mandated vacation).

The salary of the median American has increased during the 2000s, but healthcare, housing, and education costs have, by all measures, outpaced these salary increases. Low inflation as defined by the consumer price index has been offset by cultural inflation resulting from recent growth in technology. For example, Internet access, which few people had in 1983 (the base year of the CPI) now has the status of a virtual necessity for middle-class life: students need Internet access to complete schoolwork. The necessity of automobile ownership in most of non-urban America has made the actual cost of living greater in the past century, and this is what one might consider "real" cultural inflation. On the other hand, the proliferation of new recreational electronic goods (game consoles, stereos, etc.) does not constitute the same sort of cultural inflation since these are not necessary goods. Rather, this is an aspect of the un-debated "rising tide" in technology and technological access over the most recent decades.

At the same time, however, other cultural costs of the middle class have declined in recent years. The spread of cell phones has rendered the use of costlier landlines less necessary, to the extent that the number of residential landline telephones is actually declining in the United States. The widespread use of e-mail has greatly reduced the cost of communication with relations and the search for employment; job searches once conducted through the post can now be conducted online, at a greatly reduced cost. The automobile has likewise reduced the cultural costs of Americans, as it has facilitated long-distance travel to sites of cultural importance and to new economic opportunity. Indeed, sociologists studying America in the 1920s and 1930s often found that Americans were less willing to give up their automobiles than nearly any other possession they owned, and placed greater emphasis on purchasing an automobile than on other purchases. As one farmer's wife famously told Robert Staughton Lynd in the 1920s when asked why her family had purchased a car in preference to a bathtub, "you can't ride to town in a bathtub." Access to town no doubt vastly improved the cultural and economic resources available to this couple and thousands like them in the same period.

Moreover, it is not very easy to determine when cultural inflation is a real structural problem, and when it is merely psychological (in that people feel poorer on account of others' comparative material success).

In many other respects, aspects of "middle-class squeeze" can be attributed to the attitudes and values of the middle class themselves as much as, if not more than, to fundamental changes in the economic landscape. While it has been widely noted that the cost of housing has been on the increase lately, it has been less widely noted that much of this increase is due to land-use policies in suburban areas that make it next to impossible to replace single-family detached houses with multi-family dwelling or apartment buildings. These policies, enacted in the 1950s when much more land near urban centers was undeveloped, were designed to produce rising property values and so ensure the economic well-being of the middle class families who came to populate suburbia in those years. Although many children of the original settlers of places like Levittown, New York have found themselves priced out of these communities, this housing crisis could be largely eliminated if suburban communities would allow for higher-density development. Such development would allow the supply of available housing to keep up with demand, thus lowering housing prices overall.

[edit] Education

Primary and secondary education, for twelve years, are free in the United States, funded locally via property taxes. In the United States, the free state-run schools are known as public schools (the term is not used to describe private academies, as in other English-speaking countries). These vary widely in quality: many public schools are excellent and exceed even the elite private academies in educational performance; others are terrible and fail even to teach basic literacy and numeracy. In some locations (for example, New Orleans) the public schools are considered so poor in quality that most middle-class residents send their children to private or religious schools. In other areas, public schools are of such high quality that few people even attend private schools. Because the public schools are usually funded by local property taxes, public schools tend to be better in wealthy suburban areas, but poor urban schools sometimes excel under exceptional leadership. The quality of a person's primary and secondary schooling has a major influence on future economic fortune, since a strong secondary program will also increase the likelihood of admission to a high-quality university.

"Higher education", or tertiary education, is required for almost all middle-class professions, especially as technological advances have made even most traditionally "mechanical" (such as automotive repair) or clerical trades require advanced knowledge. Tertiary education is rarely free, but the costs vary widely: tuition at elite private colleges often exceeds $120,000 for a four-year program. On the other hand, public colleges and universities typically charge much less (for state residents), and many, such as the University of California system, rival the elite private schools in reputation and quality. Also, scholarships offered by universities and government do exist, and low-interest loans are available. Still, the average cost of education, by all accounts, is increasing. In addition, in terms of class-access, most academic degrees are considered to have devalued by about four years since the mid-20th century; this makes education, for the purpose of maintaining or acquiring social class, enormously more expensive.

[edit] "Squeeze" as a crisis

Some political theorists who accept the existence of "middle-class squeeze" believe that it represents a societal crisis. Correlating socioeconomic status with the political spectrum, they equate middle-class social status with political moderation. This correlation has a valid logical basis— middle-class individuals have some capital and, thus, stake in a stable society, but also have aspirations that would prevent them from being resistant to change. According to this theory, continued economic stress on the middle class would lead to a "collapse of the center" that could result in societal schism, radical Producerism, class warfare, or even violent revolution.

Furthermore, many middle-class people in the United States have high aspirations with regard to education, personal growth, financial success and accomplishment. (See: American dream.) Ambitious middle-class individuals are also, sometimes, the initiators and leaders of rebellions, revolting against society when their ambitions are frustrated by a constricting society. Some theorists believe that widespread frustration of middle-class ambitions may lead to massive societal upheaval in the United States, though the probability of a violent revolution is usually considered very low; a peaceful conflict is more likely. Furthermore, the individuals most likely to precipitate such a "conflict" tend to hold negative views of corporations, but neutral to positive views of government, especially at the grassroots level. More likely scenarios involve a "subtle conflict" wherein educated middle-class individuals, as well as wealthy leftists, infiltrate government and the NGO sector, then enact policies that place quality of life, equality, sustainability, and human and civil rights at higher priorities than property rights, resulting in dramatic changes in society. Some believe that this is already happening in Canada and the European Union nations.

[edit] Class ascendancy

Class ascendancy is a central theme in American literature and culture. This theme is not, however, unique to American culture; literary examples from other contexts include Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Stendhal's The Red and the Black. Some have posited that the dream of class ascendancy is the essence of the American dream. The more classic understanding of the American dream, however, is that each successive generation will have a higher standard of living than its predecessor. Such a definition has little to do with class ascendancy as such; if the standards of living of one's class improve, one's own standard of living will likely improve, as a rising tide raises all boats.

Because of its complete absence of official class distinctions, most Americans believe that anyone can reach the upper echelons of society. A large proportion of Americans expect to be wealthy in the future; if, however, American society maintains its current shape, it is likely that most of them will be disappointed.

[edit] Thompson & Hickey class model

In their 2005 scoiology textbook, Society in Focus, sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey present a five class model in which the middle class is divided into two sections and the term working class is applied to clerical and pink collar workers. Their class system goes as follows:^[6]

• Upper class, (ca. 1%-5%) individuals with considerable power over the nation's economic and political institutions. This groups owns an uproportional share of the nation's resources. The top 1% had incomes exceeding $250,000 with the top 5% having household incomes exceeding $140,000. This group features strong group solidarity and is largely consitituted by the heirs to multi-generational fortunes. Prominent government officials, CEOs and successful entrepreneurs are among the upper class even if not of elite background.^[6]
• Upper middle class, (ca. 15%) white collar professionals with advanced post-secondary education such as physicians, professors, lawyers, corporate executives, and other management. While households commonly have six figure incomes in this group, some one income earner households and lesser paid professionals may not. While, high educational attainment commonly serves as staple mark of this group, entrepreneurs and business owners may also be upper middle class even if lacking advanced educational attainment.^[6]
• Lower middle class, (ca. 33%) individuals who worked their way through college and commonly have a Bachelor's degree or some college education. School teachers, sales-employees and lower to mid level supervisors rank among those in this particular group. Household income is generall in the range of $30,000 to $75,000. Workers in this group are mostly white collar but have less autonomy in their work than do upper middle class professionals. Members of this class often attempt to emulate those in the two higher classes and have recently become overly indebted by their desire to have a comfortable lifestyle.^[6]
• Working class, (ca. 30%) individuals who occupy both blue and white collar occupations. Pink collar workers in predominantely female clerical positions are common in this class. Job security tends to be low for this group and unemployment as well as losing health insurance remain potent economic threats. Household incomes typically range from $16,000 to $30,000.^[6]
• Lower class, repeatet cycles of unemployment, working multiple low-level part-time jobs are common among this group. Many families fall below the poverty line from time to time when employment opportunities are scarce.^[6]

One should note that the authors of this class system considered more than merely income. As a result not all upper middle class households (who consititute 15% of households) are among the 15.8% of households who had six figure incomes, thus not all upper middle class houseolds had six-figure incomes. Thompson and Hickey used educational attainment, income, and occupational prestige to determine class status.^[6]

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Eichar, Douglas (1989). Occupation and Class Consciousness in America. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. 0-313-26111-3.
2. ^ ^{a b c} Fussel, Paul (1983). Class, A Guide through the American status system. New York, NY: Touchstone. 0-671-79225-3.
3. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Middle class according to The Drum Major Institute for public policy. Retrieved on 2006-07-25.
4. ^ ^{a b} Warner, Lloyd, Marchia Meeker, Kenneth Eells (1949). What is Social Class in America, Lloyd Warner. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
5. ^ US Census Bureau, Income quintiles. Retrieved on 2006-10-30.
6. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m} Thompson, William, Joseph Hickey (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson. 0-205-41365-X.
7. ^ ^{a b c d} Levine, Rhonda (1998). Social Class and Stratification. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 0-8476-8543-8.
8. ^ ^{a b c} US Census Bureau, Income earners by quintile. Retrieved on 2006-10-25.
9. ^ US Department of Labor, registered nurses. Retrieved on 2006-10-25.
10. ^ US Department of Labor, Median income of lawyers. Retrieved on 2006-10-25.
11. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} US Census Bureau, income quintiles and Top 5 Percent, 2004. Retrieved on 2006-07-08.
12. ^ Peter W. Cookson and Caroline Hodges Persell, Preparing for Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools (1987)
13. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n} Ehrenreich, Barbara (1989). Fear of Falling, The Inner Life of the Middle Class. New York, NY: Harper Collins. 0-06-0973331.
14. ^ Median annual earnings of CEOs according to the US Department of Labor. Retrieved on 2006-08-29.
15. ^ Income sources of top corporate personnel. Retrieved on 2006-08-28.
16. ^ Salaries for top level corporate personnel. Retrieved on 2006-08-28.
17. ^ Salaries of CEOs. Retrieved on 2006-08-28.
18. ^ US Census 2005 Economic Survey, income data. Retrieved on 2006-06-29.
19. ^ Salaries of politicians lower than that of top-level corporate personnel. Retrieved on 2006-08-28.
20. ^ ^{a b} Middle income can't buy Middle class lifestyle. Retrieved on 2006-07-25.
21. ^ The Christian Science Monitor, What is middle class?. Retrieved on 2006-08-28.
22. ^ ^{a b} Zweig, Michael (2001). The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret. New York, NY: IRL Press. 0801487277.
23. ^ Factors of production. Retrieved on 2006-08-29.
24. ^ Results, Center on Hunger and Poverty, hunger and poverty statistics for the United State.
25. ^ US Census Bureau, total aggregate personal income. Retrieved on 2006-10-12.
26. ^ US population in 2004. Retrieved on 2006-10-12.
27. ^ US Census Bureau, overall income distribution. Retrieved on 2006-10-12.
28. ^ John L. Shover. First Majority, Last Minority: The Transforming of Rural Life in America (1976)
29. ^ R. Douglas Hurt, American Agriculture: A Brief History (2002); John T Schlebecker. Whereby we thrive: A history of American farming, 1607-1972 (1972) (ISBN 0-8138-0090-0)
30. ^ Washington Post, America is losing its middle income neighborhoods. Retrieved on 2006-07-25.

• Christopher Beach; Class, Language, and American Film Comedy Cambridge University Press, 2002
• Harold J. Bershady ed; Social Class and Democratic Leadership: Essays in Honor of E. Digby Baltzell 1989
• Daniel Bertaux, and Paul Thompson; Pathways to Social Class: A Qualitative Approach to Social Mobility Clarendon Press, 1997
• Barbara Ehrenreich. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (2002), author disguises herself as working class
• David B. Grusky (Editor) Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective (2000)
• Alan C. Kerckhoff; Socialization and Social Class 1972, textbook
• Jim Lardner, James Lardner, David A. Smith, editors, Inequality Matters: The Growing Economic Divide In America And Its Poisonous Consequences, WW Norton (January, 2006), hardcover, 224 pages, ISBN 1-56584-995-7
• Erik Olin Wright. Classe (1997) - a detailed Marxian guide to define working class/middle class etc.
• David Popenoe, Sociology, (ninth edition, Prentice Hall, 1993 ISBN 0-13-819798-9 ) pb. pp. 232-236,
• Wealth, Income, and Power - wealth distribution in the U.S. from a Power Structure Research perspective
• Myth: Income mobility makes up for income inequality - analysis from Liberal point of view

[edit] See also

• American middle class
• Household income in the United States
• Social stratification
• Social class in American history
• Social Class
• Highest income places in the United States
• Poorest places in the United States

Demographics of the United States

Demographics of the United States • Demographic history Economic - Social Educational attainment • Household income • Homeownership • Immigration • Income quintiles • Language • Middle classes • Personal income • Poverty • Religion • Social structure • Unemployment by state • Wealth Race - Ethnicity - Ancestry Race • Ethnicity on the US Census • Maps of American ancestries • 2000 Census • Race on the US Census • Racism Asian Americans • African Americans • Mexican Americans • Native Americans • Pacific Islander American White Americans • Caucasian Americans • European Americans • Middle Eastern Americans

[edit] US related topics

[edit] External links

• US Census Bureau's offical online income statistics forum
• Income distribution and income by race, US Census Bureau 2005
• Household income by educational attainment, US Census Bureau
• Personal income in 2004, US Census Bureau
• Median Family Income by Family Size (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars) from Census.gov
• Median Family Income by Number of Earners in Family (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars) from Census.gov
• Working Definitions ClassMatters.com
• How Class Works, The New York Times