Talk:Upper class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Upper class, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Upper class article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Income debate

There is some question about the statement that income alone may be enough to get someone into the upper class in the United States; this statement should be finessed to acknowledge, for instance, that many of those in that "class" would deny being in it, &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Whomever contributed the majority of the writing to this article was pretty much a snob. It needs major revision to remove POV. Hmoul 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to acknowledge social values that vary. The above statement about being "pretty much a snob" could be considered reverse snobbery. There are cultural differences in those who are born in certain communities. Cotillions, "the cape", family responsibilities. . .

"It is held by some that people can "move up" in class by the accumulation of wealth, though typically most Americans perceive themselves as middle class despite their income level. To those that perceive themselves as upper class, this view that one can move into the upper class simply by bourgeoise money-making reflects a middle-class outlook that overlooks the importance of the adoption of the snobbish, aristocratic values that distinguishes the "genuine" upper classes from the "merely rich" (see nouveau riche)."

The constant reference to the upper classes as engaging in 'snobbery', is, when referring to nobility, a contradiction in terms. The word 'snob' is an abbreviation of 'sine nobilitate', latin for 'without nobility' ie desperately trying to be upper class but failing, due to being overly ostentatious, etc. Thus only the 'new rich' can be classified as 'snobs', and describing anything as "snobbish, aristocratic" is a gross abuse of the english language.

Therefore I have made the necessary changes. Furthermore I agree that whoever wrote this page was probably a snob in the true sense of the word.

195.195.166.41 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find no objection to the current text. It is a delicate subject that the author has addressed diplomatically; someone who sees him or herself as belonging to the group will have a very different opinion of it from someone who is proud not to be a part of it, or even denies its existence. Input from someone with an opposing view may even out the tone, but I cannot advocate a major revision. --Dennywuh 16:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The image at the top of the article, Image:DSC07308.JPG, was recently removed and re-instated by other editors (re-instated by the photo's author I see). I have to say I wasn't sorry to see the picture go - it looks like a shanty town. There is one large house visible, surrounded by what looks like factory sheds. Loads of trees, and not a single swimming pool or tennis court in site. Who says that this area belongs to the upper class? Could we find a better picture please? -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

These are multi-million dollar homes (we're talking $5,000k+), look at the picture again! This is the most expensive neighborhood in the state of Hawai'i. Those factory sehds are single family homes with ocean front view, every roof is one single home, please also there is more than one large home distinctly visible, follow down the cul-de-sac and look at the houses closely. I have many other pictures but this the neighborhood in the Hawai'i image is not a shanty town. Perhaps this image Image:DSC073082-graphic.jpg will help. If you're still not convinced that the neighborhood in the picture comes across as upper class, then I'll gladly add another one, just take another look at this picture please. Signaturebrendel 18:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've taken out all three pictures. They all represented an American conception that wealth and class are the same thing, and that made the U.S. centrism of the article even worse than it is in the text. This article is better off without pictures imo. Chicheley 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I Beg to Differ! Don't take the pictures out, add new one's from other parts of the world. Only having American pictures is still better than not having any pictures at all. A Rolls-Royce is in the US and Germany commonly seen as a sign of great wealth, if it is vulgar in Great Britan, well than add that to the text somewhere. But this is bordering vandalism. Yes in the US wealth is the most commonly used measurement (In other countries such as Germany as well) for class and as we also serve an American audience the pictures are relevant. FWI: I'm pretty sure the average Englishman also thinks of wealth when he hears the term upper class. Please consider that we have a section called "Outside the United States," here you can address the difference in the perception of class between the US and other countires such as the UK. Signaturebrendel 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken out two pictures, which have nothing to do with class. They were of a car and a villa, either of which could have been owned by David Beckham or the lottery winner Michael Carroll? Does that mean they are upper class? Jooler 10:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lower upper class yes. The Nouveau riche are part of the upper class, the lower upper class. Of course you raise one good question are the poictures US-centric. They most likely are as in the US money alone can make you upper-class vs. many other socities (i.e. the UK). Anyways we noe have the Donald, and I;m going to add some pics of golfers in Pebble Beach. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Michael Carroll upper-middle-class Lower upper class? (edit: Sorry I mis-read you said Lower upper class - a term I've never heard of, but the point remains). I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Trump is fair enough for a US example I suppose, but the caption needs a tweek. Add pictures of golfers and I will remove them, because anyone , drug dealers and rap-artists for example, can be a member of an exclusive golf club if they grease the right palms. The Trump article doesn't go into enough detail about his background for me to make a judgement about whether he would be considered upper-middle class or whatever in Britain. Jooler 14:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Carrol might not be upper class in the UK and I understand that, but in the US he would. Please take a look at the Weberian class system you will see that Max Weber distinctly indentified a lower upper class and a upper upper class. Unless you think Max Weber is also "ridiculous." What is wrong with golfers in Pebble Beach, that's a typical upper class activity. What pictures do you suggest, the Queen? Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Simply having money does not equate with class on either side of the Atlantic. Your contetion that Michael Carroll would be considered upper class is betyond a joke. He is a Chav. Do you think Britney spears is upper class? - No I do not suggest a picture of The Queen but how about The Duke of Westminster or Jodie Kidd or Tara Palmer-Tomkinson or Jemima Goldsmith or Zac Goldsmith or John Jacob Astor IV or J. Paul Getty or Howard Hughes etc. Jooler 05:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Then what is Britney Spears, upper middle class alongside lawyers, doctors and architects. Hardly, if money doesn't count Ms. Spears would be a prole. But as money can get you into the lower upper class, please see Max Weber and the Weberian system for more on this, she is lower upper class. But, you're right she certainly doesn't have class and I wouldn't use her as an example. BTW: Donald Trump does fit the category, he is a Harvard grad, his father was a powerful member of the community who was a real estate developer as well. Trump is sometimes referred to as the prince of New York due to his powerful inlfuence over the city. If he does fit the criteria on both sides of the Altantic= Family Background + Ivy league education + Wealth + influence in the community + prestige. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
On this side of the Atlantic, Britney Spears is a prole, and the fact that she has a lot of money doesn't change this. Which is why a one-size-fits-all article doesn't seem appropriate. Kudos to whoever has split out the US and the UK, albeit in reverse alphabetical order. Matthew 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, and I would welcome any reference to contradict me, Weber did not distinguish any hierarchical classes. Weber certainly identified that (market) class and status class were to be had more or less of, and that the combination of these would produce social classes which enjoyed more or less advantages, but these are not definable groups in the same sense as Marx's classes (political/professional classes are perhaps an exception - and even they weren't labelled 'upper'). This is called the 'class boundary problem' (see comment by EO Wright). I think this is the problem with the existence of all these articles - lower/middle/upper middle; lower/middle/upper upper, etc. They are based on a very narrow and rather outdated (1940s), Warnerian definition.

In the UK, in terms of social classification, the hierarchical upper/middle/lower classes were officially, finally, killed off in 2001. You could say the finer hierarchical divisions and demarcations, in official and academic terms, have been disappearing since around 1953 (see David Glass). This is the direction I would like to see these articles take.

Maybe I've seen too much Bourdieu, but I think these things need to be discussed in terms of what makes a social class, rather than by assuming they exist. There was a great bit of recent feedback from another editor on one of these X-X-class Talk pages (if only I could find it) which mentioned the importance of identifying the theoretical underpinnings with solid references. This article does not have one single reference for the definition of upper class. It would be good if we could consolidate this discussion somewhere and sort out some of these cultural differences over definitions, and then we will probably find we can split off Warner from everyone else. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly I tend to confuse the two, Werner/Weber ;-). The lower upper class is used in class model you can download at www.socialclass.org, the model is from an authoritive source. Since you're far more familiar with the topic than I, why don't you do the rewrite of the article. Also, what about Paul Fussel, he had quite a different class sytem than all others, and the most recent 1983? (I know he only focused on the US) In his book for example he uses "top-out-of-sigt class for the top such as Trump, etc... Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Zzuuzz, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the topic! That's just what those articles need - a discussion of the concept based on thorough research of the works where they were presented. Perhaps if the concepts itselves are not consistent accross authors and some of them are outdated, it would be more appropriate to merge them into a single article discussing social class concepts over the years and authors. Then when some concepts' discussion will outgrow the capacities of an article section, they could be separated into articles, like "Weber's social class concepts" or whatever. Excuse my ignorance on the topic, but I guess this is too important and controversial to just be left alone - please consider devoting more of your time to improving the coverage of this topics on Wikipedia. Bravada, talk - 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There actually is an article for that as well, Social class. Ah, the controversial topics, they can be fun can't they ;-) Signaturebrendel 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What's with the picture of Ted Kennedy representing the upper class?!?! I'd actually think his picture would go better on the Alcoholics Anonymous or alcoholics page. I'd hope that the editors of wikipedia can find a better example of the upper class? Dr. Cash 02:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Drug adictions aside the Kennedy's are very iconic of America's upper class- just look at the number of Senators and Congreemen in the family. Of course we can always keep looking for another prominent upper class family. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


As far as images that are suitable for this page go, may I suggest this link: http://www.staleywise.com/collection/aarons/aarons.html - Someone might even ask the gallery concerned to grant access to the photographs featured, otherwise it might be best to just link to the page. Regards, --Guccipuppy1986 07:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
These images might give some insight into the kind of people that should, in my opinion, be featured under this title. Where are the Babe Paleys, the Peggy Guggenheims, the Hearsts, Astors, Vanderbilts et al. ?

[edit] Complete rewrite request

I've tried to repair what I see as some damage that has been done to this article since I first read it a while back, but it is still awful. It lacks balance, historical awareness and comparison with related concepts. References are missing and some of the citation requests made seemed pretty pointless. Overall it's just a vague set of impressions without intellectual rigour. But I can't rewrite it myself because I'm no expert either. Chicheley 16:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, which section is the worst? CPlease note that the perception of class it self is somewhat vague and differs greatly among not only persons but also experts in the field. While I too find the article a bit confusing in many parts I have doubts how well defined an article could be. You are right, however, this article does need more citations and references. Aslo before using terms such as WASP consider that the common usage of the term Anglo-Saxon in the US is antrhopologically incorrect. Anglo-Saxon only describes persons who are descendened from the Saxons that invaded the British island (see Saxons for history of the great European migration). The term does not include the Irish, Scottish, or Germans, including Germans of saxon ancestry. Consider that the Kennedy's, who are without doubt iconic of the American upper class are Irish, and thereby not Anglo-Saxon and Catholic. So they'd actually be WCC (White celtic catholics). Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs an urgent rewrite, in my opinion, because it omits some very important points.

What about Class History? Since Roman times and even long before -I'm sketchy on the details-, the plebians and the patricians have existed and grappled with their stations in life, the evolution of this structure in contemporary society should be investigated.

Why did people initially differentiate in this way? What makes us humans want to set ourselves above another?

There should be a clear concise definition of "Upper Class" before the new article is even started.

Also, I don't think it wise to structure the article around Regions, maybe have a section titled "Different perceptions around the world" or somesuch thing. -btw. the Dominican Republic's social hierarchy is of little relevance in this article-

I suggest following the Idea of Upper Class through the ages, so that one may view it in HISTORICAL CONTEXT. This approach would curb personal ideologies before they run rampant, let the reader reach his/her own conclusions and make for far better reading than the present drama.

The current article presumes to tell the reader what to think, it gives the impression that what is on the page is a fact when in reality it is 1) A highly subjective article 2) A subjective topic which has not been approached with the neccessary finesse.

These are the kind of things, along with the legion of others I'm forgetting, that will make this article interesting, informative and valuable to a reader.Guccipuppy1986 08:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

While the article still requires a complete rewrite, I agree with the person who removed the images. I know of a few people who own villas and luxury cars, but the articles on them aren't illustrated with either, but with pictures of themselves. I guess this article should be illustrated with PEOPLE of upper class. These can be images of people off upper class doing various things considered "approporate" or "typical" for upper class, including e.g. driving (or bering driven in) luxurious automobiles (or carriages), or perhaps attending or hosting a party in a posh home. But I believe to have the only pictures in the article portray remotely related issues is a bit inappropriate. Bravada, talk - 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Below asks "Okay, but how can you tell an upper class person from a person of a different class?" It is extremely simple... someone of the "real" upper class wouldn't be interested in this idiotic page! OK?

Excuse me- There are no upper-class sociologists? Ture most are upper middle class but there are at least a couple in the upper class. Don't mistake a class discussion for snobbery. FYI: Disdain for class discussion is actually very middle-middle class. Uppers are usually comfortable with the issue of class because they know their place (Paul Fussel). Signaturebrendel 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"FYI: Disdain for class discussion is actually very middle-middle class. Uppers are usually comfortable with the issue of class because they know their place (Paul Fussel)" That's circular reasoning. It assumes that the reason someone has a disdain for class discussion is because of their own class; it's unlikely that many intellectuals outside of the field of sociology would have a disdain for the subject because of their own class, assuming it is an emotional disdain because the subject has not been brought to them before. By assuming this is the reason, you allow yourself to reason in circles subjectively, trapping yourself in delusion; if a person denies that their disdain is a class issue, you can claim they are middle class (which brings obvious connotations of "inferior") and the only way to get into your club of self-assurance is to become accepting of your own issue. I have edited a few things in response to this utter subjectivity. If you are going to attempt to measure an individual's class then you need to abandon this archaic, aristocratic measurement when viewing how the United States functions. Maybe if this were 18th century Britain the article would be accurate, but it is ridiculous to say that Bill Gates is not upper class in comparison to Donald Trump or you have really not seen the potential of Gates. His purchasing power and global influence is enormous compared to Trump, which is petty in comparison. Trump is more aristocratic in the sense that yes, he was born into it, but the article seems notoriously POV in the sense that it maintains this ideal. Many successful politicians in the U.S., whom are too numerous to name, have come from families that were ambitious yet did not fall into that position simply by being born into it. Some quick research on the Eugenics debate shows that many Asian Americans, as well as other minorities, many of whom were not born into any sort of "nobility", make up a significant percentage of Harvard's student body, especially recently due to Affirmative Action and families who make under a certain income. If we judge class by the the criteria of income, net worth, and education, eliminating some ridiculously subjective notion of "prestige", then, yes, it is entirely possible for one to attain an "upper class" status in the United States. I am entirely ignorant as to how the UK or France function in this regard but as far as the U.S. is concerned it is almost nihilistic to think otherwise. 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but how can you tell an upper class person from a person of a different class. See, in the California where I life upper class people have a tendency to yes, live in a posh home, but run around in T-shirts and jeans, so... (they're expensive T-shirts and jeans alright, but you try and tell the difference ;-)) I guess I can look for a picture of a gathering. I do get your point though and its good one, I just beleive that we the pictures we currently have are better than none. We do need to consider esthetics, they give integrity to the article. I think the Rolls is appropriate, it is one of the most commonly used items in the media to display high social status. Perhaps, you have some pictures of more "traditional" upper class people and they let you post them here, that would be great- until then I do what I dread, use celebrity pictures (I eventually will shot some free images myself. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I also agree w/ the rewrite, but don't feel up to it. Also, I realize the irony in adding a pic of Trump after talking about esthetics ;-) (I still think its a wig). Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also desperately seeking in the commons for some depictions of 18th and 19th century upper class, like court ladies, some high society during a social function or even an early 20th century automobile rally (a sport for the upper class definitely at that time). This should bring a more inter-temporal perspective to the article. I was also wondering whether the "upper class" term is applicable for earlier periods, as well as societies such as Japanese, Chinese or even perhaps the Aztek Empire? Bravada, talk - 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well it could, but there is also an article called the Ruling class. But adding Japanese and other cultures would defenitely enhance this article. But good idea, some more historic pictures... Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trump

Okay, I changed the caption on the Donald's pic, he is upper class. Donald Trump is not a self made man. He inherited over 2,000 apartements, his father was a multi-millionaire real estate developer. Donald Trump grew up amongst privialge and attended Harvard. He is classic example of Northeastern American old money. There is a reason I chose him and not say Bill Gates. Donald Trump is old money and as much an upper class person as anyone can be in the US. We don't have nobility in the US but we obviously have an upper class. Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I like Trump, but it's completely erroneous to call him upper class. He didn't attend Harvard either: he went to NY Military Academy, Fordham University and Wharton - the last of which he has always extolled above even, seemingly, Harvard. At any rate, you are describing him as upper class in the American sense of the term - and thus highlighted one of the reasons there have been calls for a complete re-write. So far as most other, traditional (i.e. original) meanings of the phrase apply, Trump would land in the upper-middle to middle range. SignatureGunray 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but we also need to look at class from an American perspective as this is upper class not only in the UK but also in the US and we need to include the understanding of class in the US as well. FYI: Sorry about the Harvard mistake, my research was faulty, but he is from a wealthy home, his father owned 2000 apartements in Queens. This may not be Manhattan but owning 2000 apartements is still a considerable attribute to one's status. Nontheless, I put in Edward Kennedy who is clearly upper class. FYI: Nice Signature! Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite true. I'm planning to get to work on the whole article later today or tomorrow, since I'm free for the rest of the week. We need worldwide views on the topic, I think - it might be best to have sections devoted to each country's system, and their perceptions on what makes them so. Kennedy, I think, was a much better choice for the U.S. example. Thanks! Yours isn't so bad either! SignatureGunray 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Great to hear that, I just wanted to reiterate one thing - please make sure you turn it into an article discussing the CONCEPT of the upper class, not the upper class itself as a phenomenon, as if it existed indisputedly. Please also make sure that every statement is properly referenced. I believe that an in-depth, general discussion of the concept is much more important than an attempt to write a paragraph on each and every country or geographic area. I believe a proper approach would be like "these elements from Somebody's upper class concept cannot be applied to (e.g.) the US because of sumfink and sumfink, and therefore the American definition of upper class would be..." and then you can give examples like "...an example of person who could be classified as a member of the upper class by this definition would be Somebody Else.". I would also limit the discussion of who they are or what they do, what they drive etc. - I think it would be rather improper if somebody went around and said "I am upper class because I am a Senior Executive Vice President - I read that on Wikipedia!"
I guess I am being bossy here, though I like to think of as "constructive criticism" :D Have fun working with this article - it needs that! Bravada, talk - 10:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Bravada - references are essential to this article - even if it's Warner! A rewrite, or any expansion, without references would be pointless. The first section should ideally lay out the range of theoretical perspectives, and the range of upper classes - from elite to middle class. I'm getting round to this helping with this article slowly - let me know if I can be of assistance in the meantime. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I also think the idea of having sections for each geographic area is another good idea. Obviously the idea of what is upper class differs from country to country; thus having seperate section for all area cover is a good idea. This article should also feature more than one prominent ideology. In addition to Werner it should also feature Fussel- of course only his class system of porles replacing the lower middle class, let's not get into fahsion and thimble collections here. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone - I'll try and take all that into account. I may require the input of others at certain points in my re-write: I'll be sure to draw ample attention to said points, so that we ultimately have a valuable article. The geography re-ordering today was about all I had time for, but I prefer to get the structural ground work in before really setting to a task. SignatureGunray 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it that way - rearranging the countries does not fix much and rather provokes some nasty conflict over trivial issues. I am afraid this does not bode well, but we'll see - hopefully, I am wrong here. Bravada, talk - 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it will resolve some conflict as there are quite some differences between the perception of this class among different countires. Just look how much debate there has been over the British definition differing from the American definition. I was thinking that for the country section we can then have sections by author (i.e. United States => Wener => Paul Fussel). Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think many of the sociological definitions - particularly from a broad European perspective (and as far as I am aware a contemporary US perspective) transcend international boundaries as they are based on notions of capital - economic and cultural, hegemony, advantage and exploitation, economic and social inequality, political advantage, barriers to entry, and the relationships and mechanisms involved in maintaining distinctions. These things are not really touched upon in the article at the moment, in favour of a focus on the mystical millionaire status, but they are the key constituent of the upper classes. It is ultimately power that makes a class. You could well say that the US prefers the empirical approach to the relational approach, and you would be right, but there is no discussion of where, why, and how the boundaries are cut between 'strata'. Discussion of the reason for these boundaries will broaden the whole thing out. Hopefully the addition of some authors will add that. The section of the article about the UK is completely out of touch with encyclopaedic fact, academic opinion, and reality on the ground. I would delete it all immediately if it wouldn't leave a gap. It is obviously pragmatic to separate the countries to some extent, but I think the groundwork needs to be laid first - there is much more in common across geographies than the reader is led to think. I am quite happy with the pics of Kennedy and the country pile btw fwiw. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on its had, Zzuuzz, especially with the "mystical millionaire status". Perhaps you could just add what you just wrote about to the article, even not worrying about references? It would still be a lot better than what is there at the moment! Bravada, talk - 13:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started work - as you may have noticed - on the *United Kingdom* section, since I'm more able to comment on that particular area than some others. It's far from complete, so don't chop it to bits - I've yet to touch on several important areas, such as dress, leisure activities and so on. Please add where you feel I need a citation, though I've included a good few example within the text itself (since that always helps). SignatureGunray 16:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic degrees

"Overall the American upper class is mostly comprised of individuals residing in households with net worths over one million dollars, who constitute roughly 3% of the population, and most commonly hold a graduate degree, PhD, or professionals degree from a prestigious university."

This sentence seems to be confusing upper middle class with upper class. Professionals, e.g. lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. (unless they are exceptional or otherwise originally well endowed) clearly fall into the definition of "upper middle class". "Intellecutals" are not "upper class". They can be very poor, relatively speaking. The starting salary for a liberal arts PhD is around $50000. The defining criterion in education is the prestige of the institution, not the level of degree received.

I also question the notion that "households with net worths over one million dollars" would be in the upper class. This just isnt true anymore. If this were so, then most established professionals (e.g. doctors) would qualify too.

"According to CNN Money, however, 8.2 million housholds in the US alone had a net worth exceeding one million dollars. Millionaire households thus constituted roughly seven percent of all American households. The study also found that half of all millionaire households in the US were headed by retirees. Another finding was a record "33 percent increase over the 6.2 million households that met that criteria in 2003," fueled largely by the country's real estate boom." (as cited at Millionaire) --Jiang 08:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right 7% of households have a net worth of 1mil, but the upper class constitutes not near 7% of the population. So, no only a small fraction of millionaire households are actually upper class. In regards to the degrees, please consider that most politicans and corperate head honchos have graduate degrees. (Before you get to run your father's hedge fund, you might want to have an MBA). Donald Trump has a graduate degree. As stated correctly in this article the upper class is connected to the Ivy League. Another good example is the skull and bones club, all whose members are upper class and all of whom are Yale graduates. (G. W. Bush, J. Kerry, etc...) Rergards, Signaturebrendel 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the prevalence of millionaires, I think it is ridiculous to assume that all millionaires (let alone all millionaire households) are upper class. What source are you basing this assertion? This would contracdict the notion that doctors and lawyers are upper middle class. 15%+ is upper middle class, 7%+ is certainly too inclusive for upper class.

It's inappropriate to speak of specifics, but of the children of George HW Bush, only two (George and Marvin) have post-graduate (MBA) degrees. JDs and MBAs are certainly prevalent, but on what basis can we say they are characteristic?--Jiang 19:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Given the prevalence of millionaires, I think it is ridiculous to assume that all millionaires (let alone all millionaire households) are upper class." - I Agree, most millionaire households are retired upper middle class. "JDs and MBAs are certainly prevalent"' - Again, yes. This is worth mentioning as the attendence of Ivy League universities is iconic of the upper class. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the article's saying that living in such a household is a necessary condition (or at least a typical one), not that it's sufficient to be US upper class. But as the article seems very short on the later, this could indeed be confusing. Perhaps the "upper class lifestyle" aspect could be recast to have a more definitional character, or else more realistically quantify "great wealth". Alai 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right the, "more definitional character" would help this article greatly, unfortunately the perception of class changes from person to person. If you find some authorative sources on the issue please go ahead. I'm currently working on other projects, but am going to look for sources myself. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separating America?

An interesting issue to do with the class system is the fact that the US has a very different definition from just about everywhere else. An argument above speaks of how much money is needed to "attain upper class status" in the US. Seeing as attaining class status through sheer amount of cash is a completely alien idea in most other countries (it's about as silly as claiming you can change sex or height just through amounts of money), should all references to doing this be pulled out of the main section and banished to a US-only section?

Furthermore, the idea that class in the US is solely money-based is common but not necessarily accurate; If this were the sole requirement of being upper class, wouldn't upper class be just another term for rich? The idea of "class" would be redundant. Is 50 Cent upper class? In Europe he'd be considered not even middle but lower class, despite his great personal wealth. I am of the opinion that the US does have an upper class, albeit a silent one. The New-England historically rich families. They are the upper class of the US... the problem being that they are so removed from the rest of American society that most Americans are unaware of them and their different culture.--Zoso Jade 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Class in the US is a very vague concept, sometimes the word class here is just used instead of wealth. In the eyes of some Americans the term upper class is just another term for rich. In the US class is usually defined as a combination of occupation, educational attainment and income. As to the actual upper class, yes in contrast to popular opinion there indeed is an upper class in the US and not just in New England. Today's ancestors of the industrial tycoons, espcially the Big 7 who pretty much ruled California at the time of the frontier are also upper class. The Hearst family for example. Signaturebrendel 17:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanchez family

There is nothing on Google about any Jennifer or Stephany Sanchez, and barely anything about any Sanchez family at all. I may be wrong, but it sounds like someone is just talking about themself. Unless she can come up with references about this Dominican Republic "royalty", it does not belong here. But of course lets discuss it here, instead of just reverting and deleting. Thanks! 67.164.64.40 02:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok so I edited the language in that section a bit, and also deleted the parts about the "second and third" classes, as this is an article on the upper class. I would suggest the user who has contributed this section to start an article on social class in the dominican republic, where all three classes can be discussed. But please do cite your sources, and not just make generalizations made from observation. Thanks! 67.164.64.40 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] separating articles?

it seems as though the american upper class is different than a lot of other countries-should the article be split? --Colorfulharp233 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, yes a split is a good idea. I recently did something similar with the middle class. I created the article American middle class pretty much from scratch and turned the US section on the middle class article into an intro leading to the actual American middle class article. If you have enough info on the American upper class you can go ahead and start an American upper class article and use the US section here as an intro lead into that article. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove millionaire discussion

The sentence: "that those with a high net worth (as opposed to just having a high income) most often come from poor and middle class backgrounds." is somewhat misleading. 7% of Americans have net worths exceeding 1 million and 16% have incomes exceeding $100k-these are more priveleged members of the middle class. There are two basic faults in the introduction of this article: a) Many high net worth individuals are still middle class b) it is not taken into a account that the middle class (if defined as constituting the middle of the income range) is an economically highly fragmented group including those making $40k/year and those making $120k/year and thus cannot be refered to as one homogenous group. The references to middle class are to vague-it might easily be possible for a middle class persons to rise into the upper-class if he or she was born into a household at the upper edge of the middle class-different for someone at the middle of the middle class. I propose the following:

  • Only discuss the term millionaire here from a historical perspective or mention the current state of affairs and
  • Use more precise termonology than just stating middle class (perhaps say those with income within 20% of the median)

Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British university attendance

The article originally stated that universities commonly attended by the British upper class were Oxford, Cambridge and Durham but failed to give any evidence of this. I know from personal research that this should actually be Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial College; I have referenced some research carried out by the Sunday Times showing the first three universities as those with the least State school attendance, which is generally closely linked to what we are talking about. In fact, due to UCL's refusal to initiate a quota system, it probably has proportionately more Public school alumni than Oxford and Cambridge (the top two universities' state school numbers are actually driven down by a large international studentship rather than just public-school educated students but lacking reliable evidence of this I will assume the figures as evidence of a large public school acceptance). Perhaps most controversially, you may note I have removed Durham from the list. Durham is sometimes used as the textbook answer for an upper class unviersity, but this, from my research seems to be more appearance than fact; the university seems to just have a trend of the Public School students who do go playing up to the stereotype. Imperial College has a smaller State school populace. I think in terms of this article we may really only go by the Times research as the best available as opposed to impressions.

However, from my independent research I would think many of the London universities (UCL, Imperial, King's) would score very high on class. UCL because of the above mentioned quota refusal and in general London universities because just the cost of living in the city prices out many students, leaving the London universities with a disproportionately wealthy (not strictly linked to class, but highly correlated) student populace.

That the Oxbridge universities are the most popular universities for the upper class is pretty uncontroversial, I think, but finding a citation to back this up won't necessarily be easy. Remember that attendance at public school does not necessarily entail upper class, as there are plenty of wealthy middle class who send their children to such schools. Additionally, Wikipedia's not the place for research - it's a place for stating established fact. Therefore your conclusion (which I find tenuous given your source) is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and shouldn't really be in the article, I don't think. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research for more. Matthew 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You might note that I did not place my conclusions from my personal research in the article but merely stated them here. "but lacking reliable evidence of this I will assume the figures as evidence of a large public school acceptance", I said. All I've put in the article is purely from the Times.
You've stated that the attendance of public school does not entail upper class. Again, I've noted this on this discussion page. "which is generally closely linked to what we are talking about". It does not necessarily entail but it is highly correlated and aside from finding research carried out on each student at every unveristy in the country, it is probably as close as we will ever get. The alternative is to remove all references to universities from the article. What I've written on this discussion page is based on my research, what I've placed on the actual page is all The Sunday Times.--Zoso Jade 11:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose what I don't understand is how it can be said from the source given (The Times's university guide) that Oxford is the most popular university of the upper class, followed by Cambridge and UCL. There's a jump of logic here that's unexplained in the article and does not necessarily follow. The approach I think I'd take would be to say something along the lines of that the traditional universities, and especially Oxford and Cambridge, are (or are at least commonly perceived to be) most popular with the upper class and tend to carry a stereotype of having a disproportionate number of students from upper-class background. I think this is specific enough to be useful but vague enough to remain uncontroversial. What do you think to something like that? Matthew 14:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


(Old message deleted) Now that I think about it I agree with just putting in Oxford and Cambridge and stating they are the traditional unis. I'm sure everyone can agree on that.--Zoso Jade 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gunray's edit

I have removed Gunray's edit in an attempt to make this article more objective. It represents little of the United States upper class and was written from the perspective of someone from Great Britain. "Aristocratic values" are nearly nonexistant in the U.S. and much of the power base of individuals in the U.S. comes from individuals that were not born into prestige. For every example of a person that was born into "prestige" who holds power in the U.S., two or three can be identified who were not. The notion of "occupational prestige" is ridiculous and impossible to determine objectively. Yes, there exists a sort of New England "blue blood" but it is only a small representation of the social power base in the U.S.A. Very few, in the United States at least, would state that someone such as Oprah Winfrey is not upper class, but it seems prevalent amongst these articles. If you measure her power base, she is up there with Gates, Trump, possibly even higher, yet she did not come from "aristocratic" backgrounds (quite the stark opposite), but the influence she has on America and the world is tremendous.

I think this just goes to show that a one-size-fits-all Upper class article won't do, as your edit hasn't made the article more objective but instead made it more US-centric. I've reverted back to Gunray's edit as some of your edits don't make sense - for instance, has the US ever had a titled nobility? Aren't the UK and France self-evidently not the US? Etc. Matthew 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this conflict will be resolved without a complete re-write for both countries, especially considering that there is already an upper class article for America (written under the same aristocratic ideology that this one is written under). The references, or "sources" in this case do not work as most sources on wikipedia do; many "sources" on this topic as a whole are just subjectivity supporting subjectivity. I have not seen instances of this on any section of wikipedia other than the sociology section - an article that generalizes a political party, then cites a politician making a generalization about another political party would be given no merit whatsoever, yet it is accepted in sociological circles? Not to mention much of the debate breeds arguments like "____ is upper class, ____ isn't", which is enormously one-dimensional. This article is going to be a metaphorical Israel unless it's either completely rewritten or shut down.

[edit] Ted Kennedy

Anyone else feel that the presence of a picture of Ted Kennedy as an example of an "upper class" American is trying to push a point? Rather than a photo of a political figure, wouldn't we be better off a picture that gives an example of upper-class American wealth (say, in the Upper East Side of Manhattan or Beverly Hills, California) without targeting specific individuals? Andrew Levine 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I tired posting a picture of a couple of mansions, but then editors said I should try and post a picture of an upper class person. First I used Donald Trump, but that was a too nuveau riche choice for some. Then I thought Astor, but we only have an old picture of John Jacob Astor from the 19th century. Finally I thought of the Kennedy's, undoubtely one of America's most prestigous families (old money, legacy and generations of prominent politicans). I am a Democrat but I am not agruing a political point with the Ted Kennedy picture-yes he is a congressment, but that only examplifies his position within American society. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accents, Language and Dress - Significance of Class

In the UK you can pretty much tell what class a person belongs to as soon as they open their mouths. David Beckham could have amassed a bigger fortune than Her Majesty the Queen by the time he reaches her age but he will still be as working class as the day he was born. Accent and dress probably have far less significance in the States which is why there is confusion over Donald Trump.

Use of language is another area in which there are differences associated with class. The working class go to the toilet - the middle and upper classes to the loo or the lavatory. It really is as simple as that.

Just in case you don't get the opportunity to listen to them the working class also wear clothing that help distinguish them from the higher classes - the ubiquitious shiny track-suit for example or brightly coloured 'trainers' (sports shoes). The interesting thing about this is that for many of them this is all they ever wear when they are not at work - a working class uniform equivalent to the middle class off-duty garb of leather loafers and chinos.

The significance of class is changing - the existence of class is not. In the UK it is very difficult to move from working class to middle class and well nigh impossible to move from middle to upper. One aspect of this changing significance is that the higher classes are quite happy to mingle with members of the working class (or any other lower class) who are also members of the new class - the celebrity class! - disagreed.

Just a few thoughts, mainly from the UK perspective. I hope this helps whoever is re-writing the article on this fascinating subject.

[edit] What gets people into the upper class.

"Overall the American upper class is mostly comprised of individuals residing in households with net worths over one million dollars, who constitute roughly 3% of the population, the majority of whom have attained a graduate or professional degree from a prestigious university.[citation needed] "

I suspect you will not find a citation to support this assertion. The recent book "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko makes a convincing case that most US millionaires do not have graduate or professional degrees from any university, much less a prestigious one. They support their contention that most current millionaires earned their money by operating a small business.

There are lots of other issues that could be raised here. Why is one million dollars the cut off? What about the hundreds of thousands of houses whose value has risen above one million dollars? Does a retired school teacher in Silicon Valley whose two bedroom bungalo has risen in value from $20,000 to $1,000,000 really consitute a member of the upper class?

The term upper class refers to those who have a lot of incluence, authority, and economic cloud. Class is a person's position and function within society. Prestige and income are indicators of high status and commonly a graduate degree is an indicator of an upper middle class whiter collar professional status. As for the upper class, their hallmark is that they're the grand conceptualizers. Upper middle class persons are experts, consultants and managers; upper class persons are the CEOs, board members, trustees, upper management or big time stckholders that bring the big picture into place. That said, a persons class is often told, by many individuals, by prestige which for most people translates into molah. Thus a sugreon who makes $300,000/year may be considered upper class, despite his function in society being of similar nature to that of a professor making $70,000/year. As for millionaires consider that there is a great difference between those who have 1 million in liquid assets (2.6% of households) and those who have it in net-worth (7% of households). Those who have it in liquid assets have much greater economic clout as they can move, invest and spend their money. Money in the form of net worth is frozen and therefore does not create any economic clout, except when you sell your home. I hope that answers some of your questions. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/p/p/Talk%7EUpper_class_b628.html"