Talk:American upper class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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 American 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American upper class article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents 1 Not finished 2 POV 3 Proposed merger 4 Spelling error? 5 The New Rules for the Rich 6 Old Money

[edit] Not finished

This article is still under contruction and wihtin a short amount of time will grow to a justified lenght. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article sounds like it was written by a British aristocrat. To think that someone has to be born into money and power to attain it obviously does not acknowledge the existance of individuals such as Oprah Winfrey. "Prestige" is a subjective definition that allows too much room for unnecessary, unwarranted elitism. This comment was added by 68.90.178.213.

Prestige is indeed a subjective term. Famed American Sociologist W. Lloyd Warner, did however, differentiate between the upper-upper and lower-upper class with the latter refering to people like Oprah Winfrey and the former to "old money" such as the Astor family. I personally have not yet spent a lot of time on this article and, guessing from the fact that I am currently busy in real life, won't in the near future. But, do feel free to make suggestions or implement improvements on the article yourself. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this assumes the premise that there is some sort of inherent class difference when one is born into money and one rises up to it. It would be difficult to deny that there is an "upper class", but a "lower upper class" and "upper upper class" is superfluous and impossible to concretely define. Just because it is published in one man's book does not make it law; otherwise, conspiracy theorists would be more than just conspiracy theorists. Warner was born in an era before World War II and before the civil rights era where classism was rampant, he has many challenges to his LUC/UUC theory evident by his wikipedia page, and perhaps most importantly is his association with the Rockefeller family, which is one of the definitive examples of American blue-blood, so it is extremely likely that he may have been biased towards it.This comment was added by 68.90.178.213.

His ideas are widely accepted. There is no law. There is no one correct theory. Class in American is not a clearly defined concept; rather it is a mish-mash of theories who may contradict each other. Warners theory is due to its being widely published worth mentioning here. There is never a good excuse to leave out a valid theory. That is all the UUC/LUC concept is: a theory. After all that is all there is in regards to class in America: thoeries. That said, I agree we should mention some other theories besdies just Warner on this page-that would make this stub more balanced. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now, but if you have sources and know of other valid theories add them so we can provide our readers with more vantage points on the issue. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a valid theory. However, I don't think it is the only theory, and the existence of other theories is not mentioned here. This doesn't happen to be something that I know a great deal about, so I feel unqualified to comment on it. Nevertheless, I can tell you from personal experience that while some people probably do look up to the Kennedys and Rockafellers, most Americans do not, and indeed many Americans (perhaps even many from the upper class) feel as if they stand in contrast to the American ideal. While old money is certainly a very powerful influence in politics, its influence on culture is waning. Personally, I think more Americans are inspired by Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey than someone who inherited a lot of money. Phil Bastian 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The distinguishment made with the UUC/LUC distinction is likely a misnomer made/affected by the nationality of its cnreator. There IS a distinction between what we colloqualy call "new" and "old money" familes. There-in lies the actual issue at hand, to what extent is it important to discribe that rift... which does exist. I think labeling the "old money" class as "upper-upper" is prejudiced and leads to many unnecesary contraversies. Instead maybe it would be more effective to refer to the groups as inherited and non-inherited upper class. This would allow for a broader distinction that can apply in most countries with less perjorative aspects. If i have the time ill re-word this and the "upper-class" articles to reflect a more neutral position (as the two articles clearly show a more euro-centric perception).LionVision 6:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thre are prestige differences within the upper class, but they do not always run along the old and new money devide. For example, Bill Clinton (new money) has more prestige now than Pris Hilton (old money). The upper-upper class theory was used in two class models: Warner Yankee City class model in 1949 and the Coleman & Rainwater Metro class model in 1979. Modern sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert identify prestige differences among members of the upper class (Senator vs. Celebrity) but no longer use the old/new money devide. Signature^brendel 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A valid point, Which makes the issue all the more compliacted... What defines "upper-upper?"... Where-in all the other class distinctions (upper, middle, working, lower) refer to the aggragate wealth/income/worth of the families/individuals referenced, the UUC/LUC distinction is designed to cast a postive/negative light on the value of the labeled individuals themselves. That makes the term derogatory in nature (and gives the reader a sense of the authors bias, whether knowledgably intended or not). The point isnt if i think paris should be labeled lower upper class because i think she embodies a lot of things i dont like about the wealthy... its about maintaining class definitions neutral to the subjects publicly known persona. The case in point is the assertion by William Thompson that "a cocaine dealer, a lottery winner, a rock star, and a member of the Rockefeller family", would all be equally classified under a entirely neutral class distinction based soleyl on wealth... this casts the feeling with the perjorative opener "cocaine dealer" that these people would all be somehow easily segragated... but it is not true, and is highly variable to the person being asked to classify them. Most americans while not LIKING paris or michael jackson or whomever would still grudginly acknowledge they are indeed upper-class... Children of cocaine dealers or organized crime (such as the fictional soprano children) would also be seen as upper class even if based solely on their wealth and schooling. Rock stars who galavant about with CEO's (such as Richard Branson, Steve Jobs or Gates) and are VISIBLY SEEN hob-nobbing with US presidents and the like would also be un-questionably seen as upper-class... and more-over, the immediate (and there-after) children of all these people would most-certainly be seen as upper-class (so long as they retained the larger wealth of their parents). Once again we run into this slightly antiquated notion that somehow class is associated with family_name/iheritance/honorability_of_aquirement. If paris had NOT been caught in a sex tape, nor been seen doing her various other media-centric less than pristine behaviors, she would not be considered LUC. If the test for defining this term is one of the behavior of the subject... id say its not a very good term. If the test is wether or not their financial status is through newer wealth or inherited wealth... i would also say the term isnt very good. Indeed, the only proper/neutral/fair use of a UUC/LUC distinction would be to refer to the difference between the uber-rich (gates, Al saud, buffet, etc..) and the relatively wealthy (multi-millionaires). It's ok to make these various distinctions, just using the UUC/LUC moniker to do so is innappropriate because it implies a direct relation to the neutral UC/MC/WC/LC classifications... when the test for such classifications is inherently different. LionVision 11:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

Affluence in the United States and this article both cover "wealthy people in the United States". The same statistics are applicable whether you are describing the terms "wealthy", "high income", "upper class", or "affluent". To avoid unnecessary duplication across articles, I propose that the two articles be merged. Multiple terminologies and definitions can easily be handled in the same article, and doing that seems to improve neutrality. I picked "American upper class" as the title to consolidate under, because it fits in neatly with the Social class in the United States series. But if anyone prefers a different title, that's fine with me. -- Beland 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Under no ciscumstance can that be done. The American upper class is not a synonym for affluent. Middle class people (especially the upper middle class) may also be called affluent. The Upper Class is a purely sociological phenomenon, affluen or high income is not. Affluence is part of being upper middle or upper, but is not the same. Please don't equate a social class article with one discussing only economics. Being affluent and upper class is not the same. Affluence is a relative economic term, not a social class. A $75k/year single professional is under no circumstance upper class but would nonetheless be idenitifed as affluent. Again this article describes an economic condition of private individuals/households whereas the American upper class article deals with a social class. Merging these two articles would be misleading and incorrect. Again, the term upper class is not a syonoym for affluent (maybe on the street but not in a sociology textbook). I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh but you just cannot merge these two articles, they discuss two different topics. As a social scientists, the idea of having this affluence and upper class being the same raises the hairs on my neck- please listen to me. Being affluent does not mean being upper class. The upper class and affluence are not the same, affluence is not a social class. Affluence is an economic condition, relative to an individual/households sourrounding, and may occur in any social class. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

agreed with directly above. Colorfulharp233 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Which? -- Beland 01:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The indent as well as the word "directly" indicate an agreement with my post ;-) Signature^brendel 02:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea that affluence and class are completely different is only one point of view. By the New York Times definition, class is solely a function of numerical income. Are two articles needed to explain the distiction, or will one do? There's also the point of view that there's no such thing as class in the United States, that the country is based on ideals of social mobility, and does not consider pedigree to be relevant, as distinct from the European tradition. I would hope that does not need three articles to explain. My purpose here is not to take a position on the debate over whether the two things are the same or different (Wikipedia must be neutral on that point), but to avoid having a proliferation of articles on the same topic, each only slightly different from the last.

Affluence in the United States has a section on social class, but it does not identify anything concrete which can be used to determine social class, apart from income. That could be solved by importing a better summary from American upper class, though.

Is there anything that you think "affluence" entails, other than a relatively high income, that is different from class? Most of the statistics provided by Affluence in the United States are redundant with Household income in the United States and Personal income in the United States. Those articles are already telling us how income varies with race, education, household type, etc. The Affluence article does have some new information, mostly details about who the people at the upper end of the scale are, in terms of profession, and maybe a few more statistics. These statistics would be useful to have when discussing the upper class and upper middle class (the boundary between the two being ill-defined). I think what I am suggesting here is letting the income articles deal with "affluence" in the sense of a relatively high income, but moving the class-related material from this article to "American upper class". -- Beland 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Is there anything that you think "affluence" entails, other than a relatively high income, that is different from class?" No affluence only entails being well-off but being upper class entails more than affluence; thus, you cannot merge these two articles. (and the NY Times is not a sociology book). Even in the US education and occupation as well as the source of income are as important as income. People derive status from academic degrees and clearly a successful drug dealer is not on the same level as the Kennedy family (even according to opinion polls). Yes people like to beleive that class is all about money but it isn't. Doctors play golf with their fellow doctors and not the nurses. Even if two nurses shack up and attain a household income equal to that of a doctor (making them affluent but not upper middle class), they still will seek the company of their professional equals and the nurses won't be stepping toes w/ MDs at the club. And professors who make as much as plumbers are still higher up on the social strata by the virtue of occupation. These professor will also most commonly not associate with the plumbers, despite both groups being affluent. Social classes are coherent social groups. Affluence is one of the group-gatekeepers but is an independent and important concept that deserves its own full-size article. Affluence is a component of class but also its own concept. Classes are social groups based on education, occupation, value systems, and income whose members associate with each other as to form a recognizable pattern (they do, read any sociology textbook, any).

As for "Affluence in the United States has a section on social class, but it does not identify anything concrete which can be used to determine social class, apart from income. That could be solved by importing a better summary from American upper class, though"- NO it could not. People in the middle class may be affluent as well and providing concerete guidelines would be misleading as it all relative. Upper class people are affluent relative to everybody, Upper middle class people are affluent relative to Middle class people, who are affluent relative to working class people, who are affluent relative to lower class people. It is not just the upper class that is affluent. Members of any class maybe affluent relative to those of another (or their own). Social class is dealt with in the Social class articles (already full-sized), income is dealt with on the income articles (already full-sized), but affluence and how it may affect social status is dealth with in the affluence article.

The concept of affluence is a concept in its own right. It relates to class and serves as a class component, but is not a social class itself and not the exclusive domain of the upper class (thus you can merge it into this article). It is its own topic- as is educational attainment and occupational prestige. All these relate to class but are concept in their own right. Splitting this article is not a good idea as affluence is a concept that ought to mentioned. There needs to be an article that mentions what affluence, not high social status, is. Just like we have an article for Occupational prestige and Educational attainment in the United States, affluence is an important concept requiring its own article. What is affluent, who is affluent (race, gender, profession), why are they affluent (education)... all these questions would go unanswered if this article ought to be split. And the income articles I wrote do not tell us how affluence (not just income in general) varies with race, education, profession etc... Furthermore this article explores the relationship between the two independent concepts of affluence and social class. The affluence article is needed by itself in order to discuss the independent concept of affluence. Most of the info mentioned in the article (the race, education, profession and social class section) is not feature anywhere else as it only pertains to the concept of affluence in the US. It would be out of place on the upper class article as it applies to other social classes as well and out of place on the income article as it deals only with a small portion of the income strata. BTW: There is a huge difference between the Upper middle class (15% of pop) and the upper class (1%). Your family doctor vs. Theresa Heinz Kerry! ;-) Please make sure you have considered all propositions in my post (I know it's a big one) before repsonding. Thank you and best regards, Signature^brendel 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's hold off on a merger, then. I can try eliminating the redundant information from Affluence in the United States and see if what's left stands on its own. I wrote:

Affluence in the United States has a section on social class, but it does not identify anything concrete which can be used to determine social class, apart from income. That could be solved by importing a better summary from American upper class, though

I do not think I came across clearly. What I am saying is that the Affluence article, if kept, needs to more clearly explain the claimed difference between affluence and class. It does not currently make that distinction clearly. It's OK if the "upper class" article explains the same claimed distinction in the same way, so that readers of either article will be able to easily understand it.

However, major points of view - that class is the same thing as numerical income, that class is irrelevent to life in the United States, etc., need to be explained in the class articles, even if we disagree with them, and even if they are wrong. In order to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, no one school of thought can have a monopoly on interpretations of complex realities. The article upper class has a more balanced description of the concept of "American upper class". I'll tag this article NPOV until it can be broadened. -- Beland 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well thank on agreeing not to merge. I will be busy next week but I'll be sure to add some text pertaining to the difference between class and income to the affluence article. The upper class in the US article is far from finished. I started it a while back but got hung up on other projects. The article currently is in its infancy and I don't mind you tagging it. As for the Affluence article, please be careful when you prune it; I'll certainly appreciate any feedback you might have. Also, please consider that I have no references for the theory that class is irrelevant or the same as income-not one of my sociological sources backs that up. I usually don't make a habit putting unreferenced claims into my articles. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling error?

I don't have the source that is being quoted, but I suspect there is a typo in that large quote near the top of the article. It says, "...they often own median enterprises that allow them influence...." Is it supposed to say "media enterprises", rather than "median enterprises"? --JHP 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's media not median. I just made a typo when I included the quote-sorry. Signature^brendel 08:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also just noticed that in the large image that shows the different classes, in the Lower Class section, the word "treshold" should be "threshold". There is a missing 'h'. --JHP 08:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I would have an easy time keeping an entire army of copyeditors busy :D! I have removed the image until I upload a corrected version. Signature^brendel 08:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I think it's bizarre that someone with a bachelor's degree earning $55,000 per year is considered by the picture to be lower-middle class. Only about 25% of American adults have a college degree, so anyone with a college degree is in roughly the top quarter of the adult population educationally. Perhaps sociologists view the middle class to only reside in the upper half of the income strata, but economists sure don't. --JHP 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Economists (such as Micheal Zweig of NYU) do as well-but they don't talk about class as often (class is mainly a sociological concept-though economist do deal w/ it as sociology and economics overlap). There are two very different terms: Middle class and middle income. People tend to confuse the two and even use them interchangably -afterall class is any group of people, not neccesarily a "social class." Socio-economic class status, however, refers to more than income. It takes into account occupation and education. The problem with the term middle class is that it is used so ambigously. Yet, scientifically speaking middle class does neccesarily not equate into being middle income. Instead, middle class (in socio-economic terms) describes relatively well-educated persons who maintain a comfortable standard of living through professional expertise (teacher, banker, attorney, accountant, management, etc...). I have put the most up-to-date definition of middle class (the socio-economic middle class) in my American middle class article. Signature^brendel 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Zweig is an exception to the rule. Most economists look primarily at income and the things income can buy (home, lifestyle, college education, retirement) when discussing the middle class. They also tend to divide people into wealthy, middle class, and poor, where middle class does indeed mean middle income. The Drum Major Institute's definition of middle class is a good approximation of the typical economist's usage. Class is not so much a social term as it is a socioeconomic term. Throughout the world and throughout history no single factor has determined class more than wealth. (I should point out that income and wealth are not the same. The former is what you are currently getting and the latter is what you already have. However, income and wealth are highly correlated.) In modern developed countries, class is more determined by income, except for the upper class which is still more determined by wealth.

Also, while Wikipedia articles tend to focus on occupation and education in determining class, lifestyle and homeownership are generally omitted. I believe this is a mistake. In America, homeownership is an important indicator of class, just as land ownership was an important indicator in feudal Europe.

In addition, when looking at the correlation of income and educational level, the biggest income gap in America is between those people who have some college education and those who have a bachelor's degree. Because of this, putting the two in the same group (class or sub-class) may not be appropriate.

Finally, there has been economic debate within the past two decades or so about whether the middle class is shrinking. According to the sociological definitions you are using, the middle class should actually be expanding because more people are going to college and getting college degrees than in the past. That's my input. Feel free to disagree. --JHP 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When economists look at income and pucharsing power they are not always looking at socio-economic class. Of course the word "class" just means group- so what middle class means depends on the context. I myself have used the term middle class to describe the middle income group in my writings, just beucase it is the most convenient term - it was clear from the context that I am was not talking about socio-economic class but rather just an income bracket. As for Occupation and education, they do factor into the mix - especially since they give rise to income w/ education being recognized as an economic resource in itself. You are of course free to disagree - I was just telling you what the theories that currently dominate academia on the subject of class are. As for Wikipedia articles, I will continue to use the class models outlined in the currently most widely used textbooks. BTW: The middle class is acutally expanding-while the working class has been "shrinking." You do need to differentiate between news-publications on the topic and the actual textbooks-Most sociology and economics textbooks state that the middle class is expanding. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Lou Dobbs is wrong again! He (and many others) says the middle class is shrinking, but he should be saying that the working class is falling further behind the middle class and wealthy.

Regarding occupation and education, you seem to have misunderstood me. I believe occupation and education are strong indicators of socioeconomic class, but I'm saying homeownership and lifestyle are equally important. Perhaps sociology's emphasis on education and occupation reflect the high regard for education among sociology professors. Or perhaps they see education, occupation, and income as determinants of socioeconomic class, and homeownership and lifestyle as the results of socioeconomic class. (That would ignore the fact that real estate is an asset that can increase wealth.) However, I fully understand the importance of sticking to reliable sources. --JHP 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's income, education & occupation that put the economic in "socio-economic class"... some sociologist, who are less concern w/ economics actually emphasize these areas less. Lifestyle is also considered in class models as are other varaiables btw - the problem being that these variables are much more difficult to accurately measure. Anyways, I agree with your take on Lou Dobbs-as do my reference books. I'm glad that we see eye to eye on "sticking to reliable sources." Regards, Signature^brendel 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Rules for the Rich

The Wall Street Journal has a new article titled, The New Rules for the Rich. It details how the rules of dress and behavior for the wealthy have changed over time. There is also a WSJ blog post on the same topic. Here is a quote from the article:

"Yet today, the rules for high society are breaking down. There are simply so many new millionaires and billionaires -- from diverse backgrounds and lifestyles -- that the old signifiers of status have become obsolete. The guy in jeans at the Sotheby's auction is more likely to buy a $40 million Picasso than the guy in the suit, who is probably just an art dealer. And the vast majority of today's richest Americans didn't go to Ivy League schools; others, like Bill Gates, even dropped out. As for Veblen's "breeding" and "manners?" One look at the all-you-can-eat Sunday brunch buffet at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach will tell you that manners no longer maketh the rich man (or woman)."

--JHP 23:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good find. The article makes a very sharp observation. Our society today is much freer (to some extent this can be attributed to the 60s - most of the rich are baby boomers or the children of b-bomrs.) than it was decades ago. The rich dress and behave depending more on their individual moods and tastes rather than social norms. This is not just the case w/ the rich - even in academia and the upper middle class dress and taste rules have become more and more relaxed. Today, a professor, therapist, physican or scientists who wears tie probably does so becuase he/she likes it, not because it's the "thing to do." Anyways, I'll try and incorporate into the article over the next couple of days. (I'm budy in real life and am going to be for the next couple of weeks so it may take some time). Regards, Signature^brendel 02:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Money

Why does this article not deal with the fact of old money family. The United States has families of the upper class that pre-date 1776. It has always been know that are 18th century and early 19th century families who have or had a vast about of money are old money. The Astors and Hilton were considered the new rich. I think the author needs to do more research. Even though the USA allows people with millions of dollars to place thenselves into the Upper class, it should not be forgotten that those who made money in the later half of the 19th century are still new money.

--Margrave1206 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)