Image talk:Class US.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Issues

I'm sorry, but this chart is problematic on several levels. First, it suggests that the factors are always directly related, where in many cases they are not (some examples a are electricians and other skilled manual laborers). The lines drawn between classes are too well defined to reflect this, nor is it proportioned to represent the percentage if the population in each classification. Also, salaries vary wildly by region. 200,000 dollars does not make one "CEO class" in many tristate NY suburbs by a long shot. Another thing that the chart fails to take into account is the unpredictable and dynamic job market in the US, where the services market is rapidly changing and technology continues to mature. The American class system is hugely complex, and cannot be summed up in such a graph.

It may be well-intentioned, but this chart is simplistic and I believe could easily mislead someone. - Plasticbadge 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me address your concerns:
  1. it suggests that the factors are always directly related- such isn't intended but notice that is indeed often the case. Remember that this is just a model featuring generalizations- and generally speaking the class factors interact in the manner shown in this graph.
  2. salaries vary wildly by region- doesn't matter. Some areas are home to more upper middle class people than others. Affluence concentrates is certain areas of the nation- the geographical distribution of class statuses is not discussed in this graph. In the SF Bay Metro 33% of households may considered affluent ($100k+), while in a small Kansas town perhaps only 2% of households are affluence ($100k+). This vs. 15% at the national level.
  3. nor is it proportioned to represent the percentage if the population in each classification- the percentages are 1%; 15%; 30%; 30%, 24%. The graph doesn't look like that?
  4. "200,000 dollars does not make one "CEO class" in many tristate NY suburbs by a long shot"- yes it does. Just becuase making $200k is nothing special in the Hamptons doesn't mean it isn't CEO-class, it simply means that you're looking at a CEO-class town. Just becuase the median income in Saratoga, CA is $139k, doesn't mean a household making $100k is no longer UMC in that town, it simply means that the vast majority of households (event those below the median) in Saratoga are UMC. This means that being UMC is the norm in Saratoga, making it a UMC-town. So, in those NY suburbs being CEO-class is simply the norm (thus it's nothing special); they're CEO-class towns!
  5. The American class system is hugely complex, and cannot be summed up in such a graph- true! But this graph is only intended to highlight some of the most important class features. It is a model, a simplified version of reality, that makes a generalization about the subject.
FYI: the graph is based on Thompson & Hickey and Dennis Gilbert's class model. I may replace this graph w/ a better one soon. Signaturebrendel 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm more concerned with the fact that it's hard to read and rather ugly imo. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)