Social classes in the united states

Generally, the American class system lacks clear boundaries; therefore, we face a problem in deciding how to cut it up. Following Karl Marx, we might identify only two major social classes; yet other sociologists have suggested that there are as many as six (Warner & Lunt, 1941 or seven Coleman & Rainwater, 1978). Another alternative, derived from Max Weber’s theory of several different dimensions of social inequality, is to conclude that there are no classes at all in the United States and that the existing social inequality is actually a complex status hierarchy.

Part of the difficulty of identifying social classes reflects the relatively low level of status consistency characteristic of class systems. Especially toward the middle of the class system, a person’s social position on many dimensions of social inequality may not be consistent (Gilbert & Kahl, 1987). As explained in Chapter 9, someone may have more power (as a government official, perhaps) than income and wealth. Similarly, someone who has a great deal of social prestige (for instance, as a member of the clergy) may have only moderate power and little wealth. Another factor making social classes difficult to precisely define is the considerable social mobility of a class system-which is pronounced near the middle-so that social position may change within any person’s lifetime. Nonetheless, patterns of social inequality in the United States are clear enough to permit a description of four general social classes: the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class.

The Upper Class

Perhaps 3 or 4 percent of all Americans fall within the upper class. First, upper-class families have a yearly income that is, at the very least, $100,000. The “super-rich” members of the upper class may earn several million dollars or more annually. Such high income over a period of time, commonly coupled to significant inheritance of property, means that upper-class people control a vastly disproportionate share of wealth in terms of stocks and bonds, real estate, and other investments. The 1987 Forbes magazine profile of the richest four hundred people in America estimated their total wealth at $220 billion: the personal worth of this economic elite (including forty-nine billionaires) was a minimum of $225 million. There is little doubt that, in Marxist terms, the upper class represents capitalists who own most of the nation’s productive property. Second, beyond the power inherent in their wealth, many members of the upper class have occupational positions-as top executives in large corporations and as high government officials-that give them the power to shape events in the nation and, increasingly, the entire world. Third, the upper class is highly educated, typically in the most expensive and highly regarded schools and colleges. Historically, the upper class was composed almost exclusively of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), although this is somewhat less true today (Baltzell, 1964, 1976).

Upper-class people, then, enjoy the highest level of social prestige in American society. But there are social differences among even the most privileged Americans, so an important distinction is often made between the upper-class and the lower-upper class.

The upper-upper class. This most elite segment of the American population-often described simply as “society”-contains only about 1 percent of the population (Warner & Lunt, 1941; Coleman & Neugarten, 1971; Rossides, 1976). There is an old saying that the easiest way to get into the upper-upper class is to be born there- a fact reflected in the description of such people as “blue-bloods.” Ascription is evident in the fact that the great wealth of upper-upper class families is usually inherited rather than earned. For this reason, such people are often called the old rich –their wealth has grown old over many generations.

Life in the upper-upper class is built around highly selective social ties and memberships. These include exclusive neighborhoods, such as Beacon Hill in Boston, the Rittenhouse Square area or the Main Line in Philadelphia, the Gold Coast of Chicago, and Nob Hill in San Francisco. Schools and colleges extend this socially exclusive environment. Children are typically educated in private secondary schools with others of similar background, and continue their education at high-prestige colleges and universities. In the pattern of the European feudal aristocracy, such children study liberal arts rather than vocationally directed subjects. Social clubs and organizations further exclusivity. The women of this class, who usually have no income-producing occupations, often engage in volunteer work for charitable organizations. While helping the community, these activities also serve to maintain upper-class solidarity from generation to generation (Ostander 1980, 1984).

The lower-upper class. The remaining 2 or 3 percent of the upper class is more precisely termed the lower-upper class. From the point of view of most Americans, such people are every bit as privileged as the upper-upper class just described. But there are several significant differences between these categories.

First, the primary source of wealth for those in the lower-upper class is earning rather than inheritance. Probably most people in this category did not inherit a vast fortune from their parents, but the majority certainly inherited considerable wealth, or at least social advantages that helped them to become extremely successful in business or the professions. About half of the “super-rich” represent “new money” of the lower-upper class.

Second, even for the richest of Americans, having earned much of one’s wealth may be grounds for being accorded less social prestige-especially by members of “society.” Therefore, while “new rich” Americans are likely to live in very expensive houses or apartments in the most exclusive neighborhoods, they may nonetheless be excluded from the highest-prestige clubs and associations of old-monied “society.”

Since membership in the lower-upper class is at least possible on the basis of achievement, upward social mobility to this point is widely considered to represent the American dream of success. The young actress who left a small town and achieved Hollywood stardom, the athlete whose years of workouts finally paid off with a million-dollar big-league contract, the clever engineer who built a computer in a garage and ten years later is managing a billion-dollar corporation-these are the sorts of achievers who become part of the lower-upper class. For this reason, Americans tend to have little interesting the upper-upper class, while paying greater attention to the “lifestyles of the rich and famous,” as well as television shows such as Dallas and Dynasty. These shows portray people who are more or less like the rest of us-except that they have made a lot of money.

The distinction between the upper-class is well illustrated by comparing two listings of wealthy Americans-the Social Register and Who’s Who in America.

The Middle Class

The middle class includes 40 to 45 percent of all Americans. Because it is so large and represents the aspirations of many more people, the middle class has tremendous influence on the patterns of American culture. Television shows most often present middle-class Americans, and most commercial advertising is directed at them. Being so large, the middle class contains far more ethnic and racial diversity than does the upper class. In addition, while upper-class people (at least those within a limited geographical area) are likely to know one another, such familiarity is obviously not possible in the much larger middle class.

Roughly the top one-third of this category of Americans can be distinguished as the upper-middle class on the basis of an income that is well above average- generally in the range of $40,000 to $100,000 a year. Family income is often greater still if both husband and wife work. This allows upper-middle-class families to gradually accumulate considerable property-an elegant house in a fairly expensive area, automobiles, and some investments. Virtually all upper-middle-class people have educations, and many have postgraduate degrees as well. Most work in white-collar occupations such as medicine, engineering, and law, or in business at the executive level. Having less wealth than members of the upper class, this category of Americans lacks the power to influence national or international events, but they often play an important part in civic and political organizations in the local community. The rest of the middle class typically works in less prestigious white-collar occupations (such as bank teller, lower-level manager, and sales clerk or in highly skilled blue-collar jobs. Such people sometimes have incomes as high or even higher than upper-middle-class Americans, especially if more than one family member works. However, middle-class American families usually earn between $15,000 and $40,000 a year. This roughly equals the national average (1986 median family income: $29,460) and provides a secure, if modest, standard of living. People in the middle class are generally able to accumulate only a small amount of wealth over their working lives. The goal of owning a house is achieved by most of them, however, though the house is unlikely to be in an expensive neighborhood. Most middle-class people have a high-school education, but a college degree is far from common. Reflecting their limited incomes, middle-class people who complete college generally have degrees from state-supported colleges and universities.

The Working Class

The working class contains about one-third of all Americans. Working-class people have lower incomes than those in the middle class and virtually no accumulated wealth. In Marxist terms, the working class is the core of the industrial proletariat. In general, the blue-collar occupations of the working class provide a family income between $12,000 and $25,000 a year, which is somewhat below the national average. Working-class Americans are thus quite vulnerable to financial problems caused by unemployment or illness.

Occupations of the working class include blue-collar jobs and lower-level sales and clerical positions. These jobs are typically far less personally satisfying than those held by middle-class people; the work is less interesting and challenging and usually subject to continual supervision by superiors (Edwards, 1979). In addition, working class jobs often provide few of the benefits, such as, hospital insurance and pension programs that give greater financial security to middle-class Americans. With little opportunity to accumulate savings, these people must plan carefully in order to afford a house. Still about half of working-class families own their homes (typically with substantial mortgages), although their housing is usually less substantial than that of middle-class families and likely to be in lower-cost neighborhoods. Similarly, most working-class people have only a high-school education. Whereas middle-class people are able to achieve significant long-term security, working-class people get along month to month.

Another major characteristic of working-class life is the lack of power to shape events. Families typically live in modest neighborhoods because they cannot afford better housing; their children may want to attend college, but lack the money to do so. They may find little satisfaction in their jobs, but have few alternatives. Still, working-class families often express a great deal of pride in what they do have, especially in relation to those who are not working at all.

The Lower Class

Lower-class Americans-about 20 percent of the population-have unstable and insecure lives because of their low income. For this reason, they can also be described as the American poor. According to government figures, about35 million Americans (roughly 15 percent of the population) are officially classified as poor-meaning, for an urban family of four in 1987, an annual income of $10,989 or less. Another 10 million earn only slightly more than this, and therefore live at the margins of property. Although most lower-class people in the United States are white, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities are disproportionately represented. The American poor typically work in low-prestige occupations that provide low income and little intrinsic satisfaction. Their education is very limited; only some manage to complete high school, and a college degree is virtually out of reach. Many lower-class Americans have so little education that they are functionally illiterate.

In a culture that emphasizes the values of individual success and achievement, lower-class people are often seen as personally inadequate. Tragically, some of the poor come to hold such a view of themselves. But poverty is more correctly understood as a consequence of America’s system of social satisfaction than as a reflection of personal deficiencies on the part of tens of millions of people. The lower class is also characterized by considerable social segregation, especially of the poor members of racial and ethnic minorities. This is most visible in urban areas in which large numbers of poor people live in deteriorating neighborhoods avoided by those of other social classes. Very few lower-class families ever gain the resources to purchase even the cheapest house; consequently, they typically live in undesirable low-cost rental housing.

As suggested in Chapter 9, upper-class children are socialized in an environment that attempts to develop their talents, abilities, and confidence to the fullest. In contrast, lower-class children are socialized to the hard reality of being devalued and marginal members of their own society. Observing their parents and other lower-class adults, they see little reason to be hopeful about their own future. Rather, life in the lower class demands resignation to being cut off from the resources of a rich society (Jacob, 1986).

Although some simply give up, many other poor people work desperately to make ends meet. In a participant-observation study carried out in a northern city, Carol Stack (1975) found that many of the poor did not conform to the stereotype of people lacking in initiative and responsibility. On the contrary, they devised ingenious means to survive based on mutual support. In the box, one woman in Stack’s study explains low people in a poor community join together-almost like one large family-to help one another make ends meet.