Class Distinctions

[scrapinpeg]

So I just read a piece in the latest Foreign Affairs on the economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and certain presumptions of the author have confused me. I think some of the minds on this board might clear things up for me.

My confusion lies with class distinctions referred to by the author: "working class," "middle class," and "rich."

In my experience, I haven't really seen such clear distinctions. Most "working class" folks are part of the same middle class as white-collar college-educated types and professionals. Most "rich" folks are also part of the middle class. They go to the same schools, live in the same counties, shop at the same stores, take part in the same activities, and share similar values and sensibilities. Working class people are as likely to own their own companies and employ others as are rich people.

So what am I missing? What are these class distinctions, and how real are they?

[keith]

So what am I missing? What are these class distinctions, and how real are they?

well the misreading is the obvious one - these distinctions are shorthand for refering to the position of individuals or families in income percentiles.

The actual division into these three 'clases' tends to depend on things like capital ownership (working class has none), middleclass has a little (but of a fragile type), upper class has sufficient to generate ongoing income and accumulation of capital. Clearly there is no absolute division between these, but you are simply dividing population up by income distribution and wealth level.

Galbraith was more concerned with mobility between groups and the relative separation between the top and bottom of the distribution - and what society should do to break down barriers to movement between the 'classes'. Things like access to good affordable education etc clearly help mobility.

[Peach]

In the United States, the majority of people (even people who think they're upper class) qualify as middle class.

[Inquartata]

And most people, regardless of their true situations, will self-report as "middle class". They may add "lower", "upper" or the like, but everyone seems to want to be seen as middle class...

[Svidrigailov]

The concept of class is inextricably attached the idea of feudalism...Since the USA is the anti-thesis of feudalism (except for the South), I don't think you can say you have real social classes here like you do in the rest of the world. The south of the USA is an exception.

so, perhaps except for a few families, the USA is all burgeousie , the only distinguishing factor being how much money you make.

[keith]

The concept of class is inextricably attached the idea of feudalism...Since the USA is the anti-thesis of feudalism (except for the South), I don't think you can say you have real social classes here like you do in the rest of the world. The south of the USA is an exception.

so, perhaps except for a few families, the USA is all burgeousie , the only distinguishing factor being how much money you make.

well 'class' (pace Marx) is generally used to refer to how one uses and is used by Capital. Feudal 'classes' are different. Of course the association of 'class' with Marx is probably one reason why america is very uncomfortable with discussions of class - and the inherent implication of social immobility. The closest it comes is indirectly via things like affirmative action where colour is used as a proxy for social status/mobility in society.

[Inquartata]

Oh, there are definitely classes in America. Read some of the books by sociologist G. W. Domhoff. Though dated, they're fascinating studies of the indicators of upper-class status...

[foilz]

The 'upper class' didn't go to the schools you went to, didn't shop in the stores you shopped in, don't have the same values as the rest of us, they are different. They drive ancient cars. They live in huge homes way off the road you never see. They don't care what we think. And they look at the world they live in (we are guests) in a profoundly different way.

But their ancestors were nouveau riche, and probably agricultural laborers immediately before that.

Over the years, and down through the generations, money ages. It goes to better schools, acquires lovely manners, and taste, and discernment, marries well, begets better, and becomes ... old.

The upper crust in Europe is the same as the upper crust here, made the same way. You can substitute "victory in battle" for "cornering the market in oil" or "inventing the blast furnace". And merchant bankers on both sides of the pond have traditionally done exceptionally well, regardless of the century.

But it's all the same idea. In Europe, everything is just older. They wear uniforms, and clank with medallions on state occasions. Here, the upper crust stay away from state occasions, live privately, and wear boat shoes.

[Svidrigailov]

but class isn't simply a matter of status symbols...because any burgueois can buy a house on a hill or a rolls royce...class is about being above the laws of the middle class. While I think there are people who are above the law in the USA, the system and society here in the USA are completely opposed to people acting with impunity. But even then, people who are like that here, I feel, are not like that by birth, like they are in europe, and officially recognized with titles.

[Inquartata]

class is about being above the laws of the middle class.

Which in the US translates to "having lots of money and the connections money buys". The upper class usually, though not always, has money aplenty. Ergo...

[Svidrigailov]

but that's the thing...in the USA you need the money to have the connections etc...therefore, the upper class here is like a burgeoise class with the all trappings of an upper class...

in latin america, and in some parts of europe, all you need to get better treatment, etc, is your name and family history...of course money helps, but the main thing is your name.

[Inquartata]

Well, names like Auchincloss carry the same sort of weight here...or Kennedy or Shriver, for that matter. And remember the play ( and movie ) "Six Degrees of Separation"? Based on a true story. It is quite too possible to go very far on no more than a name and a family connection---if you have gone to the right schools, belonged to the right clubs, vacationed with the right sets in the right places and so on.

[Have At You]

"Class" implies some kind of defining group. We don't have that in America.

There are certainly a variety of ways to differentiate Americans based on wealth, influence, control of capital, and the like. But these variables do not settle out into discretely banded classes. It just doesn't work that way here.

We have old-money wealthy folks with comparatively little political power, just as there are nouveaux riches with tons of it. We have people who went from dirt poor to captain of industry in a single generation. We have people who are famous simply for being famous, and have wealth and influence as a result. The wealthiest people in most communities are sole proprietors of small companies. The typical professional earns about as much as a good tradesman, with a shorter earning lifespan. The children of a street cleaner can run vast corporations and hold high office, and then their children may be teachers or clerks or artists.

I don't know what you'd call the myriad social/economic/political combinations we have here, but "class" is the wrong word.

[Inquartata]

No, I think class is fine. That people go from one to another merely means that the strata are not impermeable. And don't mistake classes for social in-groups or professions...

[foilz]

Class begins with money (invariably), and sometimes it springs out of the ground without a price tag attached. But mostly it is about generations, taste, quality, discernment, behavior, honor, standards (seen and unseen), good works, and, well ... class. Class counts most of all.

Class in the U.S. (for our non-U.S. friends), can be translated to mean 'quality'.

Nowhere in the world does class mean status symbols.

Nowhere in the U.S. does class mean being above the law (nobody in the U.S. is above the law).

And being officially recognised by birth and with the inheritance of a title is hogwash. It may mean your manners are intact, and you have a kind of protected medieval status and position, but what else?

Mayflower descendents in the U.S., for example, are greater than class. They didn't inherit money, or status. But they exist in the stratosphere of saints. Mostly, nobody knows anything about them.

Jeffersonian descendents are the aristocrats of the democracy of America, but they are (relatively) impoverished and dispersed. Not saints, but special. They keep to themselves, too.

So do the Washington descendents, and the Adamses.

The great chieftains and aristocrats of the Native American tribes -- their descendents are with us, proud inheritors of imperishable traditions. Money, no. Status, no. But they are different from the rest of us. They are descended from warriors.

The vons und zus of Europe? Well, they have property and money (possibly), speedboats, Monte Carlo, Portofino, and an ancient history of tenant farming (like England), and they demand aggressive management of their investment portfolios by Swiss bankers. But are they vigorous? Thriving? A standard for us all? Better than Americans? Better than anyone?

To think that European royal and aristocratic inheritances are somewhat more elevating than anything else on the planet is an idea that is profoundly sad, and wrong.

[Svidrigailov]

Class begins with money (invariably), and sometimes it springs out of the ground without a price tag attached. But mostly it is about generations, taste, quality, discernment, behavior, honor, standards (seen and unseen), good works, and, well ... class. Class counts most of all.

Class in the U.S. (for our non-U.S. friends), can be translated to mean 'quality'.

Nowhere in the world does class mean status symbols.

Nowhere in the U.S. does class mean being above the law (nobody in the U.S. is above the law).

And being officially recognised by birth and with the inheritance of a title is hogwash. It may mean your manners are intact, and you have a kind of protected medieval status and position, but what else?

Mayflower descendents in the U.S., for example, are greater than class. They didn't inherit money, or status. But they exist in the stratosphere of saints. Mostly, nobody knows anything about them.

Jeffersonian descendents are the aristocrats of the democracy of America, but they are (relatively) impoverished and dispersed. Not saints, but special. They keep to themselves, too.

So do the Washington descendents, and the Adamses.

The great chieftains and aristocrats of the Native American tribes -- their descendents are with us, proud inheritors of imperishable traditions. Money, no. Status, no. But they are different from the rest of us. They are descended from warriors.

The vons und zus of Europe? Well, they have property and money (possibly), speedboats, Monte Carlo, Portofino, and an ancient history of tenant farming (like England), and they demand aggressive management of their investment portfolios by Swiss bankers. But are they vigorous? Thriving? A standard for us all? Better than Americans? Better than anyone?

To think that European royal and aristocratic inheritances are somewhat more elevating than anything else on the planet is an idea that is profoundly sad, and wrong.

I would disagree with you on many points, but perhaps the most important one is where you re-interpret class in America. To me, class can only be understood in the midieval, tenant farmer sense where there are several "classes" or castes of people. This does not exist in the USA (except for maybe the south) and that is precisely why the USA is such a successful and great country to live in.

[esskreemr]

It may not exist yet. There were some "safeguards" to ensuring that a class strata that was impermeable to movement didn't establish itself. One of these, a fairly important one was the estate tax. Though it may seem like it "penalizes" someone for dying, thus the moniker "death tax", it's primary goal was to help mitigate the establishment of power and money through inheritances. That's being stripped soon.

[Epee_Pox]

Not exactly. There were several temporary death taxes established between 1797 and 1902 to pay for military expenses. Each one was repealed after a few years, when the need for revenue ended.

The modern estate tax was created in 1916, only on estates over $5,000,000. The rate went up to 25% on those estates to pay for WWI, then went down to 20% after the war, but now it was only on estates over $10,000,000.

Compare that to the present threshold of, what is it, six hundred thousand or something? And consider that people who are truly wealthy escape the death tax through estate planning. So it really only hits people who managed to save money during their lives, but weren't rich enough to avoid this tax.

The revenue from this tax is negligible. It's really just there to make us feel good, like we're preventing wealth from accumulating in a few families. But the tax is not what prevents wealth from accruing like that.

[foilz]

I would disagree with you on many points, but perhaps the most important one is where you re-interpret class in America. To me, class can only be understood in the midieval, tenant farmer sense where there are several "classes" or castes of people. This does not exist in the USA (except for maybe the south) and that is precisely why the USA is such a successful and great country to live in.

We agree absolutely that the U.S. is the greatest place on the planet for an independent, free-thinking person to live.

I'm not sure we are connecting on other comments. There are enormous class distinctions in America, including the medieval kind you describe, and not just in the South (where I live), but across the country.

Class, by whatever definition (and virtually every definition exists in America), thrives here.

[Svidrigailov]

We agree absolutely that the U.S. is the greatest place on the planet for an independent, free-thinking person to live.

I'm not sure we are connecting on other comments. There are enormous class distinctions in America, including the medieval kind you describe, and not just in the South (where I live), but across the country.

Class, by whatever definition (and virtually every definition exists in America), thrives here.

well...I'm not sure I would say the US is the greatest place to live for independent free thinking people...new york city is definitely up there, but I've found many other parts of the USA to be rather oppressive at times...and then there are places like bogota, buenos aires, madrid, paris...all good places to be independent and free thinking too...