Talk:Middle class/Archive 1

Structure of this article

This is a mess now! This article needs much restructuring to remove redundancy and sharpen up the definition(s). I will give it a quick shot - the bit about "not everyone will agree with the above definition" is an alarm bell in itself. For example, the bit about the UK middle class in the opening paragraph is covered again, less lucidly, in the "inverse snobbery" bit.

What should be here is: link back to Social class, how the term originated, how it is used now, and how that varies depending on where you are and who you are - with appropriate links to avoid duplicating stuff better covered in other articles. I have made a start. --81.1.65.70 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian middle class

I've looked around but as yet have been unable to find a definiton of the Australian middle class, has anyone else found an economic defintion? (This unisgned comment was left by User:139.168.42.211)

Picture

That picture does not tipify Middle Class to me (This comments was left jdf well in the old days there was this retard that was like hey dude i think that im gonna be president some day and come to find out that guy was president george w. bush aka the worlds dumbest president ever!!!!!!!!

Well you have to consider where the pictures are placed. The upper-middle class home w/ three car garage is next to a paragraph that deals w/ the upper middle class (Economists, deans, professors, architects, etc...), the top picture shows condos in waikiki a popular middle class vacation destination. The condos are also middle class starting at $200k. The MB C-Class is accroding to German car classifgications, a "Mittelklassefahrzeug," or middle class vehicle. Please consider that the median MSRP for a vehicle in the US was $31k in 2005 and that a MB C-Class and Chevy Tahoe fit well into the average car category and are thus middle class. It is important to remember that according to the Weberian system, roughly half of all Americans are below middle class. There is a wide gap between the 90% of the American populus who identify themselves as middle-class and those who actually are middel class. Thank you and feel free to add what you know about the Australian middle class. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 00:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your reply.. I'm British by the way the Aussie just joined under the Picture title. To me the British Middle Class at least is something to aspire too and history strongley associated. The 'upper middle class house' looks more like a 'neuvo riche' dwelling, these houses in Belgravia tipify upper middle class to me http://www.grosvenorcrescent.co.uk/images/home_mainimage.jpg note the subtle difference. (This comments was left by User:81.107.217.136)

Well, there is a trend in the US to make regular suburban homes look like mansions, see the McMansion article. So, yes you're right it does kind of look "nuveau riche," but in most American cities houses like these only cost around $400k (I know the one in the picture costs $900k, but that's not typical for such as home outside costal California) so they are affordable to the upper middle class, especially as they are not custom built, but rather are tract homes. The homes you showed in th link are probably more expensive but upper middle class as well. Also, I think the term "middle class" may have a different meaning in the UK than it does in the US or Germany. As 95% of persons in the US identify themselves as middle class (even though that's not actually true) few aspire to be middle class. In my opinion the same is ture for the term upper-middle class, which to my knowledge describes persons who in the US might very well be part of the upper classes. Perhaps, a seperate section should be added about the distinct British meaning of the middle class as it seems to differ from the American defenition of middle class. Please feel free to add any information about the meaning of middle class in the UK. Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1980

So... I wrote "around 1980" at a place where I didn't do the exact date. If someone does, feel free to post the actual year. I know it was around then.

Mike Church 21:58, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Around 1980, when asked what level of personal income would qualify as middle-class, George H. W. Bush replied: $50,000. In fact, only 5 percent of the U.S. population was making that level of income at the time.

Is that per Year or per month ?

I would assume per-year. $50,000/month = $600,000 per year, which is way higher than 95th percentile, even now.

Back in 1980, $50,000 per year was quite a bit more than it is now, due to inflation and rising salaries in the professions over the past two decades. 38 02:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

There MUST be more precise definitions of the middle class that economists have sudgested. Please insert them into the article if you know any. Off the top of my head, I would think someone would have defined the middle class beggining with home ownership, and going to a certain level. I myself would define it as beggining with those who own homes at the lowest income, all the way up to the level of those who can live a middle class lifestyle purely on dividend and interest income, being the rich.

The middle class of the United States

"Most economists define "middle class" citizens as those with net worths of between $25,000 (low-middle class) to $250,000. However, net worths slightly over $250,000 generally are not considered to be wealthy, yet rather, upper-middle-class."

Shouldn't analysis of who really belongs to the middle class take income, not just net worth, into account? As a recent college graduate, I actually have a negative net worth when my student loans are factored in, but I definitely have what most people would consider a middle-class standard of living. Similarly, someone may have $250,000 sitting around in the bank and/or investment accounts, but with no actual income coming in, he certainly will cease to have a middle-class lifestyle pretty quickly (since that money will presumably be depleted by health care costs, children's education, retirement, etc). Maybe sociologists should consider the way the people they study understand the middle class, no?--[jrwilheim@yahoo.com]

Please consider these policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources. Shawnc 12:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think the poster was wondering if such research existed - if it does, it should be referred to here. And we can have some O.R. in "talk", surely!

An interesting aspect of class based on income/wealth is that people will move between classes as they move through life. Typically you will have a low income and low net worth at 20, high income and low net worth at 40 (money goes on raising a family, paying school/college fees, paying mortgage interest), and low income and high net worth at 60 (you have retired but now have a pension fund and your own home). That is a retired bank manager might have a lower income than a working train engineer! Which suggests sociological measures of class might be more relevant as you would be more likely to remain in the same class throughout life.

Exile 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are no economic tresholds for what is middle class. Income is perhaps more important than net worth according to most publications as that actually determines lifestyle. An increase in net worth can be largely due to rising home prices but not actually have an effect on lifestyle. For example in Moneterey County the median home price rose from roughly $270,000 in 2000 to $640,000 in 2005. Did the standard of living for the average resident double? No. That said, there are no set tresholds, this is a very vague subject. According to many such as Conneticut sociologist Douglas Eichar or Warner, education, income and occupation are the 3 main factors of class. But again class terms are used under many vastly different circumstances and their meaning depends on context. What is certain is that giving set tresholds is complete OR. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to particular dollar amount will quickly be outdated, so should always have a date attached. Class is not merely economic status, but may be equally, or perhaps more relevantly, cultural. There are people who have acquired an "upper class" culture but may not have the monetary qualifications to be designated "upper class." This frequently happens in families where wealth has been distributed among heirs, all of whom may have had the "advantages" of upper-class culture (education, social experiences, etc.). Conversely, there are some who have acquired wealth (who are the "new rich," with "new money") that have never had such "advantages."

As mentioned, older people may have amassed considerable savings (investments) which suggest upper class status in terms of net worth, but these people may have no income other than return on investments, if they "don't spend the principal." Many upper-class families instill this precept in the coming generation. The actual income from the principle may not allow the life style that others suppose to qualify "upper class" status--while, to the contrary, some others may have a far larger income, spent more lavishly, suggesting upper class status, but may never amass the substantial principal to be "upper class" in terms of wealth. As John D. Rockefeller purortedly said, on learning the amount of J. P . Morgan's estate, something to the effect of: "...And to think, he was never really rich!" Phmalo 02:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits (November 2004)

I'm reverting "to white collar" to "to highly paid white collar". Why? Teachers, Nurses, Shop Assistants, Menial low-grade clerks, mail room attendents &tc. are all white collar and not middle class. About UK class structure: the UK still reeks of really visibly obvious middle-class types. They aren't the straightjacket that Orwell depicts in the 1930s; but coming from overseas into the UK, your culture still reeks of quite visible class. We all know who lost the class-war in the UK. Fifelfoo 04:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does this mean, exactly: "In the United Kingdom, the term middle class is used much less inclusively"? More inclusively than the 95% in the US who reportedly call themselves middle class? - Nat Kraus e 11:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not the author of that line, but in Commonwealth English "much less" is an amplifying negative, "use much less inclusively" means something like "used in a much more narrow sense". Certainly UKGBNI class society has a very specific constellation they like to call Middle Class (for a Weberian sense of class). Fifelfoo 22:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The UK class system is inherently complex and you have to avoid rigid distinctions, for example - a low-grade clerk may not be middle-class but a teacher at a private school almost certainly is, having often been privately educated themselves and holding graduate degrees.

"sweatshops"

Here is a line in the article:

On the other hand, one could regard the western countries as having outsourced the labour requirements previously fulfilled by the working classes to, for example, sweatshops in India.

Why is India being singled out? As a matter of fact, most of the jobs that are outsourced to India are professional jobs that require good education - most of the people in India who handle outsourced jobs are qualified professionals - the term sweatshop is particularly offensive. What is more, there is a whole host of countries to which low level jobs, primarily in the manufacturing sector, are outsourced. These jobs fit the sweatshop description much better than a majority of those that are outsourced to India. Also, considering that jobs (other than those in Information Technology) are outsourced to so many countries, it is hardly appropriate to single India out here.

"Sweatshop" may be a loaded term, but I think it is an accurate description of many of these IT positions abroad. "Sweatshop" refers to the conditions of labor in terms of hours, wages, safety issues, etc., not the kind of work being performed.--[jrwilheim@yahoo.com]

I suggest that we change that line to

On the other hand, one could regard the western countries as having outsourced the labour requirements previously fulfilled by the working classes to less affluent countries.

--ashwatha 20:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

=^..^=

i am doing a project so contact me if u can -User:wikireadia

Union membership

I deleted the baseless / country-specific claim that labor union membership is low in the middle class. For example in Finland, the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland[1] has an unionization rate of 80%, which is 10 percent points higher than in the entire workforce (with 70%). There's nothing inherently anti-union in the middle class. --Vuo 15:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested?

There is a macro on this page that says it's suggested that True Middle Class be merged into this one. As far as I can tell, it has been merged. Ken 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that article has recently been cleared and the redirect set up to point to this article, but I haven't seen any information appear here yet. The True middle class article was originally called middle-middle class (mentioned immediately above). I'm not sure there was much useful and verifiable information to be merged, but a rummage through the last version in that article's history might provide some inspiration for further development of this article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct usage

I'm not happy with this:

In today's common uneducated usage, the term is often incorrectly applied to people who have a degree of economic independence, but not a great deal of social influence or power in their society. While in actual correct usage, "middle class" is defined as representing principally business and professional people, bureaucrats, and some farmers and skilled workers sharing common social characteristics and values.

By whose standard? This statement seems pedantic. Who's to say what the correct use is? The most common use, by definition, is the correct use. Ken 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correct. There are only various criteria for defining this class according to various references - usually according to specific sets of social relations or social outcomes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reference making defined as representing principally business and professional people, bureaucrats, and some farmers and skilled workers a correct use. Even if it existed, it's POV to elevate that definition over all others, especially with the condescending uneducated remark. Ken 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia should tell people what they don't already know, that is, it should transmit the knowledge of experts and specialists. It shouldn't act as a mirror to reflect back to people their uninformed, common-sense ideas. Too often on wikipedia people want articles to say what the average person already thinks they know but which has little basis in actual research. This is destructive of real knowledge, because it makes ignorant ideas equal to knowledge that has been painstakingly developed over generations of research by specialists. I agree that this article should be rewritten, but as a sociological topic, not a common-sense topic. There should be reference to the common-sense American definition of middle class, but it shouldn't be treated as what middle class IS. Rlitwin 11:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connotations

Some discussion of connotations would be interesting. For example, in the United States, the term middle class is used as a great compliment. In politics, everyone wants to claim to represent the middle class. People are proud to be middle class. etc etc. But in other societies, I understand it isn't always a compliment? Ken 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I added a paragraph - this also goes to the fact that disproportionate amounts of US workers self-identify as middle class, while the reverse may be true elsewhere. Dryman 01:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

The second article linked under References promises "definition of middle class according to US Federal Reserve." The article does no such thing. I'm not Wiki savvy, but I suggest another title. Perhaps something like "Recent Changes in US Family Finances" or something likewise adopted from the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.5.135 (talk • contribs) .

That's a good idea, the old title I gave it was misleading- a result of late night editing ;-) Signature ^brendel 05:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point. The article being referenced does not mention class at all. The title of "Middle class wealth according to the US Federal Reserve" is equally misleading. You are imposing your own definition of middle class. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not imposing anything. Give the reference a title you find to be appopriate. Signature ^brendel 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference does not support the paragraph at all. The article says "Most economists define "middle-class" citizens as those with net worths of between $125,000 and $250,000". Name one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write this particular mention, so go ahead and delete it. I am going to rewrite much of this article once I am done w/ some other projects I am currently working on. As far as I know there is no numerical cut of line for middle class- many say (Washington Post) its between $25k-$100k but such a vague guideline is worthless. According to the Drum Major Institute, published by PBS households, living the lifestyle indicative of the middle class make up roughly 20% or the pop. These are the most accurate "statistics" there are- this is a concept and not an actual object. Signature ^brendel 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American middle class

Okay, I have started to built a section for the American middle class which now constitutes roughly half of the article. I took of the globalize tag and am thinking about splitting this article up has it has become unfavorably long (over 31)- this would mean a sperate article for the "American middle class" and a mention w/ link to that article here. Signature ^brendel 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEE BELOW - I agree - please do this --SandyDancer 15:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm pleased that you agree with my idea. I have already started the American middle class article and added a link to the US section in this article. Happy editing, Signature ^brendel 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think that means we can remove the section here, and simply link to the new article.

Well you can, but why delete the section? I supposed it was a bit redundant. Personally, I am impartial to removing the section as long as there is a link to my American middle class article. Thus I am going to trust your judgement with the removal of the American section. Happy editing, Signature ^brendel 00:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of deleting it because as you say it is redundant, and moreover I don't think there should be a presumption on Wikipedia that skewing the content of articles in favour of US-specific coverage should be the norm. If someone looked at this article with the lengthy US-specific section, with fresh eyes, the overall impression would be that the term middle class is one principally used in America and / or was of American derivation. Not true. At all --SandyDancer 09:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, alrighty. Signature ^brendel 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep Grand Cherokee/Chevy Tahoe picture

OK, am I the only one who thought the picture of the brand spanking new Chevrolet Tahoe defined as "typical middle class" was ridiculous? Well, too bad if I am. I looked around for pictures of older, smaller SUVs that I think are more better suited as being called "typical middle class". I found a Jeep Grand Cherokee whose year is somewhere between 2000 and 2004. Come on, this is a more sensible "typical middle class" vehicle, right? I mean, my mom is middle-middle class and she drives the exact same car. --bī-RŌ 04:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly articulates that the various definitions of middle class, so why have an illustration that only supports one of them? And in particular why make it an illustration that supports the popular definition of middle class which everybody already "knows"? I think we should get rid of this image of replace it with an image of a BMW. Rlitwin 10:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why a BMW? In fact, why a Jeep Cherokee? Should we base the picture on editors' opinions of the class position of their moms? Or should we use the concept of verifiability? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing just emphasizes how entirely inappropriate the whole article is. What do you think middle-class mothers in India or Bangladesh drive? The Mercedes is even more laughable, because it's claim to belong in the article is that it is as "Mittelklassewagen", which is roughly equivalent to "mid-size car" and has nothing to do with social class whatsoever. I am just taking this off my watchlist not to get upset anymore. Bravada, talk - 11:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Oh damn it, this article actually looks well-written, it's only the inappropriate the pics (who are the middle class? Two cars and Hawaii condos or some actual people?). I just inadvertently threw into one pot with other "class" articles. It wouldn't hurt to cite some sources though... Bravada, talk - 11:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that there are many different theories on what is middle class-some say it is the actual middle class, others say its a relaitve elite of professionals and managers. In any way it is an economically highly fragmented group that could include those with $35k/year incomes and those with $85k/year incomes. There are many middle class persons who drive BMWs and a C-Class has a starting MSRP of around $30k which is the average MSRP on a vehicle sold in the US. There are also many millionaires who drive beat-up old Honda Civics (Look in an exclusive neighborhood-there are more cheap cars there then the media would have it ;-)) That said, whether you see middle class as being a class in the actual middle or a relative elite, the problem is that there are nearly no prominent middle class people (They would be Category X, Top 5%, or lower upper class if they were). So, we cannot really post pictures of middle class people here for three main reasons: a) You can't really tell a middle class persons from any other class (Well, you could but this is highly subjective POV terriotry) b) Prominent people are commonly by definition not middle class and c) Such a picture would not add to the article. BTW: The word, Mittelklassewagen is not onlt used in reference to mid-size, we could say Mittel-groβer wagen-but we don't. The word Mittelklassewagen bears some clear reference to its intended customer base. The word is used (in context) to describe a car that isn't anything really special, yet isn't really bad either-it just an ordinary family car you'd expect to find in your neighbors drive-way. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, but you seem to be totally off key here. First of all, you are still speaking (and thinking of) American middle class. There is a separate article for that now. This article is about the middle class in general, globally. It includes (or should include, at least) India and Bangladesh and whatever country in the world you'd like! Focusing on Western middle class here is inappropriate - if anything, giving a bit more spotlight to those "other" countries would make more sense, to make sure readers understand that the concept spoken of is global (by "spotlight" I mean e.g. images).

Secondly, if there IS a middle class anywhere in the world, i.e. people who adhere to the sociological concept which should be explained in the article, they SHOULD be distinguishable from people from another classes - otherwise what we're saying is that there is no class as there is no distinction (I am no sociologist, perhaps this should be the conclusion of this article in view of the current research in this area). Those people can drive whatever cars they want, as you said, and live wherever they want to (more or less) - but I guess what defines them more correctly is their occupation and some activities (like I would imagine it's the upper class that gathers in Ascot in the UK, at least in theory). In the US there might be some specific "income brackets", but I believe in other countries this might be less defined that way, and more in another.

Moreover, the middle class concept is around for quite some time now, it would be better not to focus on contemporary categorizations, as they are always going to raise controversies. It is easier to define middle class in historic terms, I believe. Let's say at the turn of the century, who were the middle class. Perhaps those working in better paid white collar positions in offices? Why not show some photo of an interior of an office building with people like that working. Or perhaps leaving this office building after work. Or I just recalled (very dimly, as it was quite sometime ago) that the "birth of the middle class" in the 19th century in my history book ws illustrated with a picture of people in a Paris eatery. It would be even better if we could find such pictures for non-Western countries.

I believe we should avoid "product placement", i.e. placing pictures of products, especially captioned with brand names, in articles not directly pertaining to them. Moreover, flattening the meaning of middle class by reducing it to a list of posession a member of the middle class should have would be entirely inappropriate. Bravada, talk - 10:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Concerning Mittelklassewagen - I believe this can be used that way, but I would argue the word originated from the car classification which include Oberklassewagen etc., meaning car classes and not social classes (at some time, only the upper classes could afford cars anyway). It's like the British "family car" or "executive car", which even actually originated with relation to their purported owners/users, but I would say it would be quite inappropriate to try to illustrate an article on family with a picture of a Ford Mondeo or article on executive with a Rover 800.

Okay, I think you mis-read my post above, I know there is an article for the American middle class-I wrote it and it just got GA status (yey!). Obviously pictures of Waikiki Condos and SUVs clearly refer to the US middle class-they are remnants from the time before I wrote a seperate article for the American middle class. As for class differences: In the US class is very difficult to tell (much like in Western Europe) as poeple tend to dress down in their leisure. Yes, you can tell a person's class more or less in the US by looking at them but not precisely enough to post a picture here with a caption stating: "A typlical middle class person, wearing designer jeans and as indicated by the Blackberry perhaps even a Yuppie." Telling class is very difficult in many western societies as externally visible differenes between the lower and middle class tend to be in "Minute gradients." I tried placing material items here that may be seen as being typical for middle class consumption (which after all is an important feature of the middle class-one could say consumption and the fear of affluence, that is its consequences on intrinsic values is perhaps one of the main causes for many middle class trends. Bottom line: Telling the class of a person is speculation-and as you said: WP is not a place for speculation. That said, Class difference are quite obvious and class does exsist. Personal interactions the differences can be quite large but the differences that would be visible in a picture would be as I said speculation. As for pictures-It seems that my idea of posting middle class material items causes to much comotion so I'll take them out. I actually have an office pic on the American middle class article-perhaps I could use it here-I'll see. You did brin forth a good idea though-occupational pics. Occupation is a pretty solid clss feature. Afterall the three main "ingredients" for class are: Occupation, income, educational attainment. BTW: Please replace that outdated infobox table on the Rover 800 article. Regards, Signature ^brendel 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command - mission accomplished! Btw, I have also browsed a few articles and Commons categories and it seems pics of people in any situation are of extremely short supply here on WP... Bravada, talk - 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than half

I recently heard that more tan half of the UK is now MC. Can't remember the defn or source, but if anyone has it, please add it. Rich Farmbrough, 15:00 3 October 2006 (GMT).

Page needs to be "globalised"!

It seems to be very wrong that half the article is about the American concept of what is middle class - perhaps a separate article is in order? I am not aware of any country in which the term is used so distinctively and broadly. As it stands you could just rename this article "American Middle Class" and it would be a more accurate title! --SandyDancer 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reply see my post above. Signature ^brendel 06:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yearly Income

Are there any yearly income figures that we could add? This comment was left by TimDoster.

Well there are several problems w/ adding yearly income figures to this article:

There is no coherent definition for middle class; some state that its a minority of relatively priveleged professionals and managers, others say its the middle of the income strata. Nobody's right, nobody's wrong- its all theory.
This article is not US-specific (See American middle class), thus in what currency and for what country should such figures be given?
Even if we settle on a format to present such figures, there are numerous figures that can be given. In my article, American middle class I try and give some financial guidelines.

Here are some guidelines for the US:

The bottom quintile are those making less than $18,500, and the top quintile are those households making more than $88,030. So the middle 60% make between $19,000 and $88,000 a year.
The middle 50% make between $20,000 and $75,000 a year.
The median household income was $43,000
The median income per household member was $23,000.
17% had six figure incomes.

Consider: That these figures represent total gross annual income for entire household and do not consider household size. For example, who is wealthier a household with two people making $90,000 or a household with four people making $120,000? Remeber that 42% of American households have two income earners with the majority of those with six-figure incomes only have them because of they have two income earners. So, does marrying one's professional equal and increasing household income really lead to an increase in class status? Do two nurses making $110,000 really rank above a doctor making $90,000?- These are important questions to remember when looking at the financial aspects of class in America.

See my other two articles: American middle class and Household income in the United States, as well as Social structure of the United States. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need yearly income figures - in some countries, unlike the US, class is not only based on income. This article is about a concept across the world, not about how much an USAian has to earn before being "middle class". --SandyDancer 08:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well even in the US, the use of income figures to determine class is somewhat tricky. Nonetheless, you're right this article cannot mention US income figures as this article is to maintain a global perspective (See, #1 in my first reply above), which is why I refered TimDoster to the American middle class and Household income in the United States articles. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, income is not particularly relevant--or perhaps income is only relevant to the middle class. Many upper class people have no "income" (and pay no income taxes) in the US--just as they don't carry cash on their person. If one HAS money, one doesn't need income. That might be some sort of definition of "upper" as distinct from other classes.

What many people regard as "upper class" in the US may be really "upper middle class." To be a millionaire in the US (2007) is fairly common, and certainly doesn't quality one to be "upper class." Phmalo 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory! (though you will need sources to include this in an article) Consider, however, that income is one of the main indicators of class. An upper middle class professional will have a higher personal income than a lower middle class or working class worker- indicating his UMC status. Perhaps income isn't relevant for the top 1% but even those who have money have income, becuase of the intrest they earn. Also, only 7% of US households were millionaires by net worth-making it still quite rare. Regards, Signature ^brendel 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute joke

This "article" is a cute joke, but shouldn't it only come to the top of a search query on Google-Jokes and not on main google?

No sources. Nice. Let's make things up, or better yet, describe things as we see them and call it an encyclopedia.

"The middle class, in colloquial usage," -- nice start. Couldn't bother looking up the research, so immediately force the term into "colloquial" context where we can pretend it's anything we want it to be.

"their definitions, vary. There are many factors that can define... Connotations attached to the term also vary" --- then throw in a couple of paragraphs whinging about how hard is your volunteer job, for which you appear spectacularly unqualified. When you can't explain, obfuscate.

"The middle class in this article refers to people neither at the top nor at the bottom..." -- before we go any further, let's remind readers of their obligation to accept our idiosyncratic definitions (which, by the way, vary...). Then let's slap them with an axiom so they will become accustomed to reading the obvious and thinking they've learned something. The middle is anything that isn't the top or the bottom. Good. If we learned English last month, now we know the middle class isn't about left or right. Good thing we resolved that widespread mistake.

"The term "middle class" has a long history and has had many, sometimes contradictory, meanings." --- one more time, remind them we don't know what the forgetit we are talking about and they have no right to expect useful information from a joke site littered with personal opinion and political propaganda.

"In the United States by the end of the twentieth century, more people identified themselves as middle class than as lower or "working" class, with insignificant numbers identifying themselves as upper class." -- is that so? Why not tell us more about those "insignificant numbers" who identified themselves as upper class at the end of the 20th century?

"The size of the middle class depends on how it is defined..." -- back to the safety of ambiguity, and another attack at certainty based on citation of other sources, so readers will be vulnerable our propaganda.

"Marxism does not necessarily see the groups described above as the middle class." -- now, here is something we can define with certainty. Never mind a hyperlink to a related article on Marxism. That could raise unwanted conflict between articles. Lets just stick to our unquestionable definition of Marxism and what it sees. We can't define the middle class but we can say for certain what is Marxism and how it sees the middle class. See, Marxists aren't people or free agents the way middle class people are. (If you read former versions of this page, or the current Google version, you will learn a middle class person is one who owns a business and a home but does not clean it "themselves" (sic).) Marxism is an ideal that must be dealt with and dealing with dangerous ideals like Marxism is what makes us middle class. We won the cold war. That's why there is a section on "Middle class and Marxism" but not on "Middle class and the environment" or " distribution of wealth (or decision making) in various nations compared". Marxism is a nice (defeated) enemy of the middle class. Now that our enemies are defeated, we can go about hiding our tracks by writing encyclopedia articles that pretend it isn't even possible to figure out who we are, much less what is our role in the world.

Let's try a new article. White -- "definitions of white vary depending on where you are." ChrisMattHughs 16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While your posts did make me laugh (thank you), please keep in mind that the definition of middle class is highly ambigous, as is that of Whitness. The ambiguity of a subject must be mention in its entry. You are right, however, this article is in desperate need of sources and research. All the research I have done on the subject pertained to the American middle class and has been moved to that article since. This article is now in need of a re-write. Signature ^brendel 00:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]