Social structure of the United States

The contemporary United States has only one legally-recognized social class, actually a caste, illegal immigrants, euphemistically called "undocumented workers", numbering some 12 million. Elites exist, but are numerous and there is no universally recognized hierarchy of people. The absence of officially-recognized classes may reflect the desire of this society to become a market-oriented meritocracy, a reflection of belief in the "American dream" as well as traditional values of hard work, entrepreneurship, and individualism. It may also reflect the lack of a colonial peerage, the abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude, and the extension of universal suffrage. On the historical questions see Social Class in American History.

In practice, however, there are de facto social classes in the United States; this phenomenon is sometimes called "emergent elitism". Most likely, these social classes result from massive disparities in access to wealth, income, social access, and influence, as well as the tendency for people to associate with people of comparable social capital and financial means. Class is usually correlated strictly to ownership of productive, financial, cultural, social and human capital. For this reason, social class is often called socioeconomic status because of this inextricable connection. The connection is bidirectional, that is:

Capital begets class, because people with unusual amounts of capital are often sought by others and can make transactions on terms that are favorable to them. Unlike in some European societies where "upper class" is tied to nobility, capital can usually buy access to some, but not all, of the "upper class" elites. Generational social mobility is also pronounced; the children and grandchildren of "self-made" wealthy people may have additional social access that the initial generators of wealth did not, due to the stigma some associate with nouveau riche status.

Class begets capital, because individuals with social capital can often access other forms of capital more easily than others.

Class is reinforced by class traits, or characteristics of speech and behavior that signify a person's class. "Class ascendants", or social climbers, frequently attempt to emulate class traits of people in higher social classes. See snob for further discussion of this phenomenon.

In the technical language of social science, the social of the United States is characterized by moderate social mobility. It is a generally open society in which there are few legal barriers preventing change of social status either up or down. However, there is much debate over how effective public policies and institutions are at promoting and facilitating changes in status. Moreover, the United States has great extremes of relative wealth and poverty. Social class, in the sense discussed in this article, essentially consists of three factors: wealth, power and prestige. For historical perspective see Social Class in American History.

Five-class model

Exact class lines are difficult, if not impossible, for outsiders to draw, and there is no agreement on precisely where they lie. Some argue that class is more of a continuum than a phenomenon of discrete categories. For many individuals, social class is more a matter of self-identification in terms of how the person views his or her relationship to society, particularly along the most fuzzy borders, like that between "middle class" and "upper-middle class". Sociological models depict society as having as few as two or as many as nine social classes, with the admission of "fuzziness" at the interfaces of classes. Most Americans, when asked, describe themselves as some variant of "middle class". Many sociologists, and popular sociology, use a five-class model, which includes:

An upper class consisting of multiple elites. Membership in one elite may or may not connote membership in another. Extreme wealth, a notable name or accomplishment, or celebrity will usually bring an individual into this class, although most enjoy membership as a legacy of inherited wealth or familial prominence. Some allege that the American upper class sustains itself, and secures continued advantage, through social connections and networking rather than hard work. It is true that most Americans remain at roughly the same socioeconomic level into which they were born. While drastic upward mobility is possible, it is not common. Statistically, most mobility occurs in small degrees. For example, one born into the "middle-middle" class may become part of the "upper-middle" class in adulthood. Nonetheless, there are instances of Horatio Alger stories. For example, Andrew Carnegie exemplified a "rags-to-riches" existence. Members of this class generally make (gross) more than $500,000 to $600,000 per year.

A middle class divided into three subcategories:
- A largely professional upper-middle class. Individuals within this class rarely have the elite social privileges lavished upon the upper-class, but normally have access to high-quality education. Individuals within this class typically make between $75,000 and $200,000 per year, though individuals with smaller incomes but valuable cultural capital (such as graduate and professional students) are sometimes included, as would be a well-to-do "stay-at-home" homemaker who declines occupational work by choice. Since class has as much to do with occupational prestige and lifestyle as with salary, highly-compensated blue collar workers are usually not considered "upper-middle class".
- A "middle-middle" class that, some evidence indicates, is decreasing in number. Corporate downsizing and the loss of manufacturing jobs has eliminated many of the skilled unionized jobs that provide membership within this class. As a result, many individuals within this group have drifted either into more skilled work, in the professional sectors (upper-middle class) or have fallen downward into the service sectors (lower-middle class). The state of the economy at a given time determines which trend is more prevalent; during strong economies, laid-off people are more likely to be better- than worse-off in subsequent jobs. During weak economies, the opposite is true. According to the White House's Economic Statistics Briefing Room, the median household income in the United States was $44,389 in 2004.^*
- A lower-middle class, or "working poor". These individuals usually have very limited personal capital, and their occupational and educational skills are normally restricted to one type of work. Largely working in semi-skilled or unskilled service jobs, individuals within this social class often face varying hours, unpleasant occupational environments, and impersonal supervisors. Without higher education, they have very little social mobility— about 1/3 as much as those in Scandinavian social democracies like Sweden. By global standards, some of these individuals might be considered materially privileged, but they suffer from the same subjective ailments (low self-esteem, stress and high depression rates) experienced by the poor of other societies. The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, by Barry Schwartz, might explain this: material plenty has only a small effect of subjective happiness, while perceived low status leads frequently to a higher likelihood of depression, anxiety, poor self-image, and bad health. (However, these ailments affect some individuals in every social class, and therefore in many cases cannot be attributed to sociological causes.) However it has been common in the past 60 years or so for children from a working poor family to work their way up to eventual middle or upper class.

A lower class comprising impoverished and desperate individuals. Crime and hunger are daily threats for them, and illiteracy, homelessness (most U.S. job applications require that the applicant provide a home address) and, in some cases, previous criminal records ensure that their chances of securing work remain low.

Class delineations are sometimes considered artificial—formal class membership does not exist, and people rarely think of themselves, in any meaningful way, as members of a specific class. Furthermore, a person's social class may change throughout his or her life. Social classes, therefore, are more often used in aggregate sociological depictions than they are applied to individual people. While people may maintain ties to specific families, social or ethnic groups, and institutions, it is rare for a person to have meaningful ties to a social class.

When asked to identify themselves with a social class, 90 to 95 percent identify as some shade of "middle class". Whether or not this is sociologically accurate is a matter of debate, since there are a number of models of America's class structure, each with a different definition of "middle class". But the very fact that so many people choose to identify with the middle class is nonetheless indicative of the extent to which Americans see themselves as living in a society in which liberty and equality are available to all. [http://www.classmatters.org/materials/metzgar.pdf A error however, see differing analysis

The Lower Class

The lower class in the United States consists of about 20% of the population and is deficient in all three factors which define class: wealth, power and prestige. The lower class is generally poorly educated, with low literacy and other employment skills. Their health is often relatively poor, with a life expectancy below the rest of the population. As a rule, they have a low rate of political participation. There is a high rate of unemployment and physical disability. Lack of money defines the class, as does lack of power and prestige. A significant portion of the lower class, especially single women with children, the disabled and the elderly, receives welfare.

Farmworkers

A number of groups in the United States correspond to the European and Asian peasant. Historically there was a slave caste and, after the American Civil War, a system of sharecropping in the deep South. There is still a small impoverished class of agricultural laborers. In contemporary times large numbers of migrant agricultural workers, in large part Hispanic-indians, perform field and packing work. See agricultural history of the United States and Social Class in American History.

The Working Class

About 70% of the population is made up of working class people who work for wages in blue-collar, white-collar and agricultural occupations. The 30% of the population which works in blue-collar work is sometimes characterized as the "lower middle class". While they may be unemployed from time to time, in general, members of the working class earn a modest income through some skilled or semi-skilled occupation. Although they are subject to some economic insecurity due to fluctuations in the economy and layoffs due to plant closings, in general they have a stable and dependable income. A small part of the working class, especially those in organized occupations, enjoy an above-average income. Working class people often have some training and education, may belong to a labor union and have a modest level of political participation. Their life is generally not organized about their work, but around their personal life with an emphasis on recreational and family activities. See labor history of the United States

The Lower Middle Class

Owners of small business with modest wealth and income can be considered as the lower middle class -- in Marxist terms, the petit bourgeoisie. The petit bourgeoisie has been stereotypically considered a socially conservative class, a characterization which often does not apply in the contemporary United States.

The term could also apply however to lower level managers - people who are responsible for the work of ten or twenty people inside a bigger company.

The Upper Middle Class

Roughly 18% of the U.S. population can be characterized as upper middle class. This is the well-educated, highly skilled portion of the population which works in executive and professional fields. Their work plays a central part in their lives and in their self- and public-image. They may have modest investments in industry and business, but generally depend on income from remunerative work. A portion of the upper middle class are owners of small businesses. The historical bourgeoisie, considered as a class which supports itself through investment and management of capital, is split in the United States between the upper middle class and the upper class. The upper middle class is also subdivided into the Professional class and Managerial class as the former tends to be more liberal in terms of political beleifs and more urban in terms of taste than the Managerial class which tends to be more conservative in both consumer tastes and political beliefs.

Farmers

Less than 5% of the population of the United States is engaged in agriculture as the proprietors of independent farms. Once the dominant American social class, this group diminished in overall numbers during the 20th century, as farm holdings grew more consolidated, farming operations became more mechanized, and the majority of the population migrated to urban areas. Today, the agricultural sector has essentially taken on the characteristics of business and industry generally. In contemporary usage, a "farmer" is someone who owns and operates a farm, which more often than not will be a sizeable business enterprise; "agricultural workers" or "farm workers," who perform the actual work associated with farming, typically come out of the lower classes; indeed, they are often near-destitute immigrants or migrant farm workers. In this respect, farming mirrors big business: like any enterprise, a farm has owners (who may be a family or a corporation), salaried managers, supervisors, foremen and workers. With the number of farms steadily diminishing, the stereotypical humble homestead is increasingly the exception, for viable farming now means agribusiness; the large amounts of capital required to operate a competitive farm require large-scale organization. Modern American agribusiness farmers, though their "income" in the strict sense is relatively low, are at least upper-middle-class; more often than not they are very wealthy and highly educated, especially in California and other Western states with large holdings operated intensively. The large landowners in California's Central Valley, Coachella Valley and Imperial Valley fall squarely within the upper class. Among farmers, "income" in the conventional sense is not an accurate standard of wealth measurement, because many farmers typically keep their official income low by placing their assets into farming corporations rather than drawing the money directly. Subsidies, which can be enormous, are considered "tax fees" and not as gross income under the Internal Revenue Code. The stereotypical poor, marginal farmer "eking out a living" from the soil, an image deeply ingrained in most Americans' minds by folklore, films, and even history texts, has now been largely displaced by agribusiness, which has bought them out and consolidated their holdings. See agricultural history of the United States.

The Upper Class

1% to 3% of the American population can be characterized as upper class. The wealth of the top 1% in the United States equals the wealth of the lower 95%. There are a number of ways that people fall into this classification, wealth being the most obvious, but leaders in any profession, business, or cultural area can be characterized as upper class. Portions of the upper class are highly educated, cultured and influential. Families who have been upper class for generations display a distinctive lifestyle. Newcomers, the nouveau riche, often do not share this culture, but may through socialization in private schools and other elite institutions acquire it over time. A tiny portion of the upper class is highly influential and has an advantage as its members seek high office in government or engage in efforts to influence events. Throughout the history of the United States opportunities have arisen for the accumulation of great wealth. A portion of the current upper class consists of the descendants of those who were lucky and aggressive enough to take advantage of those opportunities. Although a few émigrés may be encountered there is no American nobility, a grant of nobility being explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. See economic history of the United States.

Class in American Popular Culture

The above definitions bear little resemblance to those used by Americans when they discuss class. As commonly used, "lower class" usually refers to the poor, "upper class" refers to the rich, and "middle class" refers to everyone else. The middle class is sometimes similarly divided into sections, with professionals and successful small business owners comprising the upper middle class, with lower paid occupation such as registered nurses and high school teachers constituting the middle-middle class and lower income white collar worders compromising the lower middle class. This class is considered to be the largest. In this context, "working class" usually refers to blue-collar workers. The term "lower middle class" is often used as a synonym for working class, despite it also being used for clerical workers and other low-end white collar persons. It should be noted however that while 95% of Americans consider themselves middle class, less than half are actually part of the middle class with the majority being part of the lower middle class and working class. See Culture of the United States for an overview of its culture.

Middle class divisions

Some dispute the divisions within the middle class as specifically class distinctions so much as lifestyle disparaties resulting from the large range of income levels classified as "middle class." It's true that "upper-middle" and "lower-middle" class individuals live dramatically different economic lives, but class requires a specific type of sociological barrier. Class barriers are usually considered almost impossible to cross, except by attaining the favor of people within higher classes, or losing the favor of those within one's social class. Many people do attempt to climb the social ladder by going into considerable debt in hopes of socializing and ultimately obtaining the favor of the class above. The barrier between the lower and lower-middle classes, as well as that between the upper-middle and upper classes, is generally considered more rigid than any barrier separating the middle classes.

"Third-class squeeze": does it exist?

Some observers of American society have raised the issue of "middle-class squeeze", or downward mobility within the middle class, possibly into lower-class status. While this "squeeze" is a relatively new phrase, the issue is not unique to 21st century America— similar anxieties are discussed in Barbara Ehrenreich's Fear of Falling. "Middle-class squeeze" is, at least, a real anxiety among middle- and upper-middle class Americans, particularly in the so-called generation X. To what extent it is a reality remains debated. The progress of any society at any time is always multi-faceted and complex — in some ways, conditions will be improving, and in others, they will be worsening.

Cost of living

"Middle-class squeeze" refers to a multitude of related issues facing the middle-class. Some fear that these issues will constrict the middle-class, even to the extent that they knock people out of the upper-middle and middle-middle classes. Most prominent among these issues are cost-of-living issues (including healthcare and housing costs), unemployment, especially among the young, and quality-of-life issues (work hours, mandated vacation).

The salary of the median American has increased during the 2000s, but healthcare, housing, and education costs have, by all measures, outpaced these salary increases. Low inflation as defined by the consumer price index has been offset by cultural inflation resulting from recent growth in technology. For example, Internet access, which few people had in 1983 (the base year of the CPI) now has the status of a virtual necessity for middle-class life: students need Internet access to complete schoolwork. The necessity of automobile ownership in most of non-urban America has made the actual cost of living greater in the past century, and this is what one might consider "real" cultural inflation. On the other hand, the proliferation of new recreational electronic goods (game consoles, stereos, etc.) does not constitute the same sort of cultural inflation since these are not necessary goods. Rather, this is an aspect of the undebated "rising tide" in technology and technological access over the most recent decades.

At the same time, however, other cultural costs of the middle class have declined in recent years. The spread of cell phones has rendered the use of costlier landlines less necessary, to the extent that the number of residential landline telephones is actually declining in the United States. The widespread use of e-mail has greatly reduced the cost of communication with relations and the search for employment; job searches once conducted through the post can now be conducted online, at a greatly reduced cost. The automobile has likewise reduced the cultural costs of Americans, as it has facilitated long-distance travel to sites of cultural importance and to new economic opportunity. Indeed, sociologists studying America in the 1920s and 1930s often found that Americans were less willing to give up their automobiles than nearly any other possession they owned, and placed greater emphasis on purchasing an automobile than on other purchases. As one farmer's wife famously told Robert Staughton Lynd in the 1920s when asked why her family had purchased a car in preference to a bathtub, "you can't ride to town in a bathtub." Access to town no doubt vastly improved the cultural and economic resources available to this couple and thousands like them in the same period.

Moreover, it is not very easy to determine when cultural inflation is a real structural problem, and when it is merely psychological (in that people feel poorer on account of others' comparative material success).

In many other respects, aspects of "middle-class squeeze" can be attributed to the attitudes and values of the middle class themselves as much as, if not more than, to fundamental changes in the economic landscape. While it has been widely noted that the cost of housing has been on the increase lately, it has been less widely noted that much of this increase is due to land-use policies in suburban areas that make it next to impossible to replace single-family detached houses with multi-family dwelling or apartment buildings. These policies, enacted in the 1950s when much more land near urban centers was undeveloped, were designed to produce rising property values and so ensure the economic well-being of the middle class families who came to populate suburbia in those years. Although many children of the original settlers of places like Levittown, New York have found themselves priced out of these communities, this housing crisis could be largely eliminated if suburban communities would allow for higher-density development. Such development would allow the supply of available housing to keep up with demand, thus lowering housing prices overall.

Education

Primary and secondary education, for twelve years, are free in the United States, funded locally via property taxes. In the United States, the free state-run schools are known as public schools (the term is not used to describe private academies, as in other English-speaking countries). These vary widely in quality: many public schools are excellent and exceed even the elite private academies in educational performance; others are terrible and fail even to teach basic literacy and numeracy. In some locations (for example, New Orleans) the public schools are considered so poor in quality that most middle-class residents send their children to private or religious schools. In other areas, public schools are of such high quality that few people even attend private schools. Because the public schools are usually funded by local property taxes, public schools tend to be better in wealthy suburban areas, but poor urban schools sometimes excel under exceptional leadership. The quality of a person's primary and secondary schooling has a major influence on future economic fortune, since a strong secondary program will also increase the likelihood of admission to a high-quality university.

"Higher education", or tertiary education, is required for almost all middle-class professions, especially as technological advances have made even most traditionally "mechanical" (such as automotive repair) or clerical trades require advanced knowledge. Tertiary education is rarely free, but the costs vary widely: tuition at elite private colleges often exceeds $120,000 for a four-year program. On the other hand, public colleges and universities typically charge much less (for state residents), and many, such as the University of California system, rival the elite private schools in reputation and quality. Also, scholarships offered by universities and government do exist, and low-interest loans are available. Still, the average cost of education, by all accounts, is increasing. In addition, in terms of class-access, most academic degrees are considered to have devalued by about four years since the mid-20th century; this makes education, for the purpose of maintaining or acquiring social class, enormously more expensive.

"Squeeze" as a crisis

Some political theorists who accept the existence of "middle-class squeeze" believe that it represents a societal crisis. Correlating socioeconomic status with the political spectrum, they equate middle-class social status with political moderation. This correlation has a valid logical basis— middle-class individuals have some capital and, thus, stake in a stable society, but also have aspirations that would prevent them from being resistant to change. According to this theory, continued economic stress on the middle class would lead to a "collapse of the center" that could result in societal schism, radical Producerism, class warfare, or even violent revolution.

Furthermore, many middle-class people in the United States have high aspirations with regard to education, personal growth, financial success and accomplishment. (See: American dream.) Ambitious middle-class individuals are also, sometimes, the initators and leaders of rebellions, revolting against society when their ambitions are frustrated by a constricting society. Some theorists believe that widespread frustration of middle-class ambitions may lead to massive societal upheaval in the United States, though the probability of a violent revolution is usually considered very low; a peaceful conflict is more likely. Furthermore, the individuals most likely to precipitate such a "conflict" tend to hold negative views of corporations, but neutral to positive views of government, especially at the grassroots level. More likely scenarios involve a "subtle conflict" wherein educated middle-class individuals, as well as wealthy leftists, infiltrate government and the NGO sector, then enact policies that place quality of life, equality, sustainability, and human and civil rights at higher priorities than property rights, resulting in dramatic changes in society. Some believe that this is already happening in Canada and the European Union nations.

Class ascendancy

Class ascendancy is a central theme in American literature and culture. This theme is not, however, unique to American culture; literary examples from other contexts include Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Stendhal's The Red and the Black. Some have posited that the dream of class ascendancy is the essence of the American dream. The more classic understanding of the American dream, however, is that each successive generation will have a higher standard of living than its predecessor. Such a definition has little to do with class ascendancy as such; if the standards of living of one's class improve, one's own standard of living will likely improve, as a rising tide raises all boats.

Because of its complete absence of officialized class distinctions, most Americans believe that anyone can reach the upper echelons of society. A large proportion of Americans expect to be wealthy in the future; if, however, American society maintains its current shape, it is likely that at least some of them will be disappointed.

Fussell's system

Paul Fussell, in Class: A Guide Through the American Status System lists nine classes:

Top out-of-sight: the "Old Money" wealthy who avoid public exposure (in part, due to experiences during the 1930s, when it was not to one's advantage to be wealthy).

Upper Class: a group of those who are not only wealthy, but usually born into the wealth, and who espouse a different set of values than wealthy middle-class people or "proles".

Upper-Middle Class: much better off than the majority, this class still lives primarily off earned income derived from professional status requiring expensive education: doctors, attorneys, upper-middle management, and so forth. Dentists and accountants are somewhat more problematic. This class is characterized by intense interest in higher education, and is generally the target audience of mainstream but elitist publications such as The New Yorker, The New York Times, and so forth.

Middle Class: most "white collar" workers, including many of the self-employed, and a group most afflicted with status anxiety and confusion, envying the refinement of the upper-middle class and the leisure of the uppers.

High Prole: skilled, often wealthy manufacturing or service workers, who may outearn middle and even upper-middle class people but maintain a distinctively "lowbrow" culture.

Mid Prole: an intermediate level of often poor workers, but with stable employment and relative security.

Low Prole: the working poor, with difficulty finding steady employment.

Destitute: the homeless underclass.

Bottom out-of-sight: those incarcerated in prisons, or otherwise outside the purview of sociology; like top-out-of-sights, they fall so low in society as to become effectively invisible.

Fussell considered Professional Engineers to be the bridge between the prole and middle classes. Engineers are usually highly educated, high income individuals who are in daily contact, both professionally and personally, with the Upper-Middle, Middle, High Prole, and Mid Prole classes. The engineering profession is a major contributor to decidedly Upper-Middle class graduate business schools, and engineers are well represented in the boardrooms of the Fortune 500, but they also work with, and usually have High and Mid Proles working for them.

Like most who have studied social class, Fussell is a determinist who considers it relatively difficult for anyone to achieve a significant move in social class. Fussell claims that most Americans exhibit some degree of class anxiety or insecurity.

Fussell also proposes the existence of a small subset of Americans who don't fit into any of the above social classes, known as "Category X". Recruited from all social classes, they are the intellectual, stylish misfits whom others try to emulate, but by no means qualify as an elite. Fussell claims "X" to be a category rather than class since one gains membership on account of personal qualities and values rather than social background or breeding.

Fussell argues social class to be determined more by culture, lifestyle, and values than income.

References

Christopher Beach; Class, Language, and American Film Comedy Cambridge University Press, 2002
Harold J. Bershady ed; Social Class and Democratic Leadership: Essays in Honor of E. Digby Baltzell 1989
Daniel Bertaux, and Paul Thompson; Pathways to Social Class: A Qualitative Approach to Social Mobility Clarendon Press, 1997
Barbara Ehrenreich. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (2002), author disguises herself as working class
Paul Fussell, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, Touchstone (1992), 208 pages, ISBN 0671792253
David B. Grusky (Editor) Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective (2000)
Alan C. Kerckhoff; Socialization and Social Class 1972, textbook
Jim Lardner, James Lardner, David A. Smith, editors, Inequality Matters: The Growing Economic Divide In America And Its Poisonous Consequences, WW Norton (January, 2006), hardcover, 224 pages, ISBN 1565849957
Rhonda F. Levine, ed. Social Class and Stratification (1998), anthology of classic articles
W. Lloyd Warner; Marchia Meeker and Kenneth Eells; Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social Status 1949
Erik Olin Wright. Classe (1997) - a detailed Marxian guide to define working class/middle class etc.
Michael Zweig, Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret, Cornell University Press (2001), trade paperback, 198 pages, ISBN 0801487277
David Popenoe, Sociology, (ninth edition, Prentice Hall, 1993 ISBN 0138197989 ) pb. pp. 232-236,
Social Class in America - Analysis of the American class system
Wealth, Income, and Power - wealth distribution in the U.S. from a Power Structure Research perspective
Myth: Income mobility makes up for income inequality - analysis from Liberal point of view

External links

Median Family Income by Family Size (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars) from Census.gov
Median Family Income by Number of Earners in Family (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars) from Census.gov
[http://www.classmatters.org/working_definitions.php Definitions ClassMatters.com

American society | Social structure by country | Life in the United States

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Social structure of the United States