Social class in the United States

Social class in the United States is a controversial issue, having many competing definitions, models, and even disagreements over its very existence.[1] Many Americans believe that in the country there are just three classes: the American rich; the American middle class; the American poor. More complex models that have been proposed describe as many as a dozen class levels;[2][3] while still others deny the very existence, in the European sense, of social class in American society.[4] Most definitions of class structure group people according to wealth, income, education, type of occupation, and membership in a specific subculture or social network. Most of the social classes entirely ignore the existence of parallel Black, Hispanic and minorities societies.

Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson, Joseph Hickey, and James Henslin have proposed class systems with six distinct social classes. These class models feature an upper or capitalist class consisting of the rich and powerful, an upper middle class consisting of highly educated and affluent professionals, a middle class consisting of college-educated individuals employed in white-collar industries, a lower middle class composed of semi-professionals with typically some college education, a working class constituted by clerical and blue collar workers whose work is highly routinized, and a lower class divided between the working poor and the unemployed underclass.[2][5][6]

A monument of working class
Douglas Tilden's monument to the working and supporting classes along Market Street in the heart of San Francisco's Financial District


Class US
Class in the United States, featuring occupational descriptions by Thompson & Hickey as well as United States Census Bureau data pertaining to personal income and educational attainment for those age 25 or older.

Some definitions of class look only at numerical measures such as wealth or income. Others take into account qualitative factors, such as education, culture, and social status. There is no consensus on which of these variables is essential and which are merely common correlates. It is also disputed whether sharp lines can be drawn; one point of view in the debate:

A stratified society is one marked by inequality, by differences among people that are regarded as being higher or lower…it is logically possible for a society to be stratified in a continuous gradation between high and low without any sharp lines…in reality…there is only a limited number of types of occupations…People in similar positions…grow similar in their thinking and lifestyle…they form a pattern, and this pattern creates social class.

— Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, 1998[2]

Social status

It is impossible to understand people's behavior…without the concept of social stratification, because class position has a pervasive influence on almost everything…the clothes we wear…the television shows we watch…the colors we paint our homes in and the names we give our pets…Our position in the social hierarchy affects our health, happiness, and even how long we will live.
— William Thompson, Joseph Hickey, Society in Focus, 2005[5]

Social class is sometimes presented as a description of how members of the society have sorted themselves along a continuum of positions varying in importance, influence, prestige, and compensation. In these models, certain occupations are considered to be desirable and influential, while others are considered to be menial, repetitive, and unpleasant. (In some cases, non-occupational roles such as a parent or volunteer mentor, are also considered.[5]) Generally, the higher the ranking on such a scale, the higher the skill and education levels required to perform it.

Some sociologists consider the higher income and prestige of higher ranked jobs to simply be incentives to encourage members of society to obtain the skills necessary to perform important work.[7] This is an important mechanism in the economic theory of capitalism, and is compatible with the notion that class is mutable and determined by a combination of choices and opportunities.

In other cases, class or status is inherited. For example, being the son or daughter of a wealthy individual, may carry a higher status and different cultural connotations than being a member of nouveau riche ("new money") or have a planned path of positive freedom. Those taking the functionalist approach to sociology and economics view social classes as components essential for the survival of complex societies such as American society.[5]


Median income levels
Households Persons, age 25 or older with earnings Household income by race or ethnicity
All households Dual earner
Per household
Males Females Both sexes Asian Non-Hispanic White Hispanic
(of any race)
$46,326 $67,348 $23,535 $39,403 $26,507 $32,140 $57,518 $48,977 $34,241 $30,134
Median personal income by educational attainment
Measure Some High School High school graduate Some college Associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher Bachelor's degree Master's degree Professional degree Doctorate degree
Persons, age 25+ w/ earnings $20,321 $26,505 $31,054 $35,009 $49,303 $43,143 $52,390 $82,473 $70,853
Male, age 25+ w/ earnings $24,192 $32,085 $39,150 $42,382 $60,493 $52,265 $67,123 $100,000 $78,324
Female, age 25+ w/ earnings $15,073 $21,117 $25,185 $29,510 $40,483 $36,532 $45,730 $66,055 $54,666
Persons, age 25+, employed full-time $25,039 $31,539 $37,135 $40,588 $56,078 $50,944 $61,273 $100,000 $79,401
Household $22,718 $36,835 $45,854 $51,970 $73,446 $68,728 $78,541 $100,000 $96,830
Household income distribution
Bottom 10% Bottom 20% Bottom 25% Middle 33% Middle 20% Top 25% Top 20% Top 5% Top 1.5% Top 1%
$0 to $10,500 $0 to $18,500 $0 to $22,500 $30,000 to $62,500 $35,000 to $55,000 $77,500 and up $92,000 and up $167,000 and up $250,000 and up $350,000 and up
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006; income statistics for the year 2005

Income in the United States is most commonly measured by United States Census Bureau in terms of either household or individual and remains one of the most prominent indicators of class status. As 82% of all households, 16% of those in the top quintiles, had two income earners the discrepancy between household and personal income is quite considerable. In 2005 the top 95% of income earners made $12,500 or more, while 18% of households had incomes over $100,000. Personal income is largely the result of scarcity. As individuals who hold higher status positions tend to possess rare skills or assume positions society deems very essential, have higher incomes. Overall the median household income was $46,326 in 2005[8] while the median personal income (including only those above the age of 25) was $32,140.[9]

Per capita household income, the income a household is able to allocate to each member of the household is also an important variable in determining a given household's standard of living. A high household income may be offset by a large household size; thus, resulting in a low per capita household income.[2] In 2005, the median household income per capita was $24,672.[8]

It should be stressed…that a position does not bring power and prestige because it draws a high income. Rather, it draws a high income because it is functionally important and the available personnel are for one reason or another scarce. It is therefore superficial and erroneous to regard high income as the cause of a man's power and prestige, just as it is erroneous to think that a man's fever is the cause of his disease…The economic source of power and prestige is not income primarily, but the ownership of capital goods (including patents, good will, and professional reputation). Such ownership should be distinguished from the possession of consumers' goods, which is an index rather than a cause of social standing.
— Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, Principles of Stratification

In the passage above, Davis and Moore argue that income is one of the most prominent features of social class; it is not one of its causes. In other words, income does not determine the status of an individual or household but rather reflects on that status. Some say that income and prestige are the incentives provided by society in order to fill needed positions with the most qualified and motivated personnel possible.[7]

The New York Times has used income quintiles to define class. It has assigned the quintiles from lowest to highest as lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class.[10] These definitions equate class with income, permitting people to move from class to class as their income changes.

Dual income controversy

Two or more income earners
Percentage of 2+ income households in each of the quintiles (1/5 of the population).[11]

Income is one of the most commonly used attributes of a household to determine its class status. The relationship between income, which mostly arises from the scarcity of a certain skill, may however, prove to be more complex than initially perceived.[7] While the idea is that income reflects status, household income may just be the product of two or more incomes.

In 2005, 22% of American households had two income earners. The vast majority (97%) of households in the top quintile had two or more income earners. This means that the majority of household income in the top quintile are the result of two income earners pooling their resources, establishing a close link between perceived affluence and the number of income earners in a given household.[6][11] This raises the question of whether or not the combination of incomes results in higher social status. Of course, there is no definite answer as class is a vague sociological concept.[5]

The parade of income earners with height representing income suggest that the relationship between the distribution of income and the class structure is…blurred in the middle…we saw dual-income working class marchers looking down on single-income upper-middle class marchers. In sum, the class structure as we have defined it…does not exactly match the distribution of household income.
— Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, 1998[2]

Sociologist Dennis Gilbert states that it is possible for households to out-earn other households over higher class standing through increasing their number of income earners. He furthermore states that household size also played an essential role, as the standard of living for two persons living off one upper middle class personal income may very well be higher than that of a household with four members living off two working class personal incomes.[2]

The combination of two or more incomes allows for households to increase their income substantially without moving higher on the occupational ladder or attaining higher educational degrees. Thus it is important to remember that the favorable economic position of households in the top two quintiles is in some cases the result of combined income, rather than demand for a single worker.[11]


Occupation educational attainment
Educational attainment is related to both occupation, as seen above, and income. This graph shows the educational attainment of individuals age 25–64, employed full-time, by occupational field.[12]

Tertiary education (or "higher education") is required for many middle-class professions, depending on how the term middle class is to be defined. Tertiary education is rarely free, but the costs vary widely: tuition at elite private colleges often exceeds $200,000 for a four-year program, although financial aid may be significant. On the other hand, public colleges and universities typically charge much less, particularly for state residents.

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. The attainment of post-secondary and graduate degrees is the perhaps most important feature of a middle and upper middle class person with the university being regarded as the most essential institution and gatekeeper of the professional middle class.[5][13] Educational attainment is also directly linked to income.

In 2005, the vast majority of those with doctorate and professional degrees were among the nation's top 15% of income earners.[14] Those with bachelor's degrees had incomes considerably above the national median while the median income for those with some college education remained near the national median. According to United States Census Bureau, 9% of persons aged 25 or older had a graduate degree, 27.9% had a bachelor's degree or more with 53% having attended college.[14][15]

With 85% of the population having graduated from high school, it becomes apparent that the average American does not have a college degree, but is likely to have attended college for some time and has graduated from high school. Overall, educational attainment serves as the perhaps most essential class feature of most Americans, being directly linked to income and occupation.[16]

Year 2005 Less than 9th grade No high school diploma High school graduate Some college Associate degree Bachelor's degree Bachelor's degree or more Graduate degree Master's degree Professional degree Doctorate
% in Group 6.1% 8.4% 31.7% 16.7% 8.73% 18.3% 27.9% 9.7% 6.8% 1.6% 1.3%
Median personal income $17,422 $20,321 $26,505 $31,054 $35,009 $43,143 $49,303 $59,826 $52,390 $82,473 $70,853

Source: United States Census Bureau, 2005[17]


Social classes feature their own sub-cultures and have therefore developed slightly different manners of socializing their offspring.[5] Due to class mobility individuals may also acculturate to the culture of another class when ascending or descending in the social order. However, one does need to remember that all social classes in the United States, except the upper class, consist of tens of millions of people. Thus social classes form social groups so large that they feature considerable diversity within and any statement regarding a given social class' culture needs to be seen as a broad generalization.

Since 1970, sociologists Paula LeMasters and Melvin Kohl have set out repeatedly to research class based cultures. Class culture has been shown to have a strong influence on the mundane lives of people, affecting everything from the manner in which they raise their children, initiation and maintenance of romantic relationship to the color in which they paint their houses.[5] The strongest cultural differences seem to run along the professional middle class-working class divide.[18] A recent increase in residential class segregation and the overall tendency of individual to associate mostly with those of equal standing as themselves has further strengthened class differences.[2][19]

Parental views are perhaps the most essential factor in determining the socialization process which shapes new members of society.[5] The values and standards used in child rearing are commonly closely related to the parent's occupational status.[2] Parents from the professional class tend to raise their children to become curious independent thinkers, while working class parents raise their children to have a more communal perspective with a strong respect for authority.[2] Middle class parents tend to emphasize internal standards and values while working class parents emphasize external values.[2]

Sociologist Dennis Gilbert uses a list of values identified by Melvin Kohn to be typical of the professional middle and working class. Middle class parents' values for their children and themselves included: "Consideration of Others, Self-Control, Curiosity, Happiness, Honesty, Tolerance of Nonconformity, Open to Innovation…Self-Direction." This contrasted with surveyed working class individuals, who reported: "Manners, Obedience…Neatness, Cleanliness, Strong Punishment of Deviant Behavior, Stock to Old Ways, People not Trustworthy…Strict Leadership" as values for themselves and their children. There is a strong correlation between these values and the occupational activities of the respondents. The job characteristics of middle class respondents included: "Work Independently, Varied Tasks, Work with People or Data," versus working class parents of reported "Close Supervision and Repetitive Work…"[2]

Not once in a professional middle-class home did I see a young boy shake his father's hand in a well-taught manly gesture…Not once did I hear a middle-class parent scornfully-or even sympathetically-call a crying boy a sissy or in any way reprimand him for his tears…even as young as six or seven, the working class boys seemed more emotionally controlled-more like miniature men-than those in the middle-class families.
— Sociologist Lillian Rubin in Gilbert, 1998

Gender roles are also viewed differently by those in the higher and lower social classes. Middle class individuals, who were more open towards "nonconformity" and emphasized individual self-direction as well as critical thinking, were also less stringent in their application of gender roles. Working class individuals, on the other hand, emphasized gender roles. While working-class people have more and more assimilated to middle class culture regarding their view and application of gender roles, differences remain. Professional class people are more likely to have an egalitarian distribution of work in their household with both spouses being equals in heterosexual marriages. According to Dennis Gilbert, "College life, generally a prologue to upper-middle class careers, delays marriage and encourages informal, relatively egalitarian association between men and women."[2][6]

Academic models

The following are reported income-, education-, and occupation-based terms for specific classes commonly used by sociologists.

Academic class models
Dennis Gilbert, 2002 William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005 Leonard Beeghley, 2004
Class Typical characteristics Class Typical characteristics Class Typical characteristics
Capitalist class (1%) Top-level executives, high-rung politicians, heirs. Ivy League education common. Upper class (1%) Top-level executives, celebrities, heirs; income of $500,000+ common. Ivy league education common. The super-rich (0.9%) Multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,000; includes celebrities and powerful executives/politicians. Ivy League education common.
Upper middle class[1] (15%) Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees), most commonly salaried, professionals and middle management with large work autonomy. Upper middle class[1] (15%) Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees) professionals & managers with household incomes varying from the high 5-figure range to commonly above $100,000. The rich (5%) Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity. Generally have college degrees.
Middle class (plurality/
majority?; ca. 46%)
College-educated workers with considerably higher-than-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical.
Lower middle class (30%) Semi-professionals and craftsmen with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white-collar. Lower middle class (32%) Semi-professionals and craftsmen with some work autonomy; household incomes commonly range from $35,000 to $75,000. Typically, some college education.
Working class (30%) Clerical and most blue-collar workers whose work is highly routinized. Standard of living varies depending on number of income earners, but is commonly just adequate. High school education.
Working class (32%) Clerical, pink- and blue-collar workers with often low job security; common household incomes range from $16,000 to $30,000. High school education. Working class
(ca. 40–45%)
Blue-collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman making $26,000 may be typical. High school education.
Working poor (13%) Service, low-rung clerical and some blue-collar workers. High economic insecurity and risk of poverty. Some high school education.
Lower class (ca. 14–20%) Those who occupy poorly-paid positions or rely on government transfers. Some high school education.
Underclass (12%) Those with limited or no participation in the labor force. Reliant on government transfers. Some high school education. The poor (ca. 12%) Those living below the poverty line with limited to no participation in the labor force; a household income of $18,000 may be typical. Some high school education.
References: Gilbert, D. (2002) The American Class Structure: In An Age of Growing Inequality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, ISBN 0534541100. (see also Gilbert Model);
Thompson, W. & Hickey, J. (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon; Beeghley, L. (2004). The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
1 The upper middle class may also be referred to as "Professional class" Ehrenreich, B. (1989). The Inner Life of the Middle Class. NY, NY: Harper-Collins.

Upper class

This term is applied to a wide array of elite groups existing in the United States of America. The term commonly includes the so-called "blue bloods" (multi-generational wealth combined with leadership of high society) such as the Astor or Roosevelt families. Twentieth century sociologist W. Lloyd Warner divided the upper class into two sections: the "upper-upper class" (or bourgeoisie) and "lower-upper class" (or "scoobs"). The former includes established upper-class families while the latter includes those with great wealth. As there is no defined lower threshold for the upper class it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to determine the exact number or percentage of American households that could be identified as being members of the upper-class(es).

Income and wealth statistics may serve as a helpful guideline as they can be measured in a more objective manner. In 2005, approximately one and a half percent (1.5%) of households in the United States had incomes exceeding $250,000 with the top 5% having incomes exceeding $157,000.[20] Furthermore, only 2.6% of households held assets (excluding home equity) of more than one-million dollars. One could therefore fall under the assumption that less than five percent of American society are members of rich households. The richest 1% of the American population owns as much as the combined wealth of the bottom 90%,[21] or perhaps even more.[22]

Members of the upper class control and own significant portions of corporate America and may exercise indirect power through the investment of capital. The high salaries and the potential for amassing great wealth through stock options have greatly increased the power and visibility of the "corporate elite". There is disagreement over whether the "nouveau riche" should be included as members of the upper class or whether this term should exclusively be used for established families. Many sociologists and commentators make a distinction between the upper class (in the sense of those in the families of inherited wealth) and the corporate elite. By implication, the upper class is held in lower regard (as inheritors of idle wealth) than the self-made millionaires in prestigious occupations.[23]

Inherited wealth

Yet another important feature of the upper class is that of inherited privilege. While most Americans, including those in the upper-middle class need to actively maintain their status, some upper class persons do not need to work in order to maintain their status. Status tends to be passed on from generation to generation without each generation having to re-certify its status.[13] Overall, the upper class is financially the best compensated and one of the most influential socio-economic classes in American society.

Corporate elite

The high salaries and, especially, the potential wealth through stock options, has supported the term corporate elite or corporate class. Top executives, including Chief Executive Officers, are among the financially best compensated occupations in the United States. The median annual earnings for a CEO in the United States were $140,350[24] (exceeding the income of more than 90% of United States households). The Wall Street Journal reports the median compensation for CEOs of 350 major corporations was $6,000,000 in 2005 with most of the money coming from stock options.[25]

In New York City in 2005, the median income (including bonuses) of a corporate "chief operating officer" (the No. 2 job) was $377,000.[26] The total compensation for a "top IT officer" in charge of information technology in New York City was $218,000.[27] Thus even below the CEO level of top corporations, financial compensation will usually be sufficient to propel households with a mere one income earner in the top 1%. In 2005 only 1.5% of American households had incomes above $250,000 with many reaching this level only through having two income earners.[20][28][29]

Top executives are among the highest paid workers in the United States economy. However, salary levels vary substantially depending on the level of managerial responsibility; length of service; and type, size, and location of the firm. For example, a top manager in a very large corporation can earn significantly more than a counterpart in a small firm.

Median annual earnings of general and operations managers in May 2004 were $77,420. The middle 50% earned between $52,420 and $118,310. Because the specific responsibilities of general and operations managers vary significantly within industries, earnings also tend to vary considerably…the median annual earnings of chief executives in May 2004 were $140,350; although chief executives in some industries earned considerably more…the median income of chief executive officers in the nonprofit sector was $88,006 in 2005, but some of the highest chief executives made more than $700,000.

— United States Department of Labor,

Many politically powerful people make money before coming to office, but in general the political power elite have official incomes in the $150,000 to $185,000 range; members of Congress are paid $174,000, and are effectively required to have a residence in their district as well as one in Washington.[30]

Upper middle

The upper middle class consists of highly educated salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have advanced graduate degrees and household incomes commonly exceed the high five-figure range. Members of this class commonly value higher education – most holding advanced academic degrees – and are often involved with personal and professional networks including professional organizations. The upper middle class tends to have great influence over the course of society.[2]

Occupations which require high educational attainment are well compensated and are held in high public esteem. Physicians, lawyers, accountants, engineers, scientists and professors are largely considered to be upper middle class.[13] The very well educated are seen as trendsetters; the anti-smoking, pro-fitness, and organic food movements, as well as environmentalism, are largely indigenous to this socio-economic grouping. Education serves as perhaps the most important value and also the most dominant entry barrier of the upper middle class.[5][19]

Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, Willam Thompson, and Joseph Hickey estimate the upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population (or roughly three in every twenty persons). The hallmark of this class is its high educational attainment.

Middle class

The middle class shrinkage

The middle class is perhaps the most vaguely defined of the social classes.[3] The term can be used either to describe a relative elite of professionals and managers[13] – also called the upper middle class – or it can be used to describe those in-between the extremes of wealth, disregarding considerable differences in income, culture, educational attainment, influence, and occupation.

As with all social classes in the United States, there are no definite answers as to what is and what is not middle class. Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, James Henslin, William Thompson, and Joseph Hickey have brought forth class models in which the middle class is divided into two sections that combined constitute 47% to 49% of the population. The upper middle or professional class constitutes the upper end of the middle class which consists of highly educated, well-paid professionals with considerable work autonomy. The lower end of the middle class – called either lower middle class or just middle class – consists of semi-professionals, craftsmen, office staff, and sales employees who often have college degrees and are very loosely supervised.[2][5][6]

Everyone wants to believe they are middle class. For people on the bottom and the top of the wage scale the phrase connotes a certain Regular Joe cachet. But this eagerness to be part of the group has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord.
— Dante Chinni, the Christian Science Monitor, [31]

Although income thresholds cannot be determined since social classes lack distinct boundaries and tend to overlap, sociologists and economists have put forward certain income figures they find indicative of middle class households. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a husband making roughly $57,000 and a wife making roughly $40,000 with a household income of roughly $97,000 as a typical middle-class family.[32]

Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey identify household incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 as typical for the lower middle and $100,000 or more as typical for the upper middle class.[5] Though it needs to be noted that household income distribution neither reflects standard of living nor class status with complete accuracy.[2]

Traditional middle class

Kindergarten or Special Education teacher - US Census Bureau
Many primary and secondary level teachers in the United States are in the middle class.

Those households more or less at the center of society may be referred to as being part of the American middle or middle-middle class in vernacular language use. In the academic models featured in this article, however, the middle class does not constitute a strong majority of the population. Those in the middle of the socio-economic strata—the proverbial Average Joe—are commonly in the area where the working and lower middle class overlap.

The most prominent academic models split the middle class into two sections. Yet, it remains common for the term middle class to be applied for anyone in between either extreme of the socio-economic strata. The middle class is then often sub-divided into an upper-middle, middle-middle, and lower-middle class. In colloquial descriptions of the class system the middle-middle class may be described as consisting of those in the middle of the social strata. Politicians and television personalities such as Lou Dobbs can be seen using the term middle class in this manner, especially when discussing the middle-class squeeze.[3][33] The wide discrepancy between the academic models and public opinions that lump highly educated professionals together in the same class with secretaries may lead to the conclusion that public opinion on the subject has become largely ambiguous.[2]

Lower middle class

The lower middle class is, as the name implies, generally defined as those less privileged than the middle class. People in this class commonly work in supporting occupations.

Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson, and Joseph Hickey, however, only divide the middle class into two groups. In their class modes the middle class only consists of an upper and lower middle class. The upper middle class, as described above, constitutes roughly 15% of the population with highly educated white collar professionals who commonly have salaries in the high 5-figure range and household incomes in the low six figure range. Semi-professionals with some college degrees constitute the lower middle class. Their class models show the lower middle class positioned slightly above the middle of the socio-economic strata. Those in blue- and pink-collar as well as clerical occupations are referred to as working class in these class models.[2][5]

Working class

The term working class applies to those that work at this tier in the social hierarchy. Definitions of this term vary greatly. While Lloyd Warner found the vast majority of the American population to be in either the upper-lower class or lower-lower class in 1949, modern-day experts such as Michael Zweig, an economist for Stony Brook University, argue that the working class constitutes most of the population.[34]

Dennis Gilbert places 13% of households among the "working poor" with 12% being in the "underclass". Thompson & Hickey place roughly 17% to 20% of households in the lower classes. The lower classes constituting roughly a fifth to a quarter of American society consists mainly of low-rung retail and service workers as well as the frequently unemployed and those not able to work.[2][5][6] Overall, 13% of the population fall below the poverty threshold. Hunger and food insecurity were present in the lives of 3.9% of American households, while roughly twenty-five million Americans (ca. 9%) participated in the food stamp program.[35]


Farm workers

Before industrialization, "yeoman farmers"—self-sufficient, politically independent landowners—made up a large portion of the country's population. Jeffersonian democracy and Jacksonian democracy successfully expanded the political rights of the yeomen, and the geographical extent of the nation to provide them farms. This culminated in the Homestead Act of 1862 which provided hundreds of thousands of free farms. Before 1865 large southern plantations used slaves. After emancipation, a system of sharecropping and tenant farming for both whites and blacks in the South provided a semi-independent status for farmers who did not own their land. In contemporary times, migrant agricultural workers—mostly Mexicans—perform field and packing work.[36]


Only 0.7% of the population of the United States is employed in the agricultural sector.[37] Most are 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 most of the population migrated to urban areas.[2]

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 sizable 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. 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 farmers typically keep their official income low by placing their assets into farming corporations rather than drawing the money directly. 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.[38]

Class and health

Homeless - American Flag
A homeless American citizen. (August 4, 2005)

Income also had a significant impact on health as those with higher incomes had better access to healthcare facilities, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate and increased health consciousness. In 2006, Harvard researchers divided the United States into "eight Americas."[39]

Life expectancy ranges from 84.9 years for Asian-Americans who had an average per capita income of $21,566, to 71.1 years for urban African-Americans with an average per capita income of $14,800.[39]

Furthermore, like other post-industrial nations, the United States saw increased health consciousness among persons of higher social status. Persons of higher status are less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise regularly, and be more conscious of their diet.[40] Additionally, poorer Americans are more likely to consume lower quality, processed foods. One can therefore conclude that low socio-economic status contributes to a person's likelihood of being obese.[41][42]

Class and politics

Senate Income Votes
A study by Larry Bartels found a positive correlation between Senate votes and opinions of high income people, conversely, low income people had a negative correlation with Senate votes.[43]

Income remains one of the main indicators of class, as it commonly reflects educational attainment as well as occupation.[7] A frequent distinction in political attitudes can be found among individuals residing in households with differing incomes.[5] For example, during the 2000 United States presidential election, voter turnout among those in the top 26% with household incomes exceeding $75,000 was 27% higher than the average.[44]

Inequality and crisp definition of any existent class groupings

Some academics consider American society sociologically and economically fragmented in such a manner that no clear class distinctions can be made. This means that there are no pronounced breaks in socioeconomic strata, which makes class division highly subjective and disputable.[1] Others, such as sociologist Dennis Gilbert, dispute the concept of a well-mixed society, and claim that distinct social networks can be identified for each class. W. Lloyd Warner also asserts the existence of class markers:

We are proud of those facts of American life that fit the pattern we are taught but somehow we are often ashamed of those equally important social facts which demonstrate the presence of social class. Consequently, we tend to deny them, or worse, denounce them and by doing so we tend to deny their existence and magically make them disappear from consciousness.
— W. Lloyd Warner, What Social Class Is In America[4]

Warner asserts that social class is as old as civilization itself and has been present in nearly every society from before the Roman Empire, through medieval times, and to the modern-day United States. He believes that complex societies such as the United States need an equally complex social hierarchy.[4]

In popular culture

The existence of class differences in American society has long been the focus of popular culture, whether in the form of books, films, or plays. Social class, for example, is a theme used in the 1948 production Mister Roberts, in a scene where the ship's captain displays resentment toward the title character, contrasting his own impoverished background to that of Roberts himself:

I think you're a pretty smart boy. I may not talk very good, Mister, but I know how to take care of smart boys. Let me tell you something. Let me tell you a little secret. I hate your guts, you college son-of-a-****! You think you're better than I am! You think you're better because you've had everything handed to you. Let me tell you something, Mister – I've worked since I was ten years old, and all my life I've known you superior bastards. I knew you people when I was a kid in Boston and I worked in eating-places and you ordered me around … "Oh bus-boy! My friend here seems to have thrown up on the table. Clean it up, please!" I started going to sea as a steward and I worked for you then … "Steward, take my magazine out to the deck chair!" … "Steward, I don't like your looks. Please keep out of my way as much as possible!" Well, I took that crap! I took that for years from pimple-faced bastards who weren't good enough to wipe my nose! And now I don't have to take it any more! There's a war on, by God, and I'm the Captain and you can wipe my nose! The worst thing I can do to you is to keep you on this ship! And that's where you're going to stay! Now get out of here.[45]

See also


  1. ^ a b Eichar, Douglas (1989). Occupation and Class Consciousness in America. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-26111-3.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Gilbert, Dennis (1998). The American Class Structure. New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 0-534-50520-1.
  3. ^ a b c "Middle class according to The Drum Major Institute for public policy". Retrieved July 25, 2006.
  4. ^ a b c Warner, Lloyd; Marchia Meeker; Kenneth Eells (1949). What is Social Class in America, Lloyd Warner. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Thompson, William; Joseph Hickey (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN 0-205-41365-X.
  6. ^ a b c d e Williams, Brian; Stacey C. Sawyer; Carl M. Wahlstrom (2005). Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships. Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN 0-205-36674-0.
  7. ^ a b c d Levine, Rhonda (1998). Social Class and Stratification. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8543-8.
  8. ^ a b "United States Census Bureau, household income, 2006". Archived from the original on December 30, 2006. Retrieved February 8, 2007.
  9. ^ "United States Census Bureau, median income of persons, age 25 or older". Archived from the original on March 19, 2007. Retrieved December 9, 2006.
  10. ^ "New York Times definition of class according to the quintiles". The New York Times. May 15, 2005. Retrieved July 8, 2006.
  11. ^ a b c "United States Census Bureau, Income earners by quintile". Archived from the original on July 20, 2006. Retrieved October 25, 2006.
  12. ^ "United States Census Bureau report on educational attainment in the United States, 2003" (PDF). Retrieved July 31, 2006.
  13. ^ a b c d Ehrenreich, Barbara (1989). Fear of Falling, The Inner Life of the Middle Class. New York, NY: Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06-097333-1.
  14. ^ a b "United States Census Bureau, income distribution of individuals, employed full-time, year round, age 25–64, 2006". Archived from the original on September 29, 2006. Retrieved December 27, 2006.
  15. ^ "United States Census Bureau, 2005, data published on". Retrieved January 12, 2007.
  16. ^ "United States Census Bureau report on educational attainment in the United States, 2003" (PDF). Retrieved January 12, 2006.
  17. ^ "United States Census Bureau, educational attainment and income, age 25+, 2006". Archived from the original on March 19, 2007. Retrieved January 13, 2007.
  18. ^ Leondar-Wright, Betsy (2005). "Are There Class Cultures?". Differences between activists steadily employed & not. (Class Matters Workshop - Opportunities to practice cross-class bridging skills). Archived from the original on December 16, 2005. Retrieved August 21, 2018. Lay summary (PDF)→ Clearest examples of a Class Culture: Families w/ 3 or more generations in the same class in the U.S. → Recent class mobility, recent immigration, & living in the "gray area" between 2 classes all muddy the waters. Many people's experience is of a mixed class culture. Differences of experience socialize most American people. Make visible some class-culture-based coalition behaviours & dynamics that are too often invisible. Steady Work for Low-Income: Impossible &/or Not Expected. Steady Work for Working-Class & Middle-Class: Inevitable & Necessary. Steady Work for Owning-Class: Optional
  19. ^ a b Zweig, Michael (2004). What's Class Got To Do With It, American Society in the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8899-0.
  20. ^ a b "United States Census Bureau, income quintiles and Top 5%, 2004". Archived from the original on July 20, 2006. Retrieved July 8, 2006.
  21. ^ The Hidden Wealth of the Richest 1%
  22. ^ PolitiFact | Michael Moore movie says that top 1 percent owns more financial wealth than bottom 95 percent
  23. ^ Peter W. Cookson and Caroline Hodges Persell, Preparing for Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools (1987)
  24. ^ "Median annual earnings of CEOs according to the United States Department of Labor". Retrieved August 29, 2006.
  25. ^ "Income sources of top corporate personnel". Retrieved August 28, 2006.
  26. ^ "Salaries for top level corporate personnel". Retrieved August 28, 2006.
  27. ^ "Salaries of CEOs". Retrieved August 28, 2006.
  28. ^ "United States Census 2005 Economic Survey, income data". Archived from the original on June 30, 2006. Retrieved June 29, 2006.
  29. ^ "Salaries of politicians lower than that of top-level corporate personnel". Retrieved August 28, 2006.
  30. ^ "Economic statutes pertaining to congressmen". Retrieved February 15, 2007.
  31. ^ "The Christian Science Monitor, What is middle class?". Retrieved August 28, 2006.
  32. ^ Beeghley, Leonard (2004). The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States. New York, NY: Pearson. ISBN 0-205-37558-8.
  33. ^ "Middle income can't buy Middle class lifestyle". Archived from the original on December 30, 2005. Retrieved July 25, 2006.
  34. ^ Zweig, Michael (2001). The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret. New York, NY: IRL Press. ISBN 0-8014-8727-7.
  35. ^ "Results, Center on Hunger and Poverty, hunger and poverty statistics for the United State". Retrieved August 29, 2006.
  36. ^ John L. Shover. First Majority, Last Minority: The Transforming of Rural Life in America (1976)
  37. ^ "CIA factbook, United States labor force by economic sector". Retrieved February 15, 2007.
  38. ^ R. Douglas Hurt, American Agriculture: A Brief History (2002); John T Schlebecker. Whereby we thrive: A history of American farming, 1607–1972 (1972) (ISBN 0-8138-0090-0)
  39. ^ a b Murray CJ, Kulkarni SC, Michaud C, et al. (2006). "Eight Americas: investigating mortality disparities across races, counties, and race-counties in the United States". PLoS Med. 3 (9): e260. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030260. PMC 1564165. PMID 16968116. Lay summaryproto (2008).
  40. ^ "Health and social class". Retrieved December 13, 2006.
  41. ^ "Bad diet and income". Archived from the original on November 29, 2006. Retrieved December 14, 2006.
  42. ^ "Socioeconomic status and obesity" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2006. Retrieved December 14, 2006.
  43. ^ Based on Larry Bartels's study Economic Inequality and Political Representation Archived September 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Table 1: Differential Responsiveness of Senators to Constituency Opinion.
  44. ^ United States Census Bureau (2002). Voting Registration in the Election of 2000. Current Population Reports. Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
  45. ^ Sociology: Third Edition by Paul B. Horton and Chester L. Hunt

Further reading

  • Leonard Beeghley; The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States Pearson, 2004
  • Dennis Gilbert; The American Class Structure Wadsworth, 2002
  • Rhonda Levine; Social Class and Stratification Rowman & Littlefield, 1998
  • Paul Fussell Class: A Guide Through the American Status System Simon & Schuster, 1992
  • Michael Zweig; What's Class Got To Do With It? Cornell University Press, 2003
  • 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
  • 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 1-56584-995-7
  • Erik Olin Wright. Classe (1997) – a detailed Marxian guide to define working class/middle class etc.
  • David Popenoe, Sociology, (ninth edition, Prentice Hall, 1993 ISBN 0-13-819798-9 ) pb. pp. 232–236,
  • Wealth, Income, and Power – wealth distribution in the United States from a Power Structure Research perspective
  • Myth: Income mobility makes up for income inequality at the Wayback Machine (archived 2000-10-30) – analysis from Liberal point of view
  • Kalra, Paul (1996). The American Class System: Divide and Rule. ISBN 0-9647173-5-2.
  • Kay Hymowitz / Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age (2006) ISBN 1-56663-709-0
  • G. William Domhoff (1967). Who Rules America?, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall
  • Lee D. Baker (2004). Life in America: Identity and Everyday Experience, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 1-4051-0564-X

External links

American gentry

The American gentry were members of the American upper classes, particularly early in the settlement of the United States.

The Colonial American use of gentry followed the British usage (i.e., landed gentry) before the independence of the United States. The Southern plantation was commonly evidenced in land holdings by estate owners in Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas. North of Maryland, there were few large comparible rural estates, except in the Dutch domains in the Hudson Valley of New York.

The families of Virginia (see First Families of Virginia) who formed the Virginia gentry class, such as General Robert E. Lee's ancestors, were among the earliest settlers in Virginia. Lee's family of Stratford Hall was considered among the oldest of the Virginia gentry class. Lee's family is one of Virginia's first families, originally arriving in Virginia from England in the early 1600s with the arrival of Richard Lee I, Esq., "the Immigrant" (1618–64), from the county of Shropshire. His mother grew up at Shirley Plantation, one of the most elegant homes in Virginia. His maternal great-great grandfather, Robert "King" Carter of Corotoman, was the wealthiest man in the colonies when he died in 1732.

Thomas Jefferson, the patron of American agrarianism, wrote in his Notes on Virginia (1785), "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if He ever had a chosen people, whose breasts He has made His peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue." Jefferson who spent much of his childhood at Tuckahoe Plantation was a great-grandson of William Randolph a colonist and land owner who arrived in Virginia from England in the mid 1600s and played an important role in the history and government of the English colony of Virginia.

George Washington, the first president of the United States was also the wealthiest man to ever hold the office until the election of Donald Trump in 2016 according to valuations of his putative assets. He was a commercial farmer much interested in innovations, and happily quit his public duties in 1783 and again in 1797 to manage his plantation at Mount Vernon. Washington lived an upper-class lifestyle—fox hunting was a favorite leisure activity enjoyed by gentry, worldwide. Like most planters in Virginia, Washington imported luxury items and other fine wares from England. He paid for them by exporting his tobacco crop.

Extravagant spending and the unpredictability of the tobacco market meant that many Virginia planters financial resources were unstable. Thomas Jefferson was deeply in debt when he died and his heirs were forced to sell Monticello to cover his debts. In 1809, Henry Lee III went bankrupt and served one year in debtors' prison in Montross, Virginia; his son, Robert E. Lee was two years old at the time.Despondent and nearly broke, William Byrd III of Westover Plantation committed suicide in 1777.

Wood notes that "Few members of the American gentry were able to live idly off the rents of tenants as the English landed aristocracy did." Some landowners, especially in the Dutch areas of upstate New York, leased out their lands to tenants, but generally —"Plain Folk of the Old South"— ordinary farmers owned their cultivated holdings.

American lower class

In the United States, the lower class are those at or near the lower end of the socio-economic hierarchy. As with all social classes in the United States, the lower class is loosely defined and its boundaries and definitions subject to debate and ambiguous popular opinions. Sociologists such as W. Lloyd Warner, Dennis Gilbert and James Henslin divide the lower classes into two. The contemporary division used by Gilbert divides the lower class into the working poor and underclass. Service and low-rung manual laborers are commonly identified as being among the working poor. Those who do not participate in the labor force and rely on public assistance as their main source of income are commonly identified as members of the underclass. Overall the term describes those in easily filled employment positions with little prestige or economic compensation who often lack a high school education and are to some extent disenfranchised from mainstream society.Estimates for how many households are members of this class vary with definition. According to Dennis Gilbert roughly one quarter, 25%, of US households were in the lower classes; 13% were members among the working poor while 12% were members of the underclass. While many in the lower working class are employed in low-skill service jobs, lack of participation in the labor force remains the main cause for the economic plight experienced by those in the lower classes. In 2005, the majority of households (56%) in the bottom income quintile had no income earners while 65% of householders did not work. This contrasts starkly to households in the top quintile, 76% of whom had two or more income earners.Lacking educational attainment as well as disabilities are among the main causes for the infrequent employment. Many households rise above or fall below the poverty threshold, depending on the employment status of household members. While only about 12% of households fall below the poverty threshold at one point in time, the percentage of those who fall below the poverty line at any one point throughout a year is much higher. Working class as well as working poor households may fall below the poverty line if an income earner becomes unemployed. In any given year roughly one out of every five (20%) households falls below the poverty line at some point while up to 40% may fall into poverty within the course of a decade.

Chad (slang)

A Chad, in derogatory slang, is a young urban American man, typically single and in his 20s or early 30s.

Here Comes the Neighborhood

"Here Comes the Neighborhood" is the twelfth episode of the fifth season of the animated television series South Park, and the 77th episode of the series overall. "Here Comes the Neighborhood" originally aired in the United States on November 28, 2001 on Comedy Central. The title is a play on the expression "There goes the neighborhood".

In the episode, a class war ensues in South Park when it becomes a hot spot for rich celebrities. Meanwhile, Token feels rejected by his friends and goes to live with lions.

Income in the United States

Income in the United States is measured by the United States Department of Commerce either by household or individual. The differences between household and personal income is considerable since 42% of households, the majority of those in the top two quintiles with incomes exceeding $57,658, now have two income earners.This difference becomes very apparent when comparing the percentage of households with six figure incomes to that of individuals. In 2006, 17.3% of households had incomes exceeding $100,000, compared to slightly less than 6% of individuals. Overall the median household income was $46,326 in 2006 while the median personal income (including only those above the age of 25) was $32,140.Income inequality in the United States has increased considerably. Between 1979 and 2004, the mean after-tax income of the top percentile increased 167%, versus 69% for the top quintile overall, 29% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile. While wages for women have increased greatly, median earnings of male wage earners have remained stagnant since the late 1970s. Household income, however, has risen due the increasing number of households with more than one income earner and women's increased presence in the labor force. Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data. On the other hand, some members of the U. S. population have earned a considerable income: the top earner in 2011, hedge fund manager John Paulson, earned $4.9 billion, according to Business Insider.

Middle America

Middle America may refer to:

Middle America (Americas), a region in the mid-latitudes in the Americas

Middle America (United States), a region of the United States representing the country's interior and non-urban "heartland"

American middle class, a social class in the United States

Midwestern United States, region representing the north-central parts of the United States

"Middle America", a song by Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks

Professional and working class conflict in the United States

In the United States there has long been a conflict between the working class majority and the professional class. The conflict goes back to the workers revolution and age of unionized labor in the late nineteenth century. Since the 1870s and the rise of professionalism, the daily routine of American workers has been largely designed by professionals instead of foremen.

Today, most American workers –many of whom earn middle-range incomes and work in white-collar occupations – are usually not resentful of the professionals, though a feeling of disconnect persists. Even nowadays there is a large visible discrepancy between professionals whose main job duties include visualizing and directing the day of other workers and those who carry out the orders. While the work of professionals and managers is usually largely self-directed and appeals to the interest of the individual, that of middle-range income white-collar and blue-collar workers is closely supervised and tends to greatly stray from the worker's actual interests.

Yet another reason for resentment toward the professional middle class on the part of the working class stems from the embedded feelings of anti-intellectualism. When combined working class workers seem to often be under the impression that their better paid, professional managers are not actually "doing anything" as most of their duties are to conceptualize and outline their ideas.


Redneck is a derogatory term chiefly but not exclusively applied to white Americans perceived to be crass and unsophisticated, closely associated with rural whites of the Southern United States. Its usage is similar in meaning to cracker (especially regarding Texas, Georgia, and Florida), hillbilly (especially regarding Appalachia and the Ozarks), and white trash (but without the last term's suggestions of immorality).By the 1970s, the term had become offensive slang, its meaning expanded to include racism, loutishness, and opposition to modern ways.Patrick Huber, in his monograph A Short History of Redneck: The Fashioning of a Southern White Masculine Identity, emphasized the theme of masculinity in the 20th-century expansion of the term, noting, "The redneck has been stereotyped in the media and popular culture as a poor, dirty, uneducated, and racist Southern white man."

Robber baron (industrialist)

"Robber baron" is a derogatory metaphor of social criticism originally applied to certain late 19th-century American businessmen who were accused of using unscrupulous methods to get rich, or expand their wealth, for example Cornelius Vanderbilt taking money from government-subsidized shippers, in order to not compete on their routes.

The term was based on an analogy to the German robber barons, local feudal lords or bandits in Germany who waylaid travellers through their ostensible territory, claiming some tax or fine was owed.

Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield

"Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield" is the fourteenth episode of The Simpsons' seventh season. It originally aired on the Fox network in the United States on February 4, 1996. In this episode, Marge buys a Chanel suit and is invited to join the Springfield Country Club. Marge becomes obsessed with trying to fit in, but she decides she would rather go back to the way things were than continue to pursue high social ambitions.

The episode was written by Jennifer Crittenden and directed by Susie Dietter. It was the first time that a female writer and director were credited in the same episode. Tom Kite guest starred in the episode, and he enjoyed recording his parts for it. The episode's title is based on the 1989 film Scenes from the Class Struggle in Beverly Hills. Since airing, the episode has received mostly positive reviews from television critics. It acquired a Nielsen rating of 8.8, and was the fifth-highest-rated show on the Fox network the week it aired.

Social Register

The Social Register is a semi-annual publication in the United States that indexes the members of American high society. First published in the 1880s by newspaper columnist Louis Keller, it was later acquired by Malcolm Forbes. Since 2014, it has been owned by Christopher Wolf.

Long a directory of well-connected, patrician families from the northeast United States, it has, in recent years, diversified both in the geography and ethnicity of those it lists. At the same time, however, its importance as an arbiter of class has waned.

Social class in American history

Social class is an important theme for historians of the United States for over decades. The subject touches on many other elements of American history such as that of changing U.S. education, with Greater education attainment leading to expanding household incomes for many social groups. The overall level of prosperity grew greatly in the U.S. through the 20th century as well as the 21st century, anchored in changes such as growing American advances in science and technology with American inventions such as the phonograph, the portable electric vacuum cleaner, and so on. Yet much of the debate has focused lately on whether social mobility has fallen in recent decades as income inequality as risen, what scholars such as Katherine S. Newman have called the "American nightmare."For most of American history, social class barriers were fundamentally rigid, with various private and public institutions enforcing rules based on racial segregation and other forms of classifying people based on prejudices such as antisemitism and Hispanophobia. All this changed greatly with the rise of broad-based prosperity in the aftermath of World War II and efforts to expand Constitutional civil rights under the law to groups such as African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. Issues regarding social class have remained hot-button topics in U.S. politics, with the American Great Recession causing massive socio-economic harm across the country from southerners to northerners to working-class whites to middle-class blacks and more.

Swamp Yankee

"Swamp Yankee" is a colloquial pejorative for rural Yankees (northeastern Americans with English colonial ancestry). The term "Yankee" connotes urbane industriousness, whereas the term "Swamp Yankee" suggests a more countrified, stubborn, independent, and less-refined subtype.

The Lonely Crowd

The Lonely Crowd is a 1950 sociological analysis by David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney. Together with White Collar: The American Middle Classes (1951), written by Riesman's friend and colleague, C. Wright Mills, it is considered a landmark study of American character.

The Power Elite

The Power Elite is a 1956 book by sociologist C. Wright Mills, in which Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities.

Trailer trash

Trailer trash is a derogatory North American English term for poor people living in a trailer or a mobile home. It is particularly used to denigrate white people living in such circumstances and can be considered to fall within the category of racial/ethnic slurs.

Upper middle class in the United States

See American Professional/Managerial middle class for a complete overview of the American middle classes.In sociology, the upper middle class of the United States is the social group constituted by higher-status members of the middle class. This is in contrast to the term lower middle class, which refers to the group at the opposite end of the middle class scale. There is considerable debate as to how the upper middle class might be defined. According to Max Weber, the upper middle class consists of well-educated professionals with graduate degrees and comfortable incomes.

The American upper middle class is defined using income, education, occupation and the associated values as main indicators. In the United States, the upper middle class is defined as consisting of white-collar professionals who have above-average personal incomes, advanced educational degrees and a high degree of autonomy in their work, leading to higher job satisfaction. The main occupational tasks of upper middle class individuals tend to center on conceptualizing, consulting, and instruction.

Upper ten thousand

Upper Ten Thousand, or simply, The Upper Ten, is a 19th-century phrase referring to wealthiest 10,000 residents of New York City. The phrase was coined in 1844 by American poet and author Nathaniel Parker Willis. Soon, the term came to be used to describe the upper circles not only of New York, but also those of other major cities.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) are a social group—of typically wealthy and well-connected white Protestants, usually of British descent—in the United States. The group dominated American society, culture, and the leadership of the Republican party until the World War II era. They are well placed in major financial, business, legal, and academic institutions, and had, in the past, close to a monopoly on elite society due to intermarriage and nepotism.During the latter half of the twentieth century, outsider ethnic and racial groups grew in influence and WASP dominance gave way. Americans increasingly criticized the WASP hegemony and disparaging WASPs as the epitome of "the Establishment". The 1998 Random House Unabridged Dictionary says the term is "Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive".Sociologists sometimes use the term very broadly to include all Protestant Americans of Northern European or Northwestern European ancestry regardless of their class or power. The term is also used in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada for similar elites.

By economic
and social
By religion
By continent
and ethnicity
United States articles

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.