As Wittgenstein might put it, there are two language games at play here. The first one takes 'class' as defined in the (legitimate) Marxist way, used to repre

As Wittgenstein might put it, there are two language games at play here. The first one takes 'class' as defined in the (legitimate) Marxist way, used to represent the relationship to the means of production (Edit: we don't produce all that much anymore, making that definition harder to parse). The second takes it to be specifically defined as a range of income distribution. That second one is what most people typically take to mean by 'class'. While I agree there's a lot more than income at play in social policy and understanding of society and economics, it's still an absolutely fascinating set of stats to bring up. I will say I'm more disappointed by the huge ranges of the various distributions in the study (as pointed out by other commenters)