5 ms·

"But unlike Detroit’s automotive model of the mid-20th century, relatively few middle-class jobs were created, and the region is marked by a vast concentration

• lotsofpulp 8y ago
  A combination of the company you keep and the security of the quality of life you and they have. Can your wife afford to stay at home if she wants to? Can you work from home if need be? Do you need to budget when you go on vacation? Do you need to budget when you go out in town with your friends/family? If an emergency happens, how fragile is your support system? Which school system (zip code) can you afford? Do you have to work on weekends or overnights? Household income and profession is probably the easiest way to numerically define it. But I think (in the US) there are two distinct classes being formed, one that is and feels secure in their future due to having a well funded 401k or defined benefit pension, careers at large and prestigious companies with friends also at other large and prestigious companies (who can help you get work if need be), paid leave of various kinds, access to the better schools and health systems etc. The other class will be those that are setback forever by 1 medical emergency or mistake, have jobs instead of careers, who aren’t really able to plan for the future because they’re skating by and hoping it all works out and they can keep making their debt payments.
• mcny 8y ago
  By income, I'd guess research assistants, teaching assistants, and college assistants are working class. You can declare a PhD candidate's "tuition" is ten million dollars a year and then "pay" the worker $10M in tuition credits + $20k living expenses but we all know the actual pay is $20k a year.
  • Symbiote 8y ago
    But by aspiration, these people are middle class. A teenager carrying a golf bag might still be upper class, if they're doing it because their father owns the golf course and sees it as a networking opportunity.
    • mantas 8y ago
      ... and I'm the 1% upper class by aspiration :) Teenager is an extension of his family till he's making a living on it's own. If he manages to extend his family wealth then yes, he's upper class. But if he manages only to drink away his opportunities and his parents stop giving him money... He's not so upper class, eh?
    • mattkrause 8y ago
      This is why actual social scientists talk about socioeconomic status instead of purely income-based categories (etc). Grad students usually have fairly little money, but a fair amount of social capital: people think they are smart, industrious, etc. It’s sort of like middle-class apprentice. A factory foreman or hairdresser might earn more, but their job has less cachet.
• IAmEveryone 8y ago
  It’s not the article’s job to educate you on some of the most used concepts of sociology. Why don’t you just check the terms you stumble over on Wikipedia, or a dictionary? That would be far more productive than asking people to rehash readily available content here in the comments.
  • chrisseaton 8y ago
    Nobody agreees on any consistent definitions of these words. Middle class in the UK means something wildly different (probably privately educated, doctor, lawyer, etc) to middle class in the US (someone doing ok financially.)
    • IAmEveryone 8y ago
      So the criticism here is the lack of specification as to what country’s middle class it supposedly refers to? I doubt that, but just in case: it’s probably the US. Or is OP having a problem with terms that cannot be neatly defined with, for example, specific income cutoffs? That would preclude most any words from being used in journalism. “Is that an SUV, or a large sedan?” “Can’t say, let’s never use these words again”.
      • chrisseaton 8y ago
        Some people think that income has nothing to do with being working or middle class, so the whole use in the article would make no sense to them. Ultimately the person was asking for help understanding something, which is always fine in my book. If you don’t need help understanding the move onto the next comment. Plus you were being belittling by saying they were stumbling.
        • IAmEveryone 8y ago
          I guess this goes at the heart of the difference in interpretation between us: where you see a good-faith effort to better understand the article, I see an attempt to ridicule or otherwise undermine it by questioning the most basic assumptions needed to understand it. As evidence, I point out that a simple search would be far better to achieve an understanding of what the term may be referring to in this context than sending us all on a wild goose chase. Not taking this more promising route, IMHO, undermines any claim of good faith. Even if existing definitions are found lacking, they would certainly serve as a better base for discussion than the actual, unspecific dismissal of the article itself. I may also be influenced by the general tone of discussion here. This threat is currently sandwiched between two comments calling the article “rather disappointing” and “very stupid” [0], respectively. This shallow reflex to find nothing but dreck in everything, especially if it’s written by anyone who may have an education in anything but JavaScript, is getting somewhat tiring. 0: somehow, it’s the “very” that really makes that particular commment what it is.
• barrkel 8y ago
  American definitions of middle class seem to revolve around life goals and living standards. If you can afford to buy your own home and settle down with 2 kids, a dog, and at least one if not two cars, you're middle class. Elsewhere, middle class is more defined by the nature of your work. If you work with your hands, you're working class, skilled, semiskilled or unskilled. Doesn't mean you're poor - tradesmen earn a lot of money. But you're probably not reading a lot of books and aren't as likely to send your kids to college as have them go into a trade or early work too. Whereas people who have a life of the mind, in work and play, are middle class, as are professionals and managers. (Arguably software straddles the line; IMO it's closer to a trade, but it's so malleable and the potential scope so large it can affect society too.) Upper class is much more about social position than job or income. Who you know, who you're related to, who will take your call if you want to start a new project, or donate to your charity. Actually working for money is not upper class behaviour, it must be about some cause favourable to the social group.
  • mantas 8y ago
    Nah. Here in eastern europe it's purely based on incomes. If you go paycheck-to-paycheck, you're working class. If you can afford a nice housing/kids/travel/etc, you're middle class. If you got a mansion w/ a gardener, you're probably upper class. Tradesman who makes €€€ can easily be considered middle class. Meanwhile if you're a poor kindergarten teacher... You'll probably be upper working class at best.
    • barrkel 8y ago
      You're basically talking about income category rather than social class, at that point. Class is fundamentally about a kind of pecking order for judging appropriate company, a shorthand for determining if people will be able to relate to one another.
      • mantas 8y ago
        At least here, there's no separation between income category and social class. Either you make money or you don't. You feel special in some obscure way to claim you're upper class? Well, go hang that on your wall, nobody gives a fuck about it outside of your private circle where that paper translate into money or respect or whatever. If you want to talk education... Then there're smart people people who have no good manners. People who try to copy aristocratic manners but who're stupid as fuck. And lots of other combinations. But it's subjective at best. Nor most people care about that. I don't see how people could be sliced into "appropriate companies" in very few categories. At least that's how it goes over there. I could see how what you're saying might stand true with some blue-blood old-money. But even in countries like UK it's far from clear cut, at least in my experience.
• CPLX 8y ago
  Traditionally the upper class made a living based on what they owned and the lower class (barely) made a living based on the work they did. There were nobles and serfs. Labor and capital. This distinction worked for many centuries. The rise of the middle class is a modern phenomenon, whereby a new class was created who still essentially worked for a living but were able to achieve a measure of security and prosperity that led to a dramatically more stable society. Of course that development has caused some consternation within the upper classes, who are presently trying quite hard to roll that back.
• rjf72 8y ago
  Traditionally I think it's fair to describe the classes in terms of their future which I'll just describe as 'economic planning.' - Lower class: No economic planning and living hand to mouth. Nearly all of what they earn goes often entirely to pay for the bare necessities needed to repeat the cycle against next month. - Middle class: Basic economic planning. Able to save a bit for retirement, a rainy day, or just a family vacation. Traditionally could afford to support themselves, one other adult partner, and two children. - Upper class: Extensive economic planning. Earns far in excess of their immediate or future needs meaning most of their money is spent in 'planning', often geared at earning more money. --- Traditional manufacturing jobs would definitely have been middle class. White collar jobs used to generally be upper class, but now a days that's certainly not the case. Working class is a different distinction altogether and that is just talking about people that need to work in order to be able to sustain themselves.
  • zozbot123 8y ago
    Future orientation, a.k.a. do you eat the marshmallow or not? (And note that if you're constantly hungry, cranky and stressed out, you're a lot more likely to go for that tasty, tempting marshmallow. Feedback loops are a thing!)
  • api 8y ago
    Your last paragraph nails a lot of the source of modern middle class rage. White collar is now just barely middle class. Everything else is living hand to mouth.
    • zozbot123 8y ago
      You're right, economic security has indeed declined sharply for that formerly-privileged segment. Now, given that living standards are still quite high and growing over time, you'd hope they would react by being frugal and saving more, not by living even more hand-to-mouth than they used to! But ingrained habits are slow to change.
      • api 8y ago
• Spooky23 8y ago
  Working class implies no assets. Think blue collar and retail folks with shitty benefits and highly variable income. Middle class are professionals and business workers, usually making more than double the median income in most publications. Upper middle is basically a household of two professionals making $100-350k. It’s harder now as the economy is changing and the middle class professions are devaluing and many regions are declining as concentration keep happening.
• jen20 8y ago
  The famous (in certain areas!) sketch [1] by John Cleese and the two Ronnies sums up the class system in the UK quite nicely! [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4QuSZ2Vvj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4QuSZ2Vvj4