3 ms·

The 3-ladder system of social class in the U.S.

15 points by vectorbunny 14y ago

stephengillie 14y ago
This is an interesting way of re-stratisfying our social hierarchy. It reminds me of a statement I read, something like "the top 1% of Americans feel they have more in common with the 1% in other countries than with the rest of the US." Except here, we're speaking of E1, not the entire 1%. Visual diagram of the system: E1 Super-elite E2 E3~=G1 We think of as 1% E4~=G2 Upper G3~=L1 Upper Middle G4~=L2 Middle L3 Lower Middle L4 Poverty U Generational unemployment
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I intentionally avoided terms like "middle class" because they are so misused in the U.S. It has a specific sociological meaning and, sadly, only about 10-20 percent of Americans are actually in the middle class. Upper class means that you have enough social connections, resources and influence that you don't need to work. Middle class means you have enough resources and contacts to secure steady, well-paid work. (That doesn't describe many people, but it is what the professions used to be like.) Lower class means you are exposed to the volatility of the labor market; if it doesn't need you, you're fried. Under-class means you are outside the mainstream labor market and can't get in. I'd map those like this: E1 = Global "Power Elite". One must continually fight for power to stay a part of it; this is *not* a purely hereditary class-- access is limited through heredity, but even lucky-born slackers fall to E2 and E3. E2 = Upper class. Mostly hereditary. More humble and decent than E1 because the 1930s-60s taught their "robber baron" forebears a lesson. E3+G1 = "Working rich" or, if you like, the top end of the upper-middle class. E4+G2 = Upper-middle class. G3+L1 = Middle class. This level is still way above median, by the way. Again, average is not "middle class". Would that it were. G4+L2 = Lower-middle class. Fussell called this class "high prole". L3 = Working class, "blue collar". L4 = Working poor. U = Destitute, plus the generational poor. There is no Fussellian "Category X" on this linearization, but that would probably be mapped to G1/G2+. One thing that is interesting is how alike the top and bottom are in certain cultural aspects (such as treatment of women). The very high and very low seem to be alike in some ways, perhaps because money, commerce, and aggressive masculinity dominate the lives of people in both otherwise opposite categories.
erichocean 14y ago
I'd be interested in seeing population statistics for this particular social hierarchy, especially employment and income trends over the last 60-70 years.

15 points by vectorbunny 14y ago

This is an interesting way of re-stratisfying our social hierarchy. It reminds me of a statement I read, something like "the top 1% of Americans feel they have more in common with the 1% in other countries than with the rest of the US." Except here, we're speaking of E1, not the entire 1%. Visual diagram of the system: E1 Super-elite E2 E3~=G1 We think of as 1% E4~=G2 Upper G3~=L1 Upper Middle G4~=L2 Middle L3 Lower Middle L4 Poverty U Generational unemployment

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
michaelochurch 14y ago
I intentionally avoided terms like "middle class" because they are so misused in the U.S. It has a specific sociological meaning and, sadly, only about 10-20 percent of Americans are actually in the middle class. Upper class means that you have enough social connections, resources and influence that you don't need to work. Middle class means you have enough resources and contacts to secure steady, well-paid work. (That doesn't describe many people, but it is what the professions used to be like.) Lower class means you are exposed to the volatility of the labor market; if it doesn't need you, you're fried. Under-class means you are outside the mainstream labor market and can't get in. I'd map those like this: E1 = Global "Power Elite". One must continually fight for power to stay a part of it; this is *not* a purely hereditary class-- access is limited through heredity, but even lucky-born slackers fall to E2 and E3. E2 = Upper class. Mostly hereditary. More humble and decent than E1 because the 1930s-60s taught their "robber baron" forebears a lesson. E3+G1 = "Working rich" or, if you like, the top end of the upper-middle class. E4+G2 = Upper-middle class. G3+L1 = Middle class. This level is still way above median, by the way. Again, average is not "middle class". Would that it were. G4+L2 = Lower-middle class. Fussell called this class "high prole". L3 = Working class, "blue collar". L4 = Working poor. U = Destitute, plus the generational poor. There is no Fussellian "Category X" on this linearization, but that would probably be mapped to G1/G2+. One thing that is interesting is how alike the top and bottom are in certain cultural aspects (such as treatment of women). The very high and very low seem to be alike in some ways, perhaps because money, commerce, and aggressive masculinity dominate the lives of people in both otherwise opposite categories.

erichocean 14y ago

I'd be interested in seeing population statistics for this particular social hierarchy, especially employment and income trends over the last 60-70 years.