Social class
June 26, 2007 9:49 PM Subscribe
Social Class Calculator From the NYT series on social class. What is social class in America? Little has changed in fifty years, or has it?
I'm surprised how close bachelors is to masters. To me (with my bachelors) it feels like masters and PhD people are pretty far away.
posted by delmoi at 9:58 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by delmoi at 9:58 PM on June 26, 2007
(Also they don't take age into account. If you're a few years out of school you're not going to have that much 'personal wealth', in fact you're probably going to be in debt.)
posted by delmoi at 10:00 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by delmoi at 10:00 PM on June 26, 2007
Something else strange, if you select Computer/Math you get a list of occupations, and I actually thought the one at the top of the list was the lowest, since it had a low number, but these guys are apperantly placing "database administrators" at the top of the computing professionals and "actuaries" at the bottom. Any idiot can be a DBA, it dosn't take any brains at all. And "Computer software engineer" is higher then "computer programmer" isn't that basically the same thing? And how is "computer support specialist" ahead of any programmer?
Seems backwards to me.
posted by delmoi at 10:05 PM on June 26, 2007
Seems backwards to me.
posted by delmoi at 10:05 PM on June 26, 2007
"...masters and PhD people are pretty far away."
In academia that still tends to be true but in industry today the difference in terms of salary, title and actual work performed appears to be much less than, say, thirty years ago.
In which context the calculator seems to be about right.
(FWIW only a few of the PhDs I know are pretty - but most of them are indeed far, far away...)
posted by speug at 10:10 PM on June 26, 2007
In academia that still tends to be true but in industry today the difference in terms of salary, title and actual work performed appears to be much less than, say, thirty years ago.
In which context the calculator seems to be about right.
(FWIW only a few of the PhDs I know are pretty - but most of them are indeed far, far away...)
posted by speug at 10:10 PM on June 26, 2007
I've never thought of social class as having anything to do with occupation or income. Interesting.
(I'm also doubtful that biologists are quite so highly thought of as to rank 80th ercentile on the list of professions!)
posted by fshgrl at 10:13 PM on June 26, 2007
(I'm also doubtful that biologists are quite so highly thought of as to rank 80th ercentile on the list of professions!)
posted by fshgrl at 10:13 PM on June 26, 2007
speug: That's probably true. I have a co-worker I work pretty closely with who has a masters (but in bussness, rather then CS) who only makes a bit more then me, despite seniority. That said, she's fucking hot.
posted by delmoi at 10:14 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by delmoi at 10:14 PM on June 26, 2007
And how is "computer support specialist" ahead of any programmer?
Ask the programmer in your family to come over and clean your Windows computer of spyware and viruses.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:22 PM on June 26, 2007
Ask the programmer in your family to come over and clean your Windows computer of spyware and viruses.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:22 PM on June 26, 2007
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
They'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love...
posted by blue_beetle at 10:38 PM on June 26, 2007
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
They'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love...
posted by blue_beetle at 10:38 PM on June 26, 2007
miles to go before i sleep or cash the big big check. and I've always thought of class as having everything to do with occupation- social class, anyway. now class, the ability to be charming, witty, and endearing, is another thing entirely
posted by vrakatar at 10:38 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by vrakatar at 10:38 PM on June 26, 2007
I dont' care about class, as long as I'm shockingly average.
posted by eurasian at 10:40 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by eurasian at 10:40 PM on June 26, 2007
Ask the programmer in your family to come over and clean your Windows computer of spyware and viruses.
Huh? Doesn't that just illustrate the point? Which is, a programmer can clean the family computer of spyware, etc, but the average computer support specialist to hack out some code, and I'm sure you'll get blank stares.
However, this is all moot anyways, as programmers get their jobs shipped overseas, whereas it's pretty hard to fly over folks from India just to uninstall Pointcast.
posted by eurasian at 10:42 PM on June 26, 2007
yeah, database admins and sysadmins are 3rd and 4th OVERALL? Seems a little fishy. Higher status than me? Bullshit! Aha! The site was put together by a databaser under the supervision of a sysadmin!
posted by Rumple at 10:44 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by Rumple at 10:44 PM on June 26, 2007
84/99/98/25 = 76th.
So does this mean I have class or not?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:48 PM on June 26, 2007
So does this mean I have class or not?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:48 PM on June 26, 2007
jeez, what are we, English all of a sudden?
I keed, I keed.
I mean, "pardon me." :)
But seriously -- I'm disappointed in the NYT. What they (and most of the other links) call "social class," I would merely call socioeconomic strata. And the fact that income/occupation/education are the primary factors, without really accounting for one's family of origin and other cultural influencers, sort of bears up what the rest of the world seems to think: Americans believe that money = success.
But, I'm not a sociologist, so what do I know.
posted by pineapple at 10:49 PM on June 26, 2007
I keed, I keed.
I mean, "pardon me." :)
But seriously -- I'm disappointed in the NYT. What they (and most of the other links) call "social class," I would merely call socioeconomic strata. And the fact that income/occupation/education are the primary factors, without really accounting for one's family of origin and other cultural influencers, sort of bears up what the rest of the world seems to think: Americans believe that money = success.
But, I'm not a sociologist, so what do I know.
posted by pineapple at 10:49 PM on June 26, 2007
No mention of imported cheese vs kraft slices, water crackers vs port rinds, sending your kids to preparatory preschool, or attending art cinemas and the opera instead of nascar and wrestling? What one earth kind of class can they be talking about?
And sysadmins? Neckbeards who eat lunch out of the office vending machine, have no fund of conversation and always a button undone above he the beltline? Are they kidding?
[NOT CLASSIST]
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:51 PM on June 26, 2007
And sysadmins? Neckbeards who eat lunch out of the office vending machine, have no fund of conversation and always a button undone above he the beltline? Are they kidding?
[NOT CLASSIST]
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:51 PM on June 26, 2007
If you want to get into class, really this needs inputs for number of cars out on the front lawn, and whether an ATV is owned. Didn't Jeff Foxworthy do some preliminary research here?
posted by rolypolyman at 10:53 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by rolypolyman at 10:53 PM on June 26, 2007
(boy, if class correlates inversely to typos I'm in trouble)
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:53 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:53 PM on June 26, 2007
Americans believe that money = success.
Maybe, but I don't think that Americans really believe that money is class. I know that my friends and I are aware that we'll always be classless poors no matter how successful in our careers we are, because we were born classless poors. There's not much that can be done about it, though, so there's not much point in worrying about it.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:58 PM on June 26, 2007
Maybe, but I don't think that Americans really believe that money is class. I know that my friends and I are aware that we'll always be classless poors no matter how successful in our careers we are, because we were born classless poors. There's not much that can be done about it, though, so there's not much point in worrying about it.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:58 PM on June 26, 2007
My calculator: do you derive most of your income from wages, rent, or profits?
posted by stammer at 11:09 PM on June 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by stammer at 11:09 PM on June 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
I calculated myself at 45% right now, making packets for $15.40 an hour, and if I get through a PhD program and get employed at a post-secondary school, making I jump 30 points. That's reassuring.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:10 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:10 PM on June 26, 2007
I'm not really sure what Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America or pineapple are referring to. I think that social classes differ in different society, and in American society family origin has much less to do with class then money or position does. And I think this is a good thing, as it seems better to be able to be born in one class and move to another than to be tied to the class of your family no matter what. American society, as many have noted, is hyper-focused on the individual, so family ties are less emphasized than in other, older cultures.
For instance, my grandfathers were a big rig driver and a glass worker, but my parents are a doctor and a lawyer. I'd wager that the vast majority of people in the middle class have similar family stories involving rapid generational shifts in class, so it makes sense that family would be a less important marker than wealth/occupation/education. Not to say that there aren't some vestiges of family-based class; at some levels there are big names like Rockefeller, but in general class in America seems far more about where you are than where you're from. Which is why I find sentiments like this odd:
I know that my friends and I are aware that we'll always be classless poors no matter how successful in our careers we are, because we were born classless poors.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:12 PM on June 26, 2007
For instance, my grandfathers were a big rig driver and a glass worker, but my parents are a doctor and a lawyer. I'd wager that the vast majority of people in the middle class have similar family stories involving rapid generational shifts in class, so it makes sense that family would be a less important marker than wealth/occupation/education. Not to say that there aren't some vestiges of family-based class; at some levels there are big names like Rockefeller, but in general class in America seems far more about where you are than where you're from. Which is why I find sentiments like this odd:
I know that my friends and I are aware that we'll always be classless poors no matter how successful in our careers we are, because we were born classless poors.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:12 PM on June 26, 2007
And the fact that income/occupation/education are the primary factors, without really accounting for one's family of origin and other cultural influencers, sort of bears up what the rest of the world seems to think: Americans believe that money = success.
If that were true, the plumbers and electricians and UAW factory workers and longshoremen who make well over what I do would have higher "class" or socioeconomic status than I do. But they don't, because I have a PhD and teach at a university. Ergo, it ain't true.
More to the point: occupation and education are "cultural influencers," and family origins deeply influence occupation and education.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:27 PM on June 26, 2007
If that were true, the plumbers and electricians and UAW factory workers and longshoremen who make well over what I do would have higher "class" or socioeconomic status than I do. But they don't, because I have a PhD and teach at a university. Ergo, it ain't true.
More to the point: occupation and education are "cultural influencers," and family origins deeply influence occupation and education.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:27 PM on June 26, 2007
You didn't really describe an intergenerational class shift, though. Your parents just made somewhat more money than your grandfathers. That's all.
Belonging to the upper class entails entitlement due to one's pedigree. Upper class people have different experiences growing up, different values (focused more on preserving the wealth and prestige of their position, unlike the middle class, which is looked down on for striving), and different expectations from others (tending to view only other upper class people as peers).
Being upper class is about exercising economic, social, and political power as a matter of right, and acknowledging the power of other upper class people as a matter of right.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:32 PM on June 26, 2007
Belonging to the upper class entails entitlement due to one's pedigree. Upper class people have different experiences growing up, different values (focused more on preserving the wealth and prestige of their position, unlike the middle class, which is looked down on for striving), and different expectations from others (tending to view only other upper class people as peers).
Being upper class is about exercising economic, social, and political power as a matter of right, and acknowledging the power of other upper class people as a matter of right.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:32 PM on June 26, 2007
I think that social classes differ in different society, and in American society family origin has much less to do with class then money or position does.
Well, right. That was my point: that class determinations are much more complex in most other developed cultures, and even in America are more complex than the NYT story and some of the other links would have one believe.
American society, as many have noted, is hyper-focused on the individual, so family ties are less emphasized than in other, older cultures.
...it makes sense that family would be a less important marker than wealth/occupation/education.
...Not to say that there aren't some vestiges of family-based class; at some levels there are big names like Rockefeller, but in general class in America seems far more about where you are than where you're from.
I feel these are grossly oversimplified.
Yes, most Americans believe (incorrectly) that how much money you take home every month determines your social class. But family of origin (which can be a different concept from just "family") most certainly affects everything else: education levels, which begat occupation, which begat income.
The sentiment that "class in America" means nothing more than who and what you are today is blindly optimistic. And class based on background/family/heritage exists much much farther down the food chain than just at "the Rockefeller level."
I'm all for the American Dream, but it only guarantees one a business on Main Street, a 2-2 house with a white picket fence, and freedom to write letters to the editor. The Bohemian Club membership, the summers on Sea Island, and the Exeter admissions require more than just believing in yourself and wanting it badly enough.
posted by pineapple at 11:34 PM on June 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well, right. That was my point: that class determinations are much more complex in most other developed cultures, and even in America are more complex than the NYT story and some of the other links would have one believe.
American society, as many have noted, is hyper-focused on the individual, so family ties are less emphasized than in other, older cultures.
...it makes sense that family would be a less important marker than wealth/occupation/education.
...Not to say that there aren't some vestiges of family-based class; at some levels there are big names like Rockefeller, but in general class in America seems far more about where you are than where you're from.
I feel these are grossly oversimplified.
Yes, most Americans believe (incorrectly) that how much money you take home every month determines your social class. But family of origin (which can be a different concept from just "family") most certainly affects everything else: education levels, which begat occupation, which begat income.
The sentiment that "class in America" means nothing more than who and what you are today is blindly optimistic. And class based on background/family/heritage exists much much farther down the food chain than just at "the Rockefeller level."
I'm all for the American Dream, but it only guarantees one a business on Main Street, a 2-2 house with a white picket fence, and freedom to write letters to the editor. The Bohemian Club membership, the summers on Sea Island, and the Exeter admissions require more than just believing in yourself and wanting it badly enough.
posted by pineapple at 11:34 PM on June 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
this was just as annoying as it was a couple years ago. it reduces all the social class/race/sex/gender problems into a quantified slop, the meaning of which is unclear, and really unactionable, really separated from people's experiences. the articles contain much more information than the graphics and rankings game.
I'm intrigued now about what economics has to say about how preferences determine economic choices, and how these social institutions determine preference development. I wish i had the time/specific knowledge to write a couple of economics grants...
posted by eustatic at 12:06 AM on June 27, 2007
I'm intrigued now about what economics has to say about how preferences determine economic choices, and how these social institutions determine preference development. I wish i had the time/specific knowledge to write a couple of economics grants...
posted by eustatic at 12:06 AM on June 27, 2007
delmoi writes "these guys are apperantly placing 'database administrators' at the top of the computing professionals and 'actuaries' at the bottom. Any idiot can be a DBA, it dosn't take any brains at all. And 'Computer software engineer' is higher then 'computer programmer' isn't that basically the same thing? And how is 'computer support specialist' ahead of any programmer? "
Yeah, odd. "Computer software engineer" is what computer programmers like to be called, so we can claim we're professionals. Especially given the lack of professional licensing like doctors and lawyers have.
DBAs are funny; speaking as a "computer software engineer" who is frequently mistaken for a DBA, it turns out DBAs (especially those specializing in Oracle) can make more money than programmers. Not anyone can be a really good DBA -- I'd make the career adjustment, but all DBAs end up doing a lot of boring stuff.
Support specialists? In my experience, the smart ones are under-educated (which is why they are stuck in support), and the educated ones tend to be "graduates" of proprietary schools.
As to other comments, spot on old chaps: class is about where you come from, who you know, not what you are. Which was why I strongly encouraged my mother to send my sister to the rich-kid's private school we could never have afforded while I was a kid and my mom was still in grad school.
fshgrl writes "(I'm also doubtful that biologists are quite so highly thought of as to rank 80th ercentile on the list of professions!)"
Speaking just for myself, a non-scientist, I have a strong respect for anyone in the hard sciences, and especially biologists
As to the other comments, spot on old chaps: class is where you come from, who you associate with, not what you do. which is why I so strongly encouraged my mother to send my sister to a rich-connected-kids' private school, the kind we could naver have afforded when I was a kid and my mother was in grad school.
posted by orthogonality at 2:01 AM on June 27, 2007
Yeah, odd. "Computer software engineer" is what computer programmers like to be called, so we can claim we're professionals. Especially given the lack of professional licensing like doctors and lawyers have.
DBAs are funny; speaking as a "computer software engineer" who is frequently mistaken for a DBA, it turns out DBAs (especially those specializing in Oracle) can make more money than programmers. Not anyone can be a really good DBA -- I'd make the career adjustment, but all DBAs end up doing a lot of boring stuff.
Support specialists? In my experience, the smart ones are under-educated (which is why they are stuck in support), and the educated ones tend to be "graduates" of proprietary schools.
As to other comments, spot on old chaps: class is about where you come from, who you know, not what you are. Which was why I strongly encouraged my mother to send my sister to the rich-kid's private school we could never have afforded while I was a kid and my mom was still in grad school.
fshgrl writes "(I'm also doubtful that biologists are quite so highly thought of as to rank 80th ercentile on the list of professions!)"
Speaking just for myself, a non-scientist, I have a strong respect for anyone in the hard sciences, and especially biologists
As to the other comments, spot on old chaps: class is where you come from, who you associate with, not what you do. which is why I so strongly encouraged my mother to send my sister to a rich-connected-kids' private school, the kind we could naver have afforded when I was a kid and my mother was in grad school.
posted by orthogonality at 2:01 AM on June 27, 2007
I don't think they should use the term social class... they should invent a new phrase which is exclusive to America.
This calculator seems to revolve around education and income, which doesn't square with the traditional definition of social class at all.
In the UK, one can be completely bankrupt and still be Upper Class. That would be unthinkable in the States... in the states, when you lose your money, you lose your status.
Similarly, in America, you win the lottery and immediately ascend the ladder... something which never happens here. A chav with money is still a chav.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:02 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
This calculator seems to revolve around education and income, which doesn't square with the traditional definition of social class at all.
In the UK, one can be completely bankrupt and still be Upper Class. That would be unthinkable in the States... in the states, when you lose your money, you lose your status.
Similarly, in America, you win the lottery and immediately ascend the ladder... something which never happens here. A chav with money is still a chav.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:02 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'll be a lawyer soon, and it horrifies me that my career is ranked higher than that of physicists. We're evolving ourselves out of existence, aren't we?
posted by 1adam12 at 2:31 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by 1adam12 at 2:31 AM on June 27, 2007
I was surprised that judges were ranked lower than physicists, then I spotted that they were ranked a lot lower than lawyers. Bizarre.
Equally bizarre was that when I passed the link on to some friends I had to include a warning for the atmospheric physicist to choose 'physicist' rather than 'atmospheric/space scientist'. There's a couple of other instances of very close professions with rather different rankings.
posted by edd at 3:28 AM on June 27, 2007
Equally bizarre was that when I passed the link on to some friends I had to include a warning for the atmospheric physicist to choose 'physicist' rather than 'atmospheric/space scientist'. There's a couple of other instances of very close professions with rather different rankings.
posted by edd at 3:28 AM on June 27, 2007
If the NYT Social Class Calculator is to be believed, the most prestigious occupation is surgeon--more prestigious than architect, scientist, judge, or CEO. Is that really what most people in the US would say? If so, this seems strange to me, since medical doctors, if you think about it, are service workers.
posted by epimorph at 3:35 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by epimorph at 3:35 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
If so, this seems strange to me, since medical doctors, if you think about it, are service workers.
You blasphemer! Take it back, right away, you've got three years to pay (for your surgery, that is).
Seriously, doctors in America are Little Gods. Overpaid, neurotic Little Gods with a fleet of lawyers on speed-dial.
And where do teachers fall on this little spectrum? Somewhere below janitors and migrant fruit pickers?
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:04 AM on June 27, 2007
You blasphemer! Take it back, right away, you've got three years to pay (for your surgery, that is).
Seriously, doctors in America are Little Gods. Overpaid, neurotic Little Gods with a fleet of lawyers on speed-dial.
And where do teachers fall on this little spectrum? Somewhere below janitors and migrant fruit pickers?
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:04 AM on June 27, 2007
It's interesting how the American usage of "class" to refer exclusively to income and lifestyle helps to preclude the classical "worker/owner" class division. It completely neuters the concept of class warfare.
But hey, that's America.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:22 AM on June 27, 2007
But hey, that's America.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:22 AM on June 27, 2007
Pope Guilty - that's why I think they should use different word.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:41 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:41 AM on June 27, 2007
Seriously, doctors in America are Little Gods.
Watch it with that "little" stuff, unless you want to hear from my legal team.
Man, I am one classy motherfucker!
posted by TedW at 4:44 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Watch it with that "little" stuff, unless you want to hear from my legal team.
Man, I am one classy motherfucker!
posted by TedW at 4:44 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Everyone knows that social class is actually measured by whether you're on myspace or facebook.
posted by horsemuth at 4:56 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by horsemuth at 4:56 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure if this is from the same series, but check it out. A further discussion of class and Ruby Payne, who's done some research into the nature and ramifications of poverty.
A tangent: God bless the X class.
posted by John of Michigan at 4:58 AM on June 27, 2007
A tangent: God bless the X class.
posted by John of Michigan at 4:58 AM on June 27, 2007
They've done it in quintiles, which makes sense, but then called the fourth quintile "upper-middle", which completely does not make sense. The qualitative divisions of class ("working", "middle", "upper-middle", etc) are not even distributed. Though having "some college" puts you in the fourth quintile of educational achievement, it does not put you in a typically "upper-middle" class state of education. As the chart from the third link points out, "upper-middle" is about 10% of the population (just below the top 2-3%), not the 60th to 80th percentile.
This kind of mixing of the quintiles and the qualitative words is what leads to actually upper-middle class people thinking of themselves as just being above average, and not realising how extremely well to do they are. I've actually had a close friend who insisted his parents were "middle-middle class" (because they were not as rich as other people they knew), but when we looked up the stats, we realised his family was in the top 10% of household income for our country. Basically, his parents were "upper-middle class", and the other people he knew were just plain "upper class".
I actually prefer to use quintiles and percentiles when looking at socioeconomic division - I realise that ignores the important cultural aspects of class, but I think that when people use the qualitative descriptors, they tend to ignore the differences in the sizes of those classes. Thus, when we talk about the lower, middle and upper classes, we forget that the upper classes are a tiny number of people compared to the population, and that the lower class (including both working class and underclass) is (still) larger than the middle class. Being "middle class" doesn't make you average - it never did, not even when the phrase "middling sort" was invented (c1650 - in the middle of the English Civil War/Wars of the Three Kingdoms).
posted by jb at 5:01 AM on June 27, 2007
This kind of mixing of the quintiles and the qualitative words is what leads to actually upper-middle class people thinking of themselves as just being above average, and not realising how extremely well to do they are. I've actually had a close friend who insisted his parents were "middle-middle class" (because they were not as rich as other people they knew), but when we looked up the stats, we realised his family was in the top 10% of household income for our country. Basically, his parents were "upper-middle class", and the other people he knew were just plain "upper class".
I actually prefer to use quintiles and percentiles when looking at socioeconomic division - I realise that ignores the important cultural aspects of class, but I think that when people use the qualitative descriptors, they tend to ignore the differences in the sizes of those classes. Thus, when we talk about the lower, middle and upper classes, we forget that the upper classes are a tiny number of people compared to the population, and that the lower class (including both working class and underclass) is (still) larger than the middle class. Being "middle class" doesn't make you average - it never did, not even when the phrase "middling sort" was invented (c1650 - in the middle of the English Civil War/Wars of the Three Kingdoms).
posted by jb at 5:01 AM on June 27, 2007
My problem with any of these occupation charts is that there is never, ever, ever any category that fits "translator". Not even some general purpose category. It's like we don't exist, although movie projectionists get their own specific category.
epimorph writes "If the NYT Social Class Calculator is to be believed, the most prestigious occupation is surgeon--more prestigious than architect, scientist, judge, or CEO. Is that really what most people in the US would say?"
Actually, yeah, I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment. "Neurosurgeon" is usually seen as pretty much the end-all-be-all of surgery (among normal folks. I don't know what doctors themselves actually think about neurosurgeons). They make a lot of money, their work requires a lot of intelligence, it requires physical dexterity, and what they're doing is seen as being valuable to society (saving lives!). The minus side, which basically goes with having high-pay, high-smarts, high-skills, and powers-of-god, is that they're seen as egomaniacs.
An architect hits the "high-pay" and "high-intelligence", but not "high-skills" (in the physical sense) or "powers-of-god". Scientists just hit "high-intelligence". Judge hits "high-pay" and "high-intelligence". CEO just hits "high-pay". (Note: I'm talking about conventional wisdom, not what the reality of those positions may be. For all I know, judges may actually be paid a pittance.)
Now, if you start talking about "who would you rather hang out with", or "who would you want your daughter to marry", or the like, then answers start shooting everywhere (neurosurgeons are too busy all the time, they'd never see their family, etc.), but if we're talking in the abstract sense of prestige, then, yeah, surgeons are definitely way up near the top.
posted by Bugbread at 6:27 AM on June 27, 2007
epimorph writes "If the NYT Social Class Calculator is to be believed, the most prestigious occupation is surgeon--more prestigious than architect, scientist, judge, or CEO. Is that really what most people in the US would say?"
Actually, yeah, I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment. "Neurosurgeon" is usually seen as pretty much the end-all-be-all of surgery (among normal folks. I don't know what doctors themselves actually think about neurosurgeons). They make a lot of money, their work requires a lot of intelligence, it requires physical dexterity, and what they're doing is seen as being valuable to society (saving lives!). The minus side, which basically goes with having high-pay, high-smarts, high-skills, and powers-of-god, is that they're seen as egomaniacs.
An architect hits the "high-pay" and "high-intelligence", but not "high-skills" (in the physical sense) or "powers-of-god". Scientists just hit "high-intelligence". Judge hits "high-pay" and "high-intelligence". CEO just hits "high-pay". (Note: I'm talking about conventional wisdom, not what the reality of those positions may be. For all I know, judges may actually be paid a pittance.)
Now, if you start talking about "who would you rather hang out with", or "who would you want your daughter to marry", or the like, then answers start shooting everywhere (neurosurgeons are too busy all the time, they'd never see their family, etc.), but if we're talking in the abstract sense of prestige, then, yeah, surgeons are definitely way up near the top.
posted by Bugbread at 6:27 AM on June 27, 2007
Me? Upper class? Really?? Does this mean I have to stop hanging out with my workin' friends? Fuck that...
posted by LordSludge at 6:39 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by LordSludge at 6:39 AM on June 27, 2007
Since I scored ridiculously higher than I would have ever expected, I no longer have to pay any attention to you troglodytes.
Now go fetch me a mint julep!
posted by briank at 6:44 AM on June 27, 2007
Now go fetch me a mint julep!
posted by briank at 6:44 AM on June 27, 2007
67 percent. I have a Ph.D. and teach at a small college. Income along puts me at 54 percent.
posted by mecran01 at 6:45 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by mecran01 at 6:45 AM on June 27, 2007
Any idiot can be a DBA, it dosn't take any brains at all.
Then you haven't met any real DBA's. You're an ignoramus.
posted by poppo at 7:01 AM on June 27, 2007
Then you haven't met any real DBA's. You're an ignoramus.
posted by poppo at 7:01 AM on June 27, 2007
I can't run the calculator because it requires flash. This is just a note to warn you all that not only is flash evil (we all knew that already), just having it on your computer lowers your class rating fifteen points.
posted by jfuller at 8:04 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by jfuller at 8:04 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
An outdated and over-important "idea" that helps keep some of us smugly satisfied and others left wanting.
This too shall pass.
posted by SaintCynr at 8:55 AM on June 27, 2007
This too shall pass.
posted by SaintCynr at 8:55 AM on June 27, 2007
They don't have "none," "unemployed," "on disability" or even "internet curmudgeon" as job categories, so I approximated it by picking the category I feel most akin to: trash collectors. (Who get higher prestige than the "bums" who go around collecting beer/soda cans, eh?) What does it say that the NYT doesn't even figure socially useless guys like myself into their discussion on Class?
On the other hand, I like it that their poll asked if there should be emphasized programs to give lower-income people a leg up (regardless of gender or ethnicity), and that 84% answered Yes. Of course the percentage that understood "programs" to mean "anarchosyndicalist communes" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat" is bound to be thuddingly infinitesimal; I figure most would be thinking of something like the Salvation Army. Still, some progress has been made.
posted by davy at 9:29 AM on June 27, 2007
On the other hand, I like it that their poll asked if there should be emphasized programs to give lower-income people a leg up (regardless of gender or ethnicity), and that 84% answered Yes. Of course the percentage that understood "programs" to mean "anarchosyndicalist communes" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat" is bound to be thuddingly infinitesimal; I figure most would be thinking of something like the Salvation Army. Still, some progress has been made.
posted by davy at 9:29 AM on June 27, 2007
In New York City the trash collecters make 70K + bennies for a forty hour week; so trash collectors are far above homeless bums collecting cans.
Since I have flash I ran the class calculator and I am above 90th percentile across all four dimensions.
There ain't no fuckin' way I'm upper class.
posted by bukvich at 10:38 AM on June 27, 2007
Since I have flash I ran the class calculator and I am above 90th percentile across all four dimensions.
There ain't no fuckin' way I'm upper class.
posted by bukvich at 10:38 AM on June 27, 2007
I think that if I really was as upper class as this widget thinks that I am, I could afford one of the houses advertised in the NYT real estate section on Sundays.
posted by octothorpe at 10:58 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by octothorpe at 10:58 AM on June 27, 2007
When the NYT review of "Everybody Says I Love You" called Alan Alda's family "upper middle class" (Fifth Avenue apartment! Casual visits to Europe!) I decided I couldn't take anything the Times said about class seriously.
posted by gubo at 11:29 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by gubo at 11:29 AM on June 27, 2007
70%. Hm. You'd never know it looking at my overall situation...
One thing I'd note which kinda jives with Dr. Steve's take is that if the NYT is using the usual government/census statistics for this, they're not tracking the info on the really, really wealthy people, because IIRC the gov't doesn't track stats on people who make over $1 million per year (from whatever source).
There is a real upper class in this country; you'll find them in the top 1/2% of actual net worth. They don't show up on this chart at all - especially in terms of real power and political influence.
Basically, if you're not one of that very small group, you have very little effect on the world other than your own immediate living situation, things like what kind of home you have, car you drive, where you take your vacation, maybe where your kids go to college, etc. Direct sphere of influence.
The people in that group have the power to have laws made or changed to suit their desires, and the money to be able to hire other people to do anything they want them to do.
If you are part of the people who are represented by this NYT class chart, you almost certainly powerless in the grand scheme of the world.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:32 AM on June 27, 2007
One thing I'd note which kinda jives with Dr. Steve's take is that if the NYT is using the usual government/census statistics for this, they're not tracking the info on the really, really wealthy people, because IIRC the gov't doesn't track stats on people who make over $1 million per year (from whatever source).
There is a real upper class in this country; you'll find them in the top 1/2% of actual net worth. They don't show up on this chart at all - especially in terms of real power and political influence.
Basically, if you're not one of that very small group, you have very little effect on the world other than your own immediate living situation, things like what kind of home you have, car you drive, where you take your vacation, maybe where your kids go to college, etc. Direct sphere of influence.
The people in that group have the power to have laws made or changed to suit their desires, and the money to be able to hire other people to do anything they want them to do.
If you are part of the people who are represented by this NYT class chart, you almost certainly powerless in the grand scheme of the world.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:32 AM on June 27, 2007
Wow. Me now - 56th percentile. Me in 3 years - 95th. Go grad school.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:51 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by Navelgazer at 11:51 AM on June 27, 2007
> If you are part of the people who are represented by this NYT class chart, you almost certainly
> powerless in the grand scheme of the world.
i.e. like pretty much everyone who ever lived.
posted by jfuller at 11:55 AM on June 27, 2007
> powerless in the grand scheme of the world.
i.e. like pretty much everyone who ever lived.
posted by jfuller at 11:55 AM on June 27, 2007
True enough!
posted by zoogleplex at 12:01 PM on June 27, 2007
posted by zoogleplex at 12:01 PM on June 27, 2007
"In New York City the trash collecters make 70K + bennies for a forty hour week..."
That's why unions are a good thing.
Anyway, what's your source? And do you think they'd hire me?
posted by davy at 12:04 PM on June 27, 2007
That's why unions are a good thing.
Anyway, what's your source? And do you think they'd hire me?
posted by davy at 12:04 PM on June 27, 2007
See also: Paul Fussell's Class: A Guide Through the American Status System.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:07 PM on June 27, 2007
posted by kirkaracha at 12:07 PM on June 27, 2007
I read Fussell's book once. I remember a piece of its advice as something like "buy jugs of Gallo Chablis so people will know you're a college-educated desk-working white guy."
posted by davy at 12:12 PM on June 27, 2007
posted by davy at 12:12 PM on June 27, 2007
Upthread, stammer touched on one of the major problems here:
My calculator: do you derive most of your income from wages, rent, or profits?
I don't know if somebody can be called U if they actually have to work for a living. So, right off the bat, this survey's "Occupation" factor doesn't work right. It sorts most of us, but not the top quintile.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 10:12 PM on June 27, 2007
My calculator: do you derive most of your income from wages, rent, or profits?
I don't know if somebody can be called U if they actually have to work for a living. So, right off the bat, this survey's "Occupation" factor doesn't work right. It sorts most of us, but not the top quintile.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 10:12 PM on June 27, 2007
That's what I was saying - the NYT widget does not even look at "upper class" or "upper middle class" -- it sorts people into quintiles, not classes. Qualitative "classes" are both bigger than one quintile (for the lower, and middle classes), and much, much smaller (upper middle and upper class).
That said, if you have been sorted into the top quintile, you should recognise what this means. This means you have more occupational status/education/income/wealth than 80% of the American population. You are not an average joe, as much as you might feel like one. Personally, I feel undereducated, because so many people I know have a PhD. But with a masters', I apparently have more education than some 95%+ of the American population.
Also, you can be U if you work for a living. The U / Non-U is a language distinction. (My language is apparently half/half, but the distinction is 50 years out of date and I do have a funny colonial dialect). The British upper classes have embraced primogeniture for centuries, so often only the eldest boy would inherit an estate - all the others would have to shift for themselves, in the Church, army, navy, law, etc, albeit with generous help from the family.
And the gentry has always embraced what historians call "pseudo-gentry" - in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, this would include doctors, lawyers, the right kinds of clerics, well-to-do merchants and tradesmen, and (of course) politicians (some of whom will have been born to gentle families, but others who were moving their families into the gentility). If they could live in the manner of a gentleman, they would be given the courtesy of being included in the (lower) gentry. They might not easily marry a Duke's daughter (though Henry Fox, a career politician and son of a self-made man, famously eloped with one), but they were considered a kind of gentleman, at least socially.
posted by jb at 2:14 AM on June 28, 2007
That said, if you have been sorted into the top quintile, you should recognise what this means. This means you have more occupational status/education/income/wealth than 80% of the American population. You are not an average joe, as much as you might feel like one. Personally, I feel undereducated, because so many people I know have a PhD. But with a masters', I apparently have more education than some 95%+ of the American population.
Also, you can be U if you work for a living. The U / Non-U is a language distinction. (My language is apparently half/half, but the distinction is 50 years out of date and I do have a funny colonial dialect). The British upper classes have embraced primogeniture for centuries, so often only the eldest boy would inherit an estate - all the others would have to shift for themselves, in the Church, army, navy, law, etc, albeit with generous help from the family.
And the gentry has always embraced what historians call "pseudo-gentry" - in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, this would include doctors, lawyers, the right kinds of clerics, well-to-do merchants and tradesmen, and (of course) politicians (some of whom will have been born to gentle families, but others who were moving their families into the gentility). If they could live in the manner of a gentleman, they would be given the courtesy of being included in the (lower) gentry. They might not easily marry a Duke's daughter (though Henry Fox, a career politician and son of a self-made man, famously eloped with one), but they were considered a kind of gentleman, at least socially.
posted by jb at 2:14 AM on June 28, 2007
I think his "top fifth" is the top fifth of the middle class. None of these indicators has much to do with "upper class", which you are born into.
posted by MotherTucker at 12:23 PM on June 28, 2007
posted by MotherTucker at 12:23 PM on June 28, 2007
No, the top fifth (of the NYT gadget) is the top fifth of the population. Which would include part of the middle classes, all of the upper middle class and all of the upper class. People just don't realise how very small the upper middle and upper classes are. Sometimes I read magazines and newpapers (like the Atlantic and NYT), and get so annoyed, because their version of "normal" is so firmly grounded in the upper-middle class. I remember reading an article once which basically said that "every parent" has the difficult choice between sending their children to private or state schools, which is (of course) bollocks.
posted by jb at 7:19 AM on June 29, 2007
posted by jb at 7:19 AM on June 29, 2007
« Older wood+marbles=six bits | Snog that Snape, girl! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by inoculatedcities at 9:55 PM on June 26, 2007