Talk:American upper class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article American upper class, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American upper class article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

[edit] Not finished

This article is still under contruction and wihtin a short amount of time will grow to a justified lenght. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article sounds like it was written by a British aristocrat. To think that someone has to be born into money and power to attain it obviously does not acknowledge the existance of individuals such as Oprah Winfrey. "Prestige" is a subjective definition that allows too much room for unnecessary, unwarranted elitism. This comment was added by 68.90.178.213.

Prestige is indeed a subjective term. Famed American Sociologist W. Lloyd Warner, did however, differentiate between the upper-upper and lower-upper class with the latter refering to people like Oprah Winfrey and the former to "old money" such as the Astor family. I personally have not yet spent a lot of time on this article and, guessing from the fact that I am currently busy in real life, won't in the near future. But, do feel free to make suggestions or implement improvements on the article yourself. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this assumes the premise that there is some sort of inherent class difference when one is born into money and one rises up to it. It would be difficult to deny that there is an "upper class", but a "lower upper class" and "upper upper class" is superfluous and impossible to concretely define. Just because it is published in one man's book does not make it law; otherwise, conspiracy theorists would be more than just conspiracy theorists. Warner was born in an era before World War II and before the civil rights era where classism was rampant, he has many challenges to his LUC/UUC theory evident by his wikipedia page, and perhaps most importantly is his association with the Rockefeller family, which is one of the definitive examples of American blue-blood, so it is extremely likely that he may have been biased towards it.This comment was added by 68.90.178.213.

His ideas are widely accepted. There is no law. There is no one correct theory. Class in American is not a clearly defined concept; rather it is a mish-mash of theories who may contradict each other. Warners theory is due to its being widely published worth mentioning here. There is never a good excuse to leave out a valid theory. That is all the UUC/LUC concept is: a theory. After all that is all there is in regards to class in America: thoeries. That said, I agree we should mention some other theories besdies just Warner on this page-that would make this stub more balanced. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now, but if you have sources and know of other valid theories add them so we can provide our readers with more vantage points on the issue. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a valid theory. However, I don't think it is the only theory, and the existence of other theories is not mentioned here. This doesn't happen to be something that I know a great deal about, so I feel unqualified to comment on it. Nevertheless, I can tell you from personal experience that while some people probably do look up to the Kennedys and Rockafellers, most Americans do not, and indeed many Americans (perhaps even many from the upper class) feel as if they stand in contrast to the American ideal. While old money is certainly a very powerful influence in politics, its influence on culture is waning. Personally, I think more Americans are inspired by Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey than someone who inherited a lot of money. Phil Bastian 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

Affluence in the United States and this article both cover "wealthy people in the United States". The same statistics are applicable whether you are describing the terms "wealthy", "high income", "upper class", or "affluent". To avoid unnecessary duplication across articles, I propose that the two articles be merged. Multiple terminologies and definitions can easily be handled in the same article, and doing that seems to improve neutrality. I picked "American upper class" as the title to consolidate under, because it fits in neatly with the Social class in the United States series. But if anyone prefers a different title, that's fine with me. -- Beland 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Under no ciscumstance can that be done. The American upper class is not a synonym for affluent. Middle class people (especially the upper middle class) may also be called affluent. The Upper Class is a purely sociological phenomenon, affluen or high income is not. Affluence is part of being upper middle or upper, but is not the same. Please don't equate a social class article with one discussing only economics. Being affluent and upper class is not the same. Affluence is a relative economic term, not a social class. A $75k/year single professional is under no circumstance upper class but would nonetheless be idenitifed as affluent. Again this article describes an economic condition of private individuals/households whereas the American upper class article deals with a social class. Merging these two articles would be misleading and incorrect. Again, the term upper class is not a syonoym for affluent (maybe on the street but not in a sociology textbook). I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh but you just cannot merge these two articles, they discuss two different topics. As a social scientists, the idea of having this affluence and upper class being the same raises the hairs on my neck- please listen to me. Being affluent does not mean being upper class. The upper class and affluence are not the same, affluence is not a social class. Affluence is an economic condition, relative to an individual/households sourrounding, and may occur in any social class. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

agreed with directly above. Colorfulharp233 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Which? -- Beland 01:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The indent as well as the word "directly" indicate an agreement with my post ;-) Signature^brendel 02:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea that affluence and class are completely different is only one point of view. By the New York Times definition, class is solely a function of numerical income. Are two articles needed to explain the distiction, or will one do? There's also the point of view that there's no such thing as class in the United States, that the country is based on ideals of social mobility, and does not consider pedigree to be relevant, as distinct from the European tradition. I would hope that does not need three articles to explain. My purpose here is not to take a position on the debate over whether the two things are the same or different (Wikipedia must be neutral on that point), but to avoid having a proliferation of articles on the same topic, each only slightly different from the last.

Affluence in the United States has a section on social class, but it does not identify anything concrete which can be used to determine social class, apart from income. That could be solved by importing a better summary from American upper class, though.

Is there anything that you think "affluence" entails, other than a relatively high income, that is different from class? Most of the statistics provided by Affluence in the United States are redundant with Household income in the United States and Personal income in the United States. Those articles are already telling us how income varies with race, education, household type, etc. The Affluence article does have some new information, mostly details about who the people at the upper end of the scale are, in terms of profession, and maybe a few more statistics. These statistics would be useful to have when discussing the upper class and upper middle class (the boundary between the two being ill-defined). I think what I am suggesting here is letting the income articles deal with "affluence" in the sense of a relatively high income, but moving the class-related material from this article to "American upper class". -- Beland 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Is there anything that you think "affluence" entails, other than a relatively high income, that is different from class?" No affluence only entails being well-off but being upper class entails more than affluence; thus, you cannot merge these two articles. (and the NY Times is not a sociology book). Even in the US education and occupation as well as the source of income are as important as income. People derive status from academic degrees and clearly a successful drug dealer is not on the same level as the Kennedy family (even according to opinion polls). Yes people like to beleive that class is all about money but it isn't. Doctors play golf with their fellow doctors and not the nurses. Even if two nurses shack up and attain a household income equal to that of a doctor (making them affluent but not upper middle class), they still will seek the company of their professional equals and the nurses won't be stepping toes w/ MDs at the club. And professors who make as much as plumbers are still higher up on the social strata by the virtue of occupation. These professor will also most commonly not associate with the plumbers, despite both groups being affluent. Social classes are coherent social groups. Affluence is one of the group-gatekeepers but is an independent and important concept that deserves its own full-size article. Affluence is a component of class but also its own concept. Classes are social groups based on education, occupation, value systems, and income whose members associate with each other as to form a recognizable pattern (they do, read any sociology textbook, any).

As for "Affluence in the United States has a section on social class, but it does not identify anything concrete which can be used to determine social class, apart from income. That could be solved by importing a better summary from American upper class, though"- NO it could not. People in the middle class may be affluent as well and providing concerete guidelines would be misleading as it all relative. Upper class people are affluent relative to everybody, Upper middle class people are affluent relative to Middle class people, who are affluent relative to working class people, who are affluent relative to lower class people. It is not just the upper class that is affluent. Members of any class maybe affluent relative to those of another (or their own). Social class is dealt with in the Social class articles (already full-sized), income is dealt with on the income articles (already full-sized), but affluence and how it may affect social status is dealth with in the affluence article.

The concept of affluence is a concept in its own right. It relates to class and serves as a class component, but is not a social class itself and not the exclusive domain of the upper class (thus you can merge it into this article). It is its own topic- as is educational attainment and occupational prestige. All these relate to class but are concept in their own right. Splitting this article is not a good idea as affluence is a concept that ought to mentioned. There needs to be an article that mentions what affluence, not high social status, is. Just like we have an article for Occupational prestige and Educational attainment in the United States, affluence is an important concept requiring its own article. What is affluent, who is affluent (race, gender, profession), why are they affluent (education)... all these questions would go unanswered if this article ought to be split. And the income articles I wrote do not tell us how affluence (not just income in general) varies with race, education, profession etc... Furthermore this article explores the relationship between the two independent concepts of affluence and social class. The affluence article is needed by itself in order to discuss the independent concept of affluence. Most of the info mentioned in the article (the race, education, profession and social class section) is not feature anywhere else as it only pertains to the concept of affluence in the US. It would be out of place on the upper class article as it applies to other social classes as well and out of place on the income article as it deals only with a small portion of the income strata. BTW: There is a huge difference between the Upper middle class (15% of pop) and the upper class (1%). Your family doctor vs. Theresa Heinz Kerry! ;-) Please make sure you have considered all propositions in my post (I know it's a big one) before repsonding. Thank you and best regards, Signature^brendel 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's hold off on a merger, then. I can try eliminating the redundant information from Affluence in the United States and see if what's left stands on its own. I wrote:

Affluence in the United States has a section on social class, but it does not identify anything concrete which can be used to determine social class, apart from income. That could be solved by importing a better summary from American upper class, though

I do not think I came across clearly. What I am saying is that the Affluence article, if kept, needs to more clearly explain the claimed difference between affluence and class. It does not currently make that distinction clearly. It's OK if the "upper class" article explains the same claimed distinction in the same way, so that readers of either article will be able to easily understand it.

However, major points of view - that class is the same thing as numerical income, that class is irrelevent to life in the United States, etc., need to be explained in the class articles, even if we disagree with them, and even if they are wrong. In order to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, no one school of thought can have a monopoly on interpretations of complex realities. The article upper class has a more balanced description of the concept of "American upper class". I'll tag this article NPOV until it can be broadened. -- Beland 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well thank on agreeing not to merge. I will be busy next week but I'll be sure to add some text pertaining to the difference between class and income to the affluence article. The upper class in the US article is far from finished. I started it a while back but got hung up on other projects. The article currently is in its infancy and I don't mind you tagging it. As for the Affluence article, please be careful when you prune it; I'll certainly appreciate any feedback you might have. Also, please consider that I have no references for the theory that class is irrelevant or the same as income-not one of my sociological sources backs that up. I usually don't make a habit putting unreferenced claims into my articles. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)