What is "middle class"?

There have been several articles in The Wall Street Journal lately about how in the U.S. we've gotten away from the definition of "middle class"--------or perhaps more accurately about how it's gotten away from us.

Something like 85% of Americans define themselves as "middle class"......Huh? 

As a financial-type, I'd like to make a nice even split-------33.33% middle class, 33.33% upper class, and 33.33% lower class (which is by definition a bad label).  From a pure mathematics point of view, of course one can split the American population's incomes that way.  But unfortunately, life isn't so easily pigeon-holed.

The problem is that the above simple math is about "Middle Income".....NOT what makes someone "Middle Class".  Economists and sociologists are finally recognizing the differences, which was the point of the articles in the WSJ.

"Middle Class"  (as opposed to Middle Income) has to do with much more than just at what level a family's income is.  In 2015, to have been Middle Class in America meant that a college degree has been obtained by both "Heads of Household" (as defined by the I.R.S.).

But according to the latest studies, it's much more than that.  A big piece of this is attitudes about certain issues.   The studies also tracked "class" by  speech patterns (specifically certain pronunciations), choice of words, and most particularly grammar.

The third and most interesting piece is that the university studies could track "class" by tastes in certain things, including choice of home-decorating, choice of clothing, some slight differences in hobbies, and....surprisingly......speech patterns and grammar comes up again.



Nancy Mitford (20th century novelist, essayist, and historian)  wrote some very comical things about "U" and "non-U", which was again publicized by Debrett's in the 1970's or 80's.  This was truly funny stuff, but Mitford did have a point.  For those unfamiliar with the concept, "U" stands for "upperclass", and Mitford's point was that certain concepts and actions have over the course of the last couple of centuries have come to be understood as "U"....but unfortunately many of them are so subtle that unless someone is really, really into learning those subtleties, as much money as they may have they will still appear "non-U".

Debrett's (i.e. the etiquette guides) was practically a bible in all the houses of family and friends that I knew growing up.  While this has given me such useful skills as knowing how to alight from a brougham and knowing where the butler is supposed to stand during a formal dinner; amazingly enough this knowledge is not very useful in 21st century Maine.

However there's an underlying point:  There's been a lot of sociology texts written about this...even back in the Stone Age when I was at Bates College, in Sociology 201 we were studying texts like "White Collar Life".  I recall that course very specifically because it was called "Social Stratification" and it said exactly what Nancy Mitford said, only in a very boring way.

But education is the great equalizer!!!!

I am so grateful to live in a world today where....well at least in the U.S., Japan, and other places...anyone can become upper class via taking the time and effort to get a higher education.  It's EDUCATION  and only education that causes the demographic shift in any individual.  Because "class" is indeed about attitude; about one's awareness of the issues around them; and let's face it.....about being able to write a grammatically correct sentence.  I sometimes look at things that certain people write and all I can think of is Henry Higgins and Eliza Doolitttle:  "It's 'Aooow' and 'Garn' that keep her in her place/Not her wretched clothes and dirty face".

Class is not about how much money one has----that's "income".  Otherwise why is it that some people like to follow, say, the "real housewives" of wherever?  It's because the women are upper income but otherwise clueless.

It's secondly the contrast of being upper income but having no values-------study after study have shown that the true upper class give back disproportionately large amounts of time to volunteer service.

And thirdly people watch that dross because it makes them feel superior....."at least I'm not like THAT!"

It's the same reason some people won't live in a trailer park......they figure that a big fancy house upgrades their "class" in society. 

But by Steve's logic, are Ed and Dot Mason "low class" because they live in a trailer park?  I personally do not think so.   I'm no fan of Dot, but respect her for living within her means, (and apparently really enjoying it).