↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Former good article American middle class was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Green question mark icon. This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Maintained The following users are actively involved with this article, and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:

Brendel

This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Sub-Divisions

I removed the nonsense of listing musician, artist and writer as upper middle class professions. That is utterly ridiculous and laughable. Those professions have always been associated with beggars and traveling bards. The percentage of artists and musicians, and to a lesser extent writers, who "make it big" and earn upper-middle-class money is infinitesimal. Where do you think the "starving artist" stereotype comes from?... Believe me, it's the rule, not the exception. Most musicians do not have a record deal and a platinum-selling album, and most artists don't have their paintings hanging in the private collections of eccentric millionaires. *rolls eyes* Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there really a difference between the lower-middle class and the working class?

It would seem that the lower-middle class and the working class share the following in common:

  • substantial size (these two classes put together would comprise the majority of the public)
  • substantial amount of work actually performed (both per person and in the aggregate)
  • substantial level of work skill
  • low level of work autonomy
  • low level of job security
  • low level of financial security

The major difference is that the lower-middle class may or may not have a comfortable lifestyle whereas the working class would definitely not, but they would share the low level of financial security. Any comment? 69.140.164.142 06:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observations! Life-styles vary considerably between different households in the lower middle class. The lower middle class overlaps with both the upper middle and working class. Thus, some lower middle class households, say two grade school teachers, may have considerable job and financial security. Yet, others may not. Dennis Gilbert points out that those at the bottom of the lower middle class are almost indistinguishable from those in the working class-so there is definitely some truth to your observations. Generally speaking, lower middle class employees have considerably more autonomy than working class employees as they are "hired to think" versus being hired to simply accomplish routine tasks (get the coffe, copy papars, etc...). Of all the social classes the LMC may actually be the most difficult to describe as it so diverse and large. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dental Hygienists?

I asked some questions about the use of DH's in the examples given in this article, but it was deleted. Why is that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.87.185 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cleanup needed

I just jumped to this article via random Wikilink. I'm sorry, but it needs quite some cleanup. Very any things are repetitive (Example: "Many have graduate degrees, with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly exceed $100,000, with some smaller one-income-earner households having incomes in the high 5-figure range[2][6][11]. Class members usually hold college degrees and often hold graduate degrees.[2][12]"). Sometimes words are missing ("While [the] concept remains largely ambiguous"). There also seems to be quite some confusion about single- and dual income households vs. higher- and lower middle class. If there are varying opinions, each should be presented individually, not all mingled together. I'd help, but this is not a topic I'm particularly interested or knowledgeable about, sorry. I'll only fix clear language errors as I encounter them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Followup: Sources are not very good either, and many links are broken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so there was a copy edit mistake, thank you for fixing it. As for the presentation of opinion, they are all presented; the article, of anything clears up the confusion that may exsist between single vs. dual earner & lower vs. upper middle class household - that is it reflects current thought that they are not be confused and that as a result of difference in the # of earners, household income does not always accurately reflect class status. How are the sources not very good? It uses two of the most common - if not the most common - contemporary class models. Regards, Signaturebrendel 09:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Several sources seem to be prepared by a think tank. Think tanks are not usually the best available sources - academic textbooks and refereed publications are. And the links are remotely weird. The first one has a very unlikely name, refers to Drum Majors, but points to PBS. The third one likewise has an unlikely name, refers to Drum Majors again, but refers to a non-existing page at [1]. The 4th one has a working link, but is cited under the wrong title (the actual title is "One more social security quibble: Who is Middle Class?"). All of these three miss supplementary information like author and date of publication. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
True, not all sources are academic publications, but you have to consider how they are used. The newspaper article from the Christian Science Monitor, for example, is used to describe the exsitance of a "quibble" over what is middle class - clearly if there wasn't major reputable newspapers wouldn't publish it. The main concepts in the article, however, are taken from scholarly publications, not think tanks nor newspapers. As for source formatting, thanks for the pointers - I'll fix those problems (as a matter of fact, though not required on WP, I may convert all sources to using APA style). Thanks, Signaturebrendel 13:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the CSM as a source in general (although this is only an editorial, hence a rather weak source - editorials are opinions of usually just a single editor). Yes, APA style (or any particular style) are not required. But at least the core elements have to be correct. I've updated the CSM item. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:

  1. "Further research also suggests that working class parents emphasize conformity, traditional gender roles, and the adherence to external standards in their children, such as being neat and clean and "[believing] in strict leadership." (Gilbert, 1998)" This needs to be converted to an inline citation, preferably including page number if from a book.
  2. "Most ideas that find their way into the cultural mainstream… are crafted by a relative elite: people who are well educated, reasonably well-paid, and who overlap, socially and through family ties, with at least the middling levels of the business community—in short, the professional middle class."
  3. "The parade [of income earners with height representing income] suggest that [the] relationship between the distribution of income and the class structure is… blurred in the middle… we saw dual-income working class marchers looking down on single-income upper-middle class marchers. In sum, the class structures as we have defined it… does not exactly match the distribution of household income."
  4. "To this day, the professional middle class in the United States holds the world record for having the largest homes, most appliances and most automobiles."

Other issues:

  1. "A study by Brookings Institution in June 2006 revealed that middle-income neighborhoods have dropped 17% from 1970 to 2000.[clarify]" Address the tag.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Failed

Unfortunately, since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. With a little work, it should have no problems getting back up to GA status. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dental Hygienists?

The reference to Dental Hygienists in the "Working Class Majority" section should be changed/removed.

Dental hygienists aren't paid to share their thoughts and ideas? That is absurd. Hygienists diagnose patients, create and administer treatment plans, interpret x-rays, advise dentists, etc. Their role in a patient's oral health care can be just as important as a Dentist's. Of course, probably the only thing that the author remembers is the teeth-scraping part. I mean, that's the part I'd remember, too, but it's only half of what's going on while you're in that chair.

Dental Hygienists work under close supervision? Has the author of this passage ever been to see a Hygienist? Are the Hygienist and the Dentist ever in the room at the same time? The person that works with the Dentist is called a Dental Assistant. In general, Hygienists see patients independently. Actually, all of these "working class" traits apply to a Dental Assistant. Maybe someone could make that switch in the article?

I graduated from a Dental Hygiene program this May and now I'm making about $60,000 a year in an area where the average annual income is less that $30,000. You can be a Hygienist in California and make six figures. This is just not a good example of the "working class majority" described in this article. I don't "follow the Dentist's instructions." In most cases he follow mine!

Working Class should not redirect to middle class. They are two very different things. And by directing them to the same page it makes the article non-neutral point of view on subjects such as class struggle and communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.126.212 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History

We need a new section on the history of the middle class. For instance, it could talk about the massive growth in the middle class after world war two. 163.1.146.77 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image caption

(same comment I left on Talk:Social class in the United States)
The image caption for File:A monument of working class.JPG, currently used in the lead, includes "A monument to the working and supporting classes...". That description is incorrect. The Mechanics Monument (originally known as the Donahue Memorial Fountain) was commissioned by James Mervyn Donahue in memory of his father, James Donahue, founder of Union Iron Works. (sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) It was dedicated to mechanics. (sources: 1, 2, inscription) The monument isn't honoring the entire "working" and supporting classes (What does supporting class mean?). That being said, I'm not sure it really belongs in the lead (or article) considering it's not related to a specific social class. Unless someone reasonably objects, I'll replace it in the next day or so. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)