Talk:American middle class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American middle class article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article American middle class has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
August 19, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Brendel
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Web-Sites on which this article is featured include:
Answers.com • Reference.com • Experts.about.com
Archive
Archives

[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)