WHILE going through security screening on my way to AEA, I experienced a small snafu that nearly resulted in the screeners breaking my watch. Some drama ensued and one of the screeners said, “What does she care? She is so rich she will just buy another one.”
Since my income is almsot certainly below that of the security screener, this left me somewhat bemused. What made him leap to the conclusion that I am wealthy? Perhaps I conveyed that arrogant sense of entitlement that can only come from a newly minted, ivy-league educated economist on their way to join their equally over-educated peers.
The cultural compass of America, Oprah Winfrey, had a show last year exposing class divisions in the US. According to her, social class is determined by income. As an example she featured Warren Buffet’s granddaughter—who, because of his belief that wealth should not be inherited, works at a job earning a modest living. Oprah classified her as “middle-class”. She also featured a cocktail waitress who earns enough money to drive a BMW and wear prominent designer labels. She was classified as “upper class”.
In Europe class distinction, though often correlated with wealth, is not necessarily isomorphic. I went to university in the UK with a young man who, at the age of twenty, had the title of one of Britain’s most well known aristocratic families. Thanks to generations of financial mismanagement and other forms of poor judgment, however, he did not have any family wealth. He too had to suffer the indignity of working after he graduated. By Oprah’s definition he would be middle-class, though his appearances in Tatler’s bystander section suggests otherwise.
Is social class in the US really just a function of income rather than family background? If so then the US is the meritocracy it prides itself on being. But personal experience indicates that there are other factors, like wealth (and watches), many of which are inherited. So even by Oprah’s definition class distinctions are inherited—unless you are related to Warren Buffet.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I like Expat's distinction between social class and economic class. Many Americans desperately long for sharp social class distinctions, but they're hard to make in the US. We should keep in mind the research of Dr. Thomas Stanley, author of "The Millionaire Next Door." About 85% of million- and billionaires earned their wealth through owning a business for 25-30 years. Only about 3% inherit wealth. And those 85% tend to have dull, middle-class values.Comment originally posted on January 10, 2007 10:33 PM
The best definition of class I have ever heard is "access to power." People with in the upper classes can be thought of as those that have better access to power than those in lower classes regardless of their income levels. This access is normally inherited because it normally flows from familial contacts and ties. Class mobility, however, would normally happen only after multiple generations of contacts and connections and pathways to power had been established by a successful (income-wise) family.Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 8:29 PM
How much money do you think an airport security screener makes? How much will he ever make? Please notice that the screener assumed that you are rich. Not wealthy. Not of a higher class. Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 7:13 PM
As an American who has travelled a bit, I noticed that class is much more fluid than in other countries and varies significantly by region. The east coast and parts of the south are much more class conscious than the West and Southwest. In some cities having an "old money" family is a big deal while in the West this is hardly an issue since there are hardly any old money families. Profession and education are a big marker of class. The first question most people ask is "what do you do?". I think a more important question is the role groups play in the United States. Americans, by and large, tend to group themselves by religion, occupation, volenteer activities, hobbies, ect. More than money or class, these groups provide access to jobs, networks, ect. And each group has their own little ettiquette idiosycrancies that help identify those that are "in" and those that are "out". Rather than asking whether an American grew up eating on good China, the better questions is what groups he belongs to. Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 6:37 PM
I believe the author has confused "economic" class with "social" class. Economic class is strictly a measure of personal wealth, but-in the United States-it has very little to do with social class, which is a measure of culture and background. Social class is dictated by habits and interests. NASCAR is viewed as a low-class sport, while Formula One is considered high-class. Pabst Blue Ribbon beer is probably the lowest class of all alcoholic beverages, while rare wine is high-class (especially the drinker knows what it is that makes it so rare). It's important to understand that these interests cross economic lines. There are wealthy accountants who watch NASCAR races on their 60" plasma TVs, and there are poor college students who stream Formula One newsfeeds to their donated laptops. To put it another way, a millionaire who stocks his $5,000 refrigerator with Budweiser and listens to Jay-Z on his Bose sound system will be treated as a lower-class person, while a couple on welfare who pick out decent bottles of cheap wine and buy second-hand CDs of Miles Davis will be viewed and treated as high-class. Also, family background has very little to do with class. Paris Hilton, the spoiled daughter of a high-class hotel baron, is derided as cheap white trash, while Tom Wolfe, the son of a lower-class agricultural scientist and an unemployed housewife, is about the classiest person in the country. To answer the author's question: "Is social class in the US really just a function of income rather than family background?" The answer is: it is neither. Wealth and family background play a role in determining a person's social class, but the individual's identity-his habits, his desires, his own social interactions-ultimately determine his class.Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 5:04 PM
People of higher class don't use the word class but recognize people who don't belong to theirs. It's not so much a matter of money or job, than a mix of etiquette, shared conventions and routines, tradition, family and ambitions. To be very rich does not make you a member of the higher class (you may just be a "nouveau riche"), but if you're poor, you'd better have something to convince your rich cousins that you belong to their world.Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 4:34 PM
High-class consumption, style, intelligence, and etiquette are most often learned from families, making class in the US more about "breeding" than money. More precisely they're self-perpetuating values, to which you need access in order to internalize - making "high class" a club that's harder to crack than winning the lottery or inventing the squeegee. Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 4:25 PM
High-class consumption, style, intelligence, and etiquette are most often learned from families, making class in the US as much a matter of "breeding" as economics. Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 4:21 PM
I think whether or not income determines class depends... on what class you fall into. If you are lower class to middle-middle class (regardless of income level), income is probably a primary determinant of class for you. If you are middle-upper to upper class, style, intelligence, and etiquette probably determine class for you. I think this is one of the primary reasons why income redistribution tends to lead to economic failure. For one, dollars get their meaning/value from the mechanisms of distribution. When you redistibute, you essentially randomize the distibution of a portion of currency. The money loses it's meaning. I think this mostly happens because lower and lower-middle class people tend to simply increase their consumption (especially of inferior goods) when their income increases. They also base their consumption decisions of higher quality goods on superficial modeling. They buy items that they believe are "upper-class" without understanding the reasons and consideration upper class people put into making purchases of higher-end items. They also aren't likely to consider the care and maintenance needed to get and keep those high-end goods. Another distiniction between middle-upper and upper classes and lower classes is that people of higher class don't use the word class. (This discussion shows our roots.)Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 2:07 PM
Indeed, consumption is the primary driver behind social class distinction in the U.S. Most households are willing to undertake debt to support consumption beyond their means (i.e. "pretending" to be of a higher social order") Still, let us not forget that in the U.S., "class" as a social distinction sometimes has no relation to "class" as a so-called 'proper' way of being. Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 1:55 PM
That is an interesting point made by the writer, but I'm afraid any sole analysis of class based on wealth - or primarily on wealth, must be restricted to the US. The range of characteristics that "give away" one's class are infinite, and still pervade European society, in many ways, to its detriment. More importantly, the issue of the notable reduction in class mobility that was one's right through gaining an education, has not been touched on. For the first time in recent history, class moblity has become more entrenched - reasons too complicated to be gone into here, but they do exist. Damian Merciar www.merciar.comComment originally posted on January 9, 2007 1:54 PM
More likely, class distinctions in the U.S. are made by consumption rather than income. Someone in a brand new Ford 350 pickup truck is a redneck while the walker of a pedigreed shih-tzu is a lord or a lady.Comment originally posted on January 9, 2007 1:03 PM