This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Middle class article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JIAZHI SHUAI.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The last paragraph of current usage is gramaticly uncertain.
From the statistics quoted I would draw the inference that "working class" has negative conotations in the US, and that "middle class" has negative conotations in the UK.
That is also the case anecdotaly.
However that is not how it is worded in the article. we also need some references. Jmackaerospace ( talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Thulasimani p ( talk) 10:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)== Collars ==
From my experience the terms "white collar" and "blue collar" are almost exclusively American, yet in this article they seem to be contrasted with the expansion of American middle class. I may be incorrect, but I feel the wording should be changed. 82.41.15.93 ( talk) 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
White-collar refers to jobs that can be done wearing a light colored dress and collar remaining free from stains of sweat. Blue-collar refers to jobs where wearing a dark collored dress, often a prescribed uniform, is desirable, because the work may require handling materials like soil, oil, grease, coal. There is a risk of staining. Collars of workers doing certain works and working in places like farms gets stained by sweat. Irrespective of there origin and usage, these iconic words describe universal situations that are common knowledge. No other word can be substituted.-- Thulasimani p ( talk) 10:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful to add a paragraph about what the US govt considers "middle class", for instance when they want to cut taxes for the so-called middle class. It seems they would include 95% of the populace.-- dunnhaupt ( talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Government prescribes a income limit below which a tax concession is available. Both middle and lower class that is 95% of the populace is eligible. Since lower class pay negligible tax, the benefit they receive is also negligible. Hence it is essentially a benefit for the middle class-- Thulasimani p ( talk) 10:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that in the USA, the term middle class is often used to describe what would usually be called working class in other countries. -- 195.0.221.197 ( talk) 11:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this article seems confusng, and is incorrect from a UK perspective, the usual toxic Wikipedia US-centrism I suppose.. "The middle class is a class of people in the middle of a social hierarchy" is not true here, 'middle-class' means those in the higher (but not highest) income bracket and carries a lot of connotations as to lifestyle etc. 151.224.102.18 ( talk) 14:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Unless there are references to support it I believe the "Geographic Terms" section needs to go. It is not true that
The references that are provided in this section appear to support specific statements but not the overall thesis of the section. From what I have read it is true that "Middle Australia" is commonly used to refer to Middle Class Australia but then "Middle Australia" is not actually a geographic term. Similarly occasionally some authors may use "Middle America" to refer to the Middle Class United States but then they are not using it as a geographic term. Arguing that this justifies the section is an equivocation (a type of logical fallacy).
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 15:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
"Marxism defines social classes..."
It lacks clarity and intellectual integrity to refer to particular or frequent lines of thought coming out of a long-lasting, diverse school of though as all-inclusive of all writers of the tradition. Not all Marxists think the same, by any stretch of imagination or rhetoric. This section must be clear who defines one thing or another in this or that manner.
If no one is able or willing to be specific, in the text, as to who wrote such things, then in the very least the language must be altered - a person, a single work with multiple authors, even an organization, can define a thing, but a broad, incohesive school of thought cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunmwilson1 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As all citations fail cite-check, moved to Talk: Fifelfoo ( talk) 14:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
just adding {{Reflist-talk}} template ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 10:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is not as well structured and sourced as it deserves to be, and it needs development. It's a major topic, which averages over 700 views a day, so should be (and could be) better than it currently is. Indeed, the organisation of articles about social class in general need sorting out as there is a fair bit of duplication, dicdef and personal opinion scattered around these articles - a number could be merged. I'm prepared to work on this for a bit to help start it on the right track - I have done some political and social studies so have a loose grasp of some of the concepts, and know a few of the major authors to use for authoritative cites - but I am not an expert, so I may get things wrong. Any help in shaping the article would be much appreciated. SilkTork * YES! 17:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thats the most notable thing from my perspective that needs to be pointed out. Most of those who are deemed middle class in US would only meet the criteria (earnings/social standing) of being working class if they lived in the UK. Also the middle class in UK are seen as being posh, hence many people prefer to term themselves as working class.
I agree, and highlighted the discrepancy in usage, high in the article with my two changes. DouglasHeld ( talk) 16:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
In the United Stated of America the term "middle class" is used by politicians to avoid saying "working class" or "working poor". There are fewer and fewer in the "middle" in the USA. The gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is getting greater. There term "middle class" is insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.206.229 ( talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The american middle class is said to be 45% of the population, then, in the very next sentence, a link is provided that gives several different percentages for the size of the middle class:
As the American middle class is estimated at approximately 45% of the population,[10][11][12] The Economist's article would put the size of the American middle class below the world average. This difference is due to the extreme difference in definitions between The Economist's and many other models.
The paragraph is needlessly argumentative, and clearly comparing apples and oranges, and internally contradictory. If the point really needs to be made, it should be made differently, like perhaps this:
The American middle class is a term in various academic models, and is generally a smaller subset of the population that the middle class as defined in The Economist's article.
The first paragraph of this section has problems:
The term "middle class" is first attested in James Bradshaw's 1745 pamphlet Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France.[1][2] The term has had several, sometimes contradictory, meanings.
So far so good.
It was once defined by exception as an intermediate social class between the nobility and the peasantry of Europe.[by whom?]
I've actually seen this in several sources, including Merriam-Webster's unabridged. However, it's not correct. The peasantry included smallholders and millers, some of whom were quite wealthy. Conversely, many countries (notably Hungary and Poland) had large numbers of poor nobles. In England, armigerous gentry were technically untitled nobility, and not necessarily well-off.
While the nobility owned the countryside, and the peasantry worked the countryside, a new bourgeoisie (literally "town-dwellers") arose around mercantile functions in the city.
The nobility typically about owned 30 - 60 % of the countryside, depending on which country and period we're talking about. The rest was owned by the church and by freeholders. Also, the bourgeoisie were not new, just the word. The bourgeoisie had been around since the days of Charlemagne.
Another definition equated the middle class to the original meaning of capitalist: someone with so much capital that they could rival nobles. By this definition, only millionaires and billionaires are middle class in modern times.
Marx, a German, seems to have defined the French word bourgeoisie this way, but that was not how middle class was understood in any English-speaking part of the world.
In fact, to be a capital-owning millionaire was the essential criterion of the middle class in the industrial revolution.
This is nonsense. Try doing a search on Google books for the term "middle class" filtering for the years 1760 to 1850, and you will see that this is not how the term was used. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 03:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
In France, the middle classes helped drive the French Revolution.[3]
This part is correct. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 03:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The whole descrpition (mostly inside the US middle class) is totally biased to right politics.
While it may be so that America is an right nation, it might be interesting to let it clear that the definition provided is not only about US middle class, but also how middle class is described by far right. Things like "authoritative parents" should not exist in there.
Since I personally don't like right politics, it ends up that I would not like to be that someone described in such middle class. Alas, you can be a perfectly healthy middle class member without the right symbolism.
Just saying ... anyone with better knowledge of left/right wing politics, and how to describe it in a better unbiased way, should be able to come up with a better description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.4.204.26 ( talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this whole section should be deleted. It employs a very specific theoretical framework and pre-supposes that its writer's narrow, principally American definition of the middle class applies to the more amorphous global definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.40.2 ( talk) 12:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
That whole section is basically written as if it is "matter of fact" but it is just opinion based on a book. Also the references 14 and 16 are the same thing. I suggest it just be removed completely if the writer cannot be bothered to state that: "In the opinion of Doob, Christopher B..."
Someone saying something in a book does not make it some kind of fact. It is technically their interpretation based on supposed evidence. This applies just as much to a philosophical opinion as it does science. Someone's opinion is not a piece of evidence, it is simply their point of view on the subject - an interpretation.
I would be inclined to suggest that it looks like complete nonsense anyway. To suggest that an entire group of people, labelled with an extremely vague title, all do a particular thing is pretty strange (bordering on insanity). Middle class is less vague in the UK because it is defined by the income/ financial status/ net worth of the person. In other words lower, middle and upper class tax bands. I am not sure how it is done in USA but I would imagine it is not a clearly defined category. I can see immediately that the section in question is very odd though, regardless. Hypernator ( talk) 22:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Middle class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Responding to this [1].
Wealth does not change by buying a house, it’s calculated by taking all assets (Financial and non-financial) less all debts including any mortgages. This means that buying a house just transfers equity between asset types, you can always sell the house if you want and capitalise on any net gain just like any other asset. An income only method which you seem to support can screws the facts, it can incorrectly categorise millionaires who focus on non-financial assets as poor because their main yearly gain is non-financial until the asset is sold. Then when they do sell the asset they flip-flop though the class groups which is wrong. Pensioners are another group, they often already 100% own their houses and cars and they don’t have young kids to support etc. They chose to retire and subsequently under an income only method they artificially drop out of the middle class bracket because their income drops, but in reality their disposable income after mortgage payments etc. is simpler to what they had before. They are still living a middle class lifestyle its just they don’t need to have as much money coming in as someone much younger who pays a mortgage, is buying a car and has children.
As the article describes there are different whys people have used to show who are middle class. So instead of blanking out the table of data you don’t like, can I suggest you go and find WP:RS data which shows the information based on income only and perhaps add that to the current article along with the current split by wealth. This way we will give a reader a more rounded view of the subject as they would be able to see both methods and draw their own conclusions leaving the page with a WP:Neutral point of view. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 10:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Never be middle class according to this definition unless they accumulate some other asset. In Germany, where majority rent, This is exactly what you see.
A simple illustration showing importance of income for financing consumption. We assume 3% rate for fin wealth which is spent in a given year, and (for NF wealth) we assume 3% of homes sold of which, half are downsized, half of that cash retained, and 20% of that spent in a given year.
Country A (all per adult)
Income: 50,000 NF wealth: 10,000 Fin wealthy: 50,000
50,000 + nil + 1500= 51,500-savings= consumption
Country B:
Income: 30,000 NF wealth: 250,000 Fin wealth: 100,000
30,000+375+3000= 33,375-savings= consumption.
So even a massive difference in wealth in favor of B will only marginally close the distance in terms of consumption. If the difference was purely due to NF assets, as in the middle quintile (where NF assets dominate=home equity), then the boost to consumption for B would be almost trivial.
This is all in terms of DIRECT impact. Indirectly, greater wealth causes more income, though that would already be taken into account. If the higher wealth in B is due to a higher home ownership rate, then we would have the benefit of a larger portion of the population living for free, which obviously is a positive vs A. If however the higher NF wealth is simply due to higher home prices (for example Australia vs USA) then there really is no net benefit unless you sell the house and take a cash proceed (which would be included in the calculations above). Plus you must counteract this with the fact that higher home prices also means less money for other goods and services.
Thus when you see median wealth of say Italy double that of Germany or Sweden for example, it does NOT mean that the former has a higher standard of living, because the the latter two make up for it by having far higher income.
Sent from my iPhone — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lneal001 (
talk •
contribs) 16:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The power and class section quotes a line from The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret, that begins, "In 2020, the labor force numbered 152.7 million people..." Since the book was published in 2012 and it's not even 2020 yet, I assume that was a typo meant to say 2002. I tried to go to the source to verify but I don't have access to the full text. If someone with full access wants to verify, that would be nice.
Also the entire Power and Class section is based on a single source. It seems like a good one but some effort should be made to find more info. Plasteredpegasus ( talk) 18:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Why is this being allowed to fly? It has clearly been written by someone viewing the world through a Marxist lens. The entire article is littered with the political phrases of Marxism, such as breaking down society into "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat" with mentions of a "ruling class".
The article ought to lead with a breakdown of definitions by region (because obviously they differ in the US, UK, and others) and MAYBE have a small section further down discussing Marx's thoughts on the subject.
82.9.121.234 ( talk) 23:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Terminology section contains following statement:
This statement ignores the 3 Estates of Feudalism (which has well been well-attested by historians). For some reason, the editor has considered limiting Feudal society to the 8th-12th centuries; which is contrary to most accepted definitions of between 9th-15th centuries (see Feudalism) Since the statement is unsourced, there is no way of understanding the meaning of the sentence. This entire section should be revised in a meaningful way.
-- AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist ( talk) 15:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: the statement is sourced in the next section: History and evolution of the term. It cites Marx' Communist Manifesto. Which means this section has a NPOV issue as well.
-- AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist ( talk) 16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph should be greatly expanded upon. As currently written, this section is focused solely on a Marxist interpretation.
-- AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist ( talk) 16:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the first two paragraphs, I feel that there may be an issue with maintaining a neutral POV. According to MOS:LEAD, the special emphasis should be placed on having a WP:NPOV, being concise, and proper citations. These two paragraphs fail on all of those fronts.
Bold claims are made with no citations, such as “ Modern social theorists—and especially economists—have defined and re-defined the term ‘middle class’ in order to serve their particular social or political ends.” No matter where this was, such a bold claim should require a citation. But the fact that it’s in the very first paragraph adds even more reason to remove it.
The second paragraph also uses terminology that’s far too specific to Marxian theory, such as “petite-bourgeoisie” and again lacks citations for all of its claims.
Ideally, it would be better to clean up these paragraphs than flat-out remove them. However, I don’t have the necessary expertise to properly fix the issues myself, so if there’s no objections to the removal of these paragraphs, I will remove them.
-- Captainsnacc ( talk) 04:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Reply To|Rjensen} Maybe I’m misunderstanding the principles, but in MOS:LEAD I saw “ As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.” With at in mind, I feel like the paragraphs I removed did have sufficient justification for removal. Captainsnacc ( talk) 04:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Just definition 119.160.68.180 ( talk) 13:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
this has been mentioned before on this page (multiple times), but this article really needs to differentiate clearly between the UK usage of the term and the more typical US/international use.
Also, why is the main image of the article about wealth instead of income, when the article at multiple points defines the middle class as those with enough income to buy non-essential goods?
-- jonas ( talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The First paragraph describes a middle class as existant, while there are no sources it is even an actual thing. There is even research to be found (on page 1 of a simple google search) that this may be a faulty conclusion:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083379 94.110.113.219 ( talk) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)