This is just part one of the results, focusing on people's responses to self-class identification and their income and type of work they do. Further results forthcoming.
x-posted to my blog, located at http://realsupergirl.wordpress.com:
78 people took the survey, though not all 78 completed the whole survey. All were U.S. residents.
34 of 77 people identify as “middle class” while 18 identify as “upper middle class” and 12 people identified their current class background as “lower middle class.” In total, that means 64 out of 78 people identified with the “middle class” - which means either my sample size of people taking this survey is drastically different from the national average of who is considered “middle class” or people have a broad definition of what middle class looks like. 7 people identified as “working class” and another 5 identified as “poor.” Only one person identfied themselves as “wealthy.”
Contrasting this with what people said about their actual family income, the largest percentage of people said their families made between 100K to 150K a year – 14 people or 21%. 9 people said their income was MORE than 150K a year, four of whom said their family income is more than 200K a year. Another 11 people said their family incomes were 60K to 80K a year, and 10 people said it was 80K to 100K a year. 10 people said they only make 20-40K a year in family income, 6 people said they make under 20K, and 7 people said they make 40K to 60 K. For reference, according to the U.S. Census, the median American income for 2008 was $50,303 which would mean the average American family income would be around $100K. So if 100K is the median household income, surely those 23 people who make 60K or less a year in famly income would be considered “poor” or “working class” or “lower middle class” – at least by income bracket. And in fact, 24 people listed themselves as one of those three categories, though by far the tendency was for people to opt for “lower middle class.” One could speculate that the stigma of identifying as “working class” or “poor” might have pushed people towards this option. On the other end of the spectrum, with 9 people identifying their income as 50K more than the median American family income, it is curious that only one person opted to label themselves “wealthy.” There seems to be a stigma on the other hand (a kind of “rich guilt” factor) that makes people round down their class iden y to “upper middle class” rather than identify as “wealthy.” So the net result is that we have a lot of people identifying with the “middle class” than who actuallly appear to fit the definition of “middle class”, at least in terms of income.
But class is much more than income. In terms of profession, 42 people identified with middle or upper class professions. Only 68 people responded to this question. For operational definition, a middle or upper class profession is one that requires advanced schooling (doctor, lawyer, therapist, academic, engineer, religious leader, CEO) and/or the person in that field has sought it out as a “professsion” rather than simply a means to an end, which is why I include graduate students and artists in this category as well. By contrast, 22 people selected jobs that were more working class in nature: government employee (6), small business owner (5), military (2), service industry (6), and administrative (3). Three people indicated that they were unemployed, one of whom reports they collect disability. Putting these results together with the results about current income level, two thirds (62%) of the people work in typically middle class professions but 82% of respondents identify with the middle class, largely because of the tendency of people to both round up and round down their incomes in order to avoid identifying as either rich or poor.
This leapt out at me.There seems to be a stigma on the other hand (a kind of “rich guilt” factor) that makes people round down their class iden y to “upper middle class” rather than identify as “wealthy.”
Did you just measure the stigma of "rich guilt", Supergirl?
How delightfully squirrelly.
well, how else would you explain the tendency of people to "round down" their income from "wealthy" to "middle class"?
"wealthy" is a relative term.
Is 200K/year considered wealthy? To some, perhaps, to others, perhaps not.
It's a lot more than I make, but I would still consider that level of income to be between middle-class and upper middle-class.
I would study more before generalizing from such a small sample.
You answered your own question, I think.
"....or people have a broad definition of what middle class looks like. "
I'm assuming you got that $50,303 number from here.
That $50,303 number is median household income. You did not need to double it. If you're in a household bringing in $60k, you're among the wealthiest third of the country.
I'm beginning to wonder if Supergirl's teetering on the edge of confirmation bias. That's a pretty huge mistake to miss.
It certainly derails a lot of her analysis IMO. I strongly disagree with trying to tie "working class" to "lower middle class" or "poor". Skilled laborers like plumbers and electricians definitely qualify as working class people and I'd say a good chunk of them can be considered upper middle class.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 08-27-2010 at 03:00 PM.
oh, good point.
In terms of MONEY, yes. In terms of class identification, and at udes toward work and money, they are solidly working class.
In terms of the analysis that flows from it, it's pretty much a fatal point.
Try telling a New Yorker who makes ~$200K that he's "rich."
she may also be going on the model that studies how one makes the money. in other words, there is definitely a class distinction between the plumber who makes 100,000 per year and the actuary (and college grad) who makes the same. income is not the only criteria by which to judge class distinctions.
I still think it boils down to her original ascertation,"....or people have a broad definition of what middle class looks like. "
not much interesting data here
I hope this "research" is being done for a stats class or dissertation at a cut-rate grad program. Otherwise,
I think it was brassy of Supergirl to design a quasi-sociological study, get us to participate, and share the results.
She didn't have to share the results or her opinions about them. I salute her for that.
yup. she never stated anything more than she enjoys these endeavors either.
questionaire, i guess i shd say instead of study.
yes, obviously where you live affects how far your money goes. Yet, people still make choices about where to live, and the prices of real estate/rent in Manhattan is what causes people to move out to Brooklyn and further out and commute in to work.
If 50K is the median American income, 200K *HAS* to be considered "wealthy".
What's also worth noting is that 50K figure is falling...the median American income has declined the last few years. While expenses keep going up.
Agreed.
I put upper middle class because that's what I thought, not because of any rich guilt. Now that you put "has" in all caps with asterisks around it I can see that you are absolutely correct and I am in fact wealthy. Go ahead a change one upper middle class to wealthy for your class survey. I can't wait for my wife to get home so I can share the good news that we have moved up in life.
bourgeois elitist pig!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
