If you're new here, you may want to learn what this site is about. I encourage you to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Are you upper-class or lower-class? Someplace in between? The New York Times has an interactive graphic that explains how class works.
While there are many characteristics that could be used to describe a person’s class, among the most influential are the person’s occupation, education, income, and wealth. Below are different ways of looking at class using these factors, as well as an examination of how mobility has changed in recent decades. The fourth tab presents results from a poll conducted by The Times that asked people about class issues.
The interactive graphic allows you to enter information about your financial status, and then it displays a graph indicating where these factors place you on the socio-economic scale.
Be sure to look at the other tabs. The income mobility graphic and the nationwide poll offer a fascinating glimpse at class differences in the United States.
[The New York Times: How class works]
.jpg "The Money Blog Network - Improving your bottom line")
May 29th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I wonder how entrepreneurs play into that model? If you go buy “millionaire mind” it would seem few have much college.
Thoughts?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Funny, there wasn’t a choice for how much expensive flashy crap I own. I thought the way I show that I’m upper class is by maxing out my credit card on useless toys, cars, and fashions. Come on NY Times, you’re really not being fair and balanced on this one.
/sarcasm
May 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I would like the graph to include household indebtedness (including and excluding mortgage(s)). The graph’s asset category is ambiguous since most people (homeowners) factor in home equity into their assets. However, the info I have been reading recently suggests that most people (homeowners) have no equity at all in their residence or have negative equity. This is the result of using the house as an ATM.
MG
May 29th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
And then there’s Paul Fussell’s category X, i.e., those people who have escaped out the back door of the whole class racket altogether. Fussell described these people as the types who are “self-cultivated” often self-employed, independently-minded types who make daily efforts of discovery, who are devoted to art, writing, creative work, and originality. They might read the King James Bible *and* the Satanic Bible, finding the value in both. They are freely obscene when they want to be. Fussell described them as a kind of “unmonied aristocracy.” On the whole, they are FREE and therefore unterrified as to where they fall on the ladder. Who would be a good example? Writers, of course. But they could be hippie-businessmen, too. They could be regular businessmen who come home at night and read Nabokov. They could be the janitor w/ the knowing eyes standing next to you in the elevator …
May 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I’m surprised the wealth bar isn’t adjusted for age. According to this I’m pretty middle-of-the-pack, but according to other reports I’ve seen most people my age (early 30s) have less than $20,000 saved, and for younger age groups it’s less than $5,000.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
MG - re #3 - I doubt if MOST homeowners have negative equity. A lot depends on when the house was purchased and the type of mortgage. People having negative equity or being foreclosed on due to crazy mortgages makes good headlines; so does mortgage companies driving themselves out of business by writing crazy loans. But then there’s my dad and people like him, who paid off their first mortgage and (perhaps) have a small second…
May 29th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
It’s so unlike the NY Times to promote class warfare. Oh wait, no it’s not.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I fail to see how class or any discussion of where you fit is relevant. To anything. Ever.
I must be one of those X people.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
[...] do we have money? Evidently, it’s there so it can be one factor in the NYTimes Class selector. It seems that we don’t have enough tools telling us how to run our lives. Let’s input [...]
May 29th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I hope you enjoyed my post on the NYTimes Class selector. Obviously, I think it’s pretty comical…
http://www.capitalai.com/blog/
May 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Yes, I think an age factor would be useful … i dont care about the old joneses, I care about keeping up with the 20 something joneses
LOL
May 29th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I once read that a huge majority of Americans consider themselves “middle class”. So, when pundits and politicians rage about how this or that policy will help or hurt the middle class, I guess we all think they’re talking about us!
I think it is relevant to think about how we see ourselves. I grew up in probably “lower-middle America” (military family). Knowing now that I am now better off than most people in the world (as far as material comforts) keeps me both humble and thankful.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
[...] Rich Slowly explains how class works. Are you upper-class, or lower-class, or somewhere in [...]
May 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Does anyone have any information on average net worth and age?
FT
May 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Okay, where would you folks place me? I am a boomer with a college degree, a menial minimum wage job and income, and a negative net worth.
I have read Fussell, and my best guess is that due to my education, in his hierarchy I would be a “middle proletarian” rather than a “low proletarian”. Also, my job affords me greater autonomy than is typical for a low prole. (Below “low proletarian” are the “destitutes” and the “(bottom) out of sights”.)
And it’s funny…Fussell includes a drawing of a low prole regarding a passerby destitute with disdain…and I know exactly how that feels, as I have to deal with destitutes at work all day long and I have come to despise them.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:15 am
I like how class doesn’t work like that in England. Class is defined by the words you use, the pursuits you have and the values you espouse.
By English standards I am lower to middle middle class living in a working class neighbourhood. My income level is relatively unimportant.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:53 am
I wonder how cost of living factors into the equation also. I know that my income is in the upper 75% of the national average but because of the high cost of living in the Washington D.C. area my wife had to get a job for us to be able to own a home.
With her working we move up into the top 95% of the national average, but we can barely afford a small town home.
I’m sure this study isn’t capable of showing the details but I’d love to see this weighted to account for cost of living etc.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:15 am
I work with the guy who did that interactive chart.
Small World!
May 30th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Hmmm… I was playing around with the numbers for a few different people, and I was just seeing how it worked out - I’m surprised that it lists a physician assistant, which requires a masters degree, as much lower than a registered nurse, which doesn’t. (64th vs 72nd percentile)As far as I know a PA makes a lot more money than an RN also…
I’m just curious what statistics this graph is based on…
May 30th, 2007 at 6:42 am
May 30th, 2007 at 7:12 am
My goodness that was a laugh. Thanks JD. According to that calculator I was in the top 5th on everything and scored an overall 85th percentile, so I’m in the upper class and no one told me. *grin*
CD
May 30th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Million Dollar Journey–Liz Pulliam Westin over at MSN.com (I think) had a series of articles not too long ago about breaking down financial stats by decade: 20s, 30s, 40s. Interesting stuff!
Canadian Dream–I actually think that’s one of the beauties of that graphic, actually. It’s incredibly easy for well-educated, well-off people to only associate with other people in that demographic, and to essentially forget the facts about people who are (often much) worse off.
I was discussing this very chart on a different forum, and someone commented about how shocking it was a mere bachelor’s degree would land you so far up the chart. Well, only something like 25% of the US population has a bachelor’s degree, so presumably a much smaller percent have advanced degrees….chances are people who have degrees of *any* stripe almost exclusively work with and socialize with other educated people, so it’s hard to fully conceptualize what life is like without that level of education.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:43 am
It’d be nice to believe that democracy has achieved a classless society, but then again it’d also be nice to believe that I get to work on a unicorn that craps perfume-scented marshmallow flowers.
More info for you, Million Dollar Journey
http://practicalmoneyskills.com/english/at_home/consumers/debt/worth/net.php
Joe I think it’s going a bit far to say the NYTimes is fomenting class warfare. Someone’s been reading his freerepublic too much.
I do have to say I very much question if a Bachelor’s instantly puts you in the Upper Class. There are plenty of universities that hand them out like they were currency in the Weimar Republic, and age and COL adjustments are definitely in order for wealth.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Great find JD. I had fun playing with this.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:58 am
[...] (via Get Rich Slowly) [...]
May 30th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Latro,
Good point about cost of living. That’s probably why I don’t feel as upper-middle/upper class as the graph says I am. Sure I earn well over the national average, but that’s barely enough to buy me a one-bedroom condo here. Like you, if my girlfriend and I moved in together we’d be able to scrape by with a townhouse. A house is completely unattainable at the moment.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:01 am
[...] is about. I encourage you to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!In our discussion about socio-economic class on Tuesday, Angie mentioned a series of articles from Liz Pulliam Weston (my favorite personal [...]
May 31st, 2007 at 5:52 am
So I got to talk to Dr. Beveridge, one of the researchers for this article, yesterday. He was thrilled to know it got picked up by us.
He did acknowledge that age or location are also important, but that to include them would have complicated the model (I am trying to paraphrase him, so this is my interpretation of his thoughts) and then it wouldn’t have been as user friendly.
Please stop by his website (its on the NYT article) and give him your thoughts. They have alot of other fun tools there too.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:46 am
[...] JD at Get Rich Slowly) Potentially related [...]
June 1st, 2007 at 12:02 am
incredible link.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:10 am
Why?