1
Breaking Down Class in America
In the land of the “American Dream,” it is the common belief that there is a direct
relationship between hard work and success. In this ideal prototype, those who put in
long hours are bound for success and movement up the social ladder. Theoretically, one
could be born into the “bottom of the food chain,” and with some hard work, rise into the
realm of the social elite. As a testament to this global view of the United States,
immigrants from all over the world have made the journey to the “land of opportunity” in
hopes of better education, jobs, government, communities and lives for themselves and
the generations following them. All of this is based on a system of social stratification – a
guide to how successful one has been at achieving the American Dream. This evaluation
of social class is based on many components, some of which are presented to people at
birth, and not gained through hard work or money. The class system at play in the United
States has become extremely complex – no longer adhering to the basic class values of
our forefathers. Those trying to move up in the class system of America are often caught
emulating the behaviors of the rich and famous, but this does not necessarily make them
higher class. Many people think that there is a checklist to fill on their way up in the class
system, but there is more to being upper class than just talking the talk or having the right
credentials.
One way to look at class is with the model developed by Janny Scott and David
Leonhardt in their article, “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide,” in The New York Times.
They state that “[o]ne way to think of a person’s position in society is to imagine a hand
of cards. Everyone is dealt four cards, one from each suit: education, income, occupation
and wealth, the four commonly used criteria for gauging class” (Scott and Leonhardt 27).
2
Relying on these four criteria, a basic understanding of a person’s predicted class can be
built. While this model works fine for providing an elementary level of understanding, it
must be acknowledged that a person could rate well on this scale and still be in a different
class than those scoring similarly – there are many more benchmarks of class than those
mentioned in Scott and Leonhardt’s system. While this system could be considered an
oversimplification of the many parts that shape class in America, it is a fine starting point
for examining the most commonly observed markers of social class.
In Scott and Leonhardt’s model, one of the main components to class is
education. When evaluating the education of a person, their scale ranges from persons
with no schooling, then moves on to those who have graduated from high school, with
the highest level of education belonging to persons who have received doctorate degrees.
Focusing on education, a doctorate degree gives the greatest probability to be in a higher
class, while those with no completed education must rely completely on other means of
advancement. In an interactive “class calculator” presented by The New York Times
alongside “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide,” Archie Tse and Ben Werschkul assign
values to the many different options under each of the four main factors, allowing users
to plug in their own occupations, educations, income and wealth. After these values have
been combined, viewers can see which percentile they fall into for each of the four
categories. Also available is an approximation of the user’s class, based on the average of
all four scores. Lawyers, physicians and surgeons hold the most prestigious jobs, and
would score best on the occupation scale, while housekeepers, cafeteria workers and
janitors hold some of the least prestigious jobs. The other two categories, income and
wealth, are relatively straightforward. A person who earns over $60,000, the average
3
salary of an entry-level software engineer, would be placed in the top 20 percent of
earners in the United States. Citizens with a net worth of over $500,000 – an amount just
below the median price of a home in California - are in the top fifth category for wealth
in America (Tse and Werschkul).
Working through this prototype of class, values can be inserted to test the model.
People Like Us, a documentary filmed by Louis Alvarez and Andrew Kolker, examines
class in America – interviewing people from diverse social and geographical
backgrounds. High school aged Matt Heid lives in what most would consider relative
poverty. His family’s trailer appears to be parked in the middle of nowhere, surrounded
by miscellaneous trash, and the heating unit is missing. His mother, Tammy Crabtree,
walks ten and a half miles to and from her job as a janitor at Burger King each day.
However, Matt truly believes that he is of a higher class than his mother and the rest of
his family, and he even has the sweater vest to prove it. His idea of class starts with
appearance. He believes that the way he presents himself impresses the people around
him, allowing him to move into a higher class than he would be in otherwise. He does not
like introducing his mom to his friends because she does not “fix herself up and that’s
more or less what people look at, their appearance, not what the hell they act” (Alvarez
and Kolker). Matt aspires to become a lawyer one day, but his plan of action seems to be
somewhat flawed. Acknowledging that he is not “Harvard material,” Matt does not seem
to know exactly what is required to be as successful as he wishes to be (Alvarez and
Kolker). Matt scores relatively poorly in all areas of the class model, so we can assume
that he has some chance to move up in social class, but it isn’t guaranteed, and his
4
chances of reaching the top are slim. Even if Matt were able to slightly increase his
standing in one or two areas of the model, he would not be guaranteed success.
One of the common misconceptions in America is that as people get better jobs,
they are able to move up in social class. The stem of this belief is that with more
prestigious jobs come higher wages. While this is sometimes true, one must also consider
the economic situation of the United States. With growing inflation and rising cost of
living, many workers in the United States need to change jobs just to make ends meet. In
“Trash-o-nomics,” by Doug Henwood, we are shown the general decline in hourly wages
for both black and white men. From 1979 to 1993, men in the work force who had
college degrees plus two years of study towards post-graduate degrees held relatively
steady wages throughout that time span, while those with less education saw as much as
$22 per hour less than what they made in 1979 (Henwood 184). Given that only 3% of
the United States’ population has achieved a high enough level of education to be placed
in a group who maintained their salaries, it can be said that a huge percentage of the work
force found themselves struggling financially – forced either to accept a lower standard
of living, or to look for higher paying jobs that would allow them to hold their
socioeconomic status (Tse and Werschkul). As the gap between wages and cost of living
continues to increase, good jobs no longer guarantee class security. Examining these
changes, one can see that holes are developing in the “hand of cards” theory.
While most follow the conventional guide to success, others try to take shortcuts
to increase upward social mobility. In People Like Us, we are introduced to Vessa
Rinehart, a woman who is tired of attracting the wrong kinds of men. In hopes of
successfully mingling with people of higher social classes, Rinehart hires Ginie Sayles to
5
teach her a thing or two about class. Ginie Sayles, author of How to Marry the Rich and
other similar self-help books, provides Vessa with tips on how to interact with upper
class socialites. At one point in the film, Sayles tells Rinehart that the optimal distance to
stand from upper class people when having a conversation is sixteen inches, as if it is a
mathematical equation. When window shopping, Sayles states that men will
automatically know that Rinehart is a woman of “pedigree vintage” based on her
tendency to prefer bright colors, as if her color choice alone would raise her to the level
of her target audience. As parting words before sending Rinehart to adventure in the
world of the upper class, Sayles enlightens her student with the perfect recipe for starting
conversation while observing art at a Sotheby’s auction: “You want to put your toes even
with their toes, and that puts your shoulder even with theirs, and automatically put your
eye contact even … I wanna project I’m an equal, and that I’m confident, and that I have
class.” Through Rinehart’s rigorous training, she may have increased her self-confidence,
but as far as her actual social class, nothing has changed (Alvarez and Kolker).
When examining the limiting factors to upward social mobility, one cannot ignore
the saying; “Don’t get above your raisin’.” A great place to begin an exploration of this
concept is with Bill C. Malone’s book, Don’t Get Above Your Raisin’: Country Music
and the Southern Working Class. Looking into the lives of entertainers and their
supporters, Malone investigates the correlations between the popularity of country
musicians and the threshold at which fans can relate to them and their lyrics. Malone
explains that country musicians in particular are vulnerable to “gettin’ above their
raisin’.” According to the book, a huge factor in the popularity of a country musician is
their credibility – whether or not they can back up the stories they tell with their music
6
with life experience or understanding. Country musicians caught living the glamorous
and extravagant life linked to run-of-the-mill celebrities will often lose the support of
their core fans – the ones that watched them rise to fame. Malone advises entertainers:
“Don’t dream too high. Don’t forget where you came from. Above all, ‘don’t get above
your raisin’’” (Malone 28). This phrase, although simple on the surface, is extremely
complex and reflects years of southern mentality. In his book, he tells readers that one of
the major problems with gettin' above your raisin’ is the inevitability that one day,
however far down the road, one might look back and be ashamed of where they came
from. As entertainers rise into stardom, they often forget their roots for the ways of
people around them. Taking this common southern saying and generalizing it for greater
America, we see that one of the psychological issues inhibiting upward social mobility is
the fear of separating from one’s own social class. This mentality further complicates the
evaluation of class, as it falls in to neither the category of education, occupation, income,
or wealth.
Obstacles to upward social mobility are increasing in number and magnitude,
making it difficult for people to even hold onto the lives they are accustomed to. The
upper class is becoming more exclusive, but not necessarily by choice. The economy of
the United States can be blamed for some of the problems with upward social mobility in
the country. The upper class is making more money than they did 30 years ago, while
wages for the lower class continue to fall, proving the notion that our society is set up so
that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” While people will always try to find an
easy way in, class still refers to the total package, and often considers how one has gotten
to where they are. Owning the instruction book doesn’t mean fitting in with the rich and
7
famous. The best way to become a member of the upper class is the same that it has
always been – being born into privilege.
8
Works Cited
Henwood, Doug. "Trash-o-nomics." White Trash : Race and Class in America. Ed. Matt
Wray and Annalee Newitz. New York, NY: Routledge, 1997. 177-91.
Malone, Bill C. Don't Get above Your Raisin' : Country Music and the Southern Working
Class. New York, NY: University of Illinois P, 2005. 28.
People Like Us. Dir. Louis Alvarez and Andrew Kolker. 2001.
Scott, Janny, and David Leonhardt. "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide." Shadowy Lines
That Still Divide. 15 May 2005.The New York Times.13 Nov. 2008
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/overviewfinal.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1>.
Tse, Archie, and Ben Werschkul. "How Class Works." Graphic: How Class Works. 15
May 2005. The New York Times. 13 Nov. 2008
<http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_class_graphic/index
_01.html>.