Classism is one of the most conspicuous, yet tabooed subjects in the US’s mainstream conversations and media today. While sociologists present competing models to represent the social stratification in society, most will agree that social class is distinctively divided. Remarkably, the argument that society is classless is mistaken since it fails to appreciate the fundamental psychology of duty and rewards. The obscurity in defining basic terms relating to social class such as rich or poor emanates from the fact that social stratification is entirely subjective. Despite the slightly differing definitions, simple economic analyses inform our collective agreement on the presence and influence of social strata. For instance, as of 2019, the top 1% held about 40% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 80% owned less than 7% (Murphy, 2019). That said, this paper discusses the outcomes of classism in America and what that means for the future.
Far from wealth, social scientists consider aspects such as occupation, social status, education and social network in computing an entity’s placement in the socio-economic hierarchy. However, these metrics are not discrete, considering that some of the strata rely on more far-reaching elements of measuring worthiness such as political ideology and party identification, which are beyond these simplistic confines. For the simplest classification models, Americans are identified as either upper class, middle class and working class. More complex models have elaborate categories numbering as high as six. One such model has each general level (i.e. upper, middle and lower) ramified into two more; upper and lower. Notably, as one climbs down the hierarchy pyramid, the numbers soar, explaining why most of the nation’s wealth is held by higher occupants closer to the apex.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
We are an upwardly mobile population, evidenced both by social and structural mobility. Precisely, The US’s upward mobility is fuelled by the aggressive and technology-savvy youth, who account for about 64% of the lower upper-class distinction (Hernandez & Bui, 2018). Besides, the upward mobility is evidenced by the burgeoning elites whose wealth is not inherited but instead forged from their careers. Garner (2017) argues that while the American Dream might be on its deathbed, the recent rise in human capital empowerment and globalization provides an equitable Launchpad from which anyone can build personal enterprise. More so, the upward mobility is seen from the democratization of the economy. However, upward mobility is not in perfect equilibrium. That is noted by Jeyifous (2017), who observes that compared to thirty years ago, a US child today is seven times less likely to rise in social class from that he/she was born it.
The US seemingly falls behind its peers regarding intergenerational wealth, displaying low elasticity between father-son earnings. One of the reasons is the lack of concrete policies to harness the opportunities envisioned by the American Dream. However, Murphy (2019) maintains that as with other indicators, the intergenerational wealth metric depends on the city. Controversial as it appears, the rationale explains the contradictions between upward mobility across the social strata. Despite the acceptable generalizations, it would be tolerable to posit that children starting low in New York, Boston, San Francisco and Salt Lake City are more likely to end up wealthier than their counterparts in New Mexico and Alabama.
In conclusion, wealth in the US, as everywhere else, is tightly bound to socio-economic factors such as father-son earnings ratios. All things considered, the US’s economy is not balanced at all, but not surprisingly, offers a sustainable economic Launchpad. While finite details in social mobility and intergenerational wealth are ambivalent and at times confusing, the American Dream seems to run deep through the veins of the economic strata. Above all, a classless society is only theoretical, and would not befit the US economy, given the economic stimulus evoked by the wealth disparities.
Reference
Hooks, B. (2000). Where We Stand: Class matters. Psychology Press.
Jeyifous, O. (2017, June 25). “America’s Class System: Tackling a Taboo Subject.” The New York Times. Retrieved https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/opinion/americas-class-system-tackling-a-taboo-subject.html
Garner, D. (2017, July 25). “On the Touchy Subject of Class in America.” The New York Times . Retrieved https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/books/paul-fussell-class-in-america.html
Murphy, H. (2019, May 20). “Why High-Class People Get Away with Incompetence.” The New York Times . Retrieved https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/social-class-confidence.html
