Tag Archives: middle class

New data show change in the class (identity) structure

Updating a 2013 post with the 2016 General Social Survey. Not a lot of interpretation, just some facts.

The GSS has, since 1972, asked Americans:

If you were asked to use one of four names for your social class, which would you say you belong in: the lower class, the working class, the middle class, or the upper class?

The latest data release, for 2016, confirms what I noticed before: a big rise in the percentage of people describing themselves as “lower class” since the 2008 recession, from 5% to 9%. This is striking when you zoom in on it:

gss lower class

Now, looking at the trend in all four classes, it’s clear there has been a decline in the proportion of people calling themselves “middle class” — which hit its lowest level ever in the series, 41%:

gss all classes

Is this important? I don’t know. The most common tendency in sociology these days is to use measures of education (one’s own education, or one’s parents’) to indicate social class, which is generally thought of in material terms, rather than as an identity issue (or as a question of what people actually learn in school). Of course there are sociologists who study class identity issues, but as a survey item I bet it’s more likely to show up in political science research.

Of course the political salience of “working class” was heightened by the election in 2016 (although the phrase itself was more likely used as an adjective than a noun; the noun in American politics remains “working families,” a term I dislike). And by “working class” of course most people meant White working class. A Google search of the New York Times site for [“White working class” 2016] produces 1,050 hits; [“Black working class” 2016] yields 37. But Blacks are considerably more likely to identify as “working class,” and less likely to choose “middle class,” than are Whites. Here is the breakdown for 2016 (at the mean of controls for age and sex):

gss class race

Of course that doesn’t account for common correlates of class identity; it’s just a description of the groups. I looked a little more closely at income. Here is how people report class identities by family income, this time at the mean of controls for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and marital status (partly to account for family size)*:

gss 2016 social class id

This shows that “working class” is most common among those in the $30,000-$50,000 range, and it dominates under $75,000, while “middle class” picks up most people over $75,000. Only people in the top bracket — and only a small proportion of them — identify as “upper class.”

I did a little checking to see what difference class makes on some common political issues. Regressions holding constant sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, marital status, and region, showed that working class people were more Democratic than middle class people (on a scale from strong Dem to strong Rep); but middle class people are more pro-choice, and also more likely to think “people can be trusted.” In similar models, class didn’t do much to explain confidence in organized labor, support for same-sex marriage, attidues toward taxes on the rich, the likelihood of owning a gun, political views (liberal v. conservative), or traditional gender attitudes. Still, I think it’s worth asking.

In summary, it’s interesting that the self-identified class structure may be shifting relatively rapidly, and the implications are to be determined.


* Code for the income regression, using the full GSS dataset through 2016, available here.

gen rndwt=round(wtssall)
recode income16 (1/11=1) (12/15=2) (16/18=3) (19/20=4) (20/22=5) (23/25=6) (26=7) , gen(incate)
label define cl_lbl 1 "$0-<17.5k"
label define cl_lbl 2 "$17.5-<30k", add
label define cl_lbl 3 "$30-<50k", add
label define cl_lbl 4 "$50-<75k", add
label define cl_lbl 5 "$75-<110k", add
label define cl_lbl 6 "$110k-<170k", add
label define cl_lbl 7 "$179k+", add
label values incate cl_lbl
mlogit class c.age#c.age i.sex i.race i.marital i.incate [weight=rndwt] if year==2016
margins incate
marginsplot

4 Comments

Filed under In the news

Play, supervision and pressured parenting

Americans about my age and older all seem to have stories about how we survived our school playgrounds without today’s cushy soft surfaces, safety-oriented climbing structures, and running water.

Here is a picture of the playground at my elementary school. I myself survived a fall off one of those seesaws onto the broken-glass-strewn asphalt, with nothing but a scrape to show for it (attended to by the school secretary — there was no “school nurse” back then either).
In the safety craze in recent decades, sadly, real seesaws were one of the first things to go.

Go back another few generations, and you’ll find stories like this — about 200 children killed in the streets of New York in 1910 (from the NYT Jan. 1, 1911).

Most of those kids weren’t in cars or wagons; they were playing in the streets, doing work for their families, or just wandering around unattended — there were no public playgrounds. In contrast, in 2009 there were about 10 pedestrian or cycling children killed by vehicles in New York City. Ah, the good old days.*

Nowadays

A USDA program uses digital cameras to analyze food selections and waste content as trays come and go from the lunch line in schools with high obesity rates.

As things have gotten safer for America’s children, of course, parents have become ever more concerned with their safety, as well as with their learning and development. Somewhere in America on a Sunday a few weeks ago, in an affluent community, a public playground was bubbling with activity. Every child seemed to be enjoying a rollicking good time on the latest safety-designed play equipment, cushioned by a luxuriously deep bed of mulch.

Also, each child seemed to be within a few feet of a parent or other adult caretaker — coaching, encouraging, spotting, supervising.

In recent years, concern about the physical fitness of children has increased, especially among poor children. Some researchers have asked whether the proximity of safe neighborhood playgrounds is one cause of the social class disparity in obesity rates. That would make sense because obesity rates are lower among children who play outdoors. But the relationship between social class and playing outdoors is not clear at all. Rich children have more access to some kinds of facilities, but poor children have more free time — and, where there is public housing, it usually includes playgrounds, like this one photographed in the 1960s:

shanks-playground

Photo by Ann Zane Shanks.

In Annette Lareau’s analysis of family life and social class, Unequal Childhoods, children of middle class and richer parents spend more time in organized activities, and poorer kids spend more time in unstructured time (including play and TV). But as these pictures show, there’s play and there’s play. Are middle class parents hovering more than poorer parents do, and with what effect?

Consider a recent article by Myron Floyd and colleagues (covered here), which attempted to assess the level of physical activity among children in public parks by observing 2,700 children in 20 public parks in Durham, NC:

[The] presence of parental supervision was the strongest negative correlate of children’s activity… the presence of adults appears to inadvertently suppress park-based physical activity in the current study, particularly among younger children. … This result should be used to encourage park designers to create play environments conducive to feelings of safety and security that would encourage rather than discourage active park use among children. For example, blending natural landscapes, manufactured play structures, and fencing in close intimate settings can be used to create comfortable environments for children and families. Such design strategies could encourage parents to allow their children to freely explore their surroundings, providing more opportunities for physical activity.

Interestingly, park in the pictured above has a fence around it so that parents can hang around at a distance with little fear for their children.

Under social pressure

In Under Pressure, one of many books bemoaning the excesses of over-parenting, Carl Honoré wrote:

Even when we poke fun at overzealous parenting … part of us wonders, What if they’re right? What if I’m letting my children down by not parenting harder? Racked by guilt and terrified of doing the wrong thing, we end up copying the alpha parent in the playground.

The point is not just that some parents have overzealous supervisory ambitions, driven by unequal investments in children and a threateningly competitive future. I think there is a supervision ratchet that feeds on the interaction between parents. In an article called “Playground Panopticism,” Holly Blackford summarized her observations:

The mothers in the ring of park benches symbolize the suggestion of surveillance, which Foucault describes as the technology of disciplinary power under liberal ideals of governance. However, the panoptic force of the mothers around the suburban playground becomes a community that gazes at the children only to ultimately gaze at one another, seeing reflected in the children the parenting abilities of one another.

This plays out in everyday interaction, whether one wants to engage it or not. If everyone else’s kid is closely supervised while yours is running around bonkers on her own, is a parent to do? If the other parents insist that their kids not go “up the slide” and yours just scrambles past them, you feel the pressure. (You also put the other parent in the position of violating another taboo — supervising someone else’s child.) So it’s not just fear of underparenting that drives parents to hover — it’s also the cross-parent interactions. These are the moments when contagious parenting behavior spreads.

*I started looking at this after reading about it in Viviana Zelizer’s Pricing the Priceless Child, in which she writes, “The case of children’s accidental death provides empirical evidence of the new meanings of child life in twentieth-century America.”

Reminder: This blog post does not constitute research, but rather commentary, observation and recommendations for reading and discussion. The description of my childhood playground, and of one recent afternoon at one park, are anecdotes, something that stimulates reflection on wider issues, not empirical evidence or data.

18 Comments

Filed under Me @ work, Research reports

Home, school?

Homeownership and college education were booming trends after the mid-20th century, together ballooning the U.S. middle class — and distinguishing that class from those below it. As the century ended, haves had homes and college educations, and have-nots had neither.

The news about real estate markets reminds me that the connection between home wealth and college attendance was sometimes direct, as when experts advised parents to use home equity loans to send their kids to college (advice you don’t hear so much these days). But even without home equity loans, the wealth stored in middle-class homes — for most such families their largest asset — underwrote millions of college educations. I guess you could say the federal policies promoting homeownership were big boons for the higher education industry, not just the GIs and mostly-white suburbanites who landed inside the picket fences.

With economic shifts requiring more education for success, an increase in demand contributed to the rise in college costs. But to this non-expert it appears rising home values (and increased access to home ownership) were a factor as well.

Sources: Federal Housing Finance Agency; Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Given the compound fracture apparent in these trend lines, must something give? Maybe fewer people will go to college. Or we could increase access to student loans and grants, so the state would cover more of the cost, and widen the access to higher education. Or — just thinking out loud here — someone might look for a way to at least slow the increase in college costs.

Please feel free to set me straight on what’s missing here.

1 Comment

Filed under In the news

Single, Black and middle class

My friend Kris Marsh, who was a post-doctoral scholar here at UNC and is now on the faculty at U. of Maryland at College Park, is featured in a Washington Post story on the Black middle class in Prince George’s County, MD.

The story is about the growing presence of unmarried Black women in the county’s middle class. Kris is an expert in more ways than one, since her research also tracks the Black middle class.

When she was here, she (along with me and several others) published a paper on the growing presence of “Single And Living Alone” households among the Black middle class.

We counted people as middle class according to these criteria:

  1. Someone in the household graduated 4-year college
  2. Living in own home (not renting)
  3. Per-person income above the Black median.
  4. Highest occupation in household exceeds Black median.

Among the Black middle class defined this way, SALAs are a growing presence, especially among those under 35.

Source: New graph from the paper.

The Post article focuses on the local concentration of SALAs in P.G. County. It’s also good timing for the release of Kris’s latest article (with John Iceland), on residential segregation among SALA households.

Leave a comment

Filed under In the news, Me @ work, Research reports