The American upper class is distinguished from the rest of the population due to the fact that its primary source of income consists of assets, investments, and capital gains rather than wages and salaries. Its members include owners of large private companies, heirs to fortunes, and top executives of certain publicly traded corporations (more importantly, critically vital large scale companies and corporations).
Definitions
Income inequality, by percentile class, normalized to 1970 (PNG)Income inequality, by percentile class, logarithmic scale (PNG)
The American upper class is seen by some as simply being composed of the wealthiest individuals and families in the country. The American upper class can be broken down into two groups: people of substantial means with a history of family wealth going back a century or more (called "old money") and families who have acquired their wealth more recently (e.g. fewer than 100 years), sometimes referred to as "new money".[4][5]
The main distinguishing feature of this class, which includes an estimated 1% of the population, is the source of income. While the vast majority of people and households derive their income from wages or salaries, those in the upper class derive their primary income from business profits, investments, and capital gains.[5] Estimates for the size of this group commonly vary from 1% to 2%, based on wealth.[4]
In some academic models, the rich are considered to constitute 5% of U.S. households, and their wealth is largely in the form of financial assets, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and private businesses.[6] Other contemporary sociologists, such as Dennis Gilbert, argue that this group is not part of the upper class but rather part of the upper middle class, as its standard of living is largely derived from occupation-generated income and its affluence falls far short of that attained by the top percentile. In a 2015 CNBC survey of the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, 44% described themselves as middle class and 40% as upper middle class.[7][8][9] Some surveys have indicated that as many as 6% of Americans identify as "upper class."
Sociologist Leonard Beeghley considers total wealth to be the only significant distinguishing feature of this class and refers to the upper class simply as "the rich."[2] Beeghley divides "the rich" into two sub-groups: the rich and the super-rich. The super-rich, according to Beeghley, are those able to live off their wealth without depending on occupation-derived income. This demographic constitutes roughly 1% of American households. Beeghley's definition of the super-rich is congruent with the definition of upper class used by most other sociologists.[10]
Power and influence
The members of the tiny capitalist class at the top of the hierarchy have an influence on economy and society far beyond their numbers. They make investment decisions that open or close employment opportunities for millions of others. They contribute money to political parties, and they often own media enterprises that allow them influence over the thinking of other classes... The capitalist class strives to perpetuate itself: Assets, lifestyles, values and social networks... are all passed from one generation to the next. –Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, 1998[4]
Sociologists such as W. Lloyd Warner, William Thompson, and Joseph Hickey recognize prestige differences among members of the upper class. Established families, prominent professionals, and politicians may be deemed to have more prestige than some entertainment celebrities; national celebrities, in turn, may have more prestige than members of local elites.[5] However, sociologists argue that all members of the upper class have great wealth and influence, and derive most of their income from assets rather than income.[4]
In 1998, Bob Herbert of The New York Times referred to modern American plutocrats as "The Donor Class", referring to political donations.[11][12] In 2015, the New York Times carried a list of top donors to political campaigns.[13] Herbert had noted that it was "a tiny group – just one-quarter of 1 percent of the population – and it is not representative of the rest of the nation. But its money buys plenty of access."[11]
Social connectedness to people of higher income levels is a strong predictor of upward income mobility. However, data shows substantial social segregation correlating with economic income groups.
Functional theorists in sociology assert that the existence of social classes is necessary[5] to ensure that only the most qualified persons acquire positions of power, and to enable all persons to fulfill their occupational duties to the greatest extent of their ability. Notably, this view does not address wealth, which plays an important role in allocating status and power. According to this theory, to ensure that important and complex tasks are handled by qualified and motivated personnel, society attaches incentives such as income and prestige to those positions. The more scarce that qualified applicants are and the more essential the given task is, the larger the incentive will be. Income and prestige—which are often used to indicate a person's social class—are incentives given to that person for meeting all qualifications to complete an important task that is of high standing in society due to its functional value.[15]
It should be stressed... that a position does not bring power and prestige because it draws a high income. Rather, it draws a high income because it is functionally important and the available personnel is for one reason or another scarce. It is therefore superficial and erroneous to regard high income as the cause of a man's power and prestige, just as it is erroneous to think that a man's fever is the cause of his disease... The economic source of power and prestige is not income primarily, but the ownership of capital goods (including patents, good will, and professional reputation). Such ownership should be distinguished from the possession of consumers' goods, which is an index rather than a cause of social standing. – Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, Principles of Stratification.
As mentioned above, income is one of the most prominent features of social class, but is not necessarily one of its causes. In other words, income does not determine the status of an individual or household, but rather reflects that status. Income and prestige are the incentives created to fill positions with the most qualified and motivated personnel possible.[15]
If... money and wealth [alone] determine class ranking... a cocaine dealer, a lottery winner, a rock star, and a member of the Rockefeller family-are all on the same rung of the social ladder... [yet most] Americans would be unwilling to accord equal rank to a lottery winner or rock star and a member of one of America's most distinguished families... wealth is not the only factor that determines a person's rank. – William Thompson, Joseph Hickey; Society in Focus, 2005.[5]
Sociologist William Lloyd Warner also asserts the existence of class markers:
We are proud of those facts of American life that fit the pattern we are taught but somehow we are often ashamed of those equally important social facts which demonstrate the presence of social class. Consequently, we tend to deny them, or worse, denounce them and by doing so we tend to deny their existence and magically make them disappear from consciousness.
Warner asserts that social class is as old as civilization itself and has been present in nearly every society from before the Roman Empire, through medieval times, and to the modern-day United States. He believes that complex societies such as the United States need an equally complex social hierarchy.[16]
Assortative mating in humans has been widely observed and studied. It includes the tendency of humans to prefer to mate within their socio-economic peers, that is, those with similar social standing, job prestige, educational attainment, or economic background as they themselves. This tendency has always been present in society: there was no historical area when most of the individuals preferred to sort, and had actually sorted, negatively into couples or matched randomly along these traits.[17][18][19]
Education
Map of the eight Ivy League universities
Members of the upper class in American society are commonly distinguished by their extensive education and affiliations with prestigious institutions, such as the Ivy League and other private universities.[20] Often hailing from wealthy backgrounds, these individuals benefit from access to elite educational opportunities that serve as key mechanisms for maintaining their socioeconomic status across generations.
Upper-class parents prioritize securing their children's positions within their social stratum, frequently by enrolling them in renowned primary schools followed by prestigious middle and high schools. As they progress in their academic journeys, many aspire to attend elite private colleges, with such institutions representing the pinnacle of academic achievement and social prestige. Additionally upper class members may join exclusive clubs, secret societies, or select fraternities and sororities.
Religion
The spectrum of wealth accumulation in the United States is characterized by its diversity, mirroring the nation's intricate array of religious beliefs and customs. While individuals from diverse religious backgrounds have attained affluence, discernible trends emerge concerning the religious affiliations prevalent among the affluent segment of the population.
Within the American upper class, Mainline Protestantism stands out prominently in terms of religious representation. Among its various denominations, Episcopalians and Presbyterians notably feature prominently among the affluent segment of society. These denominations, steeped in historical connections to prosperous communities and esteemed institutions, have fostered networks of privilege and influence that permeate economic realms. In terms of social status, in the 1940s survey data showed the "top rank" comprised Christian Scientists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Jews. In the 1980s the top ranked were Unitarians, Jews, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and United Church of Christ (Congregationalists).[21] In terms of ocupation, according to sociologist Andrew Greeley, in the 1960s and 1970s, "Jews, Episcopalians and Presbyterians represent the elite of non-Spanish white Americans; Methodists, Catholics and Lutherans represent the middle class; and Baptists are the less successful."[22]
Episcopalians frequently originate from socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds and have traditionally occupied leadership roles in many spheres such as business, academia, high culture, and politics. Their focus on education, traditional values, and social obligation has fostered a climate of achievement and charitable giving within Episcopal circles, enabling the transmission and endurance of affluence through successive generations.[23][24]
Bradley J. Longfield argues, "Presbyterians, as articulate and educated members of the dominant culture in America, were significant shapers of that culture for generations."[25] Presbyterians have exerted significant influence on American economic and cultural landscapes, leveraging their cohesive community dynamics and shared values to advance financial prosperity. Rooted in Calvinist principles emphasizing diligence, discipline, and stewardship, Presbyterian congregations have cultivated an ethos of entrepreneurship and accomplishment congruent with the pursuit of material success in the United States.[26]
Apart from Mainline Protestantism, various religious communities have made notable contributions to the economic landscape of the United States. Jewish-Americans, in particular, have demonstrated exceptional achievements in finance, law, and entertainment throughout history. Their cultural emphasis on education, entrepreneurship, and communal solidarity has played a pivotal role in their pursuit of financial prosperity and success in diverse sectors of American society.
Similarly, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and Sikh communities have witnessed significant instances of wealth accumulation and entrepreneurial success, underscoring the rich diversity and vibrancy of America's religious landscape. Members of these communities, ranging from pioneering Silicon Valley innovators to influential figures in Wall Street finance, have left an indelible imprint on the American economy.
Empirical distribution of income
One 2009 empirical analysis analyzed an estimated 15–27% of the individuals in the top 0.1% of adjusted gross income (AGI), including top executives, asset managers, law firm partners, professional athletes and celebrities, and highly compensated employees of investment banks.[27] Among other results, the analysis found that individuals in the financial (Wall Street) sector constitute a greater percent of the top income earners in the United States than individuals from the non-financial sector, after adjusting for the relative sizes of the sectors.
Statistics
Median U.S. household income per County in 2021, showing the distribution of income geographically in the United States
A study by Larry Bartels found a positive correlation between Senate votes and opinions of high income people, conversely, low income people's opinions had a negative correlation with senate votes.
Top 5 states by high net worth individuals (more than $1 million, in 2009)[30]
1 2 Warner, Lloyd; Marchia Meeker; Kenneth Eells (1949). What is Social Class in America, Lloyd Warner. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
↑ Mare, Robert D. (1991-01-01). "Five Decades of Educational Assortative Mating". American Sociological Review. 56 (1): 15–32. doi:10.2307/2095670. JSTOR2095670.
↑ Doob, B. Christopher (2013). Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society (1sted.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. ISBN978-0-205-79241-2.
↑ Wade Clark Roof, and William McKinney, American mainline religion: Its changing shape and future (Rutgers University Press, 1987) pp. 110-113.
↑ Data comes from 17,700 interviews from twelve NORC surveys from 1963 to 1974. Andrew Greeley, Ethnicity, denomination and inequality (Sage Research Papers in the Social Sciences. #90-029 volume 4, 1976) pp. 13, 24. online
↑ Joan R. Gundersen, "Anglicans and Episcopalians in America." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History (2017).
↑ Robert Bruce Mullin, “Trends in the Study of the History of the Episcopal Church.” Anglican and Episcopal History 72#2 (2003), pp. 153–65. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/42612314 online[
↑ Bradley J. Longfield, "Presbyterianism and American Culture," Journal of Presbyterian History 84#1 (2006) pp. 28-36. [ http://www.jstor.org/stable/233363 online]
↑ Walter H. Conser, and Robert J. Cain, Presbyterians in North Carolina: Race, Politics, and Religious Identity in Historical Perspective (Univ. of Tennessee Press, 2011).
Davis, Donald F. "The Price of Conspicious [sic] Production: The Detroit Elite and the Automobile Industry, 1900-1933." Journal of Social History 16.1 (1982): 21–46. online
Farnum, Richard. "Prestige in the Ivy League: Democratization and discrimination at Penn and Columbia, 1890-1970." in Paul W. Kingston and Lionel S. Lewis, eds. The high-status track: Studies of elite schools and stratification (1990).
Foulkes, Nick. High Society: The History of America's Upper Class, (Assouline, 2008) ISBN2759402886
Fraser, Steve and Gary Gerstle, eds. Ruling America: A History of Wealth and Power in a Democracy, Harvard UP, 2005, ISBN0-674-01747-1
Ghent, Jocelyn Maynard, and Frederic Cople Jaher. "The Chicago Business Elite: 1830–1930. A Collective Biography." Business History Review 50.3 (1976): 288–328. online
Hood. Clifton. In Pursuit of Privilege: A History of New York City's Upper Class and the Making of a Metropolis (2016). covers 1760–1970.
Ingham, John N. The Iron Barons: A Social Analysis of an American Urban Elite, 1874-1965 (1978)
Jaher, Frederic Cople, ed. The Rich, the Well Born, and the Powerful: Elites and Upper Classes in History (1973), essays by scholars
Jaher, Frederick Cople. The Urban Establishment: Upper Strata in Boston, New York, Chicago, Charleston, and Los Angeles (1982).
Jensen, Richard. "Family, Career, and Reform: Women Leaders of the Progressive Era." in Michael Gordon, ed., The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective,(1973): 267–80.
Phillips, Kevin P. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich, Broadway Books 2003, ISBN0-7679-0534-2
Story, Ronald. (1980) The Forging of an Aristocracy: Harvard & the Boston Upper Class, 1800-1870
Synnott, Marcia. The Half-Opened Door: Discrimination and Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900–1970 (2010).
Williams, Peter W. Religion, Art, and Money: Episcopalians and American Culture from the Civil War to the Great Depression (2016), especially in New York City
Corporatocracy is an economic, political and judicial system controlled by business corporations or corporate interests.
A social class or social stratum is a grouping of people into a set of hierarchical social categories, the most common being the working class, middle class, and upper class. Membership of a social class can for example be dependent on education, wealth, occupation, income, and belonging to a particular subculture or social network.
In the United States, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP) is a sociological term which is often used to describe white Protestant Americans of Northwestern European descent, who are generally part of the white dominant culture or upper-class and historically often the Mainline Protestant elite. Historically or most consistently, WASPs are of British descent, though the definition of WASP varies in this respect. WASPs have dominated American society, culture, and politics for most of the history of the United States. Critics have disparaged them as "The Establishment". Although the social influence of wealthy WASPs has declined since the 1960s, the group continues to play a central role in American finance, politics, and philanthropy.
Social class in the United States refers to the idea of grouping Americans by some measure of social status, typically by economic status. However, it could also refer to social status and/or location. The idea that American society can be divided into social classes is disputed, and there are many competing class systems.
Old money is "the inherited wealth of established upper-class families " or "a person, family, or lineage possessing inherited wealth". It is a social class of the rich who have been able to maintain their wealth over multiple generations, often referring to perceived members of the de facto aristocracy in societies that historically lack an officially established aristocratic class, in contrast with new money whose wealth has been acquired within its own generation.
Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to one's current social location within a given society. This movement occurs between layers or tiers in an open system of social stratification. Open stratification systems are those in which at least some value is given to achieved status characteristics in a society. The movement can be in a downward or upward direction. Markers for social mobility such as education and class, are used to predict, discuss and learn more about an individual or a group's mobility in society.
Upper class in modern societies is the social class composed of people who hold the highest social status, usually are the wealthiest members of class society, and wield the greatest political power. According to this view, the upper class is generally distinguished by immense wealth which is passed on from generation to generation. Prior to the 20th century, the emphasis was on aristocracy, which emphasized generations of inherited noble status, not just recent wealth.
In sociology, the upper middle class is the social group constituted by higher status members of the middle class. This is in contrast to the term lower middle class, which is used for the group at the opposite end of the middle-class stratum, and to the broader term middle class. There is considerable debate as to how the upper middle class might be defined. According to sociologist Max Weber, the upper middle class consists of well-educated professionals with postgraduate degrees and comfortable incomes.
Social stratification refers to a society's categorization of its people into groups based on socioeconomic factors like wealth, income, race, education, ethnicity, gender, occupation, social status, or derived power. It is a hierarchy within groups that ascribe them to different levels of privileges. As such, stratification is the relative social position of persons within a social group, category, geographic region, or social unit.
In political and sociological theory, the elite are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a group. Defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, the "elite" are "the richest, most powerful, best-educated, or best-trained group in a society."
Though the American middle class does not have a definitive definition, contemporary social scientists have put forward several ostensibly congruent theories on it. Depending on the class model used, the middle class constitutes anywhere from 25% to 75% of households.
Affluence refers to an individual's or household's economical and financial advantage in comparison to others. It may be assessed through either income or wealth.
Social reproduction describes the reproduction of social structures and systems, mainly on the basis of particular preconditions in demographics, education and inheritance of material property or legal titles. Reproduction is understood as the maintenance and continuation of existing social relations. Originally formulated by Karl Marx in Das Kapital, this concept is a variety of Marx's notion of economic reproduction.
Social inequality occurs when resources within a society are distributed unevenly, often as a result of inequitable allocation practices that create distinct unequal patterns based on socially defined categories of people. Differences in accessing social goods within society are influenced by factors like power, religion, kinship, prestige, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, intelligence and class. Social inequality usually implies the lack of equality of outcome, but may alternatively be conceptualized as a lack of equality in access to opportunity.
Religious stratification is the division of a society into hierarchical layers on the basis of religious beliefs, affiliation, or faith practices.
The Gilbert model was developed by Dennis Gilbert as a means of a more effective way of classifying people in a given society into social classes.
In sociology, the upper middle class of the United States is the social group constituted by higher-status members of the middle class in American society. This is in contrast to the term lower middle class, which refers to the group at the opposite end of the middle class scale. There is considerable debate as to how the upper middle class might be defined. According to Max Weber, the upper middle class consists of well-educated professionals with graduate degrees and comfortable incomes.
The correlation between wealth and religion has been subject to academic research. Wealth is the status of being the beneficiary or proprietor of a large accumulation of capital and economic power. Religion is a socio-cultural system that often involves belief in supernatural forces and may intend to provide a moral system or a meaning to life. As of 2015, Christians hold the largest share of global wealth, at around 55%.
We are the 99% is a political slogan widely used and coined during the 2011 Occupy movement. The phrase directly refers to the income and wealth inequality in the United States, with a concentration of wealth among the top-earning 1%. It reflects the understanding that "the 99%" are paying the price for the mistakes of a tiny minority within the upper class.
Myth of meritocracy is a phrase arguing that meritocracy, or achieving upward social mobility through one's own merits regardless of one's social position, is not widely attainable in capitalist societies because of inherent contradictions. Meritocracy is argued to be a myth because, despite being promoted as an open and accessible method of achieving upward class mobility under neoliberal or free market capitalism, wealth disparity and limited class mobility remain widespread, regardless of individual work ethic. Some scholars argue that the wealth disparity has even increased because the "myth" of meritocracy has been so effectively promoted and defended by the political and private elite through the media, education, corporate culture, and elsewhere. Economist Robert Reich argues that many Americans still believe in meritocracy despite "the nation drifting ever-farther away from it."
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
