Talk:Upper middle class

Archive 1

Removed British info as irrelevant

I removed all information on the British class structure EXCEPT that which pertained to the British upper middle class. The rest of it can be found in Social structure of Britain, the article from which I assume it was copied. Dylan Stafne (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Seeing it as the last discussion on this page stopped on December 17, 2006, I have archived all discussion. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

UK

Please see my edit comments on removal of the extremely poor and misleading UK section. Another point of note being the bizarre assertion of a distinction between the definition of upper middle class in England as opposed to the rest of the UK.

In contrast with the term "upper class" one is left clutching at straws to identify any resonable difference between the UK or US definitions of the "upper middle" class distinction. Clearly the US and UK upper middle classes behave differently, but this is a difference of national culture and does not imply a difference in the way the middle class is defined. Having read the main body of the article and aside from the odd American idiosyncracy, I don't see why a separate definition for the UK is needed as the main section covers the UK understanding of upper middle class perfectly adequately. --JamesTheNumberless 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless I probably need to justify my removal of this section to some people here in more convincing terms than "complete twaddle". Let's look at it bit by bit.

This is a very specific class in England and is, in many respects, peculiar to England as its characteristics do not fit easily into the social gradations of the other constituent nations of the United Kingdom.

This is the sort of prejudiced statement that quite frankly I'd expect to hear in a Glasgow schoolyard (such as the one I grew up in) - and few other sources. It's a thin veil for the old "oh, it's just the English that are posh" argument and is not only POV, but is POV jumping up and down, with a silly hat on, waving a flag and shouting "Look at me, I'm POV!"

- In England this class of people is less easily defined, and personal wealth is not a necessary criterion. Frequently its members are members of professions (traditionally academia, law and medicine), although merchants too were able to penetrate its ranks. However, being a member of a profession does not automatically elevate a person to this class, and it is quite common for an upper middle class person not to work in a traditional profession.

This has already been said of America and in general. It is just as subjective a term in the UK as anywhere else and is not quantifiable by income, education, or by profession.

- Instead, accent, language, education (usually at a good public school), family background and understatement, in both behavior and taste, are defining characteristics of the upper middles. Although not of the landowning class, its members may aspire to the characteristics of, or be described as, gentlemen.

I think the upper middle class industrialist of Yorkshire might disagree slightly with the upper middle class antique art dealer in Bath on account of accent being a factor here. The practise of some individuals in dropping their regional accent and adopting RP is merely a localised manifestation of the upper middle class aspiration to be cultured; this has already been addressed and is not specific to the UK.

- The character of Charles Ryder in Evelyn Waugh's novel, Brideshead Revisited is a fine example of an early twentieth-century upper middle class Englishman. His language, accent and manners are similar to an aristocrat's, but in place of the aristocrat's self-assuredness there is an air of slight uncertainty and diffidence. A more modern day example is Charles in Four Weddings and a Funeral, played by Hugh Grant.

This says more about the universal relationship between classes (upper and middle) than it does about anything specific to the UK. Moreover, there is no cited demonstration of how either example represents the upper middle class and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Moreover, if these characters are upper middle class archetypes, what about their class (as opposed to their culture) is specifically pertinent to the UK? Are the upper middle classes of other nations so different? If so, in what way are these attributes uniquely British? Foor goodness sake, go watch any episode of Frasier and tell me the American upper middle classes can't exhibit the same level of neurosis --JamesTheNumberless 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not en expert on the British class system but only on the American one. But the paragraph you removed was complete OR (or at least it was unreferenced w/ no in-line citations). Unreferenced information is always subject to deletion. WP policy is very simple- just tell us what your sources tell you. In my opinion you edit helps improve this article. BTW: According to Gilbert's class model (currently seems to be most widely used one by sociology textbooks) Fraiser and Niles may actually be upper class. It is possible for some professionals to break into the upper class (Fraiser is a celebrity and Niles widely re-known in the field) if they distinguish themselves from the vast majority of professionals and assume the responsibilities and rewards of the upper class. Signature^brendel 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points, yet in the UK it would sound quite silly to call them upper class, as they're not nobs. I know there are differences between how Americans and British view class, and I think it may well become more of a grey area the further up the social ladder one looks, I just didn't think that section was adequate, largely due to it not citing its sources. If I have more time to source and collate material on this subject I might have a go at replacing it. I'm very glad that for once I've made a criticism on an entry where my reasoning has been understood - last time I suggested an article wasn't good enough I was accused of racism! --JamesTheNumberless 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Vacations to destinations such as Hawaii, shown above, may be seen as a hallmark of the Upper-middle class." - Where I come from in Ireland, going to Hawaii would actually lower your class standings. --AimlessDamo 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's opinion. How do you define class standing? Just prestige? Any sources stating that vacationing in Hawaii would lower your personal prestige? Sorry but that's OR. FYI: How sad, Hawaii truly is a gorgeous tropical paradise (though I think most Europeans go to Thailand or the Carabean for their tropical experiences). Signature^brendel 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The American class system does not constitute that of the entire English speaking world! The number of article links and references to American subpages represents the bias wikipedia seeks to rid itself of. More information from around the world is urgently needed on this article -- Kitkatcrazy 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"These people would traditionally speak with a Received Pronunciation Accent, generally formed through years of social breeding". I'm working class and I even I find that pretty out of order. I think this entire section should just be removed - it has no citations/references, and is blatantly biased with incorrect points of views Crankytoad 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in calculation of income thresholds

I believe this article makes a calculation error in its application of the 15% figure. If 15% of the population is in the upper middle class, then surely (common-sensically) there are some members of society who would fall into the "upper class" designation and have incomes higher than those in the upper middle class. However, the article uses the income threshold for the TOP 15% of the population as the income threshold for being in the upper middle class. This figure is clearly too high. The 15% of the population who are members of this stratum must surely fall somewhere on the right-hand side of the bell curve, but not the farthest right possible.69.228.197.129 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The UMC is not limited to the top 15% of earners. Some with lower incomes may still be UMC by vitrue of occupation and educational attainment. And, yes, the UC does contitute about 1% of the population (at least according to the models that state the UMC to be 15% of pop). Signature^brendel 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Education and Ideology

The education and ideology is not properly cited nor argued. Correlation is not causation. It is documented that the higher one's education level, the higher the chance that one is "liberal".

This does not mean that education causes liberality (in the American political sense, anyway).

It is equally valid, based on the study, to say that "liberal" people often seek out education or are more inclined to make advanced education a priority.

The sentence in the article argues that as one becomes more educated, one becomes more liberal: again, this is true in a the broader political theory sense--i.e. we are all liberals for exercising free speech on wikipedia, but may not be "liberal" in the American sense.

I don't have the time, but the sentence needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

US-Centric

Isn't this page rather Americanised? Especially as there's a separate page for the American middle class.

British Upper-Middle Class

Having got three quarters of the way through, I realised that this wasn't really talking about the British (or English) upper middles. I'm not in any way a snob, but this seems to be describing the middle classes. This seems to be written from the point of view of a lower middle class person who assumes that the middle classes are upper-middle. A true upper-middle class person, for example, would never, ever live in a suburb or live in the home counties, one is educated in the home counties, one does not live there.