Keep in mind our Online Discussion Guidelines:
https://openlab.bmcc.cuny.edu/pol-100-0501-fall-2025-introduction-to-american-government/online-discussion-guidelines/
Instructions for completing this discussion board assignment:
a) Identify which discussion question you are answering in your comment by placing the relevant number at the start of your answer. For example:
2. Crime has often been used as a form of social control by…
4. Michelle Alexander’s argument about segregation…
b) Respond to one other student’s comments.
NOTE: As usual, follow the guidelines from previous discussion board assignments, in answering by creating a new post…
- Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?
- Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?
- Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?
Conservatives and liberals have distinct views on government and social class. Conservatives generally believe that a large government threatens individual liberty. While they also argue that it can reward laziness, harm the economy, or resemble a socialist system, the core concern is that too much government control limits personal freedom. Conservatives also support lower government spending because it allows for lower taxes, leaving more money in the hands of individuals and businesses and promoting personal responsibility. In contrast, liberals believe that government should play a big and active role in society. They favor regulation and higher taxes to fund social programs, reduce inequality, and protect workers, consumers, and the environment. While conservatives prioritize liberty as their primary political virtue, liberals prioritize equality, reflecting their focus on reducing social and economic disparities.
Crime has often been used as a form of social control by the government or ruling class. Laws and the criminal justice system can be structured to protect the interests of those in power, targeting certain groups or behaviors to maintain social order and reinforce existing hierarchies.
The way social class is understood also varies depending on perspective. Both Readings 4.1 and 4.2 highlight that social class is shaped by income, education, and occupation, as well as subjective self-perception, and both recognize that class affects lifestyle, identity, and opportunities. However, Reading 4.1 emphasizes objective measures, such as household income and education, often relying on self-reported class placement in surveys. Reading 4.2 focuses more on cultural and social distinctions, including behaviors, tastes, and social networks, showing how class is also socially constructed.
Applying these concepts to neighborhoods in New York City illustrates these patterns clearly. Living in Washington Heights, the neighborhood tends to be working to middle class based on income and education, which aligns with expectations, though the area is diverse with both long-time residents and newer arrivals contributing to a mix of socioeconomic backgrounds. Reading 4.2 shows that, in general, NYC exhibits patterns of class segregation, with wealthier residents concentrated in areas such as the Upper East Side or Tribeca, while working-class populations are more common in neighborhoods like Washington Heights, parts of the Bronx, Brooklyn, or Queens. Class in the city is expressed not just economically, but also culturally through lifestyle, schools, and social networks.
In summary, conservatives and liberals differ in their views on government’s role, spending, and the political virtues they prioritize. Crime can serve as a tool of social control, and social class in the United States is shaped by both measurable factors and cultural markers. In cities like New York, social class patterns are often reflected geographically and socially, affecting how people live, work, and interact.
1. Similarities and differences (Readings 4.1 & 4.2)
Reading 4.1 explains that Americans often define their social class based on factors like income, education, occupation, and lifestyle. It also shows that people’s self-perception doesn’t always match their actual economic situation. for example, many identify as “middle class” even if their income or resources suggest otherwise. Reading 4.2, the New York subway article, uses geography and subway lines to highlight how inequality plays out across the city. It shows how stops along the same subway line can reflect very different social classes, with wealthier neighborhoods close to poorer ones. Both readings emphasize how social class divides people, but 4.1 looks at self-identity and perception, while 4.2 highlights visible patterns of inequality in the city.
2. My neighborhood station
The station closest to me is subway (F – train). According to the subway inequality article, the area around this station is mostly middle-class. This seems accurate to what I observe in my neighborhood. For example, I see types of housing apartments, public housing, luxury buildings, etc. and the kinds of jobs people around here tend to have. I’m surprised by how well the article reflects my community because it matches what I notice every day.
3. General NYC pattern (Reading 4.2)
The subway article shows that New York City has strong class divisions that follow transit lines. Some stations are linked to wealth and privilege, while just a few stops away, other stations reflect poverty and limited opportunities. This creates a map of inequality where where you live and which station you use can reveal a lot about your social class. The general pattern is that NYC’s diversity also comes with sharp economic contrasts.
I like how you compared the two readings by showing that one focuses on perception (how people see themselves) and the other on geography (how inequality shows up across the city). That distinction really stood out to me too, because it shows that class isn’t just about money it’s also about how people identify themselves and how the city physically reflects inequality. I also thought it was interesting how you connected the article to your own F train stop. I had a similar reaction with my station, noticing how a mix of housing types and job opportunities can really reveal the diversity of a neighborhood. At the same time, I think it’s important to consider how quickly those areas can shift because of gentrification or economic changes. Even if a station seems “middle class” now, the dynamics around it could change in just a few years. Your post made me think more about how fluid class can be, both in people’s identities and in the neighborhoods we live in.
I enjoyed reading your responses to readings 4.1 and 4.2 because you did a solid job connecting both readings with personal experience. Your observation about the F-line made me think about how layered class-identity can be since I also live off of the F-line, 179th street, but I notice a more working class community, especially near the last two stops, 169th and 179th street. I think this difference in perception reflects reading 4.2’s point made about the varying ways inequality becomes visible depending on where you are in the city and what stop you’re looking at. It makes me think about how much our daily commutes shape the way we think about social class.
Hi Divya! I really enjoyed reading your connections to both readings and how you interpreted both. I really agree with the points you made in your first response on what both readings have in common and I really liked how you emphasized the differences both readings had when talking about social classes. I also really liked how you described why you believe the station by you should be classified as middle class and went in detail to bring up exactly what led you to make that statement. I agree with your last response about 4.2 I also believe that NYC’s diversity comes with very sharp economic contrasts and I think its really insane how the changes between neighborhoods can be drastic even after a stop or two.
1) Both readings show that social class is not a straightforward concept, and they both highlight the disconnect between perception and reality. In reading 4.1, people often label themselves as “middle class” even when their income doesn’t really match that category. Reading 4.2 also shows this gap between belief and reality by pointing out that most Americans think wealth is more evenly distributed than it actually is thus resulting in categorizing themselves in the wrong bracket. The difference between the two readings is that reading 4.1 looks at self-identity and how people see themselves while reading 4.2 goes more into depth about the actual statistics of inequality.
2) The station that is closest to me is the F train- 179th street. Based on Reading 4.1, I would say people in my neighborhood are majority working class with a small percentage that actually identify with middle class. My reasoning behind this inference is because of the mix of public housing, apartments and family homes. The demographic of my area leans more towards ethnic backgrounds and those who are immigrants that tend to work more entry-level positions locally. The actual cost of living in this area compared to what people earn makes the middle class idea feel more like a perception rather than a reality.
3) Based on Reading 4.2, NYC shows the inequality of wealth through the many divisions through the city based on residence. In Manhattan, such as the Village, upper East side, Brooklyn’s Williamsburg and Queens with areas like Bayside or Forest Hills a commonality of higher earned income is more prevalent compared to areas such as the South Bronx, Jamaica Queens or East New York- where you can clearly see the economic contrasts between each area through our transit system. NYC tends to group together those alike to preserve social class divisions.
I think it would be interesting to examine how many people who live near your station commute into the city or elsewhere for higher-paying jobs. While I’m sure many do work locally, I’m also sure that many commute and rely heavily on access to that line. Makes me wonder how many people might work in a center of wealth in the city, such as FiDi, but actually live in Bed-Stuy.
Hi Elizabeth! I like how you explained your neighborhood near the 179th Street F train. I agree with you that many people see themselves as middle class although their income doesn’t match. And your point about how immigrants and different cultural backgrounds stands out because it shows how class and culture and class are one.
Hi! I really like how you broke down the main difference between the two readings. One focusing more on perception of class and the other on the actual data of inequality. I also agree with your point about neighborhoods, especially in NYC. You can definitely see how social class divisions are reflected just by riding the subway and noticing where people get on and off. I thought it was interesting how you connected the cost of living to the “middle class idea” being more of a perception.
1) Reading 4.1 and reading 4.2 highlights that there are many layers to social class. Many Americans use things like education and careers to describe their social class. Reading 4.1 highlights that social class is based on education and income. Reading 4.2 shows that our income affects the area we live.
2) base on the reading I would say the area I live in is mostly middle class. In the area I live you won’t see buildings, you would only see family houses or 2 family houses. You would see a lot of Caribbean families like my family.
3) base on reading 4.2 a pattern I see is the division throughout NYC. For example Williamsburg and Manhattan is where you would see the higher income families and Flatbush or Brownsville is where you see the working class families. Reading 4.2 basically highlights this.
1.Both readings agree that class is about more than money, it shapes people’s life chances. But while one focuses more on neighborhood differences, the other highlights the bigger picture of inequality across New York City.
2.Looking at the station closest to me, I notice that the surrounding area reflects a mostly working-class community. Most people rent apartments, rely on public transportation, and work in service jobs. This matches what Reading 4.1 said about how class is visible in neighborhoods. I’m not surprised by the result, but it does feel accurate.
3.Reading 4.2 shows that NYC is deeply divided by class. Wealth is concentrated in a few neighborhoods, while working-class and immigrant communities are clustered in outer boroughs. This reinforces inequality and makes it clear that class shapes where people live and the resources available to them.
Hi Cherub! I really like how you explained your understanding of the readings. I also think that class shapes our everyday life and chances. I also like how you described why the station closer to you is a working class neighborhood. I as well live near a working class area and I noticed a lot of the things you mentioned around here too. I also liked how you pointed out that the wealthier class exists in fewer neighborhoods.
Hey Cherub, I agree with you, especially with the statement “This reinforces in inequality and makes it clear that classes shapes where people live and the resources available to them” I agree with this statement because it pointed out how the availability of resources and good paying jobs are different between locations. If everyone were to have access to the same number of resources, then everyone would be on the same social class.
Hey Cherub, I not only agree but like what you said about your station it stood out to me, it shows how class shows up in everyday surroundings, not just in statistics. I also agree that NYC’s layout makes it extremely hard to ignore, since where you live often decides what opportunities and resources you have.
1. It seems both articles recognize that class is defined not only by money, but also by self-perception, education, age, and race. Both readings recognize and discuss the similarities of how people perceive their classes, but the reality may be different. The biggest difference between the articles seems to be that while 4.2 discusses how different neighborhoods and boroughs are tied to different levels of income, 4.1 discusses a lot of the sociology behind how people perceive their class.
2. The closest station to me is Morgan Ave (L) in Bushwick, BK. I think this statistic is a half-truth. The median income for this station is listed at around 80K, and yes, while much of the neighborhood is populated by educated, mostly white transplants, a lot of the neighborhood is inhabited by working-class Puerto Rican and Dominican residents. If we look at Montrose Ave, which is almost equally far as Morgan from me, you’ll see how the number is much more modest (37K). I think when you put these side by side, it shows how the neighborhood is being gentrified.
3. 4.2 shows how there are many centers of wealth within this city. Income inequality can literally be demonstrated by walking down some main streets in this city. It shows that wealthy areas are more in the center of the city (with some exceptions), and most of the working-class population is concentrated in the outer boroughs.
1. Both readings talk about social class has a way of dividing people based money, power, resources. They both are like because they both show class can affect people lives. They are different is describing what each class is and knowing which class lives of wages and living off investments. NYC shows people are easily they’re linked to their class.
2. The closet station to me is Staten Island and in the reading 4.1, I would say the area is mainly working class also known as middle class. Most people in Staten Island gain more income from wages or salaries. I’m not surprised due to many choosing to work in the city jobs, schools, construction etc. For example, it’s common to see people commuting to other boroughs for work rather than owning their own large business. This makes me believe that the working class is a perfect example of Staten Island.
3. Based on 4.2 reading I noticed that NYC, the wealthier classes tend to be closer to the center or known as the upper east side. These areas have very high rent just cost of living in general. The working class however pushed themselves to other boroughs where’s easier to afford life.this shows how and where people stay connected to how much money they make.
The station closest to where I live is Court Square (7), in Long Island City, NY. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, the social class that tends to live in my neighborhood is predominantly upper-middle class. The area is known for its luxury apartment towers, which command high rent and have been a major driver of gentrification. Gallup claims that it is because the income and the level of education allow people to feel they belong to a higher class. I am not surprised by the answer. I do feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in my neighborhood based on the income and educational level.
4.1
1) The data on social working classes shown on the charts may or may not be correct, but it helps me to understand how social classes are measured. One of the similarities I noticed between the 4.1 and 4.2 is that both use house income data to measure and rank social classes from the lowest to the highest. A difference I noticed is that 4.2 measures and rank social classes by locations, such as the subway, where the F represents a part in Jamaica and the median income for this location is $49, and is ranked as a middle class.
2) The closet station to me is Laurelton station LIRR. I am unable to compare the data on social classes in this location, because the projectsuwibway website is currently down. I will be back to update it once the site is back up. However, based on my research, the median income for this location is $110,120, which is significantly higher than the median for New York and Queens County. This location is ranked as the upper-middle class.
3) Based on the reading in 4.2 , I notice a different pattern where the center is higher, which means its median is higher than other locations. Therefore, that location is ranked the highest wealth of all.
I like how you explained the similarities and differences between 4.1 and 4.2. It makes sense that both use income to rank social classes but in different ways. Your example about Laurelton station was clear, and I agree that location can really change how we see social class in NYC.