1. It seems that both articles see social classes through income distribution and separate the public into 5 classes: lower, working, middle, upper-middle, and upper. While the New Yorker article used median household income for their argument, the Gallup article focused on subjective social class, i.e., given 5 classes, what class would people assign themselves to.
  2. After I picked Myrtle-Wyckoff station on the L train, I saw a median reading of $37,885 which splits my neighborhood into working class people and people that consider themselves to be a part of middle class. The statistics used in New Yorker article is 10 years old, but it still holds – our neighborhood Is homogenous without areas of extreme wealth or poverty. Now, I believe the map might not be as accurate now since certain station like Dekalb Ave and Jefferson Street are marketed higher due to their proximity to the city or entertainment venues. 
  3. After spending some time studying the map, I am sure that the upper class resides mostly in Manhattan, specifically near transportation hubs or in areas with picturesque views. Lower- and working-class people tend to live further back from the city centers while middle and upper middle class inhabits culturally significant or trendy areas of New York City.

One thought on “Nikita Vasilyev – D.B. 4.1

  1. Hi, Nikita!

    1. I too noted those points in my post. Though the NY article did use median income as a deciding factor for social class, did you agree with that as a determinant for one’s social class. Do you think the people who rated themselves on social class did so truthfully?

    2. I was glad you acknowledged how old the statistics were. Yea even though their not very recently, it’s still not too far off from reality today except for a few gentrified areas in Brooklyn especially.

    3. And with that said I’m almost certain many of those people (including me) who work in those expensive neighborhoods do live very far away. Isn’t that funny?

    …have a great weekend.

Leave a Reply