- 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?
In my exploration of the concept of social class, I have found that there is significant overlap between the public’s understanding of social class and its definition in political discourse. As observed in reading 4.1, social class is typically described through various categories that accentuate superficial aspects, such as how individuals present themselves or how they categorize their social standing, including lower class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class.
This subjective approach to defining social classes often focuses on factors like income, education, manners, and the type of environment one resides in, whether that be rural or suburban, or even in a more impoverished area. People commonly associate social class with visible markers of wealth, such as the type of car someone drives, their clothing, or jewelry passed down as heirlooms. These assumptions overlook the critical distinction regarding income generation: working-class individuals often rely solely on their labor for income, whereas those in the wealthy class can generate passive income through investments without the need for continuous effort.
The readings suggest that true social class can be more accurately defined by the categories of the working class and the capitalist class (the wealthy or owning class). Throughout both readings, I have noticed how they interrelate in their content. Ultimately, it boils down to a distinction where the wealthy are the owners of resources, while others must work to acquire what they need for their livelihoods. Both subjects share a commonality: they are both driven by money and are interconnected. Just like a tree and a human being, where we rely on oxygen and trees rely on us to exhale carbon dioxide, each cannot thrive without the other. In other words, if there were no laborers, capitalists would not exist
2.I live in Times Square, near the west side of 42nd Street, where the subway lines connect all the letters to the 1239 number line. This area serves as a microcosm of the city itself. It tends to cater to the low middle class, upper middle class, and upper class. The social classes do differ from west to east, with the west side of Manhattan showing a distinct separation based on income levels.
The west side is often seen as “new money,” meaning it’s comprised of individuals who earn their wealth, typically with incomes ranging from a minimum of $20,000 to upper middle class levels of $150,000 to $250,000.
As you move further east, you’ll find large corporations and residences belonging to what we categorize as “old money.” These residents often include business executives, professionals, and those with significant investments or inheritances, reflecting a higher socioeconomic status. The value of these properties can range from $1 million to well over $10 million, depending on size, location, and amenities.
These are individuals who may or may not have a regular income but sustain their wealth through investments and profits.
On the west side, people range from those considered poor to those who are wealthy, and they generally need to earn an income to sustain their living arrangements and maintain their standard of living. In contrast, the corporations and residents on the east side typically engage in business and possess the investments that classify them as part of the wealthy class. This displays how the wealthy have separated themselves from the working class through the train system. The west side of earned income transportation is within close proximity, while the east side tends to be the farthest from the trains. The buses that run on York Avenue, near the FDR Drive and Second Avenue to even Third and Park Avenue, do not operate consistently. This inconsistency may be because the wealthy possibly have chauffeurs or private means of travel, which eliminates their need for public transportation. This is another way they maintain exclusivity from the laboring class.
There is also a significant homeless population in the area, which is often obscured from view. To maintain the image of Times Square as a tourist attraction, law enforcement and nonprofit organizations work to provide safe havens for the homeless and keep the area looking appealing. Times Square is often perceived as a utopia, a glamorous hub that hides its less fortunate realities. The presence of the working class in subsidized luxury housing helps to create an exterior that draws visitors to the area’s glitz and glamour, where stars are born, and attractions like Broadway shows, fine dining, and cinemas abound.
I feel that this is an inaccurate representation of the people. While there is affluence in the area, it is overshadowed by a significant celebrity presence and the excessive construction of luxury high-rises. This situation obscures the needs of low-income and middle-income classes, leading to a lack of necessary programs for these specific social groups. Additionally, it may create a misleading assumption that living among the wealthy means there is plenty to go around. In reality, the disparity in monetary distribution is staggering, with the wealthy retaining most of the profits while the laboring class struggles. The situation is severely disproportionate.
3.Based on Reading 4.2, I’ve noticed a general pattern regarding social classes in NYC. The Laboring Class tends to be grouped together and is separated from the Capitalist Class. For instance, the Financial District is surrounded by affluent high-rise buildings that offer accessible resources and specialized/private education. In contrast, the Laboring Class is more collectively joined, with businesses in their areas often being local delis, public housing, and liquor stores. Some neighborhoods, like parts of the Bronx, are characterized by what could be described as “desert land” due to the surrounding poverty-stricken resources, with limited amenities. This situation is compounded by repressive state ideologies, such as those embodied in RSI, which may lead to economic and social policies that benefit the elite while suppressing the rights and opportunities of the working class or marginalized groups. For instance, limited access to education, healthcare, or economic resources for certain populations could be a manifestation of this ideology.
