1. Since the link for 4.2 wasn’t working and thus unavailable to read, I focused on what stood out to me from the 4.1 reading. I was a little surprised by the findings that those among the lower and upper classes both don’t think of themselves as part of those classes. While the sample size of participants may not be extensive, I still think it speaks to the greater perception of what may even be considered upper and lower classes, as demonstrated in video about wealth inequality. The distribution of wealth is so lopsided, with the 1% holding over 40% of wealth, those in the bottom and upper classes have a distorted view of their socioeconomic standings, that they are actually worse off than they realize, which potentially plays into why little or no action is done to try to improve things.

2. The data is a little skewed in my neighborhood, the Lower East Side. There are significant extremes of both lower/poor class mixed with upper/wealthy classes. This is not surprising to me since the Financial District is closeby and there are many luxury buildings within walking distance of housing projects, which is where the wide disparity comes from.

Keilany Rivera

Both Readings 4.1 and 4.2 present social class as something structural rather than purely cultural or based on lifestyle. In both readings, class is linked to income, access to resources, and economic position rather than personal labels or identity. Instead, they suggest that class is shaped by material conditions, including where people live, the types of jobs available to them, and their level of economic power.

Reading 4.1 tends to define class in a more conceptual way, organizing society into categories such as working class, middle class, and upper class based on factors like income level, education, and occupation. It is more theoretical in how it explains class structure. In contrast, Reading 4.2 takes a more empirical approach by focusing on geography. Rather than simply defining classes, it shows how different social classes are distributed across space, highlighting patterns of concentration and residential segregation. In this way, Reading 4.1 explains what class is, while Reading 4.2 demonstrates how class is physically organized across neighborhoods.

The area near where I live seems to reflect what Reading 4.1 describes as a working-class or lower-middle-class neighborhood. Many residents likely depend on wage labor rather than owning businesses or large assets. Common types of work in the area may include service jobs, retail, healthcare, and transportation. This does not surprise me, since the neighborhood is made up mostly of apartment buildings rather than luxury housing or high-value private homes. At the same time, I still notice differences in income, lifestyle, and educational opportunities even within a working-class community.

Based on Reading 4.2, New York City shows a clear pattern of geographic inequality. Wealthier groups tend to live in areas such as parts of Manhattan, while lower-income populations are more concentrated in other boroughs. This suggests that class is not only social or economic but also spatially organized across the city. Factors such as housing prices, transportation access, and school quality are closely tied to where different classes live. As a result, this form of residential inequality can also shape people’s opportunities and life outcomes.

1. Both readings 4.1 and 4.2 treat social class as something structural rather than just cultural and based on lifestyle. In both of the readings, class is connected to income, access to resources, income and personal labels. Instead both suggest that class is tied due to material conditions where people live and what jobs they are accessible to have or economic power. Reading 4.1 seems to categorize class more conceptually meaning working class, middle class and upper class based on income levels, education or your career. It’s more theoretical. The difference is reading 4.2 appears more empirical, it looks at class in terms of geography. Instead of just defining classes it maps where different classes live and show patterns of concentration and segregation. So while 4.1 explains what class is, 4.2 shows how class is physically distributed across neighborhoods.
2. The station closest to where I live is mostly surrounded by 4.1 because it describes working class, lower-middle class households. Based on the reading many residents tend to rely on wage labor rather than owning a business or large company, it’s likely they are small businesses, service workers, retail workers, healthcare workers and transportation employees. I am not shocked by this because housing consists of mainly apartment buildings rather than luxury apartments or family houses with large property value near me. But either way I think a working class neighborhood theres a difference in income or lifestyle or even education.
3. Based on Reading 4.2 there would be a strong pattern of inequality in NYC. Wealthier classes tend to stay in a certain area like deep in Manhattan and lower income populations tend to live in the other boroughs. The pattern suggests that class in NYC is segregated geographically, housing prices, transportation, schools, the neighborhoods are all connected to each class’s location.This inequality of where we live can affect opportunities as well.

2. The closest station to me is Brooklyn college/Flatbush Ave. Regarding the ideas I got from reading 4.1, I would say that a lot of the people in my community would be within the lower middle to middle class. Gallup said people take social class to mean more than just income, but also consider education, type of job, and way of life. There are a number of working families, students, small business owners, and old-timers around Flatbush. There is a variety of economy, but overall, it does not seem upper class or wealthy. I am not surprised by this classification, as the neighborhood has always seem mixed, but predominantly working and middle class. I do think this is a fairly accurate representation. There are some residents of higher income, and some families of less income who are struggling, but most people do seem to fall within that broad middle range that Gallup describes.

2. Based on the closest station to where I live and using details from the article “What Determines How Americans Perceive Their Social Class?”, I think most people in my neighborhood would align with the working class or the middle class. Considering both income and education, people here generally need to earn somewhere between 40k and 100k just to get by. Connecting this to the Gallup article, people earning in the 75k–99k range tend to assign themselves to the middle class, while those in the 40k–50k range predominantly identify as working class. I feel this is an accurate representation of my neighborhood, and I am not surprised by it because there are several restaurants in the area that are always filled with customers, which suggests a relatively stable flow of income for many of the people who live here.

1. Both readings talk about social class mainly in terms of income. In Reading 4.1, social class is explained as something people identify with based on income and education. As income increases, people are more likely to say they are middle or upper-middle class. Reading 4.2 also connects social class to income, but instead of asking people how they see themselves, it uses median household income in different NYC neighborhoods.

The main similarity is that both readings use income to separate social classes into categories like lower, working, middle, and upper. The difference is that Reading 4.1 focuses on how people see themselves, while Reading 4.2 focuses on actual income numbers connected to neighborhoods. One is about personal identity, and the other is about economic data and location. Parenti explains in Capital and Labor, where he says the owning class lives mostly off investments, while workers live off wages. This shows that class is not just about income levels, but also about whether someone owns wealth or has to work for a living.

2. The station closest to where I live is Dongan Hills on the Staten Island Railway. The median household income there is about $71,930. Based on the categories from Reading 4.1, this would most likely be considered middle class.

I agree that my neighborhood is generally considered middle class. However, there are still working-class families and people who struggle financially, even if the overall median income appears stable. Median income does not show the full picture because it averages everyone together rather than showing how income is spread out. It can hide differences within the community and overlook the economic gaps that exist between households.

3. Based on Reading 4.2, there is a clear pattern across NYC. Wealthier neighborhoods are mostly in parts of Manhattan and some areas of Brooklyn. As you move farther away from central Manhattan, especially toward parts of the Bronx and eastern Brooklyn, incomes generally decrease. Staten Island, including Dongan Hills, seems to fall somewhere in the middle compared to the rest of the city.

This shows that social class in NYC is not random. Where people live often reflects their income level. The subway map makes it easy to see how money and opportunity are spread across different neighborhoods, which connects to what we saw in the wealth distribution video.

1. For similarities I feel like besides the point of them talking about social class, I don’t think there are any in that sense. They’re talking about two different subjective things and again besides them being about social class there isn’t much similarities. As for differences, 4.1 talks about how people see themselves when put into a class situation. They looked at different contexts such as income, education, etc. Meanwhile, 4.2 is more based on statistics. It looks at neighborhoods and train stations, comparing the disparity of incomes. There’s no opinions here just simple facts that are through and through.
2. I think in my neighborhood there is upper middle class, and upper class people. I am not really surprised by the answer, as rent or owning an apt here is very expensive. And I also do think it is an accurate representation of the people living here. Everyone here also knows they’re well off as they have college educations and high incomes. Going back to 4.1, a lot of people see themselves as upper middle and upper, so that fits perfectly.
3. Looking at 4.2, by far. I think it is very accurate The patterns you see make a lot of sense, I mean if you go 10 stops away your in the cleanest richest part of city, but ten more and there’s a lot of less fortunate people there. I honestly find it disgusting that the gap in social classes in our so called best city in the world are leeching in huge disparities. You have people here who move around in private jets to go from Westchester to Newark, and you have people who also freeze to death in the recent snowstorm. I think it is terrible. Back to 4.2 however, the gaps and patterns are very real and if you ever take the train from one end to another you would know the disparities.

1. I’m not able to answer this since the second reading link is not working.
2. Since I live in Bay Ridge, I’d describe the area as a middle class, with some upper-middle class areas. In my neighborhood, there are a lot of working professionals, small business owners, and families who have lived here for a long time. The housing and businesses seem more stable than in low-income areas, but it’s not an extremely wealthy or luxury neighborhood either. I’m not surprised by that because from what I see, I think it’s a fair description. The area looks well maintained, and many people seem financially stable. At the same time, I don’t think one class label fits everyone here, as there are some people who are more financially comfortable, while others are closer to the working class.
3. I’m not able to answer this since the second reading link is not working.

Similarities and differences in social class

1. The reading explains that social class is not just about money but hat social class issues thing like income, education, and living condition to group people in society. Social class can be defined an many different ways, for example a lot of people defined social class on how people perceive themselves when it comes to their lifestyle or income while others look at in a more objective way with culture, education, and sometimes even race.

NYC Train Social Class

2. Based of reading 4.1 and me living in les manhattan , I would say its a mixed of both. In my neighborhood specificall my building where built for the lower income families, but since I live In manhattan a borough built for the more fortunate, we are surrounded by nicer building and higher income social class people that we see walk out they building and take the train with us everyday. I think it explains social class so well with how they just impact communities and our daily living with them choosing to build instead of help while prices of food go up, and affording healthcare gets more difficult

General patterns recognized in social class

3. A common pattern recognized is that a lot of people still identify themselves as middle class, even with statistics and income, even with big differences people still based there social class on comparison and identity rather than their income.