The New York Times published part 4 of its series on class in America today. Great idea, but I think they missed an opportunity.
Sure, there are a few interesting nuggets to come out of their research, as in, for example, the increasing number of higher income people who now belong to evangelical churches, and the post-2000 shift in “mixed” marriages, i.e., for the last five years, it’s become more common for wealthy women to marry lower-income status men than the pre-millenium reverse tradition.
Overall, though, I found the Times’ bias throughout the series of “low income: good, high income: bad” irritating and unrealistic.
This is especially true of the third segment, on marriage and upward mobility.
The articles never talk about the bad behavior that I encounter every day from some of the locals here: tailgating, almost always by men in pickup trucks, for example, symptomatic of a deeper feeling of entitlement and territoriality. I can’t take credit for this theory: it was explained to me a couple years ago by one of the “townies”, a rough-around-the-edges gent who was unusually honest and articulate about such things.
Another example: yesterday, a good friend of mine explained the abominable treatment she’s received in her service job as a result of the working class backgrounds of her customers. Someone else – a man – disagreed with her, but I think she’s probably right. The undeserved attacks on her performance have been personal and defamatory, the kind of bad behavior we used to call “low rent” and now identify with Karl Rove and the Republican Wrong.
On the other hand, we know plenty of people in the trades who have been stiffed by the “haves”: doctors are reportedly the worst, real estate developers are a close second, etc.
So, there’s plenty of nastiness and blame to go around in the not-so-great American class war.
It’s just too bad that the Times didn’t present a more balanced perspective, choosing instead to give a platform to a bunch of whiners who have either married into wealth, or (by luck) found their way out of the lower or lower-middle classes.
Instead of being grateful for the opportunities they received, they complained about feeling out of place because they didn’t have a frame of reference to engage in social chit-chat, or had to think about the right clothes to wear.
Somehow, these seem like minor problems that can be overcome through a little research and a lot of observation, versus knowing that you can’t pay the rent this month because you lost your job.
The articles in the Times also neglected to talk about race and the importance of appearance generally in greasing the wheels to upward mobility. That absolutely floored me, since it’s the #1 most important factor in success in school, employment and marriage: the elephant in the room that somehow the Times never noticed.
One last thought: the Times included a clever, Flash-enabled matrix that allows users to discover their social class by education, income, profession.
Unfortunately, they didn’t provide a way to weight these factors by geographic location. So, if you live in a high-cost area, the matrix was pretty much useless.