The Physical Appearance of Class Differences and Wealth

From day one, middle-class merits are expected to do great things; they are expected to excel in school and sports, Brooks contends (194). He furthers this by saying that the activities that the middle-class participates in become the “bricks” of their identities (195). Brooks argues that character is not created in youth and just retained throughout life, but is built up gradually and people must struggle to maintain and improve throughout their lives (195). He moves his argument forward by talking about how society will reward these meritocrats (195, 196). Brooks believes that society is constantly praising these kids, and that this praise pushes them towards the realization that their success means nothing, unless they give back to society (196). He uses the example of a baseball player enjoying trips to clinics to share stories with the younger kids there (196). Brooks then moves into discussing the choices meritocrats must make later in life; he insists that some people can choose to be made famous because of looks or money (196). He says the other side of this, is to choose an opportunity more worthy of your time and others’ praise

Individuals within a society are grouped into certain rankings that is based on their wealth, income, race and education known as the social stratification. Sociologist use this to determine the social standings of individuals within a society. Social stratification can also appear in much smaller groups. These groups such as the work place, schools, and businesses can “take the form of a distribution of power and authority down the ranks”. (Cole, 2017) The Caste system is also another form of stratification that one does not get a choice in. They are born into it and regardless of their talents will hold positions that are given to them their whole life. Social mobility is the ability for individuals to move about their social standings.

In reality class always matters and it shapes our interests in life. We all come from different background and ethnicity. I believe that class is shaped mainly by income and occupation. However, many people think if a person is wealthy, therefore, he belongs in the upper class. But there are other factors that define class and it is more than just how much money you have. It can be the network of people that surrounds, traditions, and academic status that can also define class. Many of it has to do in which family you have been born and network that creates it. All of my family members have been born and raised in Russia; they completed universities, got jobs, and had enough income to support a family. “Each of us is born into a family with a particular class identity and class history—sometimes it is a mixed or hybrid identity—but almost always it is part of a network of other relationships—to other families in a community, to work and jobs, and to institutions” (Zandy 112).

societal ladder Times have changed since then, but social class is still a major factor to people’s success.

“Money talks” is an expression many form as a simple analogy to the problem associated with wealth today. However, the value of money is not to be taken in vain as money does not always showcase the attributes of knowledge and power. At the same time, those who do possess money do, in some cases, possess the attributes commonly associated with the wealthier class. “Money and Class in America” wrote by Lewis Lapham in 1988, showcases the pessimistic feelings Lapham has towards the American faith in money. Lapham believes that Americans are at a loss to hold the majesty of money at bay. Though I agree with Lapham to a point, I also believe that the assumptions of Americans do apply to a point.

The concept of social class has been around for ages and is still a part of today’s society. Social class is not only based on the individual’s wealth but also on their social standing such as; monarchs, priests, nobles, merchants, and peasant class. The peasant class was practically ignored, which means that the higher classes would only pay attention to each other. This can be the case in society today, there are some people who feel that their career makes them higher than a janitor. Even though humans have been around for centuries, social class is still a big issue.

Social tendency among monarchies exalt high amenities and luxurious lifestyle in favor of power. Traditionally in sovereign government, family lineage is prioritized in the succession of power, exemplifying aspects such as of heir, inheritance, and birthright. Evolved from past reigns, today’s generation of working class individuals pass down experience and networks to heritage in order to persevere wealth in the family. Ho vindicates the dependence of pedigree in education and employment saying, “For decades, general, ‘open’ recruiting was not standard practice for most businesses: Ivy League graduates relied on family wealth and networks, entered graduate school or approached, via the ‘old boys’ network’ for financial or industrial fast-track grooming” (182). Students with not only well established educational but also family background have better opportunity to succeed financially. Wall Street attract students with similar background as a tactic to fixate its recruitment as well as its income. Behaviorism justifies the popular demand of highly prodigious student recruitment because students in that position desire to continue being superior. This leads to ideology of elitism, where the mindset of self advancement overwhelms the individual to desire the highest position of power. Without pedigree, individuals often struggle to have an effective impact on the job

In modern the modern day United states, Americans face a problem that drastically affects the way we have to live life. Our healthcare system has become drastically irregular and unequal in the current system. After thorough analyzation of the provided CTSIP tables one can clearly see the gap between economic and social classes that exists in the current structure and can place the said data into both a functionalist and marxist perspective.

Social class is a division of a society based on social and economic status which can include levels of wealth, success, power of authority, and influence. Status is can be defined or grouped having common economic, cultural, or political interests.

The crowd began filing into Sister Jean’s soup kitchen on Pacific Ave. in Atlantic City, N.J. well before lunch was to be served, while directly across the street, people with money to burn strolled into Donald Trump’s massive and garish Taj Mahal casino.

Economic stratification is the different rankings in social class are separated in different economic ways. These differences can vary from clothing, cars, perfumes, cigarette brands, etc. There are many ways you can tell what a person stratification is just by the way they look or the things they have. Usually these ranking go from lower class to middle class then the upper class. Each of these classes have very different ways of living and what they do to maintain a certain status.

Since urban areas, and subsequently urban high schools, have a high population of low-income residents, it is important to explore how this aspect of their social status has affected these individuals historically. According to Mantsios (2006) a majority of the United States (60 percent) hold less than 6 percent of the wealth. What is more, one in eight people live below the federal poverty level Mantsios (2006). This is important, because class level is strongly correlated with educational outcomes and success, which can be explained by class domination Mantsios (2006). Essentially, people who are born into wealthy families versus poor families have more opportunities provided to them on the basis of their class status or familial connections Mantsios (2006). Take for instance the example Schmidt (2007) given of white students with mediocre grades getting into Ivy League

Class, income, and wealth play a significant role in social stratification. In “What Americans Had..” Fischer explains the differences between social classes and the inequalities the lower strata faces by providing data and graphs to corroborate his argument. In addition, presents throughout the reading the differences of income between the 1900s to 2000s. As well as the three features that helps explain the inequality of standard of living. These three features are: wealth, income, and consumption. Evidently, while observing the graphs, Fischer explains that after the 1960s, inequality became a trend that ultimately has led to become a “norm” if you are in the lower scale of social structure. Furthermore, as with wealth, there are many ways

While there are other influencing factors, income is one of the most important aspects when determining ones’ social status. It is often accompanied by family background, but while well-placed connections vary in importance, wealth is a necessary condition in a civilization governed by materialism. As such, ones’ family riches determine the levels of education their off springs may be entitled to, as well as any other assets their children may benefit from. Additionally, factors such as clothing and overall outer appearance are used by other people when trying to place one in a social category, and it certainly cannot harm to have them from a young age. Monetary prosperity and stability are essential factors when deciding one’s place in the social structure since they dictate the amount of comfort and security that individual can acquire and subsequently the opinion that others will have of

The article “Beauty and the Labor Market” by Daniel S. Hamermesh and Jeff E. Biddle examines the economics of discrimination in the labour market based on looks and the relationship that exists between beauty and labour market earnings. Analyzing, results from several studies, data from various empirical research and surveys; the article identifies the source of earnings differentials related to looks in six distinct and detailed sections.