The American upper class is a social group
within the United States consisting of people who have the highest
social rank, primarily due to the use of their wealth to achieve social status.
The American upper class is also distinguished from the rest of the
population due to the fact that its primary source of income consists of
assets, investments, and capital gains rather than wages and salaries.
The American upper class is estimated to include one to two percent of
the population.
Definitions
The
American upper class is seen by some as simply being composed of the
wealthiest individuals and families in the country. The American upper
class can be broken down into two groups: people of substantial means
with a history of family wealth going back a century or more (called "old money") and people who have acquired their wealth more recently (e.g. since 1946), often referred to as "Nouveau riche". In a 2015 CNBC survey of the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, 44% described themselves as middle class and 40% as upper middle class.
Many heirs to fortunes, top business executives, CEOs, successful venture capitalists, persons born into high society, and celebrities
may be considered members of the upper class. Some prominent and
high-rung professionals may also be included if they attain great
influence and wealth. The main distinguishing feature of this class,
which includes an estimated 1% of the population, is the source of
income. While the vast majority of people and households derive their
income from wages or salaries, those in the upper class derive their
income from investments and capital gains. Estimates for the size of this group commonly vary from 1% to 2%, while some surveys have indicated that as many as 6% of Americans identify as "upper class." Sociologist Leonard Beeghley
sees wealth as the only significant distinguishing feature of this
class and, therefore, refers to the upper class simply as "the rich."
Households with net worths of $1 million or more may be
identified as members of the upper class, depending on the class model
used. While most sociologists estimate that only 1% of households are
members of the upper class, Beeghley asserts that all households with a
net worth of $1 million or more are considered "rich." He divides "the
rich" into two sub-groups: the rich and the super-rich.
The rich constitute roughly 5% of U.S. households and their wealth is
largely in the form of home equity. Other contemporary sociologists,
such as Dennis Gilbert, argue that this group is not part of the upper
class but rather part of the upper middle class, as its standard of
living is largely derived from occupation-generated income and its
affluence falls far short of that attained by the top percentile. The
super-rich, according to Beeghley, are those able to live off their
wealth without depending on occupation-derived income. This demographic
constitutes roughly 0.9% of American households. Beeghley's definition
of the super-rich is congruent with the definition of upper class
employed by most other sociologists. The top 0.01% of the population,
with an annual income of $9.5 million or more, received 5% of the income
of the United States in 2007. These 15,000 families have been
characterized as the "richest of the rich".
The members of the tiny capitalist class at the top of the hierarchy have an influence on economy and society far beyond their numbers. They make investment decisions that open or close employment opportunities for millions of others. They contribute money to political parties, and they often own media enterprises that allow them influence over the thinking of other classes... The capitalist class strives to perpetuate itself: Assets, lifestyles, values and social networks... are all passed from one generation to the next. –Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, 1998
Sociologists such as W. Lloyd Warner, William Thompson and Joseph
Hickey recognize prestige differences between members of the upper
class. Established families, prominent professionals and politicians may
be deemed to have more prestige than some entertainment celebrities;
celebrities, in turn, may have more prestige than the members of local
elites.
However, sociologists argue that all members of the upper class have
great wealth, influence and derive most of their income from assets
rather than income.
In 1998, Bob Herbert of The New York Times referred to modern American plutocrats as "The Donor Class" (list of top donors) and defined the class, for the first time,
as "a tiny group – just one-quarter of 1 percent of the population –
and it is not representative of the rest of the nation. But its money
buys plenty of access."
Theories regarding social class
Functional theorists in sociology and economics assert that the existence of social classes is necessary
to ensure that only the most qualified persons acquire positions of
power, and to enable all persons to fulfill their occupational duties to
the greatest extent of their ability. Notably, this view does not
address wealth, which plays an important role in allocating status and power (see Affluence in the United States
for more). According to this theory, to ensure that important and
complex tasks are handled by qualified and motivated personnel, society
attaches incentives such as income and prestige
to those positions. The more scarce qualified applicants are and the
more essential the given task is, the larger the incentive will be. Income
and prestige--which are often used to tell a person's social class--are
merely the incentives given to that person for meeting all
qualifications to complete an important task that is of high standing in
society due to its functional value.
It should be stressed... that a position does not bring power and prestige because it draws a high income. Rather, it draws a high income because it is functionally important and the available personnel is for one reason or another scarce. It is therefore superficial and erroneous to regard high income as the cause of a man's power and prestige, just as it is erroneous to think that a man's fever is the cause of his disease... The economic source of power and prestige is not income primarily, but the ownership of capital goods (including patents, good will, and professional reputation). Such ownership should be distinguished from the possession of consumers' goods, which is an index rather than a cause of social standing. – Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, Principles of Stratification.
As mentioned above, income is one of the most prominent features of
social class, but is not necessarily one of its causes. In other words,
income does not determine the status of an individual or household, but
rather reflects that status. Income and prestige are the incentives
created to fill positions with the most qualified and motivated
personnel possible.
If... money and wealth [alone] determine class ranking... a cocaine dealer, a lottery winner, a rock star, and a member of the Rockefeller family-are all on the same rung of the social ladder... [yet most] Americans would be unwilling to accord equal rank to a lottery winner or rock star and a member of one of America's most distinguished families... wealth is not the only factor that determines a person's rank. – William Thompson, Joseph Hickey; Society in Focus, 2005.
Education
Members of the upper class in American society are typically knowledgeable and have been educated in "elite" settings.
Wealthy parents go above and beyond to ensure their children will also
be a member of the upper class when they grow up. Upper class parents
enroll their children in prestigious preschools and elementary schools
leading to private middle schools and high schools, and finally elite,
private colleges. Often graduating from schools such as those in the Ivy League, upper class members have traditionally joined exclusive clubs or fraternities. Students at Yale University created the Skull and Bones social club. The Skull and Bones was a secret society that had members such as George H. W. Bush and John Kerry. These members obtained valuable social capital by joining the club.
Religion
Individuals
of a broad variety of religious backgrounds have become wealthy in
America. However, the majority of these individuals follow Mainline Protestant denominations; Episcopalians and Presbyterians are most prevalent.
Empirical distribution of income
One
2009 empirical analysis analyzed an estimated 15–27% of the individuals
in the top 0.1% of adjusted gross income (AGI), including top
executives, asset managers, law firm partners, professional athletes and
celebrities, and highly compensated employees of investment banks. Among other results, the analysis found that individuals in the financial (Wall Street) sector
constitute a greater percent of the top income earners in the United
States than individuals from the non-financial sector, after adjusting
for the relative sizes of the sectors.
Statistics
A study by Larry Bartels
found a positive correlation between Senate votes and opinions of high
income people, conversely, low income people's opinions had a negative
correlation with senate votes.
| Top 5 states by HNWIs (more than $1 million, in 2009) | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | Percentage of millionaire households | Number of millionaire households |
| Hawaii | 6.4% | 28,363 |
| Maryland | 6.3% | 133,299 |
| New Jersey | 6.2% | 197,694 |
| Connecticut | 6.2% | 82,837 |
| Virginia | 5.5% | 166,596 |
| Bottom 5 states by HNWIs (more than $1 million, in 2009) |
|---|
| State | Percentage of millionaire households | Number of millionaire households |
|---|---|---|
| South Dakota | 3.4% | 10,646 |
| Kentucky | 3.3% | 57,059 |
| West Virginia | 3.3% | 24,941 |
| Arkansas | 3.1% | 35,286 |
| Mississippi | 3.1% | 33,792 |
