>For instance, a college professor is definitely of a
>"higher" class than an auto worker, but it is quite possible (even
>probable, in these days) that the auto worker makes more money.
>
>Charles: Is this true if we define class based on relationship to and
>ownership of basic means of >production ?
You mean power? Well, that's a too-strict, one-dimensional definition of class. Perhaps I'm not sure what you are asking: Are you wondering if captains of industry are of a higher or lower class than, say, doctors and priests? There are no definite answers of course. Certainly CEOs wield more power--both economic and control over people's lives--and have more wealth, but doctors and pastors garner a lot more prestige and respect. Which is valued more, power/wealth or prestige/respect, is always changing, but it seems a safe generalization to say that the former has been more in ascendence since the Industrial Revolution, at the expense of latter. Sometimes, usually during crises, the clerics' star is more ascendent.
Or are you asking about within industries that provide the basic means? It seems then that the closer you are to the direct means of production, the lower your class ranking, in all ways. That is, the unskilled (who, to use the auto industry as an example, works on the production line assembling the bulk of the car) is lower than the skilled (who works on individual parts, usually away from the assembly line), who is lower than the foreman (who tells everyone to get their asses in gear), who is lower than the CEO (who has three-martini lunches)--lower in wealth, power, status, and prestige. I can't think of any exceptions to this, though there may be some.
Eric