<DIV> <DIV><B><I>Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com></I></B> wrote:<BR>>How is middle class defined?<BR><BR>"Depends. There's a "sociological" definition, that depends on one's <BR>occupation. Professionals, the self-employed, small businesspersons, <BR>etc. There's a more "economic" one that's based on income; a common <BR>version of that is a household with an income between 63% and 150% of <BR>the median. Mostly, middle class is a pretty mushy concept that <BR>serves to mystify one's social position."<BR><BR>Funny. He seemed to be less "mystified" a month and a half ago when he wrote on 7/26:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>"You're just wrong to say there's no <BR>demographically significant middle class in the U.S. It's about a <BR>third of the working population and probably half the electorate."</FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3>and then again on the same day:</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3>"The professional-managerial class is not small - a bit over a third <BR>of the workforce, and probably half the current electorate. Here's <BR>the breakdown from the June employment report, table A-7 (apologies <BR>for the graceless Excel-induced truncations). There are probably some <BR>"managers" who have fairly working-class jobs, but still, these <BR>numbers are not demographically insignificant."<BR></FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>Hopefully this signifies a retreat from an adherence to the notion of a middle class altogether.</P> <DIV>And I will give him credit for at least standing firm on upholding income figures and job position as indicators of class. Now perhaps he can explain, outside of strictly bourgeois economic pretexts, how one could possibly do so?<BR></FONT><BR>--adx</DIV></DIV><p> <hr size=1>Yahoo! for Good<br> <a href="http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/">Click here to donate</a> to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.