>
> On 2010-11-03, at 11:11 AM, Alan Rudy wrote:
>
> > Marv, I think your point is spot on but misses Carrol's concern.
> > Carrol is arguing that the middle and upper middle income students were
> > working class kids and that, waged or salaried, folks who work for a
> living
> > are in and of the working class.
>
> There are two contradictory thoughts being expressed here: one, that wage-
> and salary-earners are by definition working class, a point on which I
> agree; and two, students, who are not "waged or salaried" are working class
> kids. They're not, even when they come from working class families.
>
so, just to be clear, children from working class parents are excluded from the working class until they get a job themselves...? what if they had a job in high school, or have jobs over the summer? does the fact that these jobs were prior to college, time-bounded during college, or seemingly unlikely to be embedded in a future career mean that they're insufficient to include these young people from the working class?
This strikes me as a rather intense form of hyper-materialism that'd exclude never- or only-periodically-employed (house)wives of working class men from the working class as well as a wide variety of folks who are able to survive on sporadic and diverse forms of day labor... not to speak of suggesting that non-traditional students who held jobs in their late teens and into their twenties (and beyond) fall out of the working class if they start full-time schooling.