What Is the 'Working Class'?
When even most upper-income Republicans say they're working class, the term has become meaningless.

Republicans and Democrats alike want to be seen as champions of the working class—understandably so, since that cohort of Americans is understood as essential to winning several presidential swing states.
But who or what is the "working class"? The answer depends largely on who you are asking, and the term's slipperiness might explain its outsize power in modern politics.
The term has been in use for well over 200 years. It emerged from class-obsessed British culture during the Industrial Revolution as a way to distinguish the political interests of factory workers and other wage-earning laborers from the interests of the upper class and the traditional lower class (such as farmers and peasants).
Today, political scientists and pollsters use "the working class" to describe members of the work force who do not have a college degree. By that definition, the number of working-class Americans has been declining as the country has grown wealthier and more educated. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 38 percent of Americans had at least a bachelor's degree in 2022, up from just 17 percent in 1980.
There's a major exception to that common definition, however. Marxist scholars use "working class" quite differently—typically encompassing anyone who depends on wages to survive, regardless of their educational experience.
In nonacademic contexts, the term gets even murkier. According to a Pew Research Center survey taken in May, 54 percent of Americans say "working class" describes them "very" or "extremely well." Notably, self-identified Republicans are more likely to claim the "working class" label than Democrats are, by a margin of 62 percent to 48 percent. The results are even more perplexing when socioeconomic level is considered: 59 percent of upper-income Republicans say they are working class, compared to just 33 percent of high-earning Democrats.
Have wealthy conservatives embraced Marx's view of class struggle? Probably not. But this trend does show how disconnected the idea of a "working class" has become from the traditional view of put-upon laborers with little education and fewer economic prospects.
Fundamentally, any attempts at organizing politics through the lens of "class" will be somewhat disingenuous since it is individuals who think, act, and vote according to their own values and opinions. Even so, collectively assessing the opinions of individuals within certain income strata or geographic locations can have some political value.
"Working class" as a concept, though, has now become so broad and subjective as to be effectively meaningless. This makes it the perfect vehicle for politicians trying to sell a broad but effectively meaningless message.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"When even most upper-income Republicans say they're working class, the term has become meaningless."
??? Why is this sub-headline in the article???
Because shit is the truth?
Because shit is the author's opinion?
Because the author is a Marxist?!
Because the author wanted to insult our intelligence, by telling us the oblivious?
Because Shitler MADE the author put shit there?
I give up! Tell us, PLEASE!
Because the author is a Marxist.
That was easy.
As history has shown. Only the Gov-Gun THEFT socialist party can claim to be 'working' else their Gov-Gun THEFT "plans" might be interpreted correctly as 'armed-theft'.
You have to be intentionally blind to not know who composes the working class these days.
You have to be intentionally SMUG to make a categorical statement like that, without telling the ignorant peons just exactly WHAT the definition is or should be!
(PS, in a free nation or tribe, did you know that many different people will carry many different definitions for the same words, in their heads?)
I couldn't agree more.
Lemme guess: the working class consists of everyone who self-identifies as being working class.
I would say that the working class primarily is represented by those who do physical labor and produce actual products. A broader definition might include people who rely upon their continued employment and productivity from their labor to maintain a basic livelihood. Those who come from wealth or are capable of living off of investments are outside this. I don't think someone who puts in less than 8 hours a week at a computer can be considered working class.
While it might be difficult to put a simple definition on it, it is also silly to say we can't determine whether most individuals are or aren't.
What is your basis for excluding both knowledge workers and the entire service industry? Bob is an auto worker - he meets your definition. Jane makes minimum wage working at an entry-level marketing job - she does not. Pat works in retail and does lots of physical labor but produces no actual products so also does not.
Your "broader definition" is the only workable one but even that only captures a point-in-time measure and ignores the cultural/behavioral connotations of "working class. Consider Bob again and assume that he diligently saved his money and lives under his means. At some point, he's got enough money that he could live off his investments (that is, retire) but his habits and cultural assumptions remain those of his working life. Can he still say he is "working class" or not?
You'd think a libertarian magazine would use a libertarian definition of working class.
I guess Heywood, Tucker, and Spooner never really thought about it.
"Working class" as a concept, though, has now become so broad and subjective as to be effectively meaningless.
That's why politicians moved on to using "working families" in their utterances.
There is no 'working class'.
There is no 'upper class'.
Humans are not insects.
There are people.
'Class' is a term that seeks to make a particular economic status permanent. It is the equivalent of Brave New World's 'castes' when people have a station that is socially, intellectually and biologically imposed upon them from birth.
We do not have or want any such thing.
But the left yearns for it. Thus they keep trying to make it part of our very nature.
But it's not.
The subhead should read--
'When even the poorest of us can work their way to the top, perhaps it's time to retire the tired socialist 'class' trope.'
^THIS BINGO.......... Well Said +1000000000000000000.
"But the left yearns for it." -- Part of their barbaric [WE] Identify-as gangland politics.
Outside the US, class very much is a permanent economic status. And the people in those countries apparently do want to continue under it. Look at all the failed attempts to change Britain's rigid class system. They failed not merely because of opposition from those at the top of the hierarchy but also because of massive resistance by those at the bottom.
The perception that economic mobility is widely possible is an almost-uniquely American trait. Do not take it for granted.
Generally it refers to people who...have jobs and work for a living.
It says something that this is apparently too difficult to grasp for some.
The way politicians use it doesn't matter since they are by and large liars.
Also, just to note, even Americans who make 250k+ a year consider themselves 'middle class' so maybe take all these loosely defined group categories with a massive grain of salt.
The words of politicians are empty and meaningless, or downright offensive if you think about them too deeply. Film at 11.
I'm working class and I don't work. Am I a liar?
Now do "middle class" and whether the daughter of two elite-level university professors qualifies.
Uhm…
FIFY
More people being duped into taking out student loans to attend and graduate from college is not evidence of more people being more educated. It is merely evidence that more people are getting credentials. And the receiving of credentials is not even evidence that they are earned.
I can tell you who *isn't* of the 'working class' - shits like Harris and Biden who have never had a job, but have slopped at the public trough their entire lives.
A socialist (Marxist) wants rulers, but only if they promise to rep those who do manual labor. All rulers agree that rights are not their goal, only their problem to be overcome.
What your rights to be supreme over all else? Choose a new political paradigm, e.g., non-violent, voluntary, e.g., based on reason, choice.
Violence is only moral when used in defense of your rights.