Class is a word that elicits strong, and sometimes strange, reactions from many Americans. Once a powerful construct understanding economies and societies, class has been all but banished from the lexicon of social scientists and from the public conversation.
It's time we put class back in the center of our vocabulary, especially so during this ongoing economic crisis and reset. The impacts of the crisis have been extremely uneven by class - hitting hardest at the industrial working class and their communities.
Over the coming week, I'll be posting on that, and also on the powerful effects of class on the wealth, innovativeness, and happiness of nations, drawing on a variety of statistical analyses conducted with Charlotta Mellander and my Martin Prosperity Institute colleagues.
We define class simply by peoples' position in the economy - not by perceived status, level of income, or what we consume, but by the kind of work we do. Conveniently, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps detailed statistics on the myriad occupations that make up the U.S. economy.
We identify three core classes:
The working class who work in production, transportation, construction, and related jobs.
The service class who work in jobs like food prep, grounds cleaning, building maintenance, personal care, administrative offices, and community, social, and protective services.
The creative class of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs; artists, designers, media types, and entertainers; and knowledge-based professionals in management, health care, education, and related fields.
I'll report on the relationship between class and various social and economic outcomes over the next several days, starting with the relationship between class and economic output tomorrow. On Wednesday we turn to class and technological innovation; class and entrepreneurship on Thursday; and class and the happiness of various nations on Friday. Along the way, I'll also post on the uneven ways that recessions impact different classes, and relationship between class and unemployment, among other things.
Stay tuned.
Richard Florida
What's the rationale for dividing the "working class" from the "service class"? Isn't a better three-part taxonomy: (1) laborers, (2) knowledge workers (or, more simply, thinkers), and (3) investors?
You might be interested in a new book that uses Florida's ideas:
Hollywood Faith: Holiness, Prosperity, and Ambition in a Los Angeles Church by Gerardo Marti
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813543495?ie=UTF8&tag=ph07-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0813543495
The first book to provide an in-depth look at religion among the "creative class."
Richard,
I think you got the classes wrong. Many of those in the 'creative class' should in fact be in the service class. Consider a software engineer or a manager in a consultancy (I've done both). I considered myself clearly in the service field. While my work required expertise and education, it was more tailored towards meeting specific customers' requirements and not creating new content from scratch.
I would put many Doctors (MDs) in this bucket too; requires a lot of education but more service oriented due to the fact that deal with a known set of problems (symptoms) that they diagnose and deliver recommendations and treatments. While some creativity may be required from time to time, the vast majority of their work should be from the book (PDR).
Embarking on a series where you draw many conclusions based on loose or inaccurate definitions seems like time ill-spent.
Class? Zzzz. . .
Also, the division between "working class" and "service class" seems arbitrary.
Why confuse things by saying "working class" when it is about the manual laborers--that is, those supposedly only dependent upon their physical strength or skilled physical input to earn their keep. I do agree that the discussion will be frivolous without clear definitions of terms being stated.
Regardless of the boundaries between the three classes (I like them as they are), I would add a class to this list. Not sure what the label should be but it would constitute the chronically not working class. Similar to a chronic health condition which has yet to be managed by the health care industry, this class mostly is "ill" not "working."