MIDDLE CLASS?


One thing puzzles me about this film: the Smiths are defined as "middle class" (according to Wiki), yet their richly appointed home and elegant clothing seems so much more than that of the "middle class" families of 1950's TV: FATHER KNOWS BEST, LEAVE IT TO BEAVER, etc.

On the surface, it seems that the Smiths are actually wealthy.
Yet Rose comments, "Rich people live in houses (in New York); people like us live in flats, dozens of flats in one building."
And Katie remarks about how the family will be living in a "tenement" (although I don't take her seriously).

So...are the Smiths actually middle class or upper class?
I'd vote for the latter.

reply

Upper middle class.

The whole family was having a whiny, entitled, bratty, nervous breakdown over the move.

But no way they would have lived in a tenement. And if they did live in an apartment building, I'm sure it would have been one of the swankier ones on 5th or Madison.

reply

You could live a terrific lifestyle on 5 K a year at the time and not be rich. There wasn't even a Fed income tax yet. The average weekly takehome was probably about 40 bucks.

Kisskiss, Bangbang

reply

Money went MUCH farther in 1904. We weren't supporting half of the nation on welfare, for one.

reply

Bedrock: Very well said!!! The middle class is a dying breed; we can't keep up paying other people's ways anymore!

reply

Perhaps some people need a history class? In the late 19th and turn of the 20th century, there really was not a middle class. There were wealthy merchants, magnates, tycoons, robber barons and bankers, such as Astor, Huntington, Vanderbilt, Whitney, Rockefeller, Carnegie and their heirs. Everyone else was poor. Working class and unemployed a lot. Women could not even vote until 1920! By 1980, Americans earned about 4 times what they did in 1900, if you adjusted for inflation. The extra amount earned was taken by taxes, it's true, but we lived better than the richest millionaires in many ways--cars, televisions, central heat and air conditioning, and medical care. By 1990, workers could easily afford such things as indoor plumbing, hot water, electricity, and separate rooms for children--but in 1900, only a handful of people earned enough to afford such amenities.

Less that 14% of Americans graduated high school in 1900, less the 3% from a school of higher learning. (By 1999, those figures were 83% and 25% respectively. and college education resulted in a 62% increase in pay for men in 1999, and 65% higher for women.) Average annual pay in 1900 (in 1999 dollars) was $4200; average hourly pay (again in 1999 dollars) in 1909--the 1st year such records were kept--was $3.80. Could you live on that--even without taxes, knowing you had no unemployment or disability insurance, no social security or pension? Absurd.

Benefits comprised just 1% of the average worker's paycheck in 1900. Basically nothing for most workers. If you were lucky enough to be strong and have perfect health, were everyone in your family so lucky? How about in-laws? Because if they were not, you were expected to care for them. On your less than $4/hour paycheck. Life expectancy for the average newborn in 1900 was 46.6 for white males (73.4 in 1995), 48.7 for white females (79.6), and 32.5 for black males (65.2), 33.5 for black females(73.9). Huge change for the better no matter your demographic.

Usually illiterate--there was very little public education. You worked your parents farm or in their shops or taking care of younger siblings. People had no birth control and had many many children--lots of whom died in infancy and childhood. Maybe half survived. But women often died in childbirth as well (in 1915 the maternal mortality rate was 61 per per 1000 live births (and 8 in 1990) and the infant mortality in 1915 was 100 per 1000 live births (and just 7.6 in 1990). It was no picnic! Those women often left many older children who needed care, and the new baby if it survived. No there were no income taxes, but when you lost your job, you froze, wore threadbare clothing, then lost your home and your children starved--and there was no upward mobility to look forward to. You went to work or took care of younger siblings depending on gender.

Factories had begun with the industrial revolution (although in 1900 only 5% of factories were powered by electricity. Thousands of men shoveled coal into furnaces all day long every day. The percentages of workers employed in these worst of the worst types of jobs have declined many times over in the past century.). But before unions, there were no safety regulations and people died daily or weekly in steelworks, constructing high rises, etc. Read Upton Sinclair's expose of the meatpacking industry...it was 1906 before the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act were adopted. Factories were unsafe for workers as well as the customers of their products. Few records were kept, but in 1900, 1500 workers died in coal mines and 2550 in railroad accidents (half of worker deaths). Those numbers were 35 and 56 respectively in 1999. For all United States workers, the number of fatalities per dollar of real (inflation-adjusted) GNP dropped by 96 percent between 1900 and 1979. Other jobs did not keep data but conditions were often horrific, esp in steel manufacturing. Only 15% of workers ever collected any money from employers by proving negligence and other common law claims.

See this link for a great article on U.S. worker safety, health, working conditions, etc: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/WagesandWorkingConditions.html From this article the following paragraph describes working conditions:

"Another basic aspect of working conditions is exposure to the weather. In 1900 more than 80 percent of all workers farmed in open fields, maintained railroad rights of way, constructed or repaired buildings, or produced steel and chemicals. Their bosses may have been comfortably warm in the winter and cool in the summer, but the workers were not. A columnist of that era ironically described the good fortune of workers in Chicago steelworks, who could count on being warmed by the blast from the steel melt in freezing weather. Boys who pulled glass bottles from furnaces were similarly protected—when they didn't get burned. By 1990, in contrast, more than 80 percent of the labor force worked in places warmed in the winter and cooled in the summer."

Workers could be fired without cause and had no recourse if a boss absconded with their paycheck. Unemployment in 1900 averaged 5% but workers could count on unemployed periods through the year--tho shorter than 1999 lay-offs. Wages were nothing, and you could be replaced by a 15 year old with no family to support, a strong back and a willingness to do anything....6% of the labor force--1.75 million people--were between the ages of 10 and 15! Many families needed the $$. Some states outlawed child labor but most did not.

At the turn of the century, just 19% of women worked outside the home. Only 1% of the lawyers and 6% of doctors were female. 38% of males over the age of 10 worked on farms, 31% worked in service industries and 31% in goods-producing industries like mining and manufacturing. The average workweek in manufacturing was 53 hours at the turn of the century but declined as low as 34.5 in the 1930s. Paychecks went down with the hours of course. Women worked dawn to dusk because cooking took about 42 hours per week at the turn of the century. By 1981, this figure was cut about in half. Men who worked on a farm also worked dawn to dusk. Men who worked other than farm jobs (60% of the total) worked 10 hours per day, 6 days a week. Men's hours were cut in half by shorter work days, shorter work weeks and the introduction of paid vacations and sick leave.

Homes were small in 1900, and when families had so many children, they were even more crowded. Many jobs were only available in the cities, so huge rural to city migration occurred. Plus blacks had been moving to cities after the Civil War ended. Then came millions of immigrants. They could not buy or rent houses, but had to take apartments--crowded. Construction materials were generally cheap, and there was no electricity, little gas and no sewage or running water (esp in the country). FDR championed rural electricity after the Depression hit as a jobs program. In NYC, tho, the tenement buildings were four to six stories high, with four apartments on each floor, they held two or three families in each apartment, all with no elevator or indoor plumbing--cesspools and outhouses were used for sewage. And people just threw their garbage in the street. But the reformers and scientists stopped that with sanitation laws. 500,000 people per square mile living on the Lower East Side got awfully crowded and smelly!

Henry Ford did not introduce the model T until 1908. Before 1880, horse drawn carriages provided transportation and fowled the streets of cities terribly. In about 1890, electric streetcars were introduced, but one had to be careful not to be struck. By 1900, cities were paving streets, not for cars but bicycles!

reply

And your point is…
;-)

reply

BS. There was a large middle class in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps some people need a history class.

reply

Well, they may have lived in a townhouse on Madison Avenue (like the Day family in LIFE WITH FATHER), but Fifth Avenue of that time was made up mostly of the lavish mansions of the Rockefellers, the Astors, and the Vanderbilts.
It was after WWI and the end of "the Gilded Age" that these buildings were demolished and replaced by multi-unit dwellings.

reply

They were a spoiled upper middle class family that weren't satisfied with their
comfortable lives, so naturally they didn't see themselves as "rich." They should
have considered themselves lucky; society back then consisted of the super-rich;
the affluent; the comfortable upper middle class like the Smiths; the middle class; the working class; and the destitute. For those who whine about how the middle class have to "pay everyone's way" these days, keep in mind that there was
no safety net back then, and a middle class family could lose everything and have
no means of financial help with just one economic setback. Of course there was no
Social Security back then, but most people didn't need it anyway, since life was
so hard for so many in that era (except for fortunate families like the Smiths, who
spent their lives going to social affairs) that a lot of them never lived long enough to reach retirement age, anyway.


I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

reply

Your post makes me think of one of my favorite novels, "Sister Carrie" by Theodore Dreiser.
Its heroine is a small-town "working class" girl who goes to big cities (Chicago and New York) to better herself.
After living in sin with two men, she eventually becomes a successful actress, but despite her money, expensive clothes, etc., it is impossible for her to enter the world of the "super-rich" (the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers), and remains discontented at the end.

It's not too hard a stretch to imagine the Smiths (especially Rose) becoming bitter because they weren't on the lists of the upper-crust.

reply

Why spoiled? What do they ever cry for except for friends and family.
ONe might as well say we Americans are spoiled because we have asphalt roads and some people don't in Burkina Faso.
I am not starving at this moment so I'm spoiled. When one isn't paying a fortune to keep 4 cars (2 for mom and dad. 2 for the older girls) plus cable, high property taxes, and a change of furniture and electronics every 3 years, one can spend it on nice millwork for the parlor and a mansard roof.

reply

They were definitely not middle class. In "The Boy Next Door" she gives her address as 5133 Kensington Avenue. I lived at 5133 Enright which was the next street over. It was right off Delmar and Kings Highway. In the early 1900s the houses were mansions. Unfortunately I lived there in 1950 when the mansions had been carved up into apartments.

maggimae83

reply

The Smith's address was 5135 Kensington Avenue.
The "boy next door" lived at 5133.

reply

Still the ultra rich would not have allowed their children to marry into that family. The upper class would have considered them middle class--upper for sure.
I think the upper classes have more power and influence. not just the money.

reply

Still the ultra rich would not have allowed their children to marry into that family. The upper class would have considered them middle class--upper for sure.
I think the upper classes have more power and influence. not just the money.
Now that I've said that. They're not average.

reply

I think there's 3 dynamics. One, the economic definition of "middle class" varies over time. Two, the decorative taste varies as well. Three, TV shows have lower budgets.

So later TV shows reflect the broadening economic definition of middle class to include people with less money, more contemporary stylistic tastes which tended to be sparer and less cluttered, and TV shows had lower budgets so they just spent less on set decorations which meant less props and people to manage them.

While the MMISL house was large and over decorated, the mom actually helped in the kitchen. Higher income families would have had a cook and probably a second person as housekeeper. Note the total absence of black help; any upper income family would have had black staff.

reply