RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Guastella writes: "Bernie Sanders's deep support among millennials was a surprise for many political analysts. Some have tried to write off the support as youthful exuberance, ignorance, angsty white-male privilege, a profound shared hatred for Clinton, or some combination of these elements."

Students protest the system of for-profit higher education in the U.S. (photo: David McNew/Getty Images)
Students protest the system of for-profit higher education in the U.S. (photo: David McNew/Getty Images)

Class Is in Session: Millennials Now Overwhelmingly Identify as Working Class

By Dustin Guastella, Jacobin

09 July 16


Millennials are better educated than ever. They also overwhelmingly identify as working class.

ernie Sanders’s deep support among millennials was a surprise for many political analysts. Some have tried to write off the support as youthful exuberance, ignorance, angsty white-male privilege, a profound shared hatred for Clinton, or some combination of these elements.

Others have declared that the Sanders coalition of millennials and working-class voters has little to do with shared interests, let alone a shared class interest; Sanders voters are seen as either idealistic millennials or disaffected white working-class men.

But the facts don’t fit these interpretations. Millennials are not “in bed” with the working class — they are a core part of it. Indeed, more millennials self-identify as working class than any generation in recent history.

According to the last forty years of survey research conducted by the General Social Survey (administered by the University of Chicago) millennials identify more with working-class positions than any other group. In 2014 some 60 percent of millennials identified as working class.

These figures are striking considering long-held myths about who is middle-class in America. In the popular press, the term “working class” is usually reserved for those with a high school education, working a blue-collar job. And on the surface millennials certainly don’t seem to fit this categorization.

As a cohort millennials are better educated than their older counterparts: Whereas in 1965 only around 13 percent of Americans held a bachelor’s degree, today around 33 percent do, and nearly 40 percent of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds are currently enrolled in higher education institutions across the country.

Further, millennials by and large do not work in what would be considered “traditional” working-class jobs like manufacturing or other blue-collar work. Instead they predominantly work in service industries, like retail, hospitality, and health care. So in this respect millennials don’t look working class to statisticians and pundits; instead they are often stereotyped as urban, bohemian, highly literate, and even snobbish.

Assumptions about millennials’ class position are not altogether baseless. They are rooted in complementary sociological theories about the relationship between class and education. Prevailing theories say the markedly higher educational attainment of millennials should allow them access to “middle-class” incomes and occupations.

Historically there has been a strong positive relationship between education and class position; of particular importance for nullifying social origins and climbing the class ladder — so the story goes — is an individual’s ability to achieve a bachelor’s degree. In a landmark 1984 study sociologist Michael Hout “proved” that a bachelor’s degree was the ticket out of the working class:

Education diminishes distinctions based on origin status…The leveling effect of education intensifies as length of schooling increases; the effect of status decreases with increasing education. For men with a college degree, status has no effect on mobility.

So regardless of whether your father worked on an assembly line or on a small farm, if you got a degree in the postwar United States you could effectively eliminate your social origins and freely climb the class ladder.

Another class of theories, less rooted in labor market position and occupational mobility, argue that educational attainment enables degree holders to acquire middle class “tastes” and cultural capital.

Proponents of the “distinction” model argue that because many millennials have received or will receive a bachelor’s degree they, by default, have earned middle-class credentials, namely cultural traits associated with professional/managerial workers.

The relationship between education and class has been so thoroughly accepted that today educational attainment often serves as a proxy for class in much of the sociological and popular literature.

And for much of the postwar history, this causal analysis held up. It was generally true that if you received a bachelor’s degree you would earn more and probably work in a professional or managerial position, rather than as a manual or unskilled worker.

From this perspective the argument is simple: millennials are imagined to be overwhelmingly middle class because they are presumed to have completed university education. How, then, could millennials have any shared interests with the working class, let alone identify themselves as working class?

The paradox is that today millennials are both better-educated and less well-positioned in the labor market than their older counterparts. By the end of the decade nearly 50 percent of millennials will have a college degree compared to just 35 percent in Generation X and only 29 percent of Baby Boomers.

Yet millennials overwhelmingly work in the service sector and the median income of this highly educated group is nearly identical to that of their grandparents at the same age and with less education overall.

Millennials are overrepresented in industries characterized by stagnant or declining wages, with the exception of health care. And ironically, the sector that pays the highest median wages for millennials is the major sector in which the least are employed, the traditional bastion of the working class, manufacturing.

Millennials are also more likely to be unemployed than their older counterparts; even by the government’s very conservative measures over 12 percent of millennials are currently out of work compared to the official national level of around 5 percent.

This brings us to the present question. While educational attainment has steadily increased from the 1960s to today so too has the precarization of labor and the proletarianization of white-collar work. If education does have some mystifying effect on class identification we should see levels of middle-class identification rise with the rise in educational attainment.

However, if even well-educated millennials (those with at least a bachelor’s degree) identify as working or lower class at higher rates than their counterparts in past decades it could mean that the longstanding relationship between class and education is less salient and less static than presumed. And this is exactly what we see.

(photo: Jacobin)

If we compare well-educated millennials with their counterparts in past decades we see a steady increase in working-class identification. As of 2014 half of all millennials with a bachelor’s degree identified as working or lower class as compared to just 26 percent of their counterparts in 1974.

To be sure subjective class identification does not necessarily reflect actual or objective class positions but there are important lessons to be drawn even from a subjective measure like this one.

First, it suggests that the economic position of millennials does have a genuine bearing on their class identification. In other words, class identification is not the product of some psychological transformation due to attainment of credentials or tastes.

This is where much of the popular narrative gets it wrong. Yes, millennials are well-educated and many may exhibit cultural traits consistent with our image of the American middle class, but millennials are in shit shape economically and through no fault of their own. Millions have played the game by staying in school and getting a degree but they haven’t been rewarded economically.

This material reality seems to inform their class identification. Regardless of whether they (and the population at large) understand working-class to mean blue-collar, pink-collar, or otherwise, the term represents a positional category below middle class.

Choosing that term suggests that many millennials see their stagnant and declining wages, among other signs of economic precarity, and ultimately recognize their class position — a feat in and of itself considering the narrow American cultural understanding for who qualifies as working class.

It is also worth noting that Sanders didn’t “bring class back” — superimposing old fashioned class categories (that no one in the United States subscribes to) onto an old-fashioned politics. It was the fall in real wages, the rise of precarious labor, the proletarianization of white-collar work, the rise in real unemployment, the persistence of underemployment, and the dramatic rise in income and wealth inequality that have brought class back.

These factors have created conditions in which relatively well-educated (and perhaps formerly middle-class) millennials identify overwhelmingly with the bottom half of the class spectrum. Sanders has been able to articulate a politics that speaks to them — a class politics — better than any other candidate.

Secondly, these findings problematize the theoretical link between education and class. The argument for a theoretical relationship between class and education can only be made on the assumption that education will provide access to a limited number of higher-skill, higher-status jobs and that higher education will only be available roughly in proportion to the number of people necessary to fill those positions.

This is not the case. The expansion of the US higher education system from the 1960s to today has not coincided with a concomitant expansion of high-skill, high-paying jobs.

Theoretically there is no good reason to assume that education has an intrinsic relationship to class or social mobility under capitalism. Just because education provided a pathway to mobility in the past doesn’t mean it always will.

Indeed, it appears that the millennial cohort realizes this en masse in light of their inability to achieve the material comfort associated with middle-class American lifestyles (like the lifestyles of their parents and grandparents) despite many of them holding bachelor’s degrees or higher.

Of course at the end of the day, over half of all millennials do not hold bachelor’s degrees. The stereotype of millennials as overeducated entitled urbanites helps to erase the reality that most people in this age cohort in fact still only hold a high school degree.

The chances of these lesser-educated millennials getting a well-paying job gets worse by the minute. While education is no longer the ticket out of the working class that it once was, high school graduates have a much harder time competing for higher wage jobs against their credentialed counterparts — a competition that ends up forcing the wages of both groups down.

But even highly educated millennials face problems traditionally associated with working-class living conditions: unemployment, underemployment, an unpredictable work life, high levels of debt, and stagnant wages. Many college-educated millennials recognize this and that recognition has led to their overwhelming identification as working class — despite their degrees and so-called cultural capital.

This simple fact clears away the confusion surrounding the Sanders phenomenon. That West Virginia coal miners and recent college graduates in New York City both voted for him makes perfect sense.

Class politics is back in a big way. Not because some socialist senator has made it so, but because the current economic and political conditions have made class a central issue among the American electorate.

In the heyday of the New Left many thought that the newly radicalized youth and student movement would replace the traditional working class as the revolutionary agent of social change. Today the two are largely one and the same.

Sanders has helped to galvanize and steer this newly class-conscious block of young working-class voters towards an emancipatory politics. Socialists should build on this momentum, developing this block into a committed social base for radical politics. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+26 # Radscal 2016-07-09 16:18
This reawakening of class consciousness could bode well for the 99%. But only if we can grasp political power, with which we can then attain economic justice, social justice, racial justice, gender justice, etc.

So far, the Democratic Party nomination process shows TPTB will not permit us to grasp that political power through that Party. If Sanders capitulates to HRC, I think our best chance is with Dr. Stein and the Green Party.
+22 # guomashi 2016-07-09 21:58
The evisceration of the middle class and the incrementally progressive legal approvals of a culture of corporate feudalism has indeed reduced the entire country to the status of 'working class'.

Given the opportunity, the 1% will ensure that that will be the best we see for a while as they represse workers farther down the scale of economic servitude into a servant class and effective slave labor. (Remember Reagen's 'service economy' and Bush's 'ownership society'? that's where we are headed.)

Will political activism be enough?
Reversing the trend will not be easy.
Unionization involved demonstrations where workers were killed.
The demonstration of the 60s involved demonstrations where people were killed.

It's going to be a bumpy ride if current trends are going to be reversed.
+19 # lorenbliss 2016-07-10 00:04
From a Marxist perspective, this is the best news possible.

It has at least three revolutionary implications:

(1)--that We the People are awakening to the truth that without economic democracy, there is no democracy at all;

(2)--that Millennials (and indeed everyone in comparable socioeconomic circumstances) are discovering that capitalism is literally murderous moral imbecility cloaked in the seductive promises of Big Lies; and

(3)--that Millennials (and We the People in general) are discovering the truths implicit in Occupy's One Percent/99 Percent analysis: that we are relentlessly tyrannized by capitalist governance: absolute power and unlimited profit for the One Percent and their politicians, judges, generals, bureaucrats, academics, journalists and religious authorities etc.; naught but total subjugation and violent death or death by genocidal denial of social services and health care for us of the 99 Percent.

But there is bad news too. In earlier eras, such pre-revolutiona ry circumstances scared the One Percent into humanitarian concessions: hence the New Deal. Now, snug in their castles, guarded by the kill-hardened mercenaries of the imperial war machine and by the equally deadly federally militarized police, the One Percent regards itself as omnipotent.

And should revolution prove otherwise, there is Goldwater Girl Hillary's better-dead-tha n-red final solution: attacking Russia and China, dooming our species to thermonuclear extinction.
+10 # madame de farge 2016-07-10 04:01
Middle Class meant:
Job Security
Healthcare Security
Retirement Security (Defined Benefit Pensions)...

Those only apply to the top 3% now, the rest of the top 10% are dependent on the Masters of the Universe... The bottom 90% can stagnate and rollover for the 1% because they are in denial about the ethics and morality of the 1%.....
-6 # MidwestTom 2016-07-10 08:40
There are so many Millennials walking around with light weight college degrees that cannot find "white collar" work, many will have to turn to "blue collar" jobs, where they will actually earn more money, because hourly workers with real brains are treasured by many smaller companies.
0 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-07-10 09:09
Light weight is a key here. If we allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy again perhaps the loaning of money for school will return to sanity.

I read an article in the New York Times years ago detailing a student in New York with $170,000 in debt for a bachelors degree in Photography. Yeah you read that right. So unless someone is going to lose money on these loans they will continue to make them.

My immediate thought was you don't need a degree at all to become a photographer.
+7 # Femihumanist 2016-07-10 11:26
I think the major issue here is that professional photographers are becoming obsolete. The problem is that many professions become obsolete (due to technology) before those studying to enter the profession even graduate.

Education should prepare you to think and to be versatile, not to prepare for a single profession. AND it's about time we all acknowledge that our current economic paradigm has to be revised so that we can all live decent lives whether or not we are between jobs or not capable of doing the jobs currently available.
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-07-10 11:49
@Femihumanist: you are most assuredly correct about professional photographers becoming obsolete. I ran double resumes for 50 years -- writer/editor and photographer (photojournalis m and social documentary photography) -- but despite picture credits that include Newsweek and Paris Match, the last time I was paid for camera work was 2005.

Writing and editing jobs are also becoming obsolete. Somewhere recently I read that about 90 percent of the journalists who were working full time in 2008 are now permanently unemployed. Again, this is surely true of me. The jobs I had that year no longer exist, and no new jobs have taken their place, nor ever will they.

What destroyed professional photography is indeed technology: chiefly cell phones. When anybody can snap a picture of anything -- never mind the wretched composition and cliche content typical of nonprofessional photography -- they soon disdain "wasting money" on a pro.

But that's not the only factor. The owners of USian mass media -- the same One Percenters who own all USian governments -- are methodically shrinking the information flow by shutting down newspapers. This is not technology but tyrannical intent: newspapers elsewhere in the world remain relatively healthy.

There is also the fact that in the visual arts and literature alike, USians have the lowest standards on the planet. Hence they scorn the need for professional editors and writers just as they reject the need for professional photographers.
+2 # Femihumanist 2016-07-10 19:57
I really wasn't trying to make a point about photography. Someone mentioned it and I made the observation as an example.

Things can't improve for average people until we recognize that "everyone must have a job" is obsolete. People are demonized because they get screwed when they lose their jobs and can't find another one.
0 # mh1224jst 2016-07-11 21:44
This is part of a broader reality. The drift in "class" perception parallels the actual economic decline of the middle class, both in pace and time-frame. The chart is revealing, and income inequality and wealth concentration figures are quite similar. Notice that most of the growth in awareness of middle class decline, just as the growth in awareness of inequality, took place before the crash of 2008: The percent identifying as working class grew from 26.56 at the start of the Reagan Revolution to 47.25 in 2014, but it had already grown to 42.64 percent by 2004.

The growth of inequality has been a steady, relentless consequence of the Reagan policies, particularly the lower taxation of the wealthy and corporations.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.