As the vice presidential candidates battle it out for the support of the heartland each claim an allegiance to the working class.
According to his memoir, when Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio was young, 9 or 10, his mother and stepfather had a combined income of over $100,000.
Back then, in 1993, I was 13 and living in Missouri. My parents were separated. They might have earned $35,000 working full-time, combined. I know how unattainable $100,000 was back then in small towns in the heartland.
Going back three decades to 1993, a household income of $100,000 in the United States put a family in the 95th percentile; a household income of $100,000 was an exclusive amount of money. And, it wasn’t middle class money; it was upper class household income.
Beyond time, geography impacts value; we know $100,000 doesn’t have the same purchasing power in Los Angeles as it does in a small town in the Midwest. Looking at Middletown, Ohio, specifically, the most current numbers reveal only 10% of the households have access to over $100,000 and 50% have $36,900 or less. Thirty years later, and a household income of $100,000 will still preclude small town Ohioan households with an income of $100,000 from an easy acceptance into either the lower or middle classes.
Poverty and hardship are as American as apple pie
Social class is complex and debated. Are there two classes, the owners and workers? Three classes? Are there six, upper, upper-middle, middle, lower-middle, lower and the underclass? Regardless of which camp we fall, social scientists generally describe social class as a combination of one’s income, wealth, education and occupation. These factors are fundamental components of our life chances.
In his memoir, J.D. Vance acknowledges that it was difficult to understand how his household, in Ohio, in 1993, with a combined income of over $100,000, had financial strain.
He concludes that socio-economically deprived people make bad choices and overspend. However, people of all classes can make bad decisions and according to social scientist Juliet Schor, overconsuming is a problem that does not stop as households ascend the class ranks. Rather as people earn more, they “need” more.
Vance’s household income was not static. His mother divorced and he moved in and out of various socio-economic spaces. However, most of us will never have the opportunity to be in a household that has access to the top 10% of household incomes, even for a short time. Rather, it is poverty, and the hardship that comes with it, that is as American as apple pie.
U.S. voters tend to vote against their own economic interests
Leaders desire to be seen as “one of us” and we love a good American Dream story. They give hope and inspire us. If we see Vance as someone who understands the struggle, he can garner the support of class under resourced Americans.
And, because Americans have a complicated relationship with social class and politics, he can gain that trust while campaigning with a former president whose policies have been against the needs of the working class.
Americans overwhelmingly lack class consciousness, with many of us voting against our own economic interests. In 2023, nationally, 62% of households had $100,000 or less. To be in the 95th percentile, a household would have needed $295,020. Twenty-five percent of households still made $36,542 or less. We are a wealthy nation, with wealthy leaders, but many of our households are nowhere close.
It’s time we shed our class dissonance and hold politicians accountable. Let’s rally and vote as though we can create socio-economic sustainability for all of us.
Megan Thiele Strong, Ph.D., is a sociology professor at San José State University and a Public Voices Fellow of the TheOpEdProject. She received her undergraduate degree from Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Opinion: Republican VP nominee J.D. Vance did not grow up an everyman
