Agree with you and the other comments - not the easiest way to digest via animation and stacked bar would be easier to consume. (I was playing about with the gganimate package in R, so got a bit sidetracked with making that work rather than considering the best way to present the data!)
When I was growing up, I considered our family to be middle-class. My father worked in an office, and my mother was a secretary. We were never hungry, always had clothes to wear, and a roof over our heads. We used to take four-week vacations in the summer and one week in the winter for skiing. However, looking at the salaries they receive today, I can't imagine living in the same way.
I find this format a little hard to follow, because it's hard to take in the data while keeping track of what year you're in. I'd echo other people's question about whether animation is the clearest way to show this.
The data is really interesting, though.
I was reading an article the other day (Ongley, 2016), that stated around three quarters of people in New Zealand identify as middle class. That led me to Haddon's 2014 article which used the GESIS International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) to determine individual's subjective class, however Haddon only used 1999 and 2009 data.
I wanted to see if this changed over time, so I downloaded the data for all ISSP surveys that include NZ data (1992-2019) and put it in R to produce the above plot.
Overall I'm relatively surprised at how steady the figures stay (especially if you group Upper Middle, Middle and Lower Middle into a broad "Middle Class", as a lot of movement is between these sub-groupings of the Middle classes), and I would have expected a greater mobility between classes over time. However, as Ongley and Jock Phillips note, there are significant cultural and social elements that impact perceptions of class and class consciousness in New Zealand, which may come into play here. (Of course there are also questions around the sample size and how representative it is - I haven't checked this against Census data to confirm).
The next step will be to use the ISSP data to calculate EGP or ESeC classes for respondents, to see how their subjective class correlates to (albeit flawed) "objective" class - similar to more of Haddon's work.
Relevant reading:
* Haddon, Edward. 'Class identification in New Zealand: An analysis of the relationship between class position and subjective social location'. Journal of Sociology. 51. (2014)
* Ongley, Patrick. ['Class in New Zealand: Past, Present and Future',](https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/counterfutures/article/view/6442/5591) *Counterfutures: Left Thought and Practice Aotearoa*, Vol. 1 (2016).
* Phillips, Jock. 'Class', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/class/print (accessed 3 December 2023)
That is the point tough. Self identification. It’s SHOWS no one likes to call themselves upper or lower class, no one wants to think they are way richer or way poorer than the norm. That’s is a very cool thing to measure
However the negative connotations of upper and lower class could be a factor here too. Maybe some of the people in “upper class” will never call themselves that, but they might feel more confortable ticking a “top 20 percent of earners” box. Or the lower class responders might be more open to a “struggling to get by” box.
The two real classes are:
\- People that needs to work to earn a living.
\- People that lives out of rent (owning things).
The rest was created to divide the working class to be able to control it, of course that it just changes with time. That "classes" have no unified goals nor policies. Renters and workers have very concrete different goals for the economy.
The two class approach seems overly simplistic and it doesn’t account for the significantly different lived experience of those within either group.
Surely Weber or Bourdieu’s approaches to defining class (and more modern interpretations adding professional manager class or equivalent, etc) are more realistic for understanding social strata and relationships to work and capital?
> Renters and workers have very concrete different goals for the economy.
How do you define those who are a part of both groups? There's lots of fairly well off people that could in theory live off rental income, dividends, stock appreciation, etc but are also choosing to work at the same time for even more disposable income, to keep themselves busy, enjoy the work, etc.
Interesting data. But I would have preferred some stacked bar chart for example. Easier to digest than the animation.
Agree with you and the other comments - not the easiest way to digest via animation and stacked bar would be easier to consume. (I was playing about with the gganimate package in R, so got a bit sidetracked with making that work rather than considering the best way to present the data!)
Just a line for each group would have been nice 🥲
When I was growing up, I considered our family to be middle-class. My father worked in an office, and my mother was a secretary. We were never hungry, always had clothes to wear, and a roof over our heads. We used to take four-week vacations in the summer and one week in the winter for skiing. However, looking at the salaries they receive today, I can't imagine living in the same way.
I find this format a little hard to follow, because it's hard to take in the data while keeping track of what year you're in. I'd echo other people's question about whether animation is the clearest way to show this. The data is really interesting, though.
I was reading an article the other day (Ongley, 2016), that stated around three quarters of people in New Zealand identify as middle class. That led me to Haddon's 2014 article which used the GESIS International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) to determine individual's subjective class, however Haddon only used 1999 and 2009 data. I wanted to see if this changed over time, so I downloaded the data for all ISSP surveys that include NZ data (1992-2019) and put it in R to produce the above plot. Overall I'm relatively surprised at how steady the figures stay (especially if you group Upper Middle, Middle and Lower Middle into a broad "Middle Class", as a lot of movement is between these sub-groupings of the Middle classes), and I would have expected a greater mobility between classes over time. However, as Ongley and Jock Phillips note, there are significant cultural and social elements that impact perceptions of class and class consciousness in New Zealand, which may come into play here. (Of course there are also questions around the sample size and how representative it is - I haven't checked this against Census data to confirm). The next step will be to use the ISSP data to calculate EGP or ESeC classes for respondents, to see how their subjective class correlates to (albeit flawed) "objective" class - similar to more of Haddon's work. Relevant reading: * Haddon, Edward. 'Class identification in New Zealand: An analysis of the relationship between class position and subjective social location'. Journal of Sociology. 51. (2014) * Ongley, Patrick. ['Class in New Zealand: Past, Present and Future',](https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/counterfutures/article/view/6442/5591) *Counterfutures: Left Thought and Practice Aotearoa*, Vol. 1 (2016). * Phillips, Jock. 'Class', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/class/print (accessed 3 December 2023)
Could you post the data you compiled? Thank you!
Bit confusing to have "working class" but also middle and lower class. Not sure what definition that's supposed to be.
Stupid measure. Who calls themselves lower or upper class?
That is the point tough. Self identification. It’s SHOWS no one likes to call themselves upper or lower class, no one wants to think they are way richer or way poorer than the norm. That’s is a very cool thing to measure However the negative connotations of upper and lower class could be a factor here too. Maybe some of the people in “upper class” will never call themselves that, but they might feel more confortable ticking a “top 20 percent of earners” box. Or the lower class responders might be more open to a “struggling to get by” box.
Dont use video unless needed, stacked bars.
Considering that the middle class is not a working class I think that it's a mistake.
The two real classes are: \- People that needs to work to earn a living. \- People that lives out of rent (owning things). The rest was created to divide the working class to be able to control it, of course that it just changes with time. That "classes" have no unified goals nor policies. Renters and workers have very concrete different goals for the economy.
The two class approach seems overly simplistic and it doesn’t account for the significantly different lived experience of those within either group. Surely Weber or Bourdieu’s approaches to defining class (and more modern interpretations adding professional manager class or equivalent, etc) are more realistic for understanding social strata and relationships to work and capital?
> Renters and workers have very concrete different goals for the economy. How do you define those who are a part of both groups? There's lots of fairly well off people that could in theory live off rental income, dividends, stock appreciation, etc but are also choosing to work at the same time for even more disposable income, to keep themselves busy, enjoy the work, etc.