And the fact that I have to stretch that far to find non-comedy working-class shows, says a lot about TV production company values, and what they think of their target demographics.
If the intention of lower-class characters in TV is to provide characters that lower-class people either identify with or find interesting, the simplest explanation -- provided by my husband, who grew up on public assistance was among the poorest of the poor in a Cleveland ghetto -- is that there was no interest because there was no time to watch it, nor sometimes even a TV. He and his brother were able to attend Catholic school for free, and his mother abandoned them twice in high school for a year at a time. They had $20 a week from a grandfather who could barely afford that, and all of their spare time was dedicated to making sure the house didn't fall apart (which it was) and making some extra money for emergencies.
Also, with the exception of PBS or other public/government-sponsored TV in the US, TV is paid by advertisements and/or subscription. Advertisers are paying to sell products, and if they aren't reaching an audience to influence buying habits and/or product perceptions, well, there goes funding. "Free-to-watch" (NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.) TV target demographics are usually people old enough to have an income, vote, and drink.
by nature of their jobs, they have access to privileges and people-of-influence that are unavailable to a lot of other people. Also, they generally don't have to worry about losing access to their car--and therefore livelihood--over a speeding ticket.
Not necessarily. Pay is often incredibly low, and using your job as influence when it's outside of work will often get you in trouble with Internal Affairs. Believe it or not, there are places in the rural South where cops aren't able to afford their own cars and need permission to take a cruiser home.