Who is middle class?

[billvon 3,080]

>So in your dollar-centric view a well heeled hooker or a successful
>drug peddler is higher class than a priest or an admiral in the US Navy.

I can think of a few hookers who are higher class than a few (former) priests from my hometown parish.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So in your dollar-centric view a well heeled hooker or a successful drug peddler is higher class than a priest or an admiral in the US Navy.

I disagree.

It is you that puts value judgements on membership in the upper class or the lower class. I don't. It is merely a defined set. Students graduate from the lower class to the upper class in a hurry if they majored in a number of fields. Most at least move to the middle class. Of course they just didn't transform from scum of society to productive stars. Unless you insist on treating wealth that way.

A successful hooker or drug deal certainly qualifies in the upper class, though with all of their income being undocumented, there's the potential to end up in the felon class.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Antioch (or anything along a BART corridor) is getting too expensive.

So they'll drive 20 minutes to the BART station. Take a 50 mile half-circle centered on Oakland; that's 4000 square miles that includes Vacaville, Holt, Byron, Rio Vista, Dixon etc.

And if people don't want to do that? The service industries will keep raising their pay until people DO want to do that, and the area will get even more expensive. If it gets too expensive the area will crash and the price of housing will come down. Which will also fix the problem.

You need to check that map - a lot of that territory isn't usable (bay, mountains, rivers). And Byron is right next to cities I mentioned already. IMO, if people have to drive 20 minutes to BART to take an hour train ride, they'll tend to drive the entire way instead. I'm not sure how they can do either. I've worked with people that were members of the 20 hour commute club (per week) and they actually lived in the inner Bay Area.

I tend to think it will be a bit of a crash rather than a simple adjustment. Too many people trying to sell houses in Vallejo for 850k.

[billvon 3,080]

>You need to check that map - a lot of that territory isn't usable

I did! Drew a big circle and everything. I'd guess 30% of that area might be unusable; that leaves a lot of land. A lot of that territory just plain isn't developed yet. (Drive out to Byron and note how much nothing is there.)

>IMO, if people have to drive 20 minutes to BART to take an hour train
>ride, they'll tend to drive the entire way instead.

I drove 15 minutes to take a 50 minute train ride - and I didn't even live that far away from NYC! I knew several people who had a 2 hour commute each way, but did it because then they could have the (cheaper) house in the suburbs.

But in any case it's self-regulating in the long run. Cheap jobs will either increase their pay (to attract more people willing to commute) or go away (due to economic downturns in that area.)

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

So in your dollar-centric view a well heeled hooker or a successful drug peddler is higher class than a priest or an admiral in the US Navy.

I disagree.

It is you that puts value judgements on membership in the upper class or the lower class. I don't. It is merely a defined set. .

Of course you do, whenever you use the words "upper", "middle" or "lower" and relate it to monetary value. You only fool yourself if you think otherwise.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Exhibiting class is 10% being in control of the situation (via your wallet, physical build, education, etc.) and 90% being in control of yourself.

[happythoughts 0]

(to no one in particular)
People are using two definitions of the word "class".

Class has been used as a movable caste system defined by relative financial assets/income.

Class, in its other definition, is a term of taste and humane action. Noblesse Oblige, for example.

For the purposes of this discussion, I thought this was trying to put a peg at a specific financial level.

clicky

To confuse the two definitions, you can go in reverse directions at the same time.

Quote

The First Opium War or the First Anglo-Chinese War was fought between the British East India Company and the Qing Dynasty in China from 1839 to 1842 with the aim of forcing China to import British opium.

Quote

In casting about for other possible commodities, the British soon discovered opium, and production of the commodity was subsidized in British India.

Quote

The First Opium War was a war that some Chinese political historians feel was initiated by the British in order to make a great profit from the trade of opium.

In the US, the Kennedy family made their money from distribution of alcohol (Americas largest drug problem).

Becoming wealthy enough from the sale of debilitating chemical dependencies can propel you into the Upper Class financially, it just doesn't make you morally classy.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

(to no one in particular)
People are using two definitions of the word "class".

Class has been used as a movable caste system defined by relative financial assets/income.

Class, in its other definition, is a term of taste and humane action. Noblesse Oblige, for example.

It's pretty clear the OP was about your first definition. Or is the term "middle class" also applied to character/upbringing?

You have to wonder why some of the participants in this thread seem so uncomfortable discussing this concept as it is commonly understood. It's almost like the making of financial distinctions (where the wealthy aren't vilified) is somehow taboo and discussions of such should be discouraged.

[wmw999 2,550]

Quit using me (that would be the OP) to pick at John. Were I a moderator, I'd edit out all the both-picking-at-each-other stuff, just to abuse my power.

Being American, I have a more money-centric view of class definition. But, ya know, that's because of where I am, the US, middle class. Our true upper class, the scions and the like, would be unlikely to let me in no matter how cool I was (which I'm not). So the "class as something that stands without money" definition is valid.

I asked the question the way I did (what makes you middle class) because I wanted a variety of opinions, not because I wanted to validate my opinion. As it turns out, my original opinion was probably too limited.

I still think that money plays a bigger part in America than it does in GB. But that's an opinion, and would have to be confirmed by a well-thought-out survey (given to the type of people who don't fill out surveys, probably ). And even then it would be decried by people who say that social studies are useless.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quit using me (that would be the OP) to pick at John.

Am I wrong about my understanding of what you meant by "middle class"?

[pirana 0]

Quote

It is you that puts value judgements on membership in the upper class or the lower class. I don't. It is merely a defined set. Students graduate from the lower class to the upper class in a hurry if they majored in a number of fields. Most at least move to the middle class. Of course they just didn't transform from scum of society to productive stars. Unless you insist on treating wealth that way.

A successful hooker or drug deal certainly qualifies in the upper class, though with all of their income being undocumented, there's the potential to end up in the felon class.

And that is all it is; categorization based on certain subjective criteria - mostly behaviors. There is an easy method for knowing where you fit. The default is who you socialize with. Social classes rarely intermingle very far up and down the ladder of class distinctions. Who you hang with is pretty much what you are.

The leap to making judgements on that is what tends to wrankle. If you dig eating at Old Country Buffett and think Disney or the cattle call cruises are the cat's meow for vacation, then you are High Prole to Low Middle. Thing is there is nothing wrong with that. There is no right class to be in. What makes people uptight (especially so many of the Middles) is that they want to ascend, or think they are ascending thru their hard work and the few more dollars it might get them.

If you just take it for what it is, the identification of social circles of interaction of like-minded and like-behaving people, it is no big deal.

BTW, nobody moves from lower to upper based on their job or income alone. Rarely does anyone move that far for any reason. It is a real challenge to move more than 2 rungs per generation (on the previously posted 9 rung ladder). And being a hooker is way too much work to be considered upper class. Actual physical labor for pay (even just having sex) is outside their behavior set, unless it takes the form of being an artist, writer, etc. Uppers do not work for money, they use brain power to let money work for them.

There seems to be a desire by some to just plot the income dots and draw some lines and call it class. That's not class, that's just income statistics. Using income for class, Mike Tyson would have gone from Bottom Out Of Sight to Upper to Bottom Of Sight to Upper and so on and so forth. Class is a social distinction that doesn't change much in a lifetime without serious change to mindset and behaviors. Income is just income, and it can change dramatically without confering any change in class at all.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Our true upper class, the scions and the like, would be unlikely to let me in no matter how cool I was (which I'm not). So the "class as something that stands without money" definition is valid.

I still think that money plays a bigger part in America than it does in GB.

Well, if you were really cool, or really rich, or really famous; they might invite you in to play - but understand it would be purely for their entertainment purposes. Think Britney Spears or Mike Tyson. As soon as you failed to amuse them, you'd be about as welcome as a narc at a biker rally.

Money does play a bigger part of class in the US than in Europe only because of the much shorter history we have in which to establish the classes. They have thousands of years of socially interacting at a level that dictates social distinctions take place. We have only 350 years, and the Pilgrims were hardly the social elite. Transplants of anything but Proles and Lower Middles from Europe did not take place until well into the 1700's, so we really only have about a dozen generations of activity for classes to form up.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The leap to making judgements on that is what tends to wrankle. If you dig eating at Old Country Buffett and think Disney or the cattle call cruises are the cat's meow for vacation, then you are High Prole to Low Middle.

This is an illustration of my dislike for the non income based classifications. The sort of person who categorizes others as "Proles" is not someone I would associate with. The elitism there is just too distasteful. It's only a step away from "Korean store owner" and other racial stereotyping.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

The leap to making judgements on that is what tends to wrankle. If you dig eating at Old Country Buffett and think Disney or the cattle call cruises are the cat's meow for vacation, then you are High Prole to Low Middle.

This is an illustration of my dislike for the non income based classifications. The sort of person who categorizes others as "Proles" is not someone I would associate with. The elitism there is just too distasteful. It's only a step away from "Korean store owner" and other racial stereotyping.

It's short for Proletarian. Do you deny that such a thing exists? If so, then do you deny the existence of social classes altogether?

If no to both of those, then what is it that causes you to brand someone not afraid to talk about it as elitist? Do you agree that social classes exist, but feel it is not polite or bad to talk about them? That's OK, a lot of people are uncomfortable with the topic.

Some of what I have posted is just fun and facetious, but a good amount of it is true and quite well documented. Where do you think marketing firms get their data, and why do you think they use it? Do you think that kind of research is racist or makes people guilty of sterotyping?

If I compile demographics and exit survey results on the visitors to Disney in an effort analyze the average attendees likelihood to buy certain consumables, and in the process discover that 87% of them fall into some very narrow categories of behavior, and call that out in my reports - what am I guilty of? Elitism? Racism?

The race comment really threw me. If I have a friend who owns a store and is Korean, I do not feel racist in acknowledging him as a Korean store owner.

Anyway, sorry if you would choose not to associate with me because of my penchant for analyzing human behaior. We could probably create an -ism label for that and whine about it's adherents too.

If it is the term Prole that upsets you, what would you prefer?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

The leap to making judgements on that is what tends to wrankle. If you dig eating at Old Country Buffett and think Disney or the cattle call cruises are the cat's meow for vacation, then you are High Prole to Low Middle.

This is an illustration of my dislike for the non income based classifications.

The Old Country Buffet comment actually made me laugh. Jim Gaffigan has a bit about valuing beautiful people in everyday language as evidenced by the phrase, "Looks like things are going to get ugly."

"Well how are ugly people supposed to respond to this?" He asks, "Well, it doesn't affect me.... I'm headin' to Olive Garden."

...followed by his fake audience murmering...

"Hey, I like Olive Garden. What's wrong with Olive Garden? All you can eat bread sticks!"

[pirana 0]

Appreciate the acknowledgement of the humorous side of the discussion. I think it is a topic that is very interesting, and at times good fun. And I don't mind eating at the OCB once in a while. It's palatable and the kids don't have that agonizing wait for FOOD. But I also know that it is best to spend the next 4 hour window not more than 10 minutes from the can, any can.

I suppose I could upset everybody and classify on income based criteria and non-income based criteria. It might actually double the fun.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[NCclimber 0]

Thanks for keeping this on topic and amusing.

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Quit using me (that would be the OP) to pick at John. Were I a moderator, I'd edit out all the both-picking-at-each-other stuff, just to abuse my power.
Wendy W.

Wendy for Greenie!!!!

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's short for Proletarian. Do you deny that such a thing exists? If so, then do you deny the existence of social classes altogether?

I dislike the use of prole, along with serf, peasant, redneck, white trash as all have disdain built into the use. Going back to the crap you wrote earlier, it's merely the word of choice for those who believe the the syllable count says something about the speaker.

You can't group all of these people together - you have low income thugs and you have low income saints (literally and figuratively). Since the nicest definition of it is the underclass, why not go back to income levels, which are based on objective data rather than snotty evaluations of where people eat or take vacations? (Sam Walton almost certainly would fall into your categorization based on his spending habits)

If you want to use Marx's definition, the proletarians are the wage workers, at war with those who own the means of production. But in America, the barrier to cross over is not so great as many insist. (I, otoh, am happy to collect a salary so I can do other things on weekends) Hard work is key.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Lemme just say that if you think an income of $200,000 is "middle class" then you're delusional.

Well, if you're in California, you are probably not in a middle class by having just 200k/year income.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

In sociology there are several (bs) models of class in regards to western societies as people have previously touched on... lower, middle, upper middle, etc bs etc

but in reality you are 1. working class 2. not

[wmw999 2,550]

Quote

In sociology there are several (bs) models of class in regards to western societies

In social constructs, perception really is reality. The working class vs. not working class distinction is just as artificial.

Who is a worker? Are doctors workers? College professors? Concierges? CEOs who put in 80-hour weeks?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

why not go back to income levels, which are based on objective data rather than snotty evaluations of where people eat or take vacations?

because the thread will come to a crashing halt - half the posters WANT to classify themselves and others based 'snotty evaluations' - where they eat, take vacations, and who they can claim they hang with..... the self image is so important to them -

[I know, because the other day, I was invited to a big dinner party and while talking to 3 admirals and 2 CEOs, the topic came up and THEY said......]

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

In sociology there are several (bs) models of class in regards to western societies

Who is a worker? Are doctors workers? College professors? Concierges? CEOs who put in 80-hour weeks?

Wendy W.

Everyone who doesn't live off huge amounts of capital, so...

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

...It's easier just to say 98% of us I guess

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

why not go back to income levels, which are based on objective data rather than snotty evaluations of where people eat or take vacations?

because the thread will come to a crashing halt - half the posters WANT to classify themselves and others based 'snotty evaluations' - where they eat, take vacations, and who they can claim they hang with..... the self image is so important to them -

[I know, because the other day, I was invited to a big dinner party and while talking to 3 admirals and 2 CEOs, the topic came up and THEY said......]

Admirals don't get paid much, so why are you and the CEOs hanging with them if money is the answer to class?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.