Social Class in America: Three Ladder System

[Jacob]

A three ladder system of class in the US - and possibly globally: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/

The guy certainly has his bias - and it shows - but I think the basic classification system is pretty sound at least in broad strokes. Seems to me that pretty much everyone at languish can be placed on it

The bias - and the analysis that follows - is probably more controversial. I expect Ide is the languishite most likely to be sympathetic towards it.

If you have the time to read it, I'm curious what you think - first about the class classifications, how appropriate do you think they are; and secondly about the analysis he offers?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I need to read this later, but I am surprised and impressed that a Michael O. Church blog post made it to Languish.  CdM would love some of his posts on the Gervais principle.

[Grey Fox]

L3

[The Brain]

I have the luxury of choosing not to work. I also have the luxury of choosing not to eat.

[derspiess]

I have the luxury of choosing not to work. I also have the luxury of choosing not to eat.

I'm sure your king will take care of you.

[Malthus]

About the class system proposed - seems awfully arbitrary to me. Not sure what is added by having three seperate "ladders". The "elite" ladder is odd - those rich enough not to work really have little or nothing in common with working professionals, as the authour points out, so why are they being grouped together?

[MadImmortalMan]

This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far. Americans have no class. 

[garbon]

This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far.

[Jacob]

About the class system proposed - seems awfully arbitrary to me. Not sure what is added by having three seperate "ladders". The "elite" ladder is odd - those rich enough not to work really have little or nothing in common with working professionals, as the authour points out, so why are they being grouped together?

Because it's connected through values and what it takes to rise to the top of it (social status and connections vs ideas and creativity vs hard work). At least, that seems to be the argument that the writer sets forth.

But yeah, he does seem to go somewhat off the rails with his description of the E1 level (which is why I think why Ide-Tongzhi might approve )

[Jacob]

This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far. Americans have no class. 

Really? There are no class differences between "the Poors" and derSpiess and Caliga? The Koch brothers are not from a different class than Woody Allen or Charels Ramsey?

[garbon]

This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far. Americans have no class. 

Really? There are no class differences between "the Poors" and derSpiess and Caliga? The Koch brothers are not from a different class than Woody Allen or Charels Ramsey?

Well high-skill labor and primary gentry sound awfully similar.

[CountDeMoney]

The bias - and the analysis that follows - is probably more controversial. I expect Ide is the languishite most likely to be sympathetic towards it.

Why would Ide be the most sympathetic towards it?

[Malthus]

About the class system proposed - seems awfully arbitrary to me. Not sure what is added by having three seperate "ladders". The "elite" ladder is odd - those rich enough not to work really have little or nothing in common with working professionals, as the authour points out, so why are they being grouped together?

Because it's connected through values and what it takes to rise to the top of it (social status and connections vs ideas and creativity vs hard work). At least, that seems to be the argument that the writer sets forth.

But yeah, he does seem to go somewhat off the rails with his description of the E1 level (which is why I think why Ide-Tongzhi might approve )

Work at all three levels can, in some cases, require these values. I would not say lawyering (which he's placed in the elite category) is more about "social status" than (say) "ideas" and "hard work".

That's quite aside from his mouth-foaming about the bottomless, eternal evil of the E1s. 

[crazy canuck]

I am going to have to tell the E2s I know that they are doing it wrong.

[crazy canuck]

Work at all three levels can, in some cases, require these values. I would not say lawyering (which he's placed in the elite category) is more about "social status" than (say) "ideas" and "hard work".

That's quite aside from his mouth-foaming about the bottomless, eternal evil of the E1s. 

Yeah, I thought his description of the lower Ls fit most lawyers - except for the pay range.