Social Class in America: Three Ladder System

[Jacob]

Why would Ide be the most sympathetic towards it?

... or maybe you

It seems to me that the writer has a certain firebrand antipathy towards the very upper end of the class scale he sets forth; and that shows through a fair bit.

[CountDeMoney]

Why would Ide be the most sympathetic towards it?

... or maybe you

It seems to me that the writer has a certain firebrand antipathy towards the very upper end of the class scale he sets forth; and that shows through a fair bit.

Just wondering, as there were no movies or documents to review in there, s'all.

[Jacob]

Just wondering, as there were no movies or documents to review in there, s'all.

[Jacob]

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

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

Yeah, he does seem to have some antipathy towards the E grouping, and I'm pretty sure the people who populate it don't see themselves as morally bankrupt the way Mr. Church implies.

Similarly, I'm pretty sure he's got a somewhat overly sweet and positive view of the G group, which is a bit distracting.

CC - the fact that you know many E2s does lend some (anecdotal) support to the notion that E3s success is connected to the social connections they have with higher tiers of the E ladder?

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".

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

Yeah, it's pretty hard to argue that the ranks of Ides and junior lawyers are Elite by Mr. Church's categorization.

[Neil]

Well, that was interesting.  He was just a bit racist against Arabs, and his knowledge of history is pretty weak, but it was interesting.

[merithyn]

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.

I think that the classes are pretty good, though it seems that there's so much overlap that you have to wonder at the necessity of so many different categories.

His analysis is very much based in his own self-perceived Gentrism. I'd argue that the Golden Age of the US came from the Labor Ladder's willingness to put the work in to get the job done. But I know that comes from my own self-perceived Laborism. In truth, there's never been a true "Golden Age"; just rose-colored glasses.

Americans have no class. 

Heh. Right. Keep telling yourself that.

[merithyn]

Why would Ide be the most sympathetic towards it?

... or maybe you

It seems to me that the writer has a certain firebrand antipathy towards the very upper end of the class scale he sets forth; and that shows through a fair bit.

And an utter disregard toward those on the Labor Ladder. They are, after all, merely pawns in the war between the Gentry and the Elite.

[crazy canuck]

CC - the fact that you know many E2s does lend some (anecdotal) support to the notion that E3s success is connected to the social connections they have with higher tiers of the E ladder?

Except my success had and has nothing at all to do with knowing any E2s.  That came later and I dont do any work for them.   The question of what law firm is retained for x issue isnt normally an E2 type decision.   That is one of the problems I have with this piece, which Malthus already mentioned.  He makes odd associations that dont reflect reality.

[Neil]

Whereas I see the 'US golden age' to have come from being the only major industrial economy not to have been completely destroyed by war, and the fact that the Third World, even if advanced in some ways by colonialism was still hundreds of years away from civilization, making it impossible for them to effectively harness and exploit their resources.  And make no mistake, there can be Golden Ages.

[Neil]

And an utter disregard toward those on the Labor Ladder. They are, after all, merely pawns in the war between the Gentry and the Elite.

But that's their lot.  That's the whole point of the labour ladder.  Labour never has a say, they're always just muscle. 

[Jacob]

Well, that was interesting.  He was just a bit racist against Arabs, and his knowledge of history is pretty weak, but it was interesting

Is the racist against Arabs thing a reference to the Davos skibunnies line?

But yeah... I don't think Church has everything figured out, but there's some interesting food for thought there.

[derspiess]

Americans have no class. 

Heh. Right. Keep telling yourself that.

For the most part, he's right.

[Neil]

Well, that was interesting.  He was just a bit racist against Arabs, and his knowledge of history is pretty weak, but it was interesting

Is the racist against Arabs thing a reference to the Davos skibunnies line?

But yeah... I don't think Church has everything figured out, but there's some interesting food for thought there.

Not exclusively.  There were a few bits where it seemed like he was talking about the Arab sheiks as a huge portion of his E1s.  I don't think that there's a lot of consistency as to who is in his E1 group.  The only real unifying factor seems to be that he hates them.  Being incredibly wealthy isn't enough on it's own.  Being politically powerful isn't enough.  Even being both isn't.  You have to be rich, powerful and be offensive to Mike Church's worldview.  You might as well replace 'G' with 'good' and 'E' with 'evil'.

Also, high-speed rail is stupid in a North American context.

[Jacob]

Except my success had and has nothing at all to do with knowing any E2s.  That came later and I dont do any work for them.   The question of what law firm is retained for x issue isnt normally an E2 type decision.   That is one of the problems I have with this piece, which Malthus already mentioned.  He makes odd associations that dont reflect reality.

Fair enough; you obviously know the dynamics behind your own success than I do

I would have thought that a large part of being and remaining successful as a partner-level lawyer comes from the connections you have and maintain with clients and potential clients, and I would also have thought that those clients and the people who decide which lawyers to use tend to be in the upper E levels?

[Jacob]

Not exclusively.  There were a few bits where it seemed like he was talking about the Arab sheiks as a huge portion of his E1s.  I don't think that there's a lot of consistency as to who is in his E1 group.  The only real unifying factor seems to be that he hates them.  Being incredibly wealthy isn't enough on it's own.  Being politically powerful isn't enough.  Even being both isn't.  You have to be rich, powerful and be offensive to Mike Church's worldview.  You might as well replace 'G' with 'good' and 'E' with 'evil'.

Yup. He did fall apart with his somewhat rosy eyed characterization of the G group, and with the upper ends of the E spectrum especially. It did smack a little too much of the "secret cabal of the super wealthy" conspiracy theory for me there.