Social Class in America: Three Ladder System

[Neil]

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.

I think he would argue that the E1s and 2s are the ones who set the laws and create the twisted framework in which you operate.  Sure, you sponge your money from all sorts of people on all sorts of rungs of the ladders, but everything you do reinforces the sick system of laws that the villains dreamed up.

Of course that's silly.  The Priesthood of the Law is a product of people he would consider Gentry, not Elite.

[Berkut]

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?

WEll, you are certianly right about his agenda. He has some really interesting points though. This bit stuck out to me as being pretty interesting. I don't know if it is correct, but it is certainly interesting:

The relationship between the Gentry and Elite is one of open rivalry, and that between the Gentry and Labor is one of distrust. What about Labor and the Elite? That one is not symmetric. The Elite exploit and despise Labor as a class comprised mostly of "useful idiots". How does Labor see the Elite? They don't. The Elite has managed to convince Labor that the Gentry (who are open about their cultural elitism, while the Elite hides its social and economic elitism) is the actual "liberal elite" responsible for Labor's misery over the past 30 years. In effect, the Elite has constructed an "infinity pool" where the Elite appears to be a hyper-successful extension of Labor, lumping these two disparate ladders into an "us" and placing the Gentry and Underclass into "them".

[crazy canuck]

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?

No.  As I said in my post you are responding to -  those decisions are generally not made by the upper E levels.  He is not only ingorant about how his defined upper Es live their lives.  He is also ignorant about how decision making and power is excercised within most organizations.

Social contact is important but for some reason he thinks it matters most at the highest levels whereas it matters most at the mid/upper management levels (which he quite emphatically states an upper E would never touch).

[Malthus]

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?

That depends, a lot.

Can't speak for CC, but for me, my "clients" are in-house counsel at pharma corporations. Those are the "connections" that count. The people who own pharma corporations don't want to know me, would have exactly zero contact with me.

Oddly, my "clients" tend to be lower on the lawyering social scale that I am - it is usually considered somewhat of a step down to go "in house" from a big law firm.

For litigators, OTOH, your clients are of course anyone with litigation to do and the money to pay for it.

[Jacob]

Americans have no class. 

For the most part, he's right.

Do you not think that there are social differences between "the poors", say, and yourselves? Or between your Joan Robinsons and Lemonjellos on one hand and and the guys and the people who work at McDonald's on the other hand? Between the children of successful executives and the children of successful small business owners?

And if there are social differences, are many of them not passed along from parent to child in many cases, significantly shaping values, attitudes, and opportunities?

Because if those differences exist and they're transmitted through the generations, then you do have class.

... or do they not, do you define class differently, or is the "we have no class" aspirational rather than descriptive?

[Savonarola]

Americans have no class. 

For the most part, he's right.

Do you not think that there are social differences between "the poors", say, and yourselves? Or between your Joan Robinsons and Lemonjellos on one hand and and the guys and the people who work at McDonald's on the other hand? Between the children of successful executives and the children of successful small business owners?

And if there are social differences, are many of them not passed along from parent to child in many cases, significantly shaping values, attitudes, and opportunities?

Because if those differences exist and they're transmitted through the generations, then you do have class.

... or do they not, do you define class differently, or is the "we have no class" aspirational rather than descriptive?

I think MiM was making a pun on the word "Class."

[The Brain]

Jacob just had to be an asshole.

[Jacob]

Malthus & CC - thanks for you clarifications; they even seem to mutually agree. So Church is off the mark when speaking of lawyers, and when describing the interactions of the mid- and upper- E levels which both of you are better positioned to view (if we even accept his classification system to begin with).

Do you think the rest of his classification system falls down too, or is it a potentially useful framework for analysis once adjusted to be more accurate (and filter out bias)?

[derspiess]

Americans have no class. 

For the most part, he's right.

Do you not think that there are social differences between "the poors", say, and yourselves? Or between your Joan Robinsons and Lemonjellos on one hand and and the guys and the people who work at McDonald's on the other hand? Between the children of successful executives and the children of successful small business owners?

And if there are social differences, are many of them not passed along from parent to child in many cases, significantly shaping values, attitudes, and opportunities?

Because if those differences exist and they're transmitted through the generations, then you do have class.

... or do they not, do you define class differently, or is the "we have no class" aspirational rather than descriptive?

There's a small underclass and a small upper class.  But a large majority of us are in a big squishy middle (effectively classless), despite all the OMG THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DIEING rhetoric we hear.

[Jacob]

I think MiM was making a pun on the word "Class."

I thought so too, but I don't think derspiess was.

[Savonarola]

I think MiM was making a pun on the word "Class."

I thought so too, but I don't think derspiess was.

Ah, okay, bicker on then. 

[Jacob]

There's a small underclass and a small upper class.  But a large majority of us are in a big squishy middle (effectively classless), despite all the OMG THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DIEING rhetoric we hear.

Fair enough.

Do you think that some of those differences in attitude that Church describes exists? I.e. valuing labour vs creativity vs social connection exists, as well as different definitions of success? And if so, what do you put them down to? Individual and political opinion? Something else?

[Berkut]

My primary objection is with the idea that there are separate "ladders". That implies that moving from one to another is difficult, if not impossible. And while I think it is incredibly hard to move OFF the "underclass" ladder, and incredibly hard to move onto the "ultra elite ladder", everything in between is pretty easy to move around in the US, at least in general.

It is not very hard at all for what he would consider the son/daughter of a labour ladder class to move to the "gentry" ladder, for example.

[Valmy]

I think alot of Americans define class as in a social hierarchy of orders with legal privileges for each one, a la ancien regime France.  So because we have no dukes, or whatever, we have no class.

Which strikes me as a very narrow definition of class.

[Jacob]

Ah, okay, bicker on then. 

Thank you, sir.

I don't think we've descended into the bickering stage quite yet; though this being languish, I'm sure it's not far off