Where do you *feel* you stand in society?

[grumbler]

That is why you can have something like "an impoverished upper class" - something that would be a contradiction in terms under the grumbler's definition.

I'd note that the definition I gave isn't mine:  it's the one historians generally use to describe class structure in the pre-welfare-state world.  You are correct that "impoverished upper class" is a contradiction in terms in the classic social class characterization.

I'd note that the definition is really a family definition, not an individual one, though; an "impoversihed' university student is still upper class if his family is upper class.  The system doesn't deal well with outliers, though, which is a seperate issue from its current obsolescence.   As a generalization, though, it works well enough.

[Martinus]

That is why you can have something like "an impoverished upper class" - something that would be a contradiction in terms under the grumbler's definition.

I'd note that the definition I gave isn't mine:  it's the one historians generally use to describe class structure in the pre-welfare-state world.  You are correct that "impoverished upper class" is a contradiction in terms in the classic social class characterization.

I'd note that the definition is really a family definition, not an individual one, though; an "impoversihed' university student is still upper class if his family is upper class.  The system doesn't deal well with outliers, though, which is a seperate issue from its current obsolescence.   As a generalization, though, it works well enough.

Yeah but the concept I was talking about was broader. You could be an improverished upper class family in Poland (maybe today less than 30 or 40 years ago). It means you have a name, good education, are well read etc. but have to live in a small flat, for example.

[Sheilbh]

Upper middle class left of left of Centre/Red Tory scum.

[Brazen]

Apropos of a conversation at work, here's the UK's National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) used in censuses and the like. Even with this I'm not sure where to classify myself.

1. Higher managerial and professional occupations
2. Lower managerial and professional occupations
3. Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales, service)
4. Small employers and own account workers
5. Lower supervisory and technical occupations
6. Semi-routine occupations
7. Routine occupations
8. Never worked or long-term unemployed

[crazy canuck]

The main confusion comes when you get people of working class background doing well for themselves in middle and upper class roles.

Your model needs to account for upward mobility.  Malthus' description seems more accurate.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Apropos of a conversation at work, here's the UK's National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) used in censuses and the like. Even with this I'm not sure where to classify myself.

1. Higher managerial and professional occupations
2. Lower managerial and professional occupations
3. Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales, service)
4. Small employers and own account workers
5. Lower supervisory and technical occupations
6. Semi-routine occupations
7. Routine occupations
8. Never worked or long-term unemployed

I've done 6 maybe 7 out of 8 of those 

[Brazen]

I've done 6 maybe 7 out of 8 of those 

Social mobility in action

[dps]

That is why you can have something like "an impoverished upper class" - something that would be a contradiction in terms under the grumbler's definition.

I'd note that the definition I gave isn't mine:  it's the one historians generally use to describe class structure in the pre-welfare-state world.  You are correct that "impoverished upper class" is a contradiction in terms in the classic social class characterization.

I'd note that the definition is really a family definition, not an individual one, though; an "impoversihed' university student is still upper class if his family is upper class.  The system doesn't deal well with outliers, though, which is a seperate issue from its current obsolescence.   As a generalization, though, it works well enough.

Yeah but the concept I was talking about was broader. You could be an improverished upper class family in Poland (maybe today less than 30 or 40 years ago). It means you have a name, good education, are well read etc. but have to live in a small flat, for example.

Well, that doesn't really apply all that much in the US, where ideas of class are based almost entirely on wealth.

[Malthus]

That is why you can have something like "an impoverished upper class" - something that would be a contradiction in terms under the grumbler's definition.

I'd note that the definition I gave isn't mine:  it's the one historians generally use to describe class structure in the pre-welfare-state world.  You are correct that "impoverished upper class" is a contradiction in terms in the classic social class characterization.

I'd note that the definition is really a family definition, not an individual one, though; an "impoversihed' university student is still upper class if his family is upper class.  The system doesn't deal well with outliers, though, which is a seperate issue from its current obsolescence.   As a generalization, though, it works well enough.

Yeah but the concept I was talking about was broader. You could be an improverished upper class family in Poland (maybe today less than 30 or 40 years ago). It means you have a name, good education, are well read etc. but have to live in a small flat, for example.

Well, that doesn't really apply all that much in the US, where ideas of class are based almost entirely on wealth.

He said as much in his original post - that these notions vary by country.

[MadImmortalMan]

1: I don't feel things like this. I think them.


2: Like Malthus said, the concept of "class" is obsolete. We're all individuals now.

[CountDeMoney]

Like Malthus said, the concept of "class" is obsolete. We're all individuals now.

[Monoriu]

I think the concept of social class is still deeply ingrained in our minds.  The composition and characteristics change rapidly though.  We will sort people into broad "haves", "have-nots", "super haves" and "super have-nots".

[MadImmortalMan]

It's not just that. Class was a thing you were born into.

[Monoriu]

It's not just that. Class was a thing you were born into.

The importance of birth has declined a lot.  But money and social status are still big deal. 

[Oexmelin]

It's not just that. Class was a thing you were born into.

The importance of birth has declined a lot.  But money and social status are still big deal.

It hasn't. We just pretend it has. And we carefully erect as models some successful outliers - who always existed, even in really rigid societies.