News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Where do you *feel* you stand in society?

Started by Syt, November 03, 2016, 03:26:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Where do you *feel* you stand in society?

Lower Class, Left of Center
3 (4.9%)
Lower class, Center
3 (4.9%)
Lower Class, Right of Center
6 (9.8%)
Middle Class, Left of Center
21 (34.4%)
Middle Class, Center
11 (18%)
Middle Class, Right of Center
9 (14.8%)
Upper Class, Left of Center
2 (3.3%)
Upper Class, Center
3 (4.9%)
Upper Class, Right of Center
1 (1.6%)
I have no class (Jaron Option).
2 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 60

grumbler

Quote from: Martinus on November 07, 2016, 11:16:32 AM
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.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Martinus

Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2016, 07:24:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 07, 2016, 11:16:32 AM
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.
Let's bomb Russia!

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

Quote from: Tyr on November 07, 2016, 12:05:31 PM
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

Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2016, 09:33:14 AM
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  :hmm:

Brazen


dps

Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2016, 07:26:40 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2016, 07:24:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 07, 2016, 11:16:32 AM
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

Quote from: dps on November 08, 2016, 04:44:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2016, 07:26:40 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2016, 07:24:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 07, 2016, 11:16:32 AM
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.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

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.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

CountDeMoney


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.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

Monoriu

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2016, 12:21:07 AM
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

Quote from: Monoriu on November 09, 2016, 01:12:02 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2016, 12:21:07 AM
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.
Que le grand cric me croque !