Poll
Question:
Where do you *feel* you stand in society?
Option 1: Lower Class, Left of Center
votes: 3
Option 2: Lower class, Center
votes: 3
Option 3: Lower Class, Right of Center
votes: 6
Option 4: Middle Class, Left of Center
votes: 21
Option 5: Middle Class, Center
votes: 11
Option 6: Middle Class, Right of Center
votes: 9
Option 7: Upper Class, Left of Center
votes: 2
Option 8: Upper Class, Center
votes: 3
Option 9: Upper Class, Right of Center
votes: 1
Option 10: I have no class (Jaron Option).
votes: 2
Where do you *feel* you stand in society?
Just your gut feeling; i.e. without looking at where your income/net worth falls, or measuring your political opinions.
Oh the feels!
Lowest class, left of center.
Working class.
Not lower class.
Quote from: Syt on November 03, 2016, 03:26:52 AM
Where do you *feel* you stand in society?
Just your gut feeling; i.e. without looking at where your income/net worth falls, or measuring your political opinions.
I *feel* this is s pretty stupid poll, Syt. Don't go all Mongers on us.
Not nuanced enough for :bowler:
I am upper middle middle class, having dragged myself up by my bootstraps from lower middle middle class.
Quote from: Gups on November 03, 2016, 07:34:00 AM
Not nuanced enough for :bowler:
I am upper middle middle class, having dragged myself up by my bootstraps from lower middle middle class.
There's a comedy sketch in there somewhere.
Where I stand politically is a mystery to me. But I guess Spicey says I am far left now so I guess left it is.
Middle Class I guess. The increasingly few and increasingly less proud.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2016, 07:42:06 AM
Where I stand politically is a mystery to me. But I guess Spicey says I am far left now so I guess left it is.
Middle Class I guess. The increasingly few and increasingly less proud.
I'm confused as well as in my host country I'm definitely center and middle class but likely consider to the left in US. Of course, claiming middle makes it sound like I'm just one of the untold number of Americans who all say that they are in the middle class.
Upper middle class, radical centrist
Lower class, right of centre.
My "gut" says I am middle class, right of center.
But on the practical US political spectrum that exists now, I am left of center.
Entry level middle class, so left it hurts.
Upper class, center. :bowler:
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 03, 2016, 10:09:57 AM
Upper class, center. :bowler:
Nobody who was truly upper class would ever describe themselves as such.
Not everyone is as coy as the English.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 03, 2016, 10:22:41 AM
Not everyone is as coy as the English.
It's not a matter of disposition, it's a matter of breeding.
Middle class, right of center. Right fiscally, more left or center socially. I think I consider myself middle class, though now I'm retired so my "class" might fall a bit.
Damn commies :angry:
I notice (though I'm not surprised) that most feel they're middle class, and looking at lifestyle this will certainly hold true. At the same time I'm guessing that depending on metrics (income, net worth or similar) a lot of us would fall in the top 10-15 % in their countries
Quote from: Syt on November 04, 2016, 04:43:49 AM
I notice (though I'm not surprised) that most feel they're middle class, and looking at lifestyle this will certainly hold true. At the same time I'm guessing that depending on metrics (income, net worth or similar) a lot of us would fall in the top 10-15 % in their countries
Which in most cases is middle class.
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2016, 04:47:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 04, 2016, 04:43:49 AM
I notice (though I'm not surprised) that most feel they're middle class, and looking at lifestyle this will certainly hold true. At the same time I'm guessing that depending on metrics (income, net worth or similar) a lot of us would fall in the top 10-15 % in their countries
Which in most cases is middle class.
Yeah being upper class is a pretty niche space.
First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.
Quote from: Syt on November 04, 2016, 04:43:49 AM
I notice (though I'm not surprised) that most feel they're middle class, and looking at lifestyle this will certainly hold true. At the same time I'm guessing that depending on metrics (income, net worth or similar) a lot of us would fall in the top 10-15 % in their countries
I suspect I am in the top-10% for household income, but I don't consider that upper class at all.
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 06:44:53 AM
First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.
Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.
For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 06:44:53 AM
First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.
Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.
For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.
Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 06:44:53 AM
First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.
Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.
For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.
Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.
You are seriously arguing that someone with a half million plus yearly income is not "upper class"?
What about the President of M&T, probably pulls in several million a year? Not upper class since he actually works?
Steve Jobs was not upper class, because he worked for a living?
Bill Gates while he was running Microsoft and worth literally billions? Not upper class?
I think you've been watching too much Downton Abbey.
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 06:44:53 AM
First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.
Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.
For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.
Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.
Tamas, stop putting the Independently wealthy in the Upper class category. They are 1 higher.
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 10:03:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 06:44:53 AM
First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.
Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.
For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.
Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.
You are seriously arguing that someone with a half million plus yearly income is not "upper class"?
What about the President of M&T, probably pulls in several million a year? Not upper class since he actually works?
Steve Jobs was not upper class, because he worked for a living?
Bill Gates while he was running Microsoft and worth literally billions? Not upper class?
OR you could read what Tampax wrote.
Many people who work don't have to work for a living.
The class divisions traditionally used simply do not fit modern society very well. In the traditional divisions, a person who worked for a salary (however wealthy) would be "middle class", same as any person working a white-collar office job.
However, in the modern world, the person working a white-collar office job could well be some sort of contract worker devoid of job security or benefits, while another "working on salary" could be part of a managerial elite making millions who could easily move from one position to another, show up on a board of directors somewhere. It is odd to think of them as in the same class.
I think of modern classes as follows:
- Underclass. Exist on welfare, criminality, odd jobs.
- Have-nots. Work on salary, but lack anything like job security; benefits are limited. Low bargaining power. Example of a group traditionally considered "middle class" or even "upper middle class" that are now "have-nots": Many university employees who are not tenured, work on contract, and have limited benefits (they used to be infinitely higher class than, say, a plumber). Others are the afore-mentioned contract office worker. Many in the former "middle class" are being thrust into this category and are not enjoying that very much.
- Haves. Most work on salary to be sure, but have connections, skills, or opportunities that increase their bargaining power to the point they are able to get, at the lower end, permanent employment with good benefits and automatic job security (that is, can walk out of one job knowing they can find another easily based on skills and connections), and at the upper end, equity stakes in businesses (like massive stock options and the like). Also, owners of successful small businesses, no matter how menial: your successful plumber goes here. Some in the former middle class (or even "working class") are rising into this category.
- The super-wealthy. Celebrities, owners of large businesses; at the upper end, billionaires who could buy small countries.
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2016, 10:05:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 10:03:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 06:44:53 AM
First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.
Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.
For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.
Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.
You are seriously arguing that someone with a half million plus yearly income is not "upper class"?
What about the President of M&T, probably pulls in several million a year? Not upper class since he actually works?
Steve Jobs was not upper class, because he worked for a living?
Bill Gates while he was running Microsoft and worth literally billions? Not upper class?
OR you could read what Tampax wrote.
Many people who work don't have to work for a living.
SO the key is whether you "have to" work?
So if you are willing to survive on welfare, you are upper class?
If your parents left you a couple hundred thousand dollars, and you are content to live on the $15,000/year in interest that gives you, you are "upper class"?
But if you have a lavish lifestyle requiring a million a year to support, and you make a million a year to support it, you are NOT upper class, because you are required to work to support the lifestyle you choose?
None of that makes any sense. This idea that "upper class" is defined as the wealthy non-working pretty much disappeared about a hundred years ago or so in western society.
Executives in large companies are upper class in American society at least, whether they "have to work" or not.
You treat this as a purely financial bracketing system. But there is nothing to debate there then. Just define the values of annual income and there you go.
I was looking at the social angle of it.
One thing is true though: there are no clear-cut boundaries. Your CTO can sure mingle with the upper class and where you put him is purely a subjective matter.
Similar examples could be made for the lower ends.
I like Malthus' system, all in all.
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2016, 06:44:53 AM
First of all, if you have to work/run a business to make a living, you are not upper class.
Nah, I think that is the dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy, not middle and upper class.
For example, the CTO at M&T makes $550k/year or more. That is most definitely upper class, but not necessarily independently wealthy.
Somebody who has a job and a boss is a different category from those who are independently wealthy. Sure, he is a stinking rich white collar worker, but he is not upper class.
The cutoff is whether you need a job at all.
Well then we have quite a few upper class folks on welfare :P
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2016, 12:47:56 PM
Well then we have quite a few upper class folks on welfare :P
*sigh*
If you have to work for your 1% lifestyle, then you're not upper class.
Middle Class, Moderate
The last time I took the I Side With (https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz) quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan (http://www.transhumanistparty.org/ZoltanIstvan.html) of the Transhumanist Party. In America the only moderates are kooks. :(
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2016, 12:51:52 PM
Middle Class, Moderate
The last time I took the I Side With (https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz) quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan (http://www.transhumanistparty.org/ZoltanIstvan.html) of the Transhumanist Party. In America the only moderates are kooks. :(
You can still vote for Zoltan! :cool:
Quote from: Syt on November 03, 2016, 03:26:52 AM
Where do you *feel* you stand in society?
Just your gut feeling; i.e. without looking at where your income/net worth falls, or measuring your political opinions.
But I'm sitting down, not standing. :unsure:
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 04, 2016, 12:53:40 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2016, 12:51:52 PM
Middle Class, Moderate
The last time I took the I Side With (https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz) quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan (http://www.transhumanistparty.org/ZoltanIstvan.html) of the Transhumanist Party. In America the only moderates are kooks. :(
You can still vote for Zoltan! :cool:
The only candidate who promises to bring us Back to Methuselah. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Methuselah) :thumbsup:
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2016, 12:51:52 PM
Middle Class, Moderate
The last time I took the I Side With (https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz) quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan (http://www.transhumanistparty.org/ZoltanIstvan.html) of the Transhumanist Party. In America the only moderates are kooks. :(
That is awesome. Make America (whatever Transhumanists believe) Again.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2016, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2016, 12:51:52 PM
Middle Class, Moderate
The last time I took the I Side With (https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz) quiz I ended up as a centrist (as I usually do) but the candidate most similar to my views was Zoltan Istvan (http://www.transhumanistparty.org/ZoltanIstvan.html) of the Transhumanist Party. In America the only moderates are kooks. :(
That is awesome. Make America (whatever Transhumanists believe) Again.
Everyone has the right to live as an immortal hyperrobot.
Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party is my favourite candidate. Mainly because Augustus Sol Invictus does not run for the President. :lol:
Lowest of the lowest.
Right of center.
Quote from: Siege on November 04, 2016, 05:15:39 PM
Lowest of the lowest.
Right of center.
Siege is a data point adding to the sum total showing that intelligence is highly correlated to success in life.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2016, 03:36:27 PM
Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party is my favourite candidate. Mainly because Augustus Sol Invictus does not run for the President. :lol:
Transhumanists >>> libertarians.
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 04, 2016, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2016, 03:36:27 PM
Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party is my favourite candidate. Mainly because Augustus Sol Invictus does not run for the President. :lol:
Transhumanists >>> libertarians.
Airline pilots who fall asleep at work >>> Transhumanists >>> libertarians.
Quote from: Martinus on November 04, 2016, 03:36:27 PM
Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist Party is my favourite candidate. Mainly because Augustus Sol Invictus does not run for the President. :lol:
Better Call Sol
Middle class, center-ish.
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 04, 2016, 12:50:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2016, 12:47:56 PM
Well then we have quite a few upper class folks on welfare :P
*sigh*
If you have to work for your 1% lifestyle, then you're not upper class.
what about a person who earns in the top 1% but spends like he is middle class :whistle:
The middle class typically don't spend a thousand dollars a month at the butcher.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 04, 2016, 08:55:44 PM
The middle class typically don't spend a thousand dollars a month at the butcher.
Indeed!
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 10:22:30 AM
SO the key is whether you "have to" work?
So if you are willing to survive on welfare, you are upper class?
If your parents left you a couple hundred thousand dollars, and you are content to live on the $15,000/year in interest that gives you, you are "upper class"?
But if you have a lavish lifestyle requiring a million a year to support, and you make a million a year to support it, you are NOT upper class, because you are required to work to support the lifestyle you choose?
None of that makes any sense. This idea that "upper class" is defined as the wealthy non-working pretty much disappeared about a hundred years ago or so in western society.
Executives in large companies are upper class in American society at least, whether they "have to work" or not.
Yes, the traditional diving lines are:
Upper class: you don't have to work - you have enough wealth that work is optional. You can afford luxuries.
Middle class: you have to work, but can afford some luxuries
Lower class: have to work, but your income goes almost entirely towards necessities.
I agree with Malthus that the traditional dividing lines don't work very well with modern societies, with all the wealth transfer mechanisms. But, if you are going to use terms like "upper class," then you have to go with the definitions of those terms, even if you don't always agree with them.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 04, 2016, 08:55:44 PM
The middle class typically don't spend a thousand dollars a month at the butcher.
True, but with children leaving the CC nest we no longer consume those amounts much to the despair of my butcher. :cry:
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2016, 07:55:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2016, 10:22:30 AM
SO the key is whether you "have to" work?
So if you are willing to survive on welfare, you are upper class?
If your parents left you a couple hundred thousand dollars, and you are content to live on the $15,000/year in interest that gives you, you are "upper class"?
But if you have a lavish lifestyle requiring a million a year to support, and you make a million a year to support it, you are NOT upper class, because you are required to work to support the lifestyle you choose?
None of that makes any sense. This idea that "upper class" is defined as the wealthy non-working pretty much disappeared about a hundred years ago or so in western society.
Executives in large companies are upper class in American society at least, whether they "have to work" or not.
Yes, the traditional diving lines are:
Upper class: you don't have to work - you have enough wealth that work is optional. You can afford luxuries.
Middle class: you have to work, but can afford some luxuries
Lower class: have to work, but your income goes almost entirely towards necessities.
I agree with Malthus that the traditional dividing lines don't work very well with modern societies, with all the wealth transfer mechanisms. But, if you are going to use terms like "upper class," then you have to go with the definitions of those terms, even if you don't always agree with them.
Yup.
The problem with discussions of class divisions is that they are typically attempting somewhat incoherently to stitch together at least three different sets of definitions:
1. The traditional class structure, as you outlined, but also includes other even older concepts like the inherent class dignity of educated work (thus a university professor is always middle class, while a plumber could be "working class" even if he earns the same as the prof.).
2. Relative income ("the 1%" = earning more than 99% of persons in the country).
3. Notions of relative prospects, which is what my preferred system is based on.
These definitions are in conflict in many cases.
I think it also varies greatly on a country by country basis.
For example in Poland it has traditionally been based much more heavily on something called "cultural capital" than on financial things. This has been changing somewhat since the fall of communism, but generally your home book shelf and whether you have a piano probably tells more about your social class than your bank account.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 07, 2016, 11:16:32 AM
I think it also varies greatly on a country by country basis.
For example in Poland it has traditionally been based much more heavily on something called "cultural capital" than on financial things. This has been changing somewhat since the fall of communism, but generally your home book shelf and whether you have a piano probably tells more about your social class than your bank account.
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.
Yup, and even older (here) notion of class. Which still exists to an extent in Canada.
Goes something like this:
- Oldest: class based on dignity of descent. Your parents came from nobility, makes you a noble even if you are an uneducated clod with no money. That hardly exists at all here.
- Newer: class based on dignity of education, manners, and tastes: still used (a remnant of that is statements like "His knowledge of art and music made him very classy").
- Newer still: class based on the dignity of certain kinds of work - using one's education rather than one's hands. The university prof makes the same as the plumber, but is considered higher class.
These are all somewhat related (the nobility was thought to have the time to cultivate "good taste" and education in manners etc.)
Quote from: Martinus on November 07, 2016, 11:16:32 AM
I think it also varies greatly on a country by country basis.
For example in Poland it has traditionally been based much more heavily on something called "cultural capital" than on financial things. This has been changing somewhat since the fall of communism, but generally your home book shelf and whether you have a piano probably tells more about your social class than your bank account.
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.
Argentina's a bit like that. With the addition that a good family name still counts for something in some circles.
The basics seem fairly simple.
Working class - a blue/pink collar family.
Middle class - a white collar family.
Upper class - aristocrats and, these days albeit not traditionally, the really big CEOs and celebrities.
So yes. This does mean a lot of working class people are actually richer than middle class people.
The main confusion comes when you get people of working class background doing well for themselves in middle and upper class roles.
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.
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.
Upper middle class left of left of Centre/Red Tory scum.
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
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.
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:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 08, 2016, 10:52:01 AM
I've done 6 maybe 7 out of 8 of those :hmm:
Social mobility in action :)
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 08, 2016, 08:59:58 PM
Like Malthus said, the concept of "class" is obsolete. We're all individuals now.
:mellow:
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".
It's not just that. Class was a thing you were born into.
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.
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 09, 2016, 01:40:07 AM
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.
True that. E.g. in Austria, children from Academics are much more likely to go to university than children from non-Academic parents (over 70 vs just over 20%).