NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been a debate on many chat shows recently (in Britain anyway) about how class divisions are becoming wider. So my question is what class would you describe yourself as, what do you think a person needs to be like to be in a certain class, or do you not divide people up into any class?

I consider myself working class, because my Dad was a bin-man, and my Mum was a Labour (not "New" Labour) councilor. My Grandad on my mum`s side was a miner and my Grandad + Granny on my mum`s side worked in a shoe shop. And I still live on the council estate I grew up in. Even though now, I`m earning more than any of them.

Working class.

When I delivery pizza I am a member of the proletariat, but when I substitute teach I creep into the very bottom of the petty bourgeoisie.

Working class.

But why? This what I`m trying to get at, what do people think a person has to be like to fit a certain class

But why? This what I`m trying to get at, what do people think a person has to be like to fit a certain class

It's more of into what class is a person born, than why.

I'm working class coz I was born to working class parents. Poor, lots of kids, mum and dad working two jobs a piece.

As soon as you get a University education, you kind of enter the middle class.

Paladin or bard. Either way.

As soon as you get a University education, you kind of enter the middle class.

even if you live in a box on the street?

I don't quite understand class, is it how much money you make? how you live? what you do?

I don't think about class much I guess, so I don't know what I am.

You all have no class.


:cool:

LMC to MC.

As soon as you get a University education, you kind of enter the middle class.no class is based on the work you do, your relationship to the means of production. the proletariat is paid for what they do. the petty bourgeoisie is a mixed bag, but pb intellectuals are paid for what they know. the upper bourgeoisie makes its money from what it owns. the university trains you to be a petty bourgeois intellectual, but if you then get a job as a construction worker you are still a member of the proletariat.

I grew up middle class. My mother is/was a corporate drone, my stepfather's a teacher. We lived in an overbuilt house in the suburbs, owned two cars, university education was expected by the family and my social circle.

I bucked it all and went to culinary school, so in my early adulthood I was working class. My ex-wife and I were making decent money but we were high school educated, performing basically blue collar jobs. Our social circle included a lot of tradespeople and real estate agents.

I bucked it all again and went back to university, and unless I've botched things this term I'll probably be heading to grad school on scholarship. So in spite of my abject poverty atm I'm on my way back to the middle class.

I grew up middle class. My mother is/was a corporate drone, my stepfather's a teacher. We lived in an overbuilt house in the suburbs, owned two cars, university education was expected by the family and my social circle.

I bucked it all and went to culinary school, so in my early adulthood I was working class. My ex-wife and I were making decent money but we were high school educated, performing basically blue collar jobs. Our social circle included a lot of tradespeople and real estate agents.

I bucked it all again and went back to university, and unless I've botched things this term I'll probably be heading to grad school on scholarship. So in spite of my abject poverty atm I'm on my way back to the middle class.

It don't work like that(well perhaps it does in the States?)

Your class is what you where born. You can't change it, you can be born working class, work hard, make lots of money, and live like a king, but you will alwyas be working class. Your children on the other hand can claim to be middle class.

It don't work like that(well perhaps it does in the States?)

Your class is what you where born. You can't change it, you can be born working class, work hard, make lots of money, and live like a king, but you will alwyas be working class. Your children on the other hand can claim to be middle class.

So is it based on the supposed traits of the different classes then?

no class is based on the work you do, your relationship to the means of production.
Not really, it's based on so many more things, not least of all your general lifestyle and circle of accomplices.

There has been a debate on many chat shows recently (in Britain anyway) about how class divisions are becoming wider. So my question is what class would you describe yourself as, what do you think a person needs to be like to be in a certain class, or do you not divide people up into any class?

I'm in the class of '09. Unless we're talking about courses...

Not really, it's based on so many more things, not least of all your general lifestyle and circle of accomplices.

my lifestyle, income, and friends are all from different stereotypical classes.

I'm confused.

As soon as you get a University education, you kind of enter the middle class.

Not when your Arts degree in Underwater Basket Weaving only qualifies you for a job as a fry cook at Wendy's.

How about calling like it is?- POOR.

Screw "working class"- that would be a step up. I'm on disability. Anyone ever notice I go missing months at a time? Bosses hate that.

Your class is defined by your parents occupation... there is no debate. If your parent has a 'profession' you are middle class if they have a 'trade' you are working class. You cannot change your own class only that of your children

So is it based on the supposed traits of the different classes then?

Well yes and no, I guess, it's wealth+education+upbrining+outlook on life.

my lifestyle, income, and friends are all from different stereotypical classes.

I'm confused.
LMC, then :p

It don't work like that(well perhaps it does in the States?)

Your class is what you where born. You can't change it, you can be born working class, work hard, make lots of money, and live like a king, but you will alwyas be working class. Your children on the other hand can claim to be middle class.

I'm not in the US, I'm Canadian. At any rate, I don't believe class is as rigid as you describe nor do I conflate it with income bracket. Class is is a mixture of the kind of work you do, and as Yootopia suggested, lifestyle and social network. It's not a biological category, it depends on acculturation and social standing, and a degree of self-perception.

Your class is defined by your parents occupation... there is no debate. If your parent has a 'profession' you are middle class if they have a 'trade' you are working class. You cannot change your own class only that of your children

Bollocks. In Canada there's a fair amount of mobility, because class is generally more economic than anything. My parents were living below the poverty line the entire time I was growing up...they're much better off now. Middle class now, really, or perhaps lower middle class if you count that neither graduated from high school :P So I was born into a low class family, I'm working on my second Universtiy Degree, and I'm doing pretty well financially. I could hardly be called 'lower' class because my parents started out that way. I'm better off than my parents, so I'm middle class for shizzle...where exactly I'm not entirely sure.

Well yes and no, I guess, it's wealth+education+upbrining+outlook on life.

Is there a certain number of the above criteria that have to be of a certain class to make you so?

i.e. if I (hypothetically) earn £100,000 a year as a doctor and have a middle class outlook on life but a working class upbringing what am I?

I'm not in the US, I'm Canadian. At any rate, I don't believe class is as rigid as you describe nor do I conflate it with income bracket. Class is is a mixture of the kind of work you do, and as Yootopia suggested, lifestyle and social network. It's not a biological category, it depends on acculturation and social standing, and a degree of self-perception.

Ah well it does depend on where you live.

In Chile, for example, the class structure is a lot more rigid. Your last name marks your class (certain family names belong to certain classes). You might move up (or down) economically but you're still 'stained' to a certain extent. Where you live, which school you go to, where you work...is very much reflective of your class. My brother-in-law, for example, wanted to buy a house in a certain neighbourhood of Santiago, and was told by his employers that this was not acceptable...he needed to live in a higher class neighbourhood, or risk tarnishing the reputation of the bank.

Is there a certain number of the above criteria that have to be of a certain class to make you so?

i.e. if I (hypothetically) earn £100,000 a year as a doctor and have a middle class outlook on life but a working class upbringing what am I?
MC, obviously.

Your class is defined by your parents occupation... there is no debate. If your parent has a 'profession' you are middle class if they have a 'trade' you are working class. You cannot change your own class only that of your children

So if I was raised by a teacher and a lawyer but I spent forty years working as a mechanic I'd be middle class?

Not really, it's based on so many more things, not least of all your general lifestyle and circle of accomplices.
not by my definition, lifestyle and friends do not affect your class... they may affect your class identification, but that is not the same as class membership. the United States has spent most of the last century attempting to convince its citizens that they were almost all middle class, this does not however make it true.

And as our Sacred Mother of Mercy, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_system) points out, class systems are viewed and implemented differently depending on the society you live in. So buddy who declared 'there is no debate'...yeah. Yeah there is.

So if I was raised by a teacher and a lawyer but I spent forty years working as a mechanic I'd be middle class?

Ha, and what about if you worked as a mechanic here in Alberta, and made more than a teacher or a lawyer possibly could?

not by my definition, lifestyle and friends do not affect your class... they may affect your class identification, but that is not the same as class membership.
Class is as subjective as it is objective. Marxist pish about relationships between worker and owner are is unimportant in this, the fact that you're even thinking in Marxist terms means that you're probably MC with some degree of guilt about not being poor enough to be your idealised prole hero.
the United States has spent most of the last century attempting to convince its citizens that they were almost all middle class, this does not however make it true.
Err aye, but what's your point from this?

About as middle class as they come, although my grandparents generation were all working class.

I can't say this'll work if you convert Loonies, Euros or X local currency into dollars as taxes and goods are different, but at least for Americans...

Bracket of Income Taxes according to Gross Income
Top 1% > $364,657 (Group pays 39% of income taxes)
Top 5% > $145,283 (Group pays 60% of income taxes)
Top 10% > $103,912 (Group pays 70% of income taxes)
Top 25% > $62,068 (Group pays 86% of income taxes)
Top 50% > $30,881 (Group pays 96% of income taxes)
_____________________________________________
Lower 50% < $30,881 (Group pays 3% of income taxes)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Table 1.

US Poverty Rate: $10,400 for a single person under 65 in the 48 continguous states.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml

So: "Middle Class" by defintion would be anyone between 30-62k per year, though mileage may vary: it's easier to be middle class in Montana than Manhattan.

Horrifically, painfully middle class. My dad's a computer contractor, my mum's a nutritionist. Middle class on my paternal grandparents too as my paternal family of my grandparent's generation were career RAF officers (my maternal grandfather was an RAF Chief Technician however)

I think the definition of class based on a mix of parent's occupations/own occuption/where you grew up (and thus self-identification) is very British. You get people who are currently earning hundreds of thousands of pounds as self-made businessmen who still claim to be working class whereas you get people just scrapping by in low-paid office admin jobs who would still consider themselves middle class.

Ha, and what about if you worked as a mechanic here in Alberta, and made more than a teacher or a lawyer possibly could?
but income does not definite class, highly skilled workers have for more than a century often made more than the lower rungs of the petty bourgeoisie. a master machinist is still a member of the proletariat even if he pulls in 6 figures and the manager at the dollar store is still petty bourgeois even if he only makes 25 grand.

but income does not definite classSays you.

There is no universal agreement on what exactly defines 'class'. There are as many models as you can shake a stick at, whippersnapper. And in Canada, class is in great part determined by your economic status.



highly skilled workers have for more than a century often made more than the lower rungs of the petty bourgeoisie. a master machinist is still a member of the proletariat even if he pulls in 6 figures and the manager at the dollar store is still petty bourgeois even if he only makes 25 grand.
Yeah, that's nice. Tell it to your fellow MLs. The rest of us could give a shit for your Marxist blah blahing.

As soon as you get a University education, you kind of enter the middle class.

Yay for the Middle Class
no being a little peon slaving for a dollar, nor being an evil upper class capitalist swine

MIDDLE CLASS FTW

Yay for the Middle Class
no being a little peon slaving for a dollar, nor being an evil upper class capitalist swine

MIDDLE CLASS FTW

I'd like to know what perception of 'middle class' you have that doesn't include slaving for a dollar.

Says you.

There is no universal agreement on what exactly defines 'class'. There are as many models as you can shake a stick at, whippersnapper. And in Canada, class is in great part determined by your economic status.


economic status can not be simplified to equal income . your place in the economy is definited by your relationship to the means of production, not the compensation you recieve for that work. your class interests are also defined by that relationship. a worker has the interest to gain as much compensation for his labor as he can, a manager just attempt to gain the most work from his workers as he can inorder to increase his productivity and satisfy his superiors. these two positions have conflicting interests no matter how much each is paid. they are therefore of different economic classes.

The poll is messed. It has economic class mixed up with social class.

economic status can not be simplified to equal income . your place in the economy is definited by your relationship to the means of production, not the compensation you recieve for that work. your class interests are also defined by that relationship. a worker has the interest to gain as much compensation for his labor as he can, a manager just attempt to gain the most work from his workers as he can inorder to increase his productivity and satisfy his superiors. these two positions have conflicting interests no matter how much each is paid. they are therefore of different economic classes.

Yes, all very nice, neatly copied out of a ML pamphlet...

Class is, as has been pointed out to you already, as much subjective as it is objective. It varies greatly. In Alberta, for example, because of the massive oil boom, construction workers are making a hell of a lot more money overall than someone in any lower to mid management position. The social status of these blue collar workers has increased greatly because their purchasing power is so high, and their absolute importance to our economic system. Women are more likely at this point to get wet over an electrician than a lawyer, or a branch manager. In Newfoundland, where blue collar work is still nearly impossible to support a family on, the reverse is true.

You can yap about 'means of production' etc all you want, but the fact is, the majority of people in this country view class according to your economic status and your level of education.

Yes, all very nice, neatly copied out of a ML pamphlet...

Class is, as has been pointed out to you already, as much subjective as it is objective. It varies greatly. In Alberta, for example, because of the massive oil boom, construction workers are making a hell of a lot more money overall than someone in any lower to mid management position. The social status of these blue collar workers has increased greatly because their purchasing power is so high, and their absolute importance to our economic system. Women are more likely at this point to get wet over an electrician than a lawyer, or a branch manager. In Newfoundland, where blue collar work is still nearly impossible to support a family on, the reverse is true.

You can yap about 'means of production' etc all you want, but the fact is, the majority of people in this country view class according to your economic status and your level of education.
but you still still see the distinction between white collar and blue collar work... this is quite a marxist class distinction, but it is closer to one than one based strictly on income and education.

You can yap about 'means of production' etc all you want, but the fact is, the majority of people in this country view class according to your economic status and your level of education.

Right. Social class. Which is 2/3 of this poll.

:confused:

The poll is messed. It has economic class mixed up with social class.
yeah, the whole discussion is a bit fuzzy on whether we are talking about social or economic class... at least we haven't muddied the water even further with race and religion which also can effect one's perception of class... yet.

Depends who you talk to.

I’m a student from a middle class background, so some would say I’m also middle class, some would so on account of being a student I’m classless, while some would say that being a student makes me working class.

I’m not too sure...

Depends who you talk to.

I’m a student from a middle class background, so some would say I’m also middle class, some would so on account of being a student I’m classless, while some would say that being a student makes me working class.

I’m not too sure...
full time students(who don't work more than part time) are a weird hiybrid of the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen proletariat.

yeah, the whole discussion is a bit fuzzy on whether we are talking about social or economic class... at least we haven't muddied the water even further with race and religion which also can effect one's perception of class... yet.

Yeah. Economically, I guess my family is part of the proletariat (salariat, really), but socially we're upper middle. So there you go.

I will not be participating in this poll. :D

Sociologically speaking, class is usually defined by the type of job (or if too young, the job of your highest status parent) you have as opposed to how much you earn. It's not a perfect method, but it's the best one we have.

I was born to a university lecturer father and so I was born middle class under that definition (and by pretty much any other) and am still middle class as whilst my job is well paying, it isn't stable or especially prestigious.

full time students(who don't work more than part time) are a weird hiybrid of the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen proletariat.

How do you figure? Students aren't structurally unemployed, and they don't control their own means of production.

I was born into an upper class family, what with my grandfather being the head of the Institute of Economic Studies. I had the misfortune to move away with my mother and being ostracised, in a way, from our more well-off family, our economic welfare has plummeted drastically since then. I'm 19 and cannot afford not to hold a job. From riches to rags, indeed.

How do you figure? Students aren't structurally unemployed, and they don't control their own means of production.
well okay i just made that up... here goes with a rationalization. they are partly petty bougeois because that is essentually the class they are training for, but they have a connection to the lumpen proletariat in that they are not particularly well integrated into the economic system. they tend to be alienated from their parents class identification and they are most likely at this point to be experimenting with drug and subcultural lifestyles(okay not all a LP but i'm thinking of neohippy and punk ect, which have lumpen tendencies). also many live at least partially on govermental assistance.

How do you figure? Students aren't structurally unemployed, and they don't control their own means of production.

Students have no class. We won't have any class really until we leave the Academy and join the work force. However, we do have the socialization of our parent's economic class.

So I guess you could call us a "lumpen" element, but I really don't care if people do. It's silly, really.

But yeah, this poll really is kinda screwed up.

Right. Social class. Which is 2/3 of this poll.

:confused:

When jumping into a conversation between two specific posters on a specific topic, it might be a good idea to explain clearly wtf you are talking about. As in, what is your point?

I was born into an upper class family, what with my grandfather being the head of the Institute of Economic Studies. I had the misfortune to move away with my mother and being ostracised, in a way, from our more well-off family, our economic welfare has plummeted drastically since then. I'm 19 and cannot afford not to hold a job. From riches to rags, indeed.

I was under the impression that a title was required in order to be considered Upper class

So I guess you could call us a "lumpen" element, but I really don't care if people do. It's silly, really.

I guess it depends on how dependent one is.

When jumping into a conversation between two specific posters on a specific topic, it might be a good idea to explain clearly wtf you are talking about. As in, what is your point?

The poll has social class (what you're talking about) confused with economic class (what Red Guard is talking about). The working class is economic, middle and upper classes are social.

The poll has social class (what you're talking about) confused with economic class (what Red Guard is talking about). The working class is economic, middle and upper classes are social.
Economic and social class can not be so easily distinguished from one another.

I was under the impression that a title was required in order to be considered Upper class
In a former socialist republic there weren't any titles to be given out. If you were getting on better than, say, 98% of the rest of the population, it was upper class.

Economic and social class can not be so easily distinguished from one another.

Social class has economic aspects, but economic class (Marxian) refers specifically to one's relation to the means of production.

upper-class when viewed from a global view. Probably middle class from a local view. My parents both work and we're a pretty normal family so I guess that would make us middle class. I'm a student though.

I was under the impression that a title was required in order to be considered Upper class

The upper class traditionally means the aristocracy, but more recently anyone who doesn't need to work for a living (large incomes from old investments).

I am glad that we do not have classes of people in the USA. Class is so archaic.

Social class has economic aspects, but economic class (Marxian) refers specifically to one's relation to the means of production.

Yes and as I pointed out, I reject RGR's marxist characterisation of class, especially when it comes to how people, real people in the real world, actually view class themselves. I have had years of experience with ML blatherings...most Canadians could give a shit about it.

If, instead, he had stated, "Well under Marxist philosophy class is this this and the other thing', then fine. But RGR presented his definition of class as universal. Pish posh.

I am glad that we do not have classes of people in the USA. Class is so archaic.

I hope you're being sarcastic...

I am glad that we do not have classes of people in the USA. Class is so archaic.


*wipes tear from eye*

Thanks, that was worth a belly laugh.

Students have no class.
It’s been claimed to me that I have no class, and am in the same boat as the homeless and housewives/husbands.

Which seems strange.

We won’t have any class really until we leave the Academy and join the work force. However, we do have the socialization of our parent’s economic class.
Sure. Socially, I’m middle-class. But economically?

If, instead, he had stated, "Well under Marxist philosophy class is this this and the other thing', then fine. But RGR presented his definition of class as universal. Pish posh.

Well, it's universal of economic class…
My only point is that the poll is really screwy, okay? ;) It's impossible to respond to the poll under either definition.

Working class? Why only the poors are defined as "working class"? The so called "Middle Class" and "Upper Class" don't work too?

Let's go people, throw out your Marx little books, maybe marxist logic can be applied in XIX Century context but it do not works today, everything changed too much.

As soon as you get a University education, you kind of enter the middle class.


I would have to disagree with this. I know many people who have been University Educated who do not have the type of financial security to consider themselves middle class. These days, an undergraduate degree doesn't get you much in the way of a job or an entry into the middle class.

I'd call myself upper middle class/upper classish. private school education, although that is quite common in ireland, and i am expected and will go to university. The definitions in class here though seem to be fading more than anything, infact many children of the middle class try to act lower class now, interesting anthropologic study i'd say.

Working class? Why only the poors are defined as "working class"?

They aren't, except in this poll.

As soon as you get a University education, you kind of enter the middle class.

That depends on what you're doing with that education, doesn't it?

Not when your Arts degree in Underwater Basket Weaving only qualifies you for a job as a fry cook at Wendy's.

Hey! You've been to The Evergreen State College? Cool!




As for the subject of class, to me it depends on how you're defining it. I know people I would consider well-off to actually wealthy, and I know people who are scraping to get by. Some of the well-off have absolutely no class whatsoever in terms of deportment, self-control, and attitude. Some of the poor have more dignity and integrity than anyone with exponentially more money.

I was born to university-educated and well-read parents, but we were a family of six total, and never "middle class" with respect to income. Dad worked for state and later city governments in Michigan and California, and both Dad and Mom eventually worked for GTE (now Verizon) when we moved to Seattle. I know what ring bologna, powdered milk, liver and store brands taste like (my favorite were the off-white boxed "generic" foodstuffs that would read "RAISIN BRAN" on one side and under "ingredients" it read "see other side"). One sister (45) has a BA from U Calgary (and though divorced, retains her Canadian citizenship) and is a yoga instructor, my brother at 43 is finally finishing his BA at UConn after being interrupted by service in the 82nd Airborne and is a manager at a Home Depot Warehouse in Connecticut. My other sister (41) never finished high school and lives with her two kids and her well-off contractor boyfriend in rural Seattle. I'm a college music professor with a Bachelor's and Master's in music education and choral conducting living in Bismarck, ND.

So you see, I've managed to spread across a fairly wide swath of socioeconomic strata in my life. As such, I find class distinctions to be almost wholly arbitrary and usable only to divide people when it comes to things like elections.

Whenever someone metions class, I immeidately think about how it's all perception. If Pygmalion and it's snappier sister, My Fair Lady have taught us anything, it's that this perception can be fooled. Or, paraphrasing Eliza Doolittle -- it isn't her job that makes a woman a flower girl, it's how she's treated.

I am glad that we do not have classes of people in the USA. Class is so archaic.

Okay, so how do I get into your country club? Yacht club? Gentlemen's club? Come on, you can't be serious.

Middle Clas,s wanna-be Working Class.

IMO, Class is where you are born, to an extent. Working Class can become Middle Class. But not the other way around (all though kids could go down a class). This is because to be a member of the Working Class, I think you have to have had some sort of struggle in life. You have to have worked for what you have got, Middle Class you can be born into it and you only need to work to sustain what you have. Upper Class cannot be entered except in exceptional circumstances, because it requires you to have been born into it, never have had to work for it, and to be suitably detached from the other classes. But maybe that is just remnants of feudal times ;)

Middle Class, wanna-be Working Class.

I'm going to try one more time…
Working class and middle class can be the same thing, and often are.

Working class? Why only the poors are defined as "working class"? The so called "Middle Class" and "Upper Class" don't work too?

Let's go people, throw out your Marx little books, maybe marxist logic can be applied in XIX Century context but it do not works today, everything changed too much.

thats what i want to know. what is makes working class working class? after all, almost everyone works. its the rare family that lives off inherited wealth.

and what is the POINT of deciding classes? is there a difference in treatment from class to class? are there people who wont hang out with an auto mechanic no matter how properous he may be?

i can see the difference between having some kind of inherited title --"lady smallbottoms" -- and being just a regular person but college professor vs hair dresser doesnt seem particularly relevant.

It’s been claimed to me that I have no class, and am in the same boat as the homeless and housewives/husbands.

Which seems strange.

It has been claimed that i have no class, but I'm sure they meant something different. :p

Sure. Socially, I’m middle-class. But economically?

You're in-training, I guess.

Working class? Why only the poors are defined as "working class"? The so called "Middle Class" and "Upper Class" don't work too?

Let's go people, throw out your Marx little books, maybe marxist logic can be applied in XIX Century context but it do not works today, everything changed too much.

I find that Marxist theory is just as applicable now as it was in the 19th century. Granted, a few subtle modifications need be made, but the core remains very solid.

In Marxist theory, class represents your relationship to the means of production, i.e., the productive capital like factories and such. If you work for a wage (or salary) for someone who owns capital, producing value for their primary benefit, you are a member of the working class.

If you own capital, and derive your primary income from the ownership of capital, than you are part of the capitalist class. It's really that simple.

It’s been claimed to me that I have no class, and am in the same boat as the homeless and housewives/husbands.

Which seems strange.


the chronically unemployed, those on permanent government assistance and those making their living from criminal activities would be considered(by marxists) to be the lumpen proletariat. families are generally indentified by the class of the highest status adult in the unit... though sometimes it might have traditionally been the male if they were the primary breadwinner(dad is a construction worker and mom is a substitute teacher, the family might be considered working class in the mid twentieth century or before)

its depends on breeding dear boy and which public school you went to and whether you have a tailor or not

You all have no class.


:cool:

This coming from the class clown....


As for class the only way to truly measure is by income/wealth. The rest of it is just arbitrary I believe.

I'm thinking of becoming a sadhu.

To be completely honest, I don't really care about this class stuff. I won't act as if I have something in common with people just because I'm 'the same class'.

To be completely honest, I don't really care about this class stuff. I won't act as if I have something in common with people just because I'm 'the same class'.

Through all of mankind's bickering and vanity and pride, death is our common fate.

Middle class.

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class Hello
{
....string what;

....public:
........Hello(const char* s)
............: what(s)
........{
........}

........void say()
........{
............cout << "Hello " << what << "!" << endl;
........}
};

int main( int argc, char** argv )
{
....Hello hello_world("world");
....hello_world.say();

....return 0;
} no I don't, actually -- props to wiki

Working class, but my greater family background is quite upper class.

Im a broke college student

i don't know how one defines what class one belongs to. a friend of mine grew up in a working class area with a single mum who worked some kind of secretarial gig or something. her mum retrained as a lawyer when my friend was a teenager but still lives in the same house. my friend works as a sub-editor on one of RBSs divisional in-house magazines. she considers herself working class.

my mother is a scientist, my dad has done many jobs but mostly what i remember growing up he worked as a delivery man/partner for a small import business. his last job was running a bus service. i'm a barman/waiter trying to be an archaeologist. what am i? i can barely afford to put a roof over my head, i work with my hands and yet most people would call me middle class. i certainly had a middle class upbringing but i can hardly consider myself part of the middle class now.

Materially, I consider myself middle-class. But speaking in terms of political class, I consider myself on the periphery as I do not pursue any kind of political favor, not even by voting.

I consider myself a member of the bourgeoisie, perhaps petite aristocrat, if we're stretching it. I am a writer, but my skills are good enough that I'm not poor. Class of course, is an artificial construct invented by the aristocratic elites to prevent the working people of the world from usurping them fairly in a Capitalist system. Really, I'd rather have the whole concept of class thrown away. But that's a subject for a different thread.

Here's a clip from a paper I wrote as a kid, 'Das Kommune'. I think some of you might enjoy it.

"The Class Problem
In any modern Capitalistic society, there are three “classes” into which people are divided: The Proletariat, the Bourgeoisie, and the Aristocrats. The first is the Proletariat, the poorest of the three, the so-called “Lower Class” of the world. The Proletariat encompasses the farmers, the factory workers, the majority of the service industry, and the unemployed; that is to say, the Proletariat are the ones who do hard labor to produce a tangible result. However, by unemployed we mean those who are poor and unable to find a job at the present. The Bourgeoisie, or middle class, are the bureaucrats, those who do office work and other such jobs, but don’t actually produce any tangible results. Finally, there are the Aristocrats, the rich elitists of the society, who simply manipulate the system without actually producing anything at all. These are the sorts of people who live off the stock market, and are usually born into inherited wealth.

Most of the time, you stay in the class that you were born in. The bourgeoisie spend a fortune going to college, then get a “respectable” job and work to pay off their debts and secure a decent retirement, leading their children to a similar work ethic. The proletariat too, goes to school, and then breaks their back working for the Capitalist until the end of their lives. Fortunately, the Capitalist has given them some luxuries, pension funds and community colleges for example, but only enough to keep them pacified, and always begrudgingly. Finally, the aristocrat goes to the best of the best private schools, pays a small fortune to go to an Ivy-League university, and goes on to become a brilliant CEO, lawyer, politician, et cetera, and leave behind a fortune for their children.

Very rarely is their any movement in the classes, but often just enough to avoid a total caste-system. For example, occasionally a proletariat will scrap together enough savings to start a successful small business and become a petite-bourgeoisie (lower Bourgeoisie) or even a full bourgeoisie. A little more commonly, a bourgeoisie will be exceedingly brilliant and climb the social ladder via a very successful business venture, manipulation of the stock market, stumbling across a brilliant idea, et cetera. And of course, either the Aristocrats or Bourgeoisie can lose all their money and go to a lower class.

Furthermore, there is the issue of elitist though and class loyalty. The Bourgeoisie, unless kind-hearted, informed, or a former prole himself will look at an unemployed beggar and think laziness, alcoholism, and think of himself as superior. However, when that beggar is not in rags, but in a dirty business suit, the bourgeoisie think instead of the man as unlucky, and are more willing to help. This example highlights two issues, class loyalty, or the loyalty to those of your class, and elitism, the feeling of superiority towards classes lower to yours’."

Working-class...if you define it on family background. But I dunno...I'm at a fairly good university so maybe that influences class a bit. I thought there was a certain amount of class mobility, you can move up or down between working and lower middle or middle and upper middle.

I consider myself a member of the bourgeoisie, perhaps petite aristocrat, if we're stretching it. I am a writer, but my skills are good enough that I'm not poor.

How would you say that writing qualifies as an aristocratic occupation?

But why? This what I`m trying to get at, what do people think a person has to be like to fit a certain class
You don't have a choice in the matter.

I'd imagine more people are upper class than are letting on - at least in the American sense.

How would you say that writing qualifies as an aristocratic occupation?

Only aristocrats are literate, duh.
:D

Lol guys, stop saying 'upper class', aristocracy doesn't exist anymore guys, not meaningfully anyways.

Same answer as last time people asked: I'm a member of the NL class.

Population: 1.

Anything else is a pointless generalisation.

Same answer as last time people asked: I'm a member of the NL class.

Population: 1.

Anything else is a pointless generalisation.

Do you live entirely from the sale of your labor and do you draw profit from any kind of capital? Yes or no.

Do you live entirely from the sale of your labor and do you draw profit from any kind of capital? Yes or no.

That barely means much, you can be extremely rich without selling any capital at all, and you can be poor whilst selling your own capital.

How would you say that writing qualifies as an aristocratic occupation?

It would have helped if you read the whole of my post.

If I said that my father's first job was in a on a production line in a factory, and then he joined the army for 25+ years and his brothers are a truck driver and a cook, you might say Proletariat. But then I'd say that I am student at a private school that several members of the British (and other nation's) Royal Family have attended. Now you don't know where I'm coming from.
:confused:

Well, as an American, I like to think I have it hard but can't really believe it when I use my brain. Seemingly middle class by occupation (high school teacher married to postal worker), we make so much money that we fit in the upper 1% of the entire world, but we still can't afford to send our kids to the local state university and only dream of the Ivy League (too rich for need-based scholarships.) By any rational standard, we are upper class in lifestyle and ease of living. Of course there will always be ones higher. But, by golly, just look at how easy we all have it compared to the ones lower. We play computer games as world makers for the fun of it in proably air-conditioned surroundings. Think globally. We are all upper class here. Stop the class warfare envy.

It would have helped if you read the whole of my post.

So writers just "manipulate the sytem"? Is a manuscript not tangible?

So writers just "manipulate the sytem"? Is a manuscript not tangible?

I beleive tangible was not meant to be taken that way in that particular description of the class system. You could say a writer transcends the classes because writing can hardly be considered manual labor, yet there are indeed poor (economically speaking) writers. Some might say that writing is not even a proper job, and indeed many authors say that this is the case - they are being paid to pursue a hobby. And if one is pursuing a hobby without even having a 'normal' job, then what are you if not a member of the upper classes of society?

I beleive tangible was not meant to be taken that way in that particular description of the class system. You could say a writer transcends the classes because writing can hardly be considered manual labor, yet there are indeed poor (economically speaking) writers. Some might say that writing is not even a proper job, and indeed many authors say that this is the case - they are being paid to pursue a hobby. And if one is pursuing a hobby without even having a 'normal' job, then what are you if not a member of the upper classes of society?

That doesn't make a lot of sense. A footballer is persuing a hobby and is handsomely rewarded for it. He is not upper class.

I would rather play football than write but the difference is that no one will pay me to play football but they will pay me to write.

Upper middle class. When I start living on my own I will be poor though. Things keep getting worse for people in my profession.

I think money is one of the most pointless taboos in society. If you ask someone how much their bike costed they'll act offended and say it's a personal question. Rich people get mad if you say they're rich.

Upper class. It´s a family thing.:p

Think globally. We are all upper class here. Stop the class warfare envy.

It's not about envy, and we're not going to stop.

Ok then, what class would you put footballers (or other sportspeople) in? The only thing I can think of is if you take semi-professional sports(wo)men, in which case I presume you would put them in whatever class their job most suited them to. Likewise I suppose you could apply this to a semi-professional artist etc.

By upbringing, I'm working-class
By education, I am middle class
By circumstance, I'm a member of the underclass. Why aren't we on the poll?

I believe our family would be considered something like "Lower Middle Class" cause we're flat broke, but make to much on paper for Welfare shit...;)

I believe our family would be considered something like "Lower Middle Class" cause we're flat broke, but make to much on paper for Welfare shit...;)

The vice of American society. Break the cycle, person! Break it!:D

Upper class. But I'm not proud of it; my family's on Google for all the wrong reasons...

Just before I collapse from exhaustion, a interesting thought occurs to me.
What class do you thing most NS people belong to? Oh wait, I think that might have been what this thread was about. Oops.

Just before I collapse from exhaustion, a interesting thought occurs to me.
What class do you thing most NS people belong to? Oh wait, I think that might have been what this thread was about. Oops.

: psyduck :

: psyduck :

ROFLMAO!

I've done blue-collar and white-collar work. I've earned minimum wage, and i've earned higher pay than I'm making right now - though not by much. I've done manual labor and I'm currently working in an office in front of a computer. I'm by no means rich, but I plan on getting there eventually.

I don't want to psychologically handicap myself by claiming to belong to a certain class of society. I'm not bound by any religious caste, I'm not a peasent bound to my father's trade (That's definitely good for society - I'd be a crappy electrician), and my only limits are my own capabilities.

Definition by class seems to be only a way to forment disputes between people by stooping to stereotypes and predjudice. You are not defined by circumstance, but rather by your actions.

My family is the working class, but when I'm on my own, I'll probably be Middle Class/Upper Middle Class (if I get that politics job that I want).

Ok then, what class would you put footballers (or other sportspeople) in? The only thing I can think of is if you take semi-professional sports(wo)men, in which case I presume you would put them in whatever class their job most suited them to. Likewise I suppose you could apply this to a semi-professional artist etc.

It's an interesting question. Pro sports players can only be upper class if we think of it as purely an econimic thing (which obviously it isn't). My guess is that they're part of a nouveau riche - they acquire money but aren't recognised of being of a higher class but can often be distinguished from the working class by more than just money.

Upper class. But I'm not proud of it; my family's on Google for all the wrong reasons...

If I may be so bold

no class is based on the work you do, your relationship to the means of production. the proletariat is paid for what they do. the petty bourgeoisie is a mixed bag, but pb intellectuals are paid for what they know. the upper bourgeoisie makes its money from what it owns. the university trains you to be a petty bourgeois intellectual, but if you then get a job as a construction worker you are still a member of the proletariat.

One thing I hate about communists is that they're always spouting terms like "petty bourgeois." This term just annoys me for some reason. Partly because it's not a very working class thing to talk about. Working class people talk about making ends meet and getting better pay. Plus I hate euphemisms, and it basically means middle class. What's wrong with that term?

I see myself as, and I've been told that, I'm upper middle class. I dress fashionable and nice, live in a rather big house, and own two older luxury german cars. I'm 20. To me, "upper class" are the clintons, or donald trump, or brad pitt, or saudi oil barons. In contrast, "middle class" are suburban soccer moms who drive their kids to practice in big suv's and gather for PTA meetings. My family and I fit somewhere in between. That, of course, is reality.

As far as mindset goes, my father is very "metally upper class" and I tend to follow in his footsteps. My mother, in contrast, is betrayed by her masters degree and loves the simple life. She grew up VERY poor as one of ten on a farm in mid-state Pennsylvania. She is "mentally working class."

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_system#United_States

Upper middle class

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_system#United_States

Upper middle class

Well according to that my family is upper class...but I don't see it that way. I dunno.

Me? haha I'm lower class, but then again I'm not entirely financially independant yet, and am still in college, so :p

One thing I hate about communists is that they're always spouting terms like "petty bourgeois." This term just annoys me for some reason. Partly because it's not a very working class thing to talk about. Working class people talk about making ends meet and getting better pay. Plus I hate euphemisms, and it basically means middle class. What's wrong with that term?
middle class in america is a meaningless term, something like 80 percent of the population if asked will describe themselves that way. petty bougeois is not a euphemism, its a term with a specific meaning in marxist and some post marxist discussion.

it essentually means the small capitalists as well as managers, intellectuals and professionals. it is in some ways the same as the term middle class, but it wouldn't include well paid skilled workers. it also would include very highly paid professional who make most of their money from their work and not their portfolios. so a multimillionare doctor or lawyer or actor would still be petty bourgeois even though they would not be middle class.

Lol guys, stop saying 'upper class', aristocracy doesn't exist anymore guys, not meaningfully anyways.

You mean besides entertainers, magnates, CEOs, national-level politicians, and actual royalty?

You mean besides entertainers, magnates, CEOs, national-level politicians, and actual royalty?

They aren't "Upper class" in the traditional sense of an aristocratic, titled nobility. They now constitute the upper most class of our society, and form a de facto aristocracy.

Seems like the Brits here on NSG are a bit more strident about what class definitions are than Canadians or Americans are inclined to be. When's there's virtually no "old money" to speak of in a country, it seems like economics and education dictate class more than family background.

With that in mind, I'd be squarely middle class - my dad's a physicist (phd) and my mum's a university instructor (master's). I can't remember ever worrying seriously about money. I grew up in a nice house in the centre of a big city, read alot of books and newspapers, and discuss politics and academics with my family. Higher education was definitely expected, and money was rarely (if ever) talked about. That kind of thing. I've worked manual labour jobs, but they were more for fun and the experience than actual financial need. Of course, being a student now, I live on a pretty modest budget, without any extravagances.

I wasn't even aware that family background was supposed to dictate class for anyone except those jerks in the social register. My dad is an upper middle class person who comes from the non-working (welfare) class, what does that make him?

Aristocratic by upbringing.
Working class by financial circumstances.

Parents both have multiple college degrees and typically "bourgeois" professions (teaching at prestigious universities, doing research, studying history and languages); I was taught proper ettiquette and diplomatic politeness from an early age; I studied at good schools, sometimes with private tutors, and got high grades; but I still don't have a cent to my name. (I blame it on not having a permanent job.)

Paladin or bard. Either way.

Bard would work, but if you're a Paladin then some advice from a friend: re-roll as a Crusader. It's like a Paladin, only balanced (i.e. better than the underpowered Pally).

ToB fucking rules.

Bard would work, but if you're a Paladin then some advice from a friend: re-roll as a Crusader. It's like a Paladin, only balanced (i.e. better than the underpowered Pally).

ToB fucking rules.

We're doing a random level 20 dungeon crawl and one of the guys is doing scary scary shyte with a warforged knight. He has an AC of 70 some.

My favorite class to date is Duskblade from PHB 2, but only with some levels of wizard (also my character is gestaulted: every level you get 2 class levels...so he's 6 duskblade, 5 wizard, and 1 sandshaper [Sandstorm]). I do 30 some odd damage per hit reliably. When I get to level 13: keen great falchion (two-handed, d12, crit x2/15-20), wraith strike as a swift action (resolve all melee attacks this round as touch attacks) with power attack 5ish, they are flat-footed as I can teleport 10 ft as an immediate action right behind them as I'm swinging, and I can channel a touch spell (probably shocking grasp) that will apply to each attack I make that round. d12+strX1.5+PAx1.5 (x2/15-20) +5d6 against their flat-footed touch AC, times the number of attacks I get from my BAB at that level.

Also, I make shit out of sand.

Also, if anyone actually understands any of that, you are awesome, but nerdy as hell.

We're doing a random level 20 dungeon crawl and one of the guys is doing scary scary shyte with a warforged knight. He has an AC of 70 some.

My favorite class to date is Duskblade from PHB 2, but only with some levels of wizard (also my character is gestaulted: every level you get 2 class levels...so he's 6 duskblade, 5 wizard, and 1 sandshaper [Sandstorm]). I do 30 some odd damage per hit reliably. When I get to level 13: keen great falchion (two-handed, d12, crit x2/15-20), wraith strike as a swift action (resolve all melee attacks this round as touch attacks) with power attack 5ish, they are flat-footed as I can teleport 10 ft as an immediate action right behind them as I'm swinging, and I can channel a touch spell (probably shocking grasp) that will apply to each attack I make that round. d12+strX1.5+PAx1.5 (x2/15-20) +5d6 against their flat-footed touch AC, times the number of attacks I get from my BAB at that level.

Also, I make shit out of sand.

Also, if anyone actually understands any of that, you are awesome, but nerdy as hell.

I understood some of that. Incidentally, as far as melee classes go, the Knight is actually pretty damn good. It's no Wizard, to be sure. But still not as tragically worthless as the Fighter.

I understood some of that. Incidentally, as far as melee classes go, the Knight is actually pretty damn good. It's no Wizard, to be sure. But still not as tragically worthless as the Fighter.

You can do some stupid stuff with fighter, like the spiked-chain fighter. But for good RP and well-rounded parties, yeah, anything more than 2 levels of fighter is worthless. Two can be useful for the feats, though.

Also, it's just as well that you didn't understand a lot of that...I hardly understand it all. If you go to the wizards forums and search Duskblade you will find so much confusion. I seriously believe it is the single most ambiguous and confusing class in existence.

You can do some stupid stuff with fighter, like the spiked-chain fighter. But for good RP and well-rounded parties, yeah, anything more than 2 levels of fighter is worthless. Two can be useful for the feats, though.

Also, it's just as well that you didn't understand a lot of that...I hardly understand it all. If you go to the wizards forums and search Duskblade you will find so much confusion. I seriously believe it is the single most ambiguous and confusing class in existence.

Spellsword from Morrowind. Good melee, good casting, well-rounded stats. Combine with Dark Elf race for a capable adventurer with excellent starting blade skill and inherent fire resistance.

You mean besides entertainers, magnates, CEOs, national-level politicians, and actual royalty?

Yes but in those cases they gain their wealth through surplus capital, so they can't be upper class in the true meaning. The upper class only existed in feudalism.

tertiary class

you' know all that bitching people do about lazy government workers? well I'm that worker :cool: (this is also true about most of my friends and where I live :eek:)

It don't work like that(well perhaps it does in the States?)

Your class is what you where born. You can't change it, you can be born working class, work hard, make lots of money, and live like a king, but you will alwyas be working class. Your children on the other hand can claim to be middle class.

i'm not so sure. my parents were born working class for sure (children of farm labourers), but went to university thanks to grants in the 60's, and today i'd say they were more (lower) middle class than anything else. they work hard and don't make that much money, but from the kind of people they are today i'd have a fairly hard time putting them in "working class"



myself, i'm middle class. my aspirations, my level of education (private schools and university), my job i suppose... yeah.
that said, neither my parents or i have typical middle class incomes or anything. we've always had to worry about money


and, to me, upper class is a set of elites who own land. and there are still thousands of very wealthy people in this country who own vast amounts of land and whose income is derived heavily from that land. old-money or not.

You can do some stupid stuff with fighter, like the spiked-chain fighter. But for good RP and well-rounded parties, yeah, anything more than 2 levels of fighter is worthless. Two can be useful for the feats, though.

Also, it's just as well that you didn't understand a lot of that...I hardly understand it all. If you go to the wizards forums and search Duskblade you will find so much confusion. I seriously believe it is the single most ambiguous and confusing class in existence.

The main problem with a Fighter is that in order to be useful, you have to have a trick, the spiked-chain being the most infamous (and with lethal doses of cheese). The problem with that is that then you're a one-trick pony. If someone can render your trick useless, they render you useless.

Warblades don't have that problem.

I'm not in the US, I'm Canadian. At any rate, I don't believe class is as rigid as you describe nor do I conflate it with income bracket. Class is is a mixture of the kind of work you do, and as Yootopia suggested, lifestyle and social network. It's not a biological category, it depends on acculturation and social standing, and a degree of self-perception.

Well perhaps in Canada, that is the case, here in the UK though, well I'll let the wordds of SouthSuburbia ssay the rest.

'Your class is defined by your parents occupation... there is no debate. If your parent has a 'profession' you are middle class if they have a 'trade' you are working class. You cannot change your own class only that of your children'

i'm not so sure. my parents were born working class for sure (children of farm labourers), but went to university thanks to grants in the 60's, and today i'd say they were more (lower) middle class than anything else. they work hard and don't make that much money, but from the kind of people they are today i'd have a fairly hard time putting them in "working class"



myself, i'm middle class. my aspirations, my level of education (private schools and university), my job i suppose... yeah.
that said, neither my parents or i have typical middle class incomes or anything. we've always had to worry about money


and, to me, upper class is a set of elites who own land. and there are still thousands of very wealthy people in this country who own vast amounts of land and whose income is derived heavily from that land. old-money or not.


Yeah more or less the same as my closest friend. Born to two teachers, had a good standard of education, his folx were poor middle class, so he is middle class, yet he works as a hospital porter.

Myself I was born to poor parents, come from a big family, both mum and dad worked two jobs, yet I have very good job where I can garentee that my own kids have a better education than mine, yet I am working class. My kids though can be said to be middle class.

two missing options are the "ain't got no" class'
and the "got more class then any of em".

which latter i take the liberty of numbering all creative people with their own imaginations in.

=^^=
.../\...

Middle class, I have a white collar job in the city. My father was a doctor & my mother was a teacher, they both voted Labour though & I vote Green.

I'd call myself student class... I have $2.50 to last me until Friday in a week when I get paid... Meanwhile I still work 30 hours a week in 2 jobs, attend uni(25 hours + 8 travel), and occasionally try to keep healthy.

My car currently has about 2L of fuel in it, next to no oil, and is 2000kms overdue for a service.

So yeah, people say working class have a hard time... try been a student living out of home...

I have no class, ask anyone.:p

The old British class system, as reflected in the poll here, is long dead. But it's been replaced - mainly for the worse - by a number of other systems, and I suspect that it's one or more of these that the chat shows already mentioned have really been referring to.

One of the new 'class' axes on which someone can be measured these days is simply how much money people have got. Related to the old system, perhaps, but manifested in different ways. I'd say there are currently three 'classes' on this scale: the Poor; the Comfortably-Off; and the Disgustingly, Unforgivably Rich. Generally speaking, it's probably true to say that the 'working class' - literally 'those who work' - are the worst off in Britain. Money is freely distributed by the state to those who don't wish to work (certainly enough to steer well clear of the poverty line; although those who want to work but genuinely can't are usually offered minimal benefits); and of course those in high-paying management positions seem to do relatively little with their time except play golf and fiddle with statistics. (The really, stinking rich, of course, are usually the ones who're simply given money because they're 'celebrities' of one form or another, and do little but appear on glossy magazine covers giving expensive 'exclusives' about the latest trivial inconvenience they're 'suffering'.)

There is still another huge class axis in the modern UK, though - though it's not so much an accident of birth as it is a choice as to how you're going to live. I refer to the widening division between those who have a sense of social responsibility, duty, morality and even perhaps a smidgen of compassion; and those of the developing underclass, whose sole concern is their own comfort and amusement, the indulgence of their whim, an overriding obsession with their 'rights' (usually ill-defined, but assumed to be the right to do absolutely whatever they please), and to Hell with everyone else.

This latter has become a whole culture of its own, with its own dialect and local accent variants, attitudes and behavioural conventions, and even a faily rigid dress code. Suffice it to say these are the ones who can be seen hovering around in large groups on street corners attempting (usually with some success) to intimidate passers-by; or, in worse cases, smashing up private and public property "cos da caahncil wont give us nuffink to do innit"; and in the most extreme cases, kicking Goths to death in parks because of the way they dress.

In comparison, the old class system of Upper, Middle and Working looks quite benign.

The old British class system, as reflected in the poll here, is long dead. But it's been replaced - mainly for the worse - by a number of other systems, and I suspect that it's one or more of these that the chat shows already mentioned have really been referring to.

One of the new 'class' axes on which someone can be measured these days is simply how much money people have got. Related to the old system, perhaps, but manifested in different ways. I'd say there are currently three 'classes' on this scale: the Poor; the Comfortably-Off; and the Disgustingly, Unforgivably Rich. Generally speaking, it's probably true to say that the 'working class' - literally 'those who work' - are the worst off in Britain. Money is freely distributed by the state to those who don't wish to work (certainly enough to steer well clear of the poverty line; although those who want to work but genuinely can't are usually offered minimal benefits); and of course those in high-paying management positions seem to do relatively little with their time except play golf and fiddle with statistics. (The really, stinking rich, of course, are usually the ones who're simply given money because they're 'celebrities' of one form or another, and do little but appear on glossy magazine covers giving expensive 'exclusives' about the latest trivial inconvenience they're 'suffering'.)

There is still another huge class axis in the modern UK, though - though it's not so much an accident of birth as it is a choice as to how you're going to live. I refer to the widening division between those who have a sense of social responsibility, duty, morality and even perhaps a smidgen of compassion; and those of the developing underclass, whose sole concern is their own comfort and amusement, the indulgence of their whim, an overriding obsession with their 'rights' (usually ill-defined, but assumed to be the right to do absolutely whatever they please), and to Hell with everyone else.

This latter has become a whole culture of its own, with its own dialect and local accent variants, attitudes and behavioural conventions, and even a faily rigid dress code. Suffice it to say these are the ones who can be seen hovering around in large groups on street corners attempting (usually with some success) to intimidate passers-by; or, in worse cases, smashing up private and public property "cos da caahncil wont give us nuffink to do innit"; and in the most extreme cases, kicking Goths to death in parks because of the way they dress.

In comparison, the old class system of Upper, Middle and Working looks quite benign.

Naaa I disagree, the old British class system is alive andd kicking, and those who you describe here, I guess that would be the chavs, well they can also come from all classes.

Naaa I disagree, the old British class system is alive andd kicking, and those who you describe here, I guess that would be the chavs, well they can also come from all classes.
No - the point is that they are the class. As I said, it's not a matter of being born that way: you determine whether or not you're in that class by choosing how you act and how you treat other members of the society you're living in.

I see no evidence that people have any real regard for the old divisions of Upper, Middle and Lower/Working - except inasmuch as inverse snobbery or political expediency often demands at least a contrived connection to the 'Working Class'. Observe the number of privileged, well-off politicians trying to associate themselves with the stereotypical honest, hardworking salt-of-the-earth. Few of them play on upper-class roots because they know that emphasising their privileged background will not gain them support.

So the old system, if it can be said to exist at all, is just an affectation now - a toy for politicians and for the media to play with. The new class divisions are far more insidious.

Well perhaps in Canada, that is the case, here in the UK though, well I'll let the wordds of SouthSuburbia ssay the rest.

'Your class is defined by your parents occupation... there is no debate. If your parent has a 'profession' you are middle class if they have a 'trade' you are working class. You cannot change your own class only that of your children'

Wait, Paul McCartney who is probably richer than the queen is working class because his parents were working class?

Wait, Paul McCartney who is probably richer than the queen is working class because his parents were working class?

Heh yeah, exactly, his kids though thats differant matter.

No - the point is that they are the class. As I said, it's not a matter of being born that way: you determine whether or not you're in that class by choosing how you act and how you treat other members of the society you're living in.

I see no evidence that people have any real regard for the old divisions of Upper, Middle and Lower/Working - except inasmuch as inverse snobbery or political expediency often demands at least a contrived connection to the 'Working Class'. Observe the number of privileged, well-off politicians trying to associate themselves with the stereotypical honest, hardworking salt-of-the-earth. Few of them play on upper-class roots because they know that emphasising their privileged background will not gain them support.

So the old system, if it can be said to exist at all, is just an affectation now - a toy for politicians and for the media to play with. The new class divisions are far more insidious.

So instead of using the word class, why not use the word culture, or sub-culture, or group because what you are describing here is not class, you can't pick and choose your class.

:cool:After a wee bit of research I have come to the decision that i am a member of a classless caste system. Throughout history certain cultures (Incan and Aztec) the warrior class have been allowed to ascend to the lofty realms of nobles. As a current service member and an educator of my countries less than sterling youths i believe that I am more than three quarters of the way there already. since the current democracy is less than perfect but functional, I am allowed to rise on my own merit. :cool:(well kinda sorta but not really quite;))

Yeah more or less the same as my closest friend. Born to two teachers, had a good standard of education, his folx were poor middle class, so he is middle class, yet he works as a hospital porter.

Myself I was born to poor parents, come from a big family, both mum and dad worked two jobs, yet I have very good job where I can garentee that my own kids have a better education than mine, yet I am working class. My kids though can be said to be middle class.

so whats the effect of that on your and your children's lives?

are you treated differently than someone who is middle class? would you only ever live in neighborhoods with other working class people no matter where you could afford to live? if you made a bundle of money somehow and moved to a posh neighborhood would the upper middle class people there snub you?

is there some practical difference between being working class and being middle class that holds on past your actual life's work and income?

Hmm, well, university-educated parents, decent-sized house, top state school education, currently at Cambridge. Ah, yes, middle class. That old, vague and fits-most description.

so whats the effect of that on your and your children's lives?

are you treated differently than someone who is middle class? would you only ever live in neighborhoods with other working class people no matter where you could afford to live? if you made a bundle of money somehow and moved to a posh neighborhood would the upper middle class people there snub you?

is there some practical difference between being working class and being middle class that holds on past your actual life's work and income?

Wow wot a lot of questions.

Not a lot, it means that my kids get things, go to a good school, and we can go on holiday.

Nope seeing as I'm working class, live in a working class area, and hang with mostly working class people.

Nope I would move to a better area.

Perhaps they would, and perhaps they wouldn't I guess that depends on the person rather than the class of the person. I know lots of people from all wakes of life, some incredably rich and some incredably poor, and yes while I can say that class attiutudes abound, the majority of my friends are willing to see the person rather than the class.

Yeah lots of things. If you come froma working class background then your attitude towards money is going to be differant form those who where born with it. Even if you make a shit load, your attitude is not likely to change.

The same with your connection to the realities of life, if you have not had to struggle, then your view is not going to be the same as if you have had to.

Spellsword from Morrowind. Good melee, good casting, well-rounded stats. Combine with Dark Elf race for a capable adventurer with excellent starting blade skill and inherent fire resistance.

I'll have to look into that next time I roll up a character.

The replacement for my duskblade if he dies is a wizard/favored soul gestault, going into Malvoker on the wizard side.

Basically, you summon evil stuff and bluff it into staying longer than it normally would.

working class, could be argued middle class, but i don't really fit in there.
My last job was at a shop routine work, so yeah working class.
the idea of class, as far as i'm aware is slowly changing, but it's still there, it's still evident. Except there's difficulties in how you measure class, exactly, typically it's by occupation of your parents, but then again there are anomolies in this too.

as an adult you definite your own class by the work you do, but the class you feel a part of may well be the class your parents were a member of as you were growing up. children develop social identification as they mature. different classes have different social expectations and if you change classes you may always feel more confortable where you began. you may learn to appreciate the symphony but always prefer bowling. this is obviously not just true of class, it can also be true of subcultures and even regional differences... i think if you don't learn to like grits as a child you never really will.

Working Class

Me: Poor
Family: Middle

PS: There is no such thing as working class btw, even the very rich work now and then.

Middle class. My mom is a teacher and my dad was a teacher for a while and now works at the child support department of the county government. I'm a high school student.

Do you live entirely from the sale of your labor and do you draw profit from any kind of capital? Yes or no.
I do both, as most people do these days.

The real thing is: that doesn't tell you anymore than knowing my hair colour would. You can make up various characteristics that correspond to something you define as a class, and of course you can fit pretty much anyone into one if you try. But what people fail to realise is that talking about the "lower class" has just as much meaning as talking about "blonde people". It describes some attribute that doesn't even capture a fraction of what that person is about. And when you then start with "blonde people have goal X, while reheads have goal Y, therefore the two are in opposition to each other and must fight", it just gets idiotic.

You could say a writer transcends the classes because writing can hardly be considered manual labor, yet there are indeed poor (economically speaking) writers.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/31/news/economy/copes/index.htm

There are poor (economically speaking) financial executives.

...and of course those in high-paying management positions seem to do relatively little with their time except play golf and fiddle with statistics...
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but unsubstantiated ones don't make a very good impression.

What class am I? Well my main is a Warlock but I've also got a Mage and I'm thinking about getting a Rouge to see how it handles.

What class am I? Well my main is a Warlock but I've also got a Mage and I'm thinking about getting a Rouge to see how it handles.
warlock... working class, sort of a gramsci style organic intellectual

mage... petty bourgeois, maybe mid to upper bourgeoisie if you're powerful enough

rogue... lumpen proletariat definitely

I seem to have a different definition of working/middle class to a lot of people here.

Working class suggest you have to work for a living - including more professional orientated jobs - ie if for any reason you were suddenly unable to work through some misfortune (and assuming no safety net was in place) you would starve within a few months as what savings, if any, quickly get eaten away by a mortgage/rent and living costs. (if you're too young to work yet, replace that with your parents ability to live without working.)

Middle classes would be those with large enough savings to support themselves possibly for a few years without working, else owning a business where other peoples work provides an income, although there is a good possibility of the gradual decline of said business due to your continued lack of contribution and management. Ultimately this group would also starve without a safety net, but it would take much longer.

Upper classes never have to work. They can if they want to, but there is no financial need. They have so much money/property that they would never starve, or even face shortage even if they never lifted a finger throughout their entire lives.


N.B. I realise the classic definitions have not been used traditionally in the U.S. due to their fortune of being founded without an aristocracy. Therefore different labels may be used, but the three groups exist just the same. Not having lived there I may have this wrong, but their use of the middle class grouping seems to extend down the economic ladder as far as those who have a average paying, yet steady employment such as teaching, nursing etc, office work etc.

I apologise for the over use of commas. I have an addiction, but I'm fighting it, one day at a time.

Middle class I guess. Chances are that I will have some subordinates to whip in 5-10 years or so, but not quite there yet.

I apologise for the over use of commas. I have an addiction, but I'm fighting it, one day at a time.

A comma addiction is socially acceptable, as long as it doesn't lead to run-on sentences. Apostrophe abuse is far more troublesome. Don't forget to use the semicolon to divide those subgroups you've divided by commas. "Aisle 1 has canned vegetables, canned fruit, soups, and pasta; Aisle 2 has chips, granola bars, and candy; and Aisle 3 has breads and breakfast cereal" is a somewhat contrived example to show what I mean.

marxists, capitolists and royalists, are all equally loonies when it comes to this. the concept of class is beneath the dignity of anyone who has any.

=^^=
.../\...

marxists, capitolists and royalists, are all equally loonies when it comes to this. the concept of class is beneath the dignity of anyone who has any.

=^^=
.../\...

We must relies it is there. Then we can crush the class system into the ground. Then shit on that piece of ground.

marxists, capitolists and royalists, are all equally loonies when it comes to this. the concept of class is beneath the dignity of anyone who has any.

=^^=
.../\...

You're just afraid to discuss it.
The concept of class has changed, and in many respects it's hard to define, but it is still there. oh yes.

Upper Middle.

Proud Bourgeois Capitalist Exploiter

Well my parents are definately working class. However, I am a consider myself fairly intelligent, I already have a few scholarships in the bag and the future is looking good for me. So, I would go with Upper-middle class. So i put middle.

Classless FTW

Classless FTW
Champagne socialist, then?

Me personally? Lower class.

My parents? Upper-middle.

Parents are solidly middle, while I am lower in terms of income and the type of work I do. I'm on track to make a pretty good living as soon as I've stabilized a bit, so I suppose I can also attain to being middle class in the next decade or so. Good times. :)

Well my parents are definately working class. However, I am a consider myself fairly intelligent

Are you saying that working class people are stupid ?

I'd say that class totally exists but countries like Australia, Canada and America have alot of class mobility.

It doesn't matter what your last name is, nor who your parents are, nor your race, religion or neighborhood...if you go to college, get an education, become employed and climb the corporate ladder, you can become upper class simply by achieving economic wealth. Our class system I'd say is based totally on capital, so while some families are upper class it's because they inherit their money down...but I wouldn't say they are any more upper class than say a self made gazillionare who came from working or middle class....

And that's what I really like about our system.

Also, I think that while in Europe, there is alot less poverty and alot more of being "comfterable" while your current situation, there is alot less class mobility, thus if you wanted to improve your life and get rich, that is much harder to do in Europe than in America.

But in America, there are obviouslys alot more risks of falling into poverty.

Thats the game here.

I'm American, but I would consider myself lower class/working class. At least right now. Gotta pay off some things before I start looking forward to becoming a snooty rich guy.

Dropped from Upper Class (property owning family with ties to Austrian nobility) to very comfortable and much nicer Middle Class (office job and thinking about buying a house, knowing full well that due to events in the past, I will never inherit anything. And should I do, I would give it to charity as I wouldn't want to be tainted with that kind of money, knowing where it came from).

When I delivery pizza I am a member of the proletariat, but when I substitute teach I creep into the very bottom of the petty bourgeoisie.First part makes sense; second part not-so-much.

The labor-power of substitute teachers seems to be the very definition of the commodity form, no? So are we using Marxian definitions here or not?

I'd say that class totally exists but countries like Australia, Canada and America have alot of class mobility.

It doesn't matter what your last name is, nor who your parents are, nor your race, religion or neighborhood...if you go to college, get an education, become employed and climb the corporate ladder, you can become upper class simply by achieving economic wealth. Our class system I'd say is based totally on capital, so while some families are upper class it's because they inherit their money down...but I wouldn't say they are any more upper class than say a self made gazillionare who came from working or middle class....

And that's what I really like about our system.

Also, I think that while in Europe, there is alot less poverty and alot more of being "comfterable" while your current situation, there is alot less class mobility, thus if you wanted to improve your life and get rich, that is much harder to do in Europe than in America.

But in America, there are obviouslys alot more risks of falling into poverty.

Thats the game here.

The figures show that you're wrong. The UK has the least class mobility but in second last place is the United States. The idea of America as a classless society is a really odd myth.

The figures show that you're wrong. The UK has the least class mobility but in second last place is the United States. The idea of America as a classless society is a really odd myth.
Sorry but you must have read someone else post and not mine. My whole point was about the class system we have in America based on income...and nowehere did I say anything that could eve hint to "classless society".

Whatever figures you're talking about are obviously wrong, too.

Whatever figures you're talking about are obviously wrong, too.


Someone tell LSE (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm) that Alatian islands has decided they are wrong. Must be a devestating blow to them.

Someone tell LSE (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm) that Alatian islands has decided they are wrong. Must be a devestating blow to them.

Given that the list-toppers are those Scandinavian countries, who are tiny, cold, startlingly homogeneous and have developed a unique degree of natural social harmony and social fluidity, as well as superb high-tech educational systems.

I daresay ranking seventh and eighth isn't that bad of a deal, if they're the competition. It's not really a devastating blow at all.

Combined, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark are comprised of 24,718,054 people. Not even a tenth of the US population, less than half of the British population. The LSE study wasn't exactly comparing similar peer states.

Given that the list-toppers are those Scandinavian countries, who are tiny, cold, startlingly homogeneous and have developed a unique degree of natural social harmony and social fluidity, as well as superb high-tech educational systems.

I daresay ranking seventh and eighth isn't that bad of a deal, if they're the competition. It's not really a devastating blow at all.

QFT

QFT

And, I suspect that something we could all stand to learn from those delightful little Northern European states is a healthy appreciation for an efficient high-tech education provided to all students. If there is one commitment that could be made to general betterment of American or British society in the long term, that is it.

And, I suspect that something we could all stand to learn from those delightful little Northern European states is a healthy appreciation for an efficient high-tech education provided to all students. If there is one commitment that could be made to general betterment of American or British society in the long term, that is it.
Agreed but..also.

A point must be maken. I'd like to question how class mobility is so "easy" in those countries. They have intense taxes against people who are trying to be come wealthy and are much more of social democracies thus opting for social harming and cooperation instead of competition.

People are very well off there...but I seriously think the survey is wrong when it talks about easy class mobility....

Maybe it means if you are poor you are raised automatically to middle class by the gigantic welfare state....easily.

But that sort of misses the point of class mobility when discussed in a more free, capitalist state.

bump

I'd like to question how class mobility is so "easy" in those countries. They have intense taxes against people who are trying to be come wealthy and are much more of social democracies thus opting for social harming and cooperation instead of competition.
The definition of social mobility used is the degree to which your parents' income serves to predict your own income. Let's say these social democracies impose a floor and a ceiling on incomes you can realistically hope to attain (without globalising yourself, as the Ikea guys do for example), that would mean that the potential spread of incomes is smaller and social mobility should actually be lower.

No, I think the statistics may well be correct. The LSE is a very high-quality institution and they take their research seriously. And the implication is obvious (and not particularly counter-intuitive either): improve the schools that the poor have access to.

That's the only thing you can draw out of these studies. It has nothing to do with "social harmony" or any of that esoteric BS, it has to do with school systems that are run well as opposed to those that aren't. The thing with schools and school systems is also that their quality is quite independent of other government ideology or organisation. There are plenty of public schools that are extremely poor, while Finland for example demonstrates that they can be extremely good. The US or UK would lose nothing, it wouldn't move the slightest bit along the economic axis. It also has little to do with how much is spent on it, and therefore how much taxes it would cost to do ("How to be top - What works in education: the lessons according to McKinsey" (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9989914)).

All that being said, education isn't a simple service where the quality depends on the provider. The outcome is largely determined by what the student puts in, and there's not a whole lot anyone can do to change that. The only external determinant of that is the parents' attitude to learning and achievement. It may well be that poor parents think less of learning and that sort of thing, or that they just don't care as much. If that is the case that's extremely unfortunate, but there is little anyone can do about it short of taking children away from their parents or monitoring and regulating the way kids grow up.

And, I suspect that something we could all stand to learn from those delightful little Northern European states is a healthy appreciation for an efficient high-tech education provided to all students. If there is one commitment that could be made to general betterment of American or British society in the long term, that is it.

Do you not agree that in a nation such as the US (near the top for size and population.) where the different factors actually prevent it from achieving high marks? I think it would be extremely difficult to have efficient high-tech education provided to all. I think it can be achieved in certain areas. The area I live in is a good example. However where I live there is plenty of money for schools. You take a Louisiana parish and we are talking something completely different. There is no way that the education is on par with an area such as Seattle. I think it would be damn near impossible without massive federal funding to keep everyone on par.

I think it would be damn near impossible without massive federal funding to keep everyone on par.
Money isn't the issue. Teacher training is, and that requires no extra funding, just differently structured university courses.

I'm a graduate student... so I think I'm a bit hard to classify. If one goes by income I'd be lower, but if one goes by potential earnings, then I'm probably something like upper mid class or something.

Horrifically, painfully middle class.

I know what you sound like and I'm saying nothing :p

Dropped from Upper Class (property owning family with ties to Austrian nobility) to very comfortable and much nicer Middle Class (office job and thinking about buying a house, knowing full well that due to events in the past, I will never inherit anything. And should I do, I would give it to charity as I wouldn't want to be tainted with that kind of money, knowing where it came from).

Unfortunate for us that the Monarchy was abolished in 1919. Not that us Freiherr und Ritter really had it THAT good, but still...

http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Flag_of_Austria-Hungary.svg/65px-Flag_of_Austria-Hungary.svg.png

Middle class. Not born to the particular caste of middle class I would have chosen, but then I've never felt especially connected to my family. Affectionate yes, but personally I suspect I have few things in common with anybody but my mother, and one set of grandparents.

And yes, I'm proud to be middle class, although god knows I'd rather be public school middle class.

Class in the US is fluid, so far. At this point, I'm hovering around lower middle class and solid middle class. For a time I was what could be termed Welfare class (divorced, no skills, two kids), but I worked my way out of that. My son is solid middle class and my daughter, because she's a lieutenant in the Air Force, Is hovering around upper middle class.

In this country, class depends on several things, money being only one of them. Parentage, level of education, where you were educated (obviously California State University at Fresno doesn't have the cachet of Harvard or Yale - even though the education is as good or better), occupation and organizations to which you belong all help in determining class.

As I said before, class is fluid in this country. That said, it's becoming increasingly less fluid as and more stratified as education becomes more expensive and the economy becomes more stagnant. It doesn't help that many people, having "gotten theirs," actively work to make it more difficult for others to "get theirs."

Class in the US is fluid, so far. At this point, I'm hovering around lower middle class and solid middle class. For a time I was what could be termed Welfare class (divorced, no skills, two kids), but I worked my way out of that. My son is solid middle class and my daughter, because she's a lieutenant in the Air Force, Is hovering around upper middle class.

In this country, class depends on several things, money being only one of them. Parentage, level of education, where you were educated (obviously California State University at Fresno doesn't have the cachet of Harvard or Yale - even though the education is as good or better), occupation and organizations to which you belong all help in determining class.

As I said before, class is fluid in this country. That said, it's becoming increasingly less fluid as and more stratified as education becomes more expensive and the economy becomes more stagnant. It doesn't help that many people, having "gotten theirs," actively work to make it more difficult for others to "get theirs."

Is a Liuetenant in the services really upper middle class, or are you putting it in terms of her prospects?

As I said before, class is fluid in this country. That said, it's becoming increasingly less fluid as and more stratified as education becomes more expensive and the economy becomes more stagnant. It doesn't help that many people, having "gotten theirs," actively work to make it more difficult for others to "get theirs."

That, in my opinion at least, sums up most of the "class debate" in the US.

Definitely middle-class here, maybe lower if only because paying for university is going to be pretty difficult (more so when it's my younger sister's turn).

Is a Liuetenant in the services really upper middle class, or are you putting it in terms of her prospects?

She's making over $60,000/annum (starting salary). She has a Master's from a well-regarded private university (not ivy-league, but well-respected in the areas of medical and health education). I'd say that puts her in upper middle class. Her prospects are excellent for doing better.

It says a lot about Britain that we can even be having this discussion. If you want to know why we live in such an ugly, stunted society, look no further than the class system.

It says a lot about Britain that we can even be having this discussion. If you want to know why we live in such an ugly, stunted society, look no further than the class system.
Look at the OP. It was inspired by talkshows.

The only evidence I've seen turn this thread into one about the British education system. So by talking about class, we're all happily going along and missing the point.

Unfortunate for us that the Monarchy was abolished in 1919. Not that us Freiherr und Ritter really had it THAT good, but still...

http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Flag_of_Austria-Hungary.svg/65px-Flag_of_Austria-Hungary.svg.png

Sorry, I don't really share that nostalgia... it was all far too pompous for my taste. I was lucky to escapre being "intorduced" at the Opernball.

She's making over $60,000/annum (starting salary). She has a Master's from a well-regarded private university (not ivy-league, but well-respected in the areas of medical and health education). I'd say that puts her in upper middle class. Her prospects are excellent for doing better.

So it was prospects then?

It says a lot about Britain that we can even be having this discussion. If you want to know why we live in such an ugly, stunted society, look no further than the class system.

Well that puts you in the working classes then. Or a diasaffected middle class northerner with an unthinking hatred for Baronness Thatcher.

Well that puts you in the working classes then. Or a diasaffected middle class northerner with an unthinking hatred for Baronness Thatcher.

There have been no southern middle class people who have critisised the class system?

There have been no southern middle class people who have critisised the class system?

Naturally, but opposition to it does tend to eminate more from the north.

Naturally, but opposition to it does tend to eminate more from the north.

Must be all the flat caps and whippets...

Must be all the flat caps and whippets...

Or the economic reality that the north is rather poorer than the south, in concert with a residual antagonism towards Baronness Thatcher and the nascent corporate middle class she is generally accussed of generating.

Where is the C1 option?


Other then that. I get the impression that social and economic class in this country is borked. I just find it absurd that class is something that is deemed as inheiritable ("My father maybe a millionaire, but my great-great-grandfather was a miner was a miner so I'm working class."), as well as slightly fatalistic.

It also irritates my slightly when reading an opinion piece where the well paid writer on a media salary uses their "working class credentials."


Which is why I used to enjoy messing about with the idea. Now days I'm more resigned.



At the moment I more concerned how the abolition of the 10p tax will effect me more than what class my unskilled job role places me in though

Sorry, I don't really share that nostalgia... it was all far too pompous for my taste. I was lucky to escapre being "intorduced" at the Opernball.

I'm not saying I miss *all* of it, but we could do with some of the civility these days, methinks. :)

By my family history and my economic status I am working class. Very few of my family had a university education or private school. Some of them own land and/or buildings, but most don't.

On the other hand my interests and generally academic and most people I know could to a greater or lesser degree be regarded as from the intelligensia. I wouldn't regard myself as belonging to that class though, though I work to improve myself academically and culturally.

I would be considered middle class, but I really don't care too much about class issues. I have something of a dislike of youth culture at either end of the class spectrum, though, and I really don't get on well with Yuppies.

Ruling

I would be considered middle class, but I really don't care too much about class issues. I have something of a dislike of youth culture at either end of the class spectrum, though, and I really don't get on well with Yuppies.

No one gets on well with yuppies, my friend. I think there are laws against it, and if there aren't then there should be.... ;)