NationStates Jolt Archive

Whether you think you are in a class or not, no doubt someone will perceive you as such if it's their world view. So even if you disagree with the concept, how do you think you are perceived by people that see things in those terms?

Can you even define it? Is it possible to move down as well as up classes? Is it money? Family? Education? Job? Your accent?

My opinion is that the view is based on old feudal concepts, but with the advent of a more meritocratic world the idea has become more complex, because just being born into it doesn't seem enough anymore. Does America see class in a different way to the UK?

I'm one of the Untouchables.



Sean Connery!

My family is very well off, not sure if we're actually rich, though.
My dad does have a six figure salary. Does that qualify?

My family is very well off, not sure if we're actually rich, though.
My dad does have a six figure salary. Does that qualify?

That's the question too - is money enough?

That's the question too - is money enough?Does prestige factor in? My family is, hm, how to phrase it, respected around the area.

Does prestige factor in? My family is, hm, how to phrase it, respected around the area.

They're in the mob?

;)

Making this multi choice wasn't a good idea.

They're in the mob?

;)Uh, no. At least, not that I'm aware of.

Making this multi choice wasn't a good idea.

I have implicit trust in the wonderful community of NSG.

Plus I am a n00b at polls.

Anyone else feel the icy presence of the ghost of AP for a minute?

Anyone else feel the icy presence of the ghost of AP for a minute?I don't think I've been around long enough to know who that is. :p

Well, I work and I have class..

Easy enough question .... Cheech has already covered it.
Let me wring it out for you ....

I'm Prince Charles so that makes me Monarchy.
Stephen Fry is Stephen Fry so he = Upper Class.
Chuck Norris = God. :hail:

[Insert Andaras-style rant here]

I see myself as working class. Righ now, my mom is working at a cafe in Tikkurila. We aren't poor but not rich either. Not exactly middle class.

[Insert Andaras-style rant here]

I see myself as working class. Righ now, my mom is working at a cafe in Tikkurila. We aren't poor but not rich either. Not exactly middle class.

I know, I long for the days of random pages of Das Kapital being pasted in a forum!

If you were better off, do you think that would be enough to 'move you up' so to speak?

I have no class.

I have no class.You lack style, as well. :p

If you were better off, do you think that would be enough to 'move you up' so to speak?I wouldn't know how i could possibly be better off, and I definitely don't want to 'move up'. There's only one or two more 'steps', per se.

I know, I long for the days of random pages of Das Kapital being pasted in a forum!

If you were better off, do you think that would be enough to 'move you up' so to speak?

Maybe, I don't know. But class isn't like the feudal system of the Middle Ages, IMO. It isn't rigid, you can move from one class to another.

I have no class.
Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14213921&postcount=13
Probably something like that.

Maybe, I don't know. But class isn't like the feudal system of the Middle Ages, IMO. It isn't rigid, you can move from one class to another.

I agree. What's weird is, moving up is something that most people would consider possible, but moving down doesn't seem to be quite the same. It's almost as if if you've 'got there' you can't fall back. Even if it's wealth based, a millionaire that loss all his money and goes on the dole probably wouldn't consider themselves working class if they had previously considered themselves middle or upper.

You're from Britain I presume? :rolleyes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14213921&postcount=13
Probably something like that.

Excellent. That's not cryptic in the least.

Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?

You're from Britain I presume? :rolleyes:

Yes :rolleyes:

What difference does that make?

I agree. What's weird is, moving up is something that most people would consider possible, but moving down doesn't seem to be quite the same. It's almost as if if you've 'got there' you can't fall back. Even if it's wealth based, a millionaire that loss all his money and goes on the dole probably wouldn't consider themselves working class if they had previously considered themselves middle or upper.

Now that's just stupid. You can fall down the ladder, it's a two-way street.

Class of '89.:p

Excellent. That's not cryptic in the least.

Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?
'Tis okay, it's an older joke, but it checks out.

Now that's just stupid. You can fall down the ladder, it's a two-way street.

I agree, that's the logical way of looking at it. But it's not the way people necessarily see it. Even if this millionaire considered himself working class, he might not be perceived as 'true working class' by people who considered themselves such for all their lives (a weird sort of reversed-class snobbery)

Middle class I guess.

Working class. I'm in retail. :(

I have no class.
I have plenty of class. Freshman English, English as a Second Language, Sophomore English, Junior English, Senior English, Creative Writing, Science Fiction......

I agree, that's the logical way of looking at it. But it's not the way people necessarily see it. Even if this millionaire considered himself working class, he might not be perceived as 'true working class' by people who considered themselves such for all their lives (a weird sort of reversed-class snobbery)

Oh well, people are illogical.

Whether you think you are in a class or not, no doubt someone will perceive you as such if it's their world view. So even if you disagree with the concept, how do you think you are perceived by people that see things in those terms?

Well some one here have assumed I'm rich, which certainly isn't the case, which I suppose would make me upper class to some, who obviously don't know me tho. If someone knew me, they'd probably say I was lower class as I live on the bottom floor of a house with 3 other people who I share rent with, and make little money.

Can you even define it? Is it possible to move down as well as up classes? Is it money? Family? Education? Job? Your accent?

I don't think theres a hard definition, but it depends on where you live and your income, basically how much luxuries you have, or could have. Of course using this definition, you can move up and down in classes, I wouldn't say it has anything to do with family unless you're directly related to the person- either married or the minor (under 18) child of someone. Education not so much, a PhD who's a janitor is still a janitor.

My opinion is that the view is based on old feudal concepts, but with the advent of a more meritocratic world the idea has become more complex, because just being born into it doesn't seem enough anymore. Does America see class in a different way to the UK?

I think America does, it seems like the class structure in the UK is more rigid than in the US.

I am of those. Orwell called us "the Party", others have called us "the Illuminati". Throughout the ages persons have theorized that we originated in Atlantis, on another planet, or even in Hell; but the truth is so terrible it cannot be comprehended by mere humans.

I am of those. Orwell called us "the Party", others have called us "the Illuminati". Throughout the ages persons have theorized that we originated in Atlantis, on another planet, or even in Hell; but the truth is so terrible it cannot be comprehended by mere humans.

You originated in Croydon didn't you?

I am of those. Orwell called us "the Party", others have called us "the Illuminati". Throughout the ages persons have theorized that we originated in Atlantis, on another planet, or even in Hell; but the truth is so terrible it cannot be comprehended by mere humans.

That was going to be an option, but it was too long for the poll. :p

Working Middle Class. And I consider that an option as well. You can be a working class and Middle Class. Mostly in my family it's trying to keep the feet off the banana peel.

Well, my parents are as middle class as people can get. I however failed that class. No plans for post-secondary education, a steady career or a home with a double car garage.

I'm something more like this...

I have no class.

Warlock. :P

The current way we define class is a load of hooey. It's based exclusively on gross income; occupation; name; and an assortment of other disjointed factors. It's a way of oversimplifying complex societal structures, without much critical thought. In almost any rule regarding a class, a dozen exceptions are found: people making six-figure incomes living paycheck to paycheck because they live beyond their means; working class people who live fairly comfortable within their means, albeit minus a few luxuries. Really, using the current criteria that is used, there is no predictive ability whatsoever.

I personally divide society into two classes: the productive, and the unproductive. The two extremes-being "rich" and "poor"-are further divided into productive and unproductive factions. The unproductive rich consist largely of aristocracy or descendants of more productive ancestors, living of a static amount of wealth or wealth produced by the company founded by their ancestor. People who live solely on the stock market also fall into this category. The productive rich consists of the successful entrepreneurs who succeed in the world of business, such as Bill Gates. These can come from any class, though few in number. However, their families quickly join the unproductive ranks following their deaths.

The productive poor are laborers who live in poverty, but work hard to earn their keep-as small as it is. The unproductive poor are the beggars, the criminals, the welfarers, and those who believe the world owes them a living-when, in reality, it owes them nothing.

The only class that must remain universally productive is the middle class. Many occupations once associated with the poor are now making wages on par with their white collar counterparts-indeed, one could be hard pressed to call modern electricians as being poor. This class neither has the wealth or the alms to live without working. This class includes the technicians, the engineers, the scientists, the intellectuals, even a few artists. This class is daily exploited by unproductive forces above and below-there's no example more telling than supply-side economics and demand-side economics. Regardless of the two policies, the middle class is further taxed in each case. However, even my rambling analysis is an oversimplification.

Really though, the antagonisms arising from class (or any other factional world view) begs the question: Is being such a tribal species really such a blessing? If it only produces all the injustices we see today, shouldn't we start outgrowing this need to 'belong' to something larger?

Warlock. :P*dances to Skinny Puppy*

The current way we define class is a load of hooey. It's based exclusively on gross income; occupation; name; and an assortment of other disjointed factors. It's a way of oversimplifying complex societal structures, without much critical thought. In almost any rule regarding a class, a dozen exceptions are found: people making six-figure incomes living paycheck to paycheck because they live beyond their means; working class people who live fairly comfortable within their means, albeit minus a few luxuries. Really, using the current criteria that is used, there is no predictive ability whatsoever.

Hooey? Hooey? I've never heard such foul language on a forum before! :D
Isn't it the lot of humans to oversimplify complex things? It allows you to put everything into convenient little boxes and not have think about it any more. But I agree, there are probably as many conceptions of what class 'is' as there are people....

Really, the antagonisms arising from class (or any other factional world view) begs the question: Is being such a tribal species really such a blessing? If it only produces all the injustices we see today, shouldn't we start outgrowing this need to 'belong'?

But without some sort of factional view, or at least without a need to 'belong', wouldn't society disintegrate? The antagonisms are part of defining yourself in contrast with the 'other', and having a solid sense of identity and therefore a more cohesive group.

Please note I am not a psychologist, sociologist or anthropologist so that may be codswallop.

I'd say class was based on education, occupation and the resultant income from that occupation. High income alone isn't enough to place one into the upper classes; personally, I don't think that a successful businessman earning a six-figure salary belongs in the upper class regardless of the size of his home etc. I'd say it was more to do with prestige and honour, which is often dictated by education and occupation.

Academic.

I don't think that ranking on the idea of 'lower - middle - upper' is so useful. Maybe something more descriptive:

Wage-working lower: shelf stackers, factory workers, etc
Wage-working middle: office jobs, etc. The corporate peons
Aristocracy
Academic
Owning: CEOs, high level managers, etc.

Something like that. I would need to put some more thought into it. Or how about this:

I survive by selling my labour - Factory workers
I survive by selling my time - Corporate drones
I survive by selling my ideas - Academics
I survive by selling the fruits of my labour - Farmers
I survive by profiting from other people's labour - Managers
I survive from inherited wealth - Landed gentry

Another shot at a categorisation that seems a useful way of sorting people.

Warlock. :P

Ah, nice WOW reference. :p

Ah, nice WOW reference. :p

Not necessarily!

But probably :rolleyes:

Academic.

I don't think that ranking on the idea of 'lower - middle - upper' is so useful. Maybe something more descriptive:

Wage-working lower: shelf stackers, factory workers, etc
Wage-working middle: office jobs, etc. The corporate peons
Aristocracy
Academic
Owning: CEOs, high level managers, etc.

Something like that. I would need to put some more thought into it. Or how about this:

I survive by selling my labour - Factory workers
I survive by selling my time - Corporate drones
I survive by selling my ideas - Academics
I survive by selling the fruits of my labour - Farmers
I survive by profiting from other people's labour - Managers
I survive from inherited wealth - Landed gentry

Another shot at a categorisation that seems a useful way of sorting people.

Mmmmm, corporate drone, now there's an aspiration!

It seems your system is predicated mostly on career type. But what if there was a big imbalance in wealth, e.g. poor landed gentry versus rich academic - would that change anything?

Are they in any particular order? I ask because in one 'Academic' and aristocracy seem to swap around.

Revenant (http://wiki.nexuswar.com/index.php/Class#Unaligned_Classes)


Further, I will be disappointed if this joke has not been made already.

What ever my old school tie tells me what Class that I am

I don't think I've been around long enough to know who that is. :p

Andaras, AKA Andaras Prime / Eureka Australis, generally referred to as AP...

Mmmmm, corporate drone, now there's an aspiration!

It seems your system is predicated mostly on career type. But what if there was a big imbalance in wealth, e.g. poor landed gentry versus rich academic - would that change anything?

Are they in any particular order? I ask because in one 'Academic' and aristocracy seem to swap around.

No, thats not ordered. I'm trying to invent a system that escapes the problems of a single ordered ranking. For example, where do lifelong academics fall on the scale of 'lower - middle - upper'?

Lower class is traditionally factory and wage workers. Middle is corporate employees, small business owners, etc. Upper is fairly split: aristocracy and the very rich, for example. And then where do lifelong academics or medical professionals fall?

Yes, it's predicated mostly on careers. Not wealth necessarily. If anything, I would pigeonhole people on a few factors:

Their own opinion of where they fall
Their career/general career path
The class of their social grouping.

So it's perfectly reasonable to have a rather poor member of the arisocracy (the traditional upper class), or a fairly rich academic type.

If you're fairly interested in this sort of thing, I recommend reading 'Watching the English', by Kate Fox. It's an intriuging look at English society and (obviously) the class system. Give me a bit, and I'll dig up her set of categorisations, which are basically a refined version of LMU, but do have some points to recommend them.

I know, I long for the days of random pages of Das Kapital being pasted in a forum!

If you were better off, do you think that would be enough to 'move you up' so to speak?

The change of value that occurs in the case of money intended to be converted into capital, cannot take place in the money itself, since in its function of means of purchase and of payment, it does no more than realise the price of the commodity it buys or pays for; and, as hard cash, it is value petrified, never varying.1 Just as little can it originate in the second act of circulation, the re-sale of the commodity, which does no more than transform the article from its bodily form back again into its money-form. The change must, therefore, take place in the commodity bought by the first act, M-C, but not in its value, for equivalents are exchanged, and the commodity is paid for at its full value. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the change originates in the use-value, as such, of the commodity, i.e., in its consumption. In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power.

By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.

But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself implies no other relations of dependence than those which, result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour- power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person.2 He and the owner of money meet in the market, and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights, with this difference alone, that one is buyer, the other seller; both, therefore, equal in the eyes of the law. The continuance of this relation demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity. He must constantly look upon his labour-power as his own property, his own commodity, and this he can only do by placing it at the disposal of the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time. By this means alone can he avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it.3

The second essential condition to the owner of money finding labour-power in the market as a commodity is this — that the labourer instead of being in the position to sell commodities in which his labour is incorporated, must be obliged to offer for sale as a commodity that very labour-power, which exists only in his living self.

In order that a man may be able to sell commodities other than labour-power, he must of course have the means of production, as raw material, implements, &c. No boots can be made without leather. He requires also the means of subsistence. Nobody — not even "a musician of the future" — can live upon future products, or upon use-values in an unfinished state; and ever since the first moment of his appearance on the world's stage, man always has been, and must still be a consumer, both before and while he is producing. In a society where all products assume the form of commodities, these commodities must be sold after they have been produced, it is only after their sale that they can serve in satisfying the requirements of their producer. The time necessary for their sale is superadded to that necessary for their production.

For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the market with the free labourer, free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power.

Remedial

No, thats not ordered. I'm trying to invent a system that escapes the problems of a single ordered ranking. For example, where do lifelong academics fall on the scale of 'lower - middle - upper'?

Lower class is traditionally factory and wage workers. Middle is corporate employees, small business owners, etc. Upper is fairly split: aristocracy and the very rich, for example. And then where do lifelong academics or medical professionals fall?

'Lifelong' is a strange adjective.... Lifelong medical professionals can be anything from healthcare assistants, nurses, doctors, surgeons, consultants, professors... And they can move over the course of a 'lifetime'. I suppose they fall wherever there current role is perceived if you go by career, or somewhere else if you rate lineage or current wealth.

Yes, it's predicated mostly on careers. Not wealth necessarily. If anything, I would pigeonhole people on a few factors:

Their own opinion of where they fall
Their career/general career path
The class of their social grouping.

So it's perfectly reasonable to have a rather poor member of the arisocracy (the traditional upper class), or a fairly rich academic type.

'social grouping' - do you mean who they hang out with? That can be quite a 'wannabe' thing, you hang out with the peer group you WANT to be in, rather than your peers, perhaps?

If you're fairly interested in this sort of thing, I recommend reading 'Watching the English', by Kate Fox. It's an intriuging look at English society and (obviously) the class system. Give me a bit, and I'll dig up her set of categorisations, which are basically a refined version of LMU, but do have some points to recommend them.

I'm always interested in a well thought out opinion! (I'm not obsessed by this question btw, it just came up in a discussion I had today and wondered what reaction it might garner in this forum)

Where the fuck is my coffee?

Middle class. A level six commoner.:D

Where the fuck is my coffee?Where the fuck have you been?

Oh, and here's your coffee:
http://www.animalcoffee.com/

Me?
Oberth, Miranda, Akira, or Sovereign. Depending on day/mood/mission/paycheck.

'Lifelong' is a strange adjective.... Lifelong medical professionals can be anything from healthcare assistants, nurses, doctors, surgeons, consultants, professors... And they can move over the course of a 'lifetime'. I suppose they fall wherever there current role is perceived if you go by career, or somewhere else if you rate lineage or current wealth.

Well picked up on. Lifelong was more to apply to 'academic' than to medical professional, really, but still.

Anyway, the important part there was really professionals. A medical professional is someone in the medical profession. It refers primarily to people such as surgeons, consultants, and doctors. Falling into the category of professions are occupations such as engineering and law, which tend to be self-regulating and have strict entry standards.


'social grouping' - do you mean who they hang out with? That can be quite a 'wannabe' thing, you hang out with the peer group you WANT to be in, rather than your peers, perhaps?

Also well picked up on. But yes, roughly who they hang out with, or possibly who they feel most comfortable hanging out with. So while a social climber may try to spend as much time as possible in the class they wish to move to, while doing so they're less comfortable about it, trying to ensure they make a good impression, etc.

As the converse of this, consider a professor researching a book on (for example) the class system, and thus spending a lot of their time hanging out with other classes. While they may spend some weeks nearly exclusively in the company of the working class, they are still an academic.


I'm always interested in a well thought out opinion! (I'm not obsessed by this question btw, it just came up in a discussion I had today and wondered what reaction it might garner in this forum)

Aye, it's always an interesting question to debate. It falls into the (far too large) category of things that idly interest me, and thus gets some thought time when I'm feeling philosophical.

Working class, though a bit better off than I might be because I'm a part-time student also.

Does America see class in a different way to the UK?Yes. The majority of Americans consider themselves to be middle class.

None, I've already left high school.

A nifty interactive-o-rama (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/) from the New York Times.

I said middle-class, but it's difficult to tell. I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but at least where I am (and I suspect most of the US) everyone considers themselves middle-class.

Well, my family background is working class, but I'm at unviersity studying pointless intellectual nonsense, which strikes me as a remarkably middle class thing to be doing.

Seen in global terms I'm afraid I have to put myself in the Ruling Class. :(

To really beat up on myself: I'm a retarded country squire. Spoilt rotten and hardly even keeping up appearances any more.

Somewhere between middle and working.

Seen in global terms I'm afraid I have to put myself in the Ruling Class. :(

To really beat up on myself: I'm a retarded country squire. Spoilt rotten and hardly even keeping up appearances any more.

You are Toad of Toad Hall.

Anyone else feel the icy presence of the ghost of AP for a minute?

Here, I'll stand in for him.

Comrade Stalin knew how to deal with filthy kulaks like BunnySaurus Bugsii! You can block your ears to the penetrating class analysis of real communists like myself, but when the oppressive lackeys of bourgeois class privilege who style themselves "Moderators" are overthrown, you will all end up in the Gulags where you belong!

*readies flame to get self banned*

You are Toad of Toad Hall.

Except I can't afford a car. But yes, if the toad-skin fits ...

What an awful thing to consider people in classes to begin with. I am against any words or authority that puts someone over another. Sure some are richer and poorer but when exactly does someone change from "lower" to "middle" to "upper" class? I doubt there is a dollar amount so it is mostly psychological.

Non-bourgeous middle class. It's funny how it goes in this country. My grandparents on both sides worked their way up from working class to upper middle (I hesitate to use the word class here, since even in the US, nouveau anything is not well regarded). My father managed, through sheer laziness and cheerful dishonesty, to bring that crashing down. I've managed to work myself back into the dead middle of the middle class. Now the government seems to be bent on bringing that down.

Class of 2003!

I'm in a class all of my own.

Where is that option?

quark, straingeness and charm class, not just the ordinarily wierd, but the cream of the strainge.

about the poll, proletarians=working class. maybe your "prole" category should represent "lumpenproletarian".

Fighter/Mage
...ok that was a bit painful.

Fighter/Mage
...ok that was a bit painful.

Winner (only if elf).

Fighter/Mage
...ok that was a bit painful.

And I'm Warrior/Ranger.

I have no class. Just ask anyone who knows me.

Now to read the thread and see how many times this ones been posted

And I'm Warrior/Ranger.

Usually people want me to be the Paladin, or the Sorcerer.

Usually people want me to be the Paladin, or the Sorcerer.

I play Guild Wars. No Paladin there.

I play Guild Wars. No Paladin there.

I play DnD :)

I play DnD :)

I'm not big into tabletop games. Although I'm intrested in Warhammer 40 000, but they're so goddamn expensive. :(

I'm considering a new poll with RPG options, as it might get a more enthusiastic response!

I'm considering a new poll with RPG options, as it might get a more enthusiastic response!

I for one am quite serious. I am in fact Toad of Toad Hall.

To his horror he recollected that he had left both coat and waistcoat behind him in his cell, and with them his pocket-book, money, keys, watch, matches, pencil-case - - all that makes life worth living, all that distinguishes the many-pocketed animal, the lord of creation, from the inferior one-pocketed or no-pocketed productions that hop or trip about permissively, unequipped for the real contest.

I live in a pie.

I live in a pie.

Is that a very big pie, or are you very small? The answer will be important when determining your social standing, along with the filling type and quality of ingredients.

I live in a pie.

Beware of clowns

I for one am quite serious. I am in fact Toad of Toad Hall.

I for one am quite serious. Seek help.

No-one in their right mind would forget their waistcoat.

lower middle class

Well I myself am definitely on the poorer side of the social equation, living hand to mouth, but I am in school (doing an MA and working). My mom on the other hand has a great deal of land (300 acres + house) but no money to speak of ... I suppose that the land is worth money... so it's hard to "classify" her (and she wouldn't want to be "classified" either).

I'm just waiting for the economy to collapse I guess and for society to revert to a feudal state - then we'll be sittin' pretty :)

I for one am quite serious. Seek help.

"You can always tell a cop by their shoes" I read somewhere. Perhaps Tom Wolfe.

You don't have psychiatrist's shoes. Your advice is rejected.

No-one in their right mind would forget their waistcoat.

I think it more important not to forget my waist.

"You can always tell a cop by their shoes" I read somewhere. Perhaps Tom Wolfe.

You don't have psychiatrist's shoes. Your advice is rejected.


Actually I do, they're buried under the patio with the rest of him.


I think it more important not to forget my waist.

That depends if it's framed by a massive bust and shapely thighs, otherwise I might find it thoroughly forgettable..

In my opinion class is something that you can fluctuate around in to a point, however, Upper class is only for the gentry and you can only be born there or marry into it.

I was born into the middle classes but I am currently of working class status being a house wife with a partner on minimum wage living in social housing.

Once I return to university, get my degree, start work as a designer/maker and we have moved into our own home in the suburbs. I will move back into the lower-middle class and drag my partner and our daughter with me.

Upper Middle Class or Lower Upper Class FTW!


Yes. The majority of Americans consider themselves to be middle class.
I wanted to ask, what to a majority of the British see themselves as?

Here, I'll stand in for him.

Comrade Stalin knew how to deal with filthy kulaks like BunnySaurus Bugsii! You can block your ears to the penetrating class analysis of real communists like myself, but when the oppressive lackeys of bourgeois class privilege who style themselves "Moderators" are overthrown, you will all end up in the Gulags where you belong!

*readies flame to get self banned*

That was exceedingly accurate. :p

I'm in a class all of my own.

Where is that option?

It hasn't been invented yet, come back when someone else fits your category. :)

Well I myself am definitely on the poorer side of the social equation, living hand to mouth, but I am in school (doing an MA and working). My mom on the other hand has a great deal of land (300 acres + house) but no money to speak of ... I suppose that the land is worth money... so it's hard to "classify" her (and she wouldn't want to be "classified" either).

I'm just waiting for the economy to collapse I guess and for society to revert to a feudal state - then we'll be sittin' pretty :)

Don't forget your knights and serfs! ;)

In my opinion class is something that you can fluctuate around in to a point, however, Upper class is only for the gentry and you can only be born there or marry into it.


Uh...Bill Gates?

U6w....

I am a prole

I wanted to ask, what to a majority of the British see themselves as?I'm not certain, but I do know that Brits are much more cognisant of class and where they see themselves, (and more importantly, other people) whereas Americans think of themselves as middle class almost by default.

You left out most of the real-life classes, such as "unemployed". And knowing how very, very wrong the proletariat class is often understood, I'm wary of voting for any of those for myself. Is the blah blah capitalist supposed to be a real class or is it the obligatory joke?

My family is mixed background. We are predominantly common as muck, but there is some (pretty diluted) low ranking nobility from my maternal line.

Economically, I'm a student so 'nuff said.

You left out most of the real-life classes, such as "unemployed". And knowing how very, very wrong the proletariat class is often understood, I'm wary of voting for any of those for myself. Is the blah blah capitalist supposed to be a real class or is it the obligatory joke?

More of a 'class is a made up tool of oppression' option. But not entirely serious.....

Apparently we have an above-average number of reigning monarchs on this forum.

I wanted to ask, what to a majority of the British see themselves as?


Depends on where in Britain you are. I live in an area that's predominantly middle/upper-middle, while sections of the North are still very decidedly lower class, etc. But overall, probably middle/lower-middle, but moving 'up' with time, due to changes in the social makeup of the country


Uh...Bill Gates?

Is not upper class, in the traditional British sense. One can be upper class and broke, or be filthy rich and still middle class. I would be inclined to put Bill Gates at upper-middle, but not upper class in the same way. He's rich and he flaunts it.

My family is decidedly lower/working class. We grew up on a very small farm where our 40 head of cattle produced F grade milk (suitable for feeding to animals only) for barely more than our cost. Currently my mother is working as a clerk at a university for $14/hour, more than she's ever made in her life.

Since joining the Army I've led a decidedly middle class lifestyle. My pay when in the Army and financial benefits from the Army while I attend university have made life rather easier for me. After finishing my studies I should be able to get a job teaching, which will put me firmly in the middle class.

I'm Sang Real, truly...

Usually people want me to be the Paladin, or the Sorcerer.

Human Paladin, Samurai Kit - AD&D 2nd edition
Noldor Sorceress - MERP

I went with the last option on the poll, but then I'm down with the whole political punk scene so that's only how other people see me. I guess I'd view myself as lower middle class.

Human Paladin, Samurai Kit - AD&D 2nd edition
Noldor Sorceress - MERP

When 3rd came around I converted my major characters; Dale Graycastle and Benard Daltaire. Dale became a Shadow Adept (NE sor7/adpt7) and Benard became all kinds of weird (Ftr5/Pal17/Cler6).

My ability to play magic users and Paladins has also lead to Pattersmith (NG Abj17), Peregrine the Show Stealer (N Brd7), Calydril (CG Sor8/Bar2), Rhen (Pal11), Simone(Pal13), Sir Hunter (Pal12/GG3)

People are always asking me to bring those characters to their campaigns...

When 3rd came around I converted my major characters; Dale Graycastle and Benard Daltaire. Dale became a Shadow Adept (NE sor7/adpt7) and Benard became all kinds of weird (Ftr5/Pal17/Cler6).

My ability to play magic users and Paladins has also lead to Pattersmith (NG Abj17), Peregrine the Show Stealer (N Brd7), Calydril (CG Sor8/Bar2), Rhen (Pal11), Simone(Pal13), Sir Hunter (Pal12/GG3)

People are always asking me to bring those characters to their campaigns...

I didn't get a half of that post.

I didn't get a half of that post.

Well, play DnD and you might :D

Well, play DnD and you might :D

That depends on, are they sold her and how much will it cost.

That depends on, are they sold her and how much will it cost.

Usually a book runs for about $30, there are 3 core rulebooks the Dungeon Master's Guide, Player's Handbook, and Monster Manuel. That and dice are all you actually need. Endless years of entertainment can be had for about $100 (US)

/threadjack

Ah DnD, yes I remember the long nights of playing as my 51 year old dwarf (young for a dwarf) teamed up with an Elf and a wizard and a warrior (It has been quite a few years since I played) in search for adventure and treasure. He died not long after he said "It doesn't look to deep and I reckon I can jump across it"

Ah DnD, yes I remember the long nights of playing as my 51 year old dwarf (young for a dwarf) teamed up with an Elf and a wizard and a warrior (It has been quite a few years since I played) in search for adventure and treasure. He died not long after he said "It doesn't look to deep and I reckon I can jump across it"

The famous last words of many a character... one of my lesser characters was a Swashbuckler named Alvin the Lionhearted and one of his companions last words were "Don't tell my wife I hated her."

Upper class by birth. Middle class from chosen work field. :p

Working class really, even now I'm on a good wage.

upper middle class. though we in the US have a bit less class distinction.

I think America does, it seems like the class structure in the UK is more rigid than in the US.
isnt class rigid in the US because pretty much everyone is middle class?

we have a lower class and an upper class but they are tiny compared to the vast middle.

isnt class rigid in the US because pretty much everyone is middle class?

we have a lower class and an upper class but they are tiny compared to the vast middle.

class is regarded solely as based of career. where as europe part of class is based off birth.

Also the US doesn't really have a history of feudalism. so it creates different perceptions of the wealthy.

class is regarded solely as based of career. where as europe part of class is based off birth.

Also the US doesn't really have a history of feudalism. so it creates different perceptions of the wealthy.
not career so much as income.

it doesnt matter what you DO as long as you can take care of yourself.

class is regarded solely as based of career. where as europe part of class is based off birth.

Also the US doesn't really have a history of feudalism. so it creates different perceptions of the wealthy.

Really? You're telling me that a guy with a certain kind of Jersey accent isn't going to raise eyebrows if he says he's a CEO?

Really? You're telling me that a guy with a certain kind of Jersey accent isn't going to raise eyebrows if he says he's a CEO?

nope. Listen to some of the CEO of record labels.

not career so much as income.

it doesnt matter what you DO as long as you can take care of yourself.

So a lottery winner from a poor area of the Deep South is going to be viewed the same way as someone who inherited an oil fortune?

nope. Listen to some of the CEO of record labels.

Well, media is always going to be a bit different. Let's change it to a partner in a law firm?

not career so much as income.

it doesnt matter what you DO as long as you can take care of yourself.

some prestige fields that aren't paid well exist.
for instance professor or teacher.
teachers are paid perhaps lower middle to middle but considered equal to middle or upper middle.
Professors are paid middle to upper middle but considered equal to upper classes. look how often professors are invited to those fancy balls etc.

Well, media is always going to be a bit different. Let's change it to a partner in a law firm?

Yes several law firms hire lawyers who's accents match prospective clients.

So a lottery winner from a poor area of the Deep South is going to be viewed the same way as someone who inherited an oil fortune?


Ever seen the Beverly Hillbillys? Same concept...

Really? You're telling me that a guy with a certain kind of Jersey accent isn't going to raise eyebrows if he says he's a CEO?
not in new jersey

Yes several law firms hire lawyers who's accents match prospective clients.

But if that's the function, doesn't that say something?

Uh...Bill Gates?

I don't pay much attention to the man but excessivly rich or not if you aren't gentry you aren't upper class, just stinking rich

But if that's the function, doesn't that say something?

speak like whoever is paying you ???

especially with complicated legally services you want to to avoid having a client misunderstand the proceedings.

So a lottery winner from a poor area of the Deep South is going to be viewed the same way as someone who inherited an oil fortune?



Well, media is always going to be a bit different. Let's change it to a partner in a law firm?
"viewed" is irrelevant. if you win $300 million in the lottery you are in the upper class by default.

some prestige fields that aren't paid well exist.
for instance professor or teacher.
teachers are paid perhaps lower middle to middle but considered equal to middle or upper middle.
Professors are paid middle to upper middle but considered equal to upper classes. look how often professors are invited to those fancy balls etc.
yes but they are all middle class.

if your college professor hit the skids hard and ended up in public housing living from hand to mouth he would be a well regarded member of the lower class (supposing that it was a permanent change)

"viewed" is irrelevant. if you win $300 million in the lottery you are in the upper class by default.

I think that's a very narrow definition. I think there's a reason why we have the seperate word "class" rather than just the word "income" or "net worth".

Breeding is huge with regards to class.
If you hail from the working classes and have pots and pots of money, such as with a big lottery win, but you stand like a cave man and speak improperly (lazyly, as in clip your words) and you wouldn't know style if it slapped you in your face, you are still working class until such a time as you learn to walk tall, speak elloquently and learn to tell the difference between tacky, gawdy and classy.
If you are unemployed but you hail from an upper middle class background you basically have until you run out of personal funds and need to bum off the state to retain your social status.

yes but they are all middle class.

if your college professor hit the skids hard and ended up in public housing living from hand to mouth he would be a well regarded member of the lower class (supposing that it was a permanent change)

No I would say the respect they get and the advice the weight of their advice mitigates their lack of income. they have influence in the form of how much people pay attention to their advice. Also their reach to the future rich in the US by teaching at universities.
And if they hit the skids they no longer are employed as college professors.

I think that's a very narrow definition. I think there's a reason why we have the seperate word "class" rather than just the word "income" or "net worth".
then it has no real meaning in the US.

Breeding is huge with regards to class.
If you hail from the working classes and have pots and pots of money, such as with a big lottery win, but you stand like a cave man and speak improperly (lazyly, as in clip your words) and you wouldn't know style if it slapped you in your face, you are still working class until such a time as you learn to walk tall, speak elloquently and learn to tell the difference between tacky, gawdy and classy.
If you are unemployed but you hail from an upper middle class background you basically have until you run out of personal funds and need to bum off the state to retain your social status.

all you got to do is replace the fake brand names with real ones right. basically be a rich chav.

No I would say the respect they get and the advice the weight of their advice mitigates their lack of income. they have influence in the form of how much people pay attention to their advice. Also their reach to the future rich in the US by teaching at universities.
And if they hit the skids they no longer are employed as college professors.
so you are only in the class you are in as long as you are employed? if he went from college professor to a higher income as a landscape gardener he is no longer middle class?

if you end up at an income level that requires public housing you have fallen off the face of the earth (as far as anyone you know is concerned) and are no longer middle class. its pretty rare unless you have a devastating disability.

then it has no real meaning in the US.

Well, if you discount the way people view things then yeah, maybe. But I think that's a bit arbitary.

Well, if you discount the way people view things then yeah, maybe. But I think that's a bit arbitary.
well since "middle class" describes 90% of the country, what meaning does it have?

so you are only in the class you are in as long as you are employed? if he went from college professor to a higher income as a landscape gardener he is no longer middle class?

if you end up at an income level that requires public housing you have fallen off the face of the earth (as far as anyone you know is concerned) and are no longer middle class. its pretty rare unless you have a devastating disability.

Being unemployed and homeless is generally regarded as lower class yes.

id say substance abuse, alcoholism is more common then disability. and your talking about a pretty severe disability i have a professor who is a brain cancer survivor and has lost an arm to cancer and he keeps teaching.

well since "middle class" describes 90% of the country, what meaning does it have?

Again I think that's fairly narrow view. Lower, middle and upper are just designations - there's no underlying absolute truth. There can be many different facets of class even when we don't have a very good way of expressing it or operationalising it. My impression from living in America is that the U.S is far from a classless society, it just has a different way of approaching it when the concept is being dicussed.

all you got to do is replace the fake brand names with real ones right. basically be a rich chav.

:salute::D

Being unemployed and homeless is generally regarded as lower class yes.

id say substance abuse, alcoholism is more common then disability. and your talking about a pretty severe disability i have a professor who is a brain cancer survivor and has lost an arm to cancer and he keeps teaching.

yeah its pretty rare.

Again I think that's fairly narrow view. Lower, middle and upper are just designations - there's no underlying absolute truth. There can be many different facets of class even when we don't have a very good way of expressing it or operationalising it. My impression from living in America is that the U.S is far from a classless society, it just has a different way of approaching it when the concept is being dicussed.
i dont think its class.

its SOMETHING but its not what you are born into and its not set by the time you are out of school.

leaving out, of course, the shadowy world of the true american upperclass that consists of the hereditary rich of many generation's status. i know nothing about them but i assume that if i won the lottery and bought a mansion from one of them that i wouldnt be accepted into their society.

Apparently we have an above-average number of reigning monarchs on this forum.I knew I couldn't be the only queen here.

well since "middle class" describes 90% of the country, what meaning does it have?Well, to be fair, that's more how 90% of people would describe themselves.

lower class...I grew up on welfare and don't expect to get much farther...unless I marry well...

I grew up middle class (probably upper end of it though)
At the moment I am a student, so probably working class.

We'll see after I graduate - maybe I'll buy a commodore, knock some slut up and take up chain smoking - regress to bogan class

I play WoD, because it's classless.

lower class...I grew up on welfare and don't expect to get much farther...unless I marry well...
How's that going, anyway?

Ranger with a few levels of Rogue. Tempest prestige class.

Very much LMC. Also Marx's works are rubbish.

I was born into the middle class; my parents were both white collar professionals. University education was expected in my peer circle. Although my family struggled economically after the divorce, we always owned a home and my parents made money from their heads, not their hands.

I dropped out of University in my second year and went to culinary school instead. From there on I was definitely working class. My social circle included a number of high school dropouts. We were all in restaurant work and most of us had no hope of ever getting out of it. Owning a restaurant was a primary goal, "the ticket out", as it were.

I eventually went back to school and finished my degree. I'm now in the information economy; I work in an office and my social circle is preoccupied with things like home ownership, grad school, and various political causes. As far as I'm concerned, I've returned to the middle class.