Maybe it's just me, but fine art appreciation and vactioning in Italy don't scream "true" middle class. Maybe upper middle class...
Naw, I agree--those are not exactly middle class signifiers in my book either.
The signifiers of middle class identity tend to overlap with those of suburbia: minivans, little league, lawns, those college stickers people put on the rear window of their car, etc.
I disagree......
Living in Suburbia is a lifestyle, not a class.
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
Uh, no.
"Class" is an identity, not a number--that's why it's so contentious.
Is a janitor that wins the lottery immeditiately transported to the upper class?
Is the scion of a wealthy family who obtains multiple degrees but opts to spend his life in public service and spurns his parents' handouts no longer upper class?
Every single definition of "Middle Class" I can find is a "socioeconomic" one.
And you want to strike the "socio-" part:
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms[/b] and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
Maybe it's just me, but fine art appreciation and vactioning in Italy don't scream "true" middle class. Maybe upper middle class...
Naw, I agree--those are not exactly middle class signifiers in my book either.
The signifiers of middle class identity tend to overlap with those of suburbia: minivans, little league, lawns, those college stickers people put on the rear window of their car, etc.
I disagree......
Living in Suburbia is a lifestyle, not a class.
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
Uh, no.
"Class" is an identity, not a number--that's why it's so contentious.
Is a janitor that wins the lottery immeditiately transported to the upper class?
Is the scion of a wealthy family who obtains multiple degrees but opts to spend his life in public service and spurns his parents' handouts no longer upper class?
Every single definition of "Middle Class" I can find is a "socioeconomic" one.
And you want to strike the "socio-" part:
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms[/b] and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
And you want to strike the -economic part.....
I can tell you there are PLENTY of people who live WAAAAAY above their means in SUBURBIA....does that automatically make them middle class??
No.
As you yourself stated(The rich dude who chooses to live a modest life is still in the Upper Class)....class is determined in our society by your wealth....NOT by how you live.
Maybe it's just me, but fine art appreciation and vactioning in Italy don't scream "true" middle class. Maybe upper middle class...
Naw, I agree--those are not exactly middle class signifiers in my book either.
The signifiers of middle class identity tend to overlap with those of suburbia: minivans, little league, lawns, those college stickers people put on the rear window of their car, etc.
I disagree......
Living in Suburbia is a lifestyle, not a class.
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
Uh, no.
"Class" is an identity, not a number--that's why it's so contentious.
Is a janitor that wins the lottery immeditiately transported to the upper class?
Is the scion of a wealthy family who obtains multiple degrees but opts to spend his life in public service and spurns his parents' handouts no longer upper class?
Every single definition of "Middle Class" I can find is a "socioeconomic" one.
And you want to strike the "socio-" part:
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms[/b] and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
And you want to strike the -economic part.....
No, I don't--I am merely seeking to illustrate for you that class cannot be reduced to a number.
You can continue to offer up idiosyncratic definitions of what it means to you, but know that the starting assumption for at least a century's worth of thinking on the subject is that "class" refers to something more than a number.
Maybe it's just me, but fine art appreciation and vactioning in Italy don't scream "true" middle class. Maybe upper middle class...
Naw, I agree--those are not exactly middle class signifiers in my book either.
The signifiers of middle class identity tend to overlap with those of suburbia: minivans, little league, lawns, those college stickers people put on the rear window of their car, etc.
I disagree......
Living in Suburbia is a lifestyle, not a class.
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
Uh, no.
"Class" is an identity, not a number--that's why it's so contentious.
Is a janitor that wins the lottery immeditiately transported to the upper class?
Is the scion of a wealthy family who obtains multiple degrees but opts to spend his life in public service and spurns his parents' handouts no longer upper class?
Every single definition of "Middle Class" I can find is a "socioeconomic" one.
And you want to strike the "socio-" part:
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms[/b] and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
And you want to strike the -economic part.....
I can tell you there are PLENTY of people who live WAAAAAY above their means in SUBURBIA....does that automatically make them middle class??
No.
As you yourself stated(The rich dude who chooses to live a modest life is still in the Upper Class)....class is determined in our society by your wealth....NOT by how you live.
socioeconomic adj. Of or involving both social and economic factors.
Maybe it's just me, but fine art appreciation and vactioning in Italy don't scream "true" middle class. Maybe upper middle class...
Naw, I agree--those are not exactly middle class signifiers in my book either.
The signifiers of middle class identity tend to overlap with those of suburbia: minivans, little league, lawns, those college stickers people put on the rear window of their car, etc.
I disagree......
Living in Suburbia is a lifestyle, not a class.
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
Uh, no.
"Class" is an identity, not a number--that's why it's so contentious.
Is a janitor that wins the lottery immeditiately transported to the upper class?
Is the scion of a wealthy family who obtains multiple degrees but opts to spend his life in public service and spurns his parents' handouts no longer upper class?
Every single definition of "Middle Class" I can find is a "socioeconomic" one.
And you want to strike the "socio-" part:
My understanding of Lower, Middle and Upper class are that they are strictly economic terms[/b] and how you spend said money and the lifestyle you choose is not an indication of what class you fall into by definition.
And you want to strike the -economic part.....
No, I don't--I am merely seeking to illustrate for you that class cannot be reduced to a number.
You can continue to offer up idiosyncratic definitions of what it means to you, but know that the starting assumption for at least a century's worth of thinking on the subject is that "class" refers to something more than a number.
Then educate us....what is the definition of "Lower, Middle and Upper Class" and all the subsets in-between if it's not just based on wealth??
Your Suburbia = Middle Class statement is a stereotype and is bullshit.
I'm pretty dense but if you can answer these two scenarios maybe I can understand where you're coming from.
Person "A" is the son of a multi-billionaire who was raised in the lap of luxury, pissed off his Dad and found himself disowned by his family. He doesn't have a penny to his name, will never inherit a penny and lives in a sleazy Hotel in NYC supported by State Welfare.
Person "B" is the son of a multi-billionaire who inherited billions but in an attempt to piss off his Dad has become a Philanthopist, giving away millions every year to charities while living in the same sleazy Hotel in NYC as Person "A".
Simply tell me which "socioeconomic" group each one of these guys fall into?
In my Bizarro world "A" falls into what we define as "Lower Class" and "B" is in the "Upper Class".
My mother doesn't necessarily put on airs to impress others, but she prefers more middle class pursuits, i.e. going to the opera, vacations in Italy, fine art appreciation, etc., even when it severely stresses her budget.
Most of this conversation seems to have happened while I was working and/or commuting today (it looks like my 'Strut time is about to plummet), but just wanted to comment on the above statement, that spawned a whole lot of other comments.
ANYWAY, I think it is utter horseshit that we associate money and class with the above interests. I mean, yes, it will always be the Rockefellers/Carnegies/Broads of the world that endow opera houses, have villas in Italy, and ball out on a new David Smith Cubi sculpture and a museum. But, the idea that only these pursuits are reserved for only those who can pop for a new Picasso or produce an opera is absurd, and constantly reinforced.
We are talking about some of the finest places/music/art the world has ever known, and I think we would all do well to stop associating those things with class, and encourage all people to get to know them. Turn off the TV one night, and go to the symphony. Skip Disney World and go to Italy- hell, it can't be more expensive than that shithole. Don't go to the zoo one day, and go explore an art museum.
I KNOW that these things are generally associated with the upper class, and I KNOW that the middle class spends more time watching tube/at Disney/at the zoo than pursuing opera, art and Italy. But, we would all be well served to take a less elitist attitude, and encourage a broader appreciation of ALL these things to ALL people, regardless of class.
We are talking about some of the finest places/music/art the world has ever known, and I think we would all do well to stop associating those things with class, and encourage all people to get to know them. Turn off the TV one night, and go to the symphony. Skip Disney World and go to Italy- hell, it can't be more expensive than that shithole. Don't go to the zoo one day, and go explore an art museum.
I KNOW that these things are generally associated with the upper class, and I KNOW that the middle class spends more time watching tube/at Disney/at the zoo than pursuing opera, art and Italy. But, we would all be well served to take a less elitist attitude, and encourage a broader appreciation of ALL these things to ALL people, regardless of class.
good points. just cause it sounds rich doesnt mean its meant for them and them only.
these pursuits are reserved for only those who can pop for a new Picasso
I would rather die class-less than going to watch an opera. fuck a fat lady screaming nonsenses in italian
Talking to a real opera lover (and mind you, I've never seen an opera myself) about opera is a lot like talking to a Strutter about music. Most are Highly educated on the subject, opinionated, and appreciative. We probably have a lot more to gain from opera than we would care to admit.
I would rather die class-less than going to watch an opera. fuck a fat lady screaming nonsenses in italian
Talking to a real opera lover (and mind you, I've never seen an opera myself) about opera is a lot like talking to a Strutter about music. Most are Highly educated on the subject, opinionated, and appreciative. We probably have a lot more to gain from opera than we would care to admit.
I would say living in the suburbs would definitely be one part of middle class lifestyle as it has developed in America.
During the 1920s before the Great Depression 60% of America was poor. After WWII Americans had all of this saved wealth from working in some very high paying war jobs, which they couldn't spend because of rationing, plus returning soldiers had the GI Bill and low interest loans. Suddenly 60% of America became Middle Class. Signs of this change in America was the movement of whites from the cities to the newly created suburbs, owning cars, TVs, all kinds of new appliances, etc. (Suburbs were mostly segregated in America for many decades).
Unions had also benefited from New Deal legislation and the war boom, both of which had raised their wages along with increasing their benefits in many industries. People that had once been working class, were now middle class as well and aspired to own all of the things that were associated with that lifestyle. So while they were still making cars in factories, they were also part of the newly created middle class.
Why should anyone here care to know how another guy is raised? And these questions get 4 page answers. Prolly because its easier to BS on these topics than it is about music. Maybe Raj should start a sociology message board & dudes there can talk about records.
Why should anyone here care to know how another guy is raised? And these questions get 4 page answers. Prolly because its easier to BS on these topics than it is about music. Maybe Raj should start a sociology message board & dudes there can talk about those who are too uncomfortable with talking about anything but [/b]records.
One person under 65 living alone with no children making $8,959/year or lower is poor. Making over $8,959 is middle class.
A family of 2 with on children making $11,531 or less is poor. Making over that is middle class.
A family of 3 with 2 adults and one child making $11,869 or lower is poor. Making over that is middle class.
census or not, I find this hard to beleive. Maybe my definition of middle class is out of wack but I hardly find it possible for a family of 3 living on $12,000 a year able to call themselves middle class (or afford decent food and shelter)
Another example of a stratum class model was developed by the sociologist William Lloyd Warner in his 1949 book, Social Class in America. For many decades, the Warnerian theory was dominant in U.S. sociological theory.
Based on social anthropology, Warner divided Americans into three classes (upper, middle, and lower), then further subdivided each of these into an "upper" and "lower" segment, with the following postulates:
* Upper-upper class. "Old money." People who have been born into and raised with wealth. * Lower-upper class. "New money." Individuals who have become rich within their own lifetimes. * Upper-middle class. High-salaried professionals (i.e., doctors, lawyers, corporate executives). * True-middle class. Professional with salaries and educational attainment higher than those found among lower-middle class workers (i.e.. professors, managerial office workers, architects) * Lower-middle class. Lower-paid professionals, but not manual laborers (i.e., police officers, non-management office workers, small business owners). * Upper-lower class. Blue-collar workers and manual labourers. Also known as the "working class." * Lower-lower class. The homeless and permanently unemployed, as well as the "working poor."
To Warner, American social class was based more on attitudes than on the actual amount of money an individual made.[/b] For example, the richest people in America would belong to the "lower-upper class" since many of them created their own fortunes; one can only be born into the highest class. Nonetheless, members of the wealthy upper-upper class tend to be more powerful, as a simple survey of U.S. presidents may demonstrate (i.e., the Roosevelts; John Kennedy; the Bushes).
Another observation: members of the upper-lower class might make more money than members of the lower-middle class (i.e., a well-salaried factory worker vs. a secretarial worker), but the class difference is based on the type of work they perform.
In his research, findings, Warner observed that American social class was largely based on these shared attitudes. For example, he noted that the lower-middle class tended to be the most conservative group of all, since very little separated them from the working class. The upper-middle class, while a relatively small section of the population, usually "set the standard" for proper American behavior, as reflected in the mass media
OK, I'm reading through all these Census tables and I don't know how to make them out. The numbers I posted were what the 2000 Census used for measure of people who were poor. I just assumed that if someone was making above those amounts than they must be considered middle class, but then the Census says they don't actually use that term. When they talk about incomes by families and housholds they break it up into 5ths, but that doesn't mean necessarily that people in the lowest 5th get counted as poor though. Basically, disregard the numbers I posted above.[/b]
Comments
And you want to strike the "socio-" part:
And you want to strike the -economic part.....
I can tell you there are PLENTY of people who live WAAAAAY above their means in SUBURBIA....does that automatically make them middle class??
No.
As you yourself stated(The rich dude who chooses to live a modest life is still in the Upper Class)....class is determined in our society by your wealth....NOT by how you live.
No, I don't--I am merely seeking to illustrate for you that class cannot be reduced to a number.
You can continue to offer up idiosyncratic definitions of what it means to you, but know that the starting assumption for at least a century's worth of thinking on the subject is that "class" refers to something more than a number.
adj.
Of or involving both social and economic factors.
Then educate us....what is the definition of "Lower, Middle and Upper Class" and all the subsets in-between if it's not just based on wealth??
Your Suburbia = Middle Class statement is a stereotype and is bullshit.
Person "A" is the son of a multi-billionaire who was raised in the lap of luxury, pissed off his Dad and found himself disowned by his family. He doesn't have a penny to his name, will never inherit a penny and lives in a sleazy Hotel in NYC supported by State Welfare.
Person "B" is the son of a multi-billionaire who inherited billions but in an attempt to piss off his Dad has become a Philanthopist, giving away millions every year to charities while living in the same sleazy Hotel in NYC as Person "A".
Simply tell me which "socioeconomic" group each one of these guys fall into?
In my Bizarro world "A" falls into what we define as "Lower Class" and "B" is in the "Upper Class".
Sorry to bore you.....can I send you some money to make up for it??
Most of this conversation seems to have happened while I was working and/or commuting today (it looks like my 'Strut time is about to plummet), but just wanted to comment on the above statement, that spawned a whole lot of other comments.
ANYWAY, I think it is utter horseshit that we associate money and class with the above interests. I mean, yes, it will always be the Rockefellers/Carnegies/Broads of the world that endow opera houses, have villas in Italy, and ball out on a new David Smith Cubi sculpture and a museum. But, the idea that only these pursuits are reserved for only those who can pop for a new Picasso or produce an opera is absurd, and constantly reinforced.
We are talking about some of the finest places/music/art the world has ever known, and I think we would all do well to stop associating those things with class, and encourage all people to get to know them. Turn off the TV one night, and go to the symphony. Skip Disney World and go to Italy- hell, it can't be more expensive than that shithole. Don't go to the zoo one day, and go explore an art museum.
I KNOW that these things are generally associated with the upper class, and I KNOW that the middle class spends more time watching tube/at Disney/at the zoo than pursuing opera, art and Italy. But, we would all be well served to take a less elitist attitude, and encourage a broader appreciation of ALL these things to ALL people, regardless of class.
END OF RANT.
good points. just cause it sounds rich doesnt mean its meant for them and them only.
the 07's are going to be HOT
I would rather die class-less than going to watch an opera. fuck a fat lady screaming nonsenses in italian
Talking to a real opera lover (and mind you, I've never seen an opera myself) about opera is a lot like talking to a Strutter about music. Most are Highly educated on the subject, opinionated, and appreciative. We probably have a lot more to gain from opera than we would care to admit.
BAN
is this a command?
oh snap i went there
Yeah, dog. see how the other class lives. True
During the 1920s before the Great Depression 60% of America was poor. After WWII Americans had all of this saved wealth from working in some very high paying war jobs, which they couldn't spend because of rationing, plus returning soldiers had the GI Bill and low interest loans. Suddenly 60% of America became Middle Class. Signs of this change in America was the movement of whites from the cities to the newly created suburbs, owning cars, TVs, all kinds of new appliances, etc. (Suburbs were mostly segregated in America for many decades).
Unions had also benefited from New Deal legislation and the war boom, both of which had raised their wages along with increasing their benefits in many industries. People that had once been working class, were now middle class as well and aspired to own all of the things that were associated with that lifestyle. So while they were still making cars in factories, they were also part of the newly created middle class.
Just my perspective on history.
In 2006 it's an outdated stereotype.
One person under 65 living alone with no children making $8,959/year or lower is poor. Making over $8,959 is middle class.
A family of 2 with on children making $11,531 or less is poor. Making over that is middle class.
A family of 3 with 2 adults and one child making $11,869 or lower is poor. Making over that is middle class.
census or not, I find this hard to beleive. Maybe my definition of middle class is out of wack but I hardly find it possible for a family of 3 living on $12,000 a year able to call themselves middle class (or afford decent food and shelter)
If this were my annual salary, I could afford to
live where I am now - rent, utilities, even cable
and Internet.
As long as I didn't eat, wear clothes or buy my
Mother a Christmas present.
you must not have been raised right
Another example of a stratum class model was developed by the sociologist William Lloyd Warner in his 1949 book, Social Class in America. For many decades, the Warnerian theory was dominant in U.S. sociological theory.
Based on social anthropology, Warner divided Americans into three classes (upper, middle, and lower), then further subdivided each of these into an "upper" and "lower" segment, with the following postulates:
* Upper-upper class. "Old money." People who have been born into and raised with wealth.
* Lower-upper class. "New money." Individuals who have become rich within their own lifetimes.
* Upper-middle class. High-salaried professionals (i.e., doctors, lawyers, corporate executives).
* True-middle class. Professional with salaries and educational attainment higher than those found among lower-middle class workers (i.e.. professors, managerial office workers, architects)
* Lower-middle class. Lower-paid professionals, but not manual laborers (i.e., police officers, non-management office workers, small business owners).
* Upper-lower class. Blue-collar workers and manual labourers. Also known as the "working class."
* Lower-lower class. The homeless and permanently unemployed, as well as the "working poor."
To Warner, American social class was based more on attitudes than on the actual amount of money an individual made.[/b] For example, the richest people in America would belong to the "lower-upper class" since many of them created their own fortunes; one can only be born into the highest class. Nonetheless, members of the wealthy upper-upper class tend to be more powerful, as a simple survey of U.S. presidents may demonstrate (i.e., the Roosevelts; John Kennedy; the Bushes).
Another observation: members of the upper-lower class might make more money than members of the lower-middle class (i.e., a well-salaried factory worker vs. a secretarial worker), but the class difference is based on the type of work they perform.
In his research, findings, Warner observed that American social class was largely based on these shared attitudes. For example, he noted that the lower-middle class tended to be the most conservative group of all, since very little separated them from the working class. The upper-middle class, while a relatively small section of the population, usually "set the standard" for proper American behavior, as reflected in the mass media
I was just reading through some Census reports and they actually say that they don't have a definition of "middle class."