Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People of similar class (regardless o ethnicity) tend to dress pretty similar. At the lower end it tends to manifest it self with different trends. At the higher end, not so much. (not talking about someone's ascent to a higher class because I a sudden shift of income level, that is different.)
I know. But the poster I replied to lives in a gentrifying section of NYC. The reason I mentioned ethnicity is because of this possibility - let's say the poster lives in a white (Italian) neighborhood. Well, those incoming residents doing the gentrification are probably not Italian - thus an ethnic difference.
One interesting thing I see about the differences in way people across the socio-economic spectrum dress is that the most upper-class individuals aren't necessarily those who wear the most expensive clothing, especially in regard to men. It's generally the nouveau riche variety of upper-middle class that wear the most expensive clothing and most trendy designers. I've found the upper-class individuals have nothing to prove and thus just be themselves, while the class-concious nouveau riche think they have everything to prove. Unrelated to clothing, but my upper-middle class roommate (retired corporate management, from a working-class family), who had dealings last year with the CEO/owner of an established major mortgage provider, was absolutely perplexed that this guy likes McDonald's, even though he also orders take out from one of my area's most prestigious country clubs. The point of this story is to prove my point, that upper-middle class individuals with pronounced nouveau-riche qualities have something to prove - IE: you can't like McDonalds because it's lower-class, which is hogwash. In reality, a secure person (which being established upper-class helps) can enjoy the simple things in life and the sophisticated and isn't afraid of being thought unsophisticated for enjoying the simple things. In my experience, I've noticed the actual upper-class often has some desire to fit in with the common people, the proletarian, and isn't pleased with middle/upper-middle class pretentiousness.
I know. But the poster I replied to lives in a gentrifying section of NYC. The reason I mentioned ethnicity is because of this possibility - let's say the poster lives in a white (Italian) neighborhood. Well, those incoming residents doing the gentrification are probably not Italian - thus an ethnic difference.
One interesting thing I see about the differences in way people across the socio-economic spectrum dress is that the most upper-class individuals aren't necessarily those who wear the most expensive clothing, especially in regard to men. It's generally the nouveau riche variety of upper-middle class that wear the most expensive clothing and most trendy designers. I've found the upper-class individuals have nothing to prove and thus just be themselves, while the class-concious nouveau riche think they have everything to prove. Unrelated to clothing, but my upper-middle class roommate (retired corporate management, from a working-class family), who had dealings last year with the CEO/owner of an established major mortgage provider, was absolutely perplexed that this guy likes McDonald's, even though he also orders take out from one of my area's most prestigious country clubs. The point of this story is to prove my point, that upper-middle class individuals with pronounced nouveau-riche qualities have something to prove - IE: you can't like McDonalds because it's lower-class, which is hogwash. In reality, a secure person (which being established upper-class helps) can enjoy the simple things in life and the sophisticated and isn't afraid of being thought unsophisticated for enjoying the simple things. In my experience, I've noticed the actual upper-class often has some desire to fit in with the common people, the proletarian, and isn't pleased with middle/upper-middle class pretentiousness.
I read this and it just seems like the ramblings of some old-money fool who's never done any REAL work in his life to generate wealth.
In the Late 80's and early 90's Sam Walton (the founder of Walmart) was declared "The Richest Man In The World". He drove an Average Joe pick up truck, got his haircut at the local Barber Shop and dressed like an average country old farmer. Nobody woukd know that he was the richest man in the world.
In the Late 80's and early 90's Sam Walton (the founder of Walmart) was declared "The Richest Man In The World". He drove an Average Joe pick up truck, got his haircut at the local Barber Shop and dressed like an average country old farmer. Nobody woukd know that he was the richest man in the world.
probably because he didn't want to alienate his main consumer base by looking like he is a Wall Street executive ?
let's face it, how we dress is important. BUT people from high society immediately recognize each other by manners, the way they speak, the way they act, by the intelligent look in their eyes - its a whole package. no clothes can possibly change that.
just because someone wears expensive clothes, it doesn't mean that he is superior to everyone who is around them and vice versa. that said, majority of people do dress according to their stature majority of time. you usually do not see a rich executive wear Wrangler jeans and you usually do not see a redneck dressed up in Brooks Brothers and Ralph Lauren due to societal pressures. when my director yells at me "put on your tie, you look like a f-n slob", even though we aren't dealing with external customers, I tend to comply .
I read this and it just seems like the ramblings of some old-money fool who's never done any REAL work in his life to generate wealth.
Me or the guy I described? Honestly, the guy I described runs a major company and I think that's admirable. I don't understand how people think that's not "REAL work". He provides a bunch of good jobs and a bunch of people mortgages, to help them achieve the American Dream. His company provides for a lot of spin-off economic activity as well. Actually, he generates wealth for himself and a ton of others. I know one guy personally he has essentially put through college. I do believe he and his family are involved with philanthropic endeavors as well.
Where I work we have quite a few customers that are wealthy and others who make six figures. You would never know by the way they dress. Some of them look like they could benefit by making a trip to a clothing store and buying a few shirts and pants and of course some new shoes.
I was raised with values (that were part of the zeitgeist--or at least one of several competing zeitgeists--when/where I grew up as well) that, while you wanted to try to stay above poverty level, money wasn't everything, and basing too much of your sense of self on having money (if you did) was crass.
And that certainly if you didn't have money (the people I grew up around were working class and middle class, not wealthy), that aspiring to wealth, or even upper middle class status, could be a way to make other parts of your life go off track if you weren't careful. Known pitfalls to be avoided included marrying for money rather than love, choosing a career for its lucrativeness rather than intrinsic rewards/match to your interests (or at least its qualifying as "an honest living" rather than scamming people), making money by putting all your time/energy into work at the expense of relationships, etc.
Also was raised with values that included (because again, while having a lot of money doesn't ensure happiness, constantly struggling to survive is a very hard life) that "money shouldn't burn a hole in your pocket," "you should save for a rainy day" etc. And that life was uncertain; you shouldn't assume that a paycheck that's coming in will keep coming in forever.
There was also a push-back against consumerism, an awareness that the job of advertisers was to make you feel like you absolutely couldn't live without all the stuff, and that you were smart if you could see through that and not spend your life trying to "keep up with the Jonses" and instead figure out what kind of life would give you a sense of purpose. (Not talking about denying yourself every single nice thing all the time, but just being more conscious than the advertisers and some others would like you to be.)
I personally think I would get a lot more satisfaction, if I were wealthy (and I say this with all humility, knowing we are not 100% accurate, and in particular are sometimes self-serving, in predicting our actions in hyphothetical situations), by giving $15-30,000 to make a difference in other people's lives than spending it on a watch. (Of course, there are people with money who do both.)
What I can say pretty confidently is that if I owned the expensive watch (as long as we're in hypothetical territory, let's imagine someone gave me such a watch and would be really hurt if I sold it to get money to give to a worthy cause), I would never embarrass myself by flashing it in public to get better service in a store or a restaurant. To me, I might as well just wear a sign around my neck saying "I think I'm better than the mere mortals who are also waiting for service because I have money to burn--would you like to gamble that if you treat me better than you're treating them (let me cut the line, etc.), there'll be a payoff for you (even though given what a jerk I'm acting like, there's no guarantee)?"
I do feel in retrospect that I was probably somewhat naive/idealistic in my observations growing up, as far as the extent to which others around me were or weren't preoccupied with money (or keeping up appearances). Yet it isn't rare for me to meet people who seem to share my values.
Anyway, I find that for better or worse, the values have stuck, even if a few of the data points that went into their formation have turned out to be unreliable. (Although I can see other people, even ones with an outlook like mine, feeling the need to make other choices these days. I never expected to live in a time when health insurance premiums can be higher than rent, when the middle class way of life in this country is so under threat, etc.)
But still, even if I have to say I might have made some different choices if I could have foreseen today's financial realities (a more in-demand but still honorable line of work, for example--because at this point I will need luck to keep a roof over my head until the end of my life), I still worry about money only in the sense of not wanting to experience dire poverty. I honestly don't care a bit that I can't buy the watch or the cool car that convey a message of wealth.
Are there a lot of people with values similar to mine? (If not a majority, then a large minority?) And that some of them are upper middle class to wealthy and could afford the status symbols but genuinely have no interest in doing so and/or would rather spend/save their money for something more worthwhile to them? So that yeah, with some people superficial appearance is an indication of wealth, but with many others it isn't?
Previous posters have mentioned some differences in whether people visibly display wealth based on different categories of people with money (as well as people without much money who are trying to fit in with a certain crowd). I'm also curious what you all think about whether there are age-related differences in this. I know that a lot of what went into my values was a combination of values taught to me and in the zeitgeist when I was young, and especially, being someone who spent a lot of time reading, which (depending on what you read, of course), can make you see a wider range of possibilities for what life can be and not be so ready to jump on the bandwagon of the moment.
What are your thoughts about what is "in the air" now (and how people's choices of media affect them) and how this is shaping values/choices?
I don't want to hijack the thread, so specifically, have you noticed generational differences vis-a-vis the OP's question? And are people's values changing with the times (or not?). Are we trending in its being more or less the case that you can determine someone's class/wealth by appearance?
And am I old-fashioned (or just plain naive) to think people are embarassing themselves, if they flaunt jewelry, watches, cars, etc. to get better service and try to impress people? (Not talking about people's dressing according to their own sense of style, to whatever extent style matters to them, or what makes them personally feel comfortable and like they can fit in where they need to, but more about people's trying to make a social-status/social-class statement via an "expensive" look.)
I was raised with values (that were part of the zeitgeist--or at least one of several competing zeitgeists--when/where I grew up as well) that, while you wanted to try to stay above poverty level, money wasn't everything, and basing too much of your sense of self on having money (if you did) was crass.
And that certainly if you didn't have money (the people I grew up around were working class and middle class, not wealthy), that aspiring to wealth, or even upper middle class status, could be a way to make other parts of your life go off track if you weren't careful. Known pitfalls to be avoided included marrying for money rather than love, choosing a career for its lucrativeness rather than intrinsic rewards/match to your interests (or at least its qualifying as "an honest living" rather than scamming people), making money by putting all your time/energy into work at the expense of relationships, etc.
Also was raised with values that included (because again, while having a lot of money doesn't ensure happiness, constantly struggling to survive is a very hard life) that "money shouldn't burn a hole in your pocket," "you should save for a rainy day" etc. And that life was uncertain; you shouldn't assume that a paycheck that's coming in will keep coming in forever.
There was also a push-back against consumerism, an awareness that the job of advertisers was to make you feel like you absolutely couldn't live without all the stuff, and that you were smart if you could see through that and not spend your life trying to "keep up with the Jonses" and instead figure out what kind of life would give you a sense of purpose. (Not talking about denying yourself every single nice thing all the time, but just being more conscious than the advertisers and some others would like you to be.)
I personally think I would get a lot more satisfaction, if I were wealthy (and I say this with all humility, knowing we are not 100% accurate, and in particular are sometimes self-serving, in predicting our actions in hyphothetical situations), by giving $15-30,000 to make a difference in other people's lives than spending it on a watch. (Of course, there are people with money who do both.)
What I can say pretty confidently is that if I owned the expensive watch (as long as we're in hypothetical territory, let's imagine someone gave me such a watch and would be really hurt if I sold it to get money to give to a worthy cause), I would never embarrass myself by flashing it in public to get better service in a store or a restaurant. To me, I might as well just wear a sign around my neck saying "I think I'm better than the mere mortals who are also waiting for service because I have money to burn--would you like to gamble that if you treat me better than you're treating them (let me cut the line, etc.), there'll be a payoff for you (even though given what a jerk I'm acting like, there's no guarantee)?"
I do feel in retrospect that I was probably somewhat naive/idealistic in my observations growing up, as far as the extent to which others around me were or weren't preoccupied with money (or keeping up appearances). Yet it isn't rare for me to meet people who seem to share my values.
Anyway, I find that for better or worse, the values have stuck, even if a few of the data points that went into their formation have turned out to be unreliable. (Although I can see other people, even ones with an outlook like mine, feeling the need to make other choices these days. I never expected to live in a time when health insurance premiums can be higher than rent, when the middle class way of life in this country is so under threat, etc.)
But still, even if I have to say I might have made some different choices if I could have foreseen today's financial realities (a more in-demand but still honorable line of work, for example--because at this point I will need luck to keep a roof over my head until the end of my life), I still worry about money only in the sense of not wanting to experience dire poverty. I honestly don't care a bit that I can't buy the watch or the cool car that convey a message of wealth.
Are there a lot of people with values similar to mine? (If not a majority, then a large minority?) And that some of them are upper middle class to wealthy and could afford the status symbols but genuinely have no interest in doing so and/or would rather spend/save their money for something more worthwhile to them? So that yeah, with some people superficial appearance is an indication of wealth, but with many others it isn't?
Previous posters have mentioned some differences in whether people visibly display wealth based on different categories of people with money (as well as people without much money who are trying to fit in with a certain crowd). I'm also curious what you all think about whether there are age-related differences in this. I know that a lot of what went into my values was a combination of values taught to me and in the zeitgeist when I was young, and especially, being someone who spent a lot of time reading, which (depending on what you read, of course), can make you see a wider range of possibilities for what life can be and not be so ready to jump on the bandwagon of the moment.
What are your thoughts about what is "in the air" now (and how people's choices of media affect them) and how this is shaping values/choices?
I don't want to hijack the thread, so specifically, have you noticed generational differences vis-a-vis the OP's question? And are people's values changing with the times (or not?). Are we trending in its being more or less the case that you can determine someone's class/wealth by appearance?
And am I old-fashioned (or just plain naive) to think people are embarassing themselves, if they flaunt jewelry, watches, cars, etc. to get better service and try to impress people? (Not talking about people's dressing according to their own sense of style, to whatever extent style matters to them, or what makes them personally feel comfortable and like they can fit in where they need to, but more about people's trying to make a social-status/social-class statement via an "expensive" look.)
I think 'love' is something that ebbs and flows. I have found that I can 'love' many people for various reasons and in varied degrees. While I would not wish my parents to choose a mate for me, I think the most lasting marriages, in general, have people who are matched loosely in social class, values, interests, education, life expectations, and income. It even seems as though people in arranged marriages have more stability than those who marry for 'love', but often the arranged marriages are in the context of a religion or culture which may be the reason for the longevity of the arrangement.
Some jobs just require long hours. It does not mean that the person wants to put such time in, and some people think of the money some lawyers, doctors, finance and technical computer people make and nobody warns them, when they take up the major in school, that they will have a much truncated personal life in such professions. A lot of people in this country work hard because they have to, not because they like it.
Often jobs that pay well do so because they are killers.
Money will not buy happiness, but particularly in retirement, it sure makes life easier. One reaches a point in which he does not willingly garden, paint, wax the car, vacuum, clean, launder, etc. It is so much better to be able to live in a community where some of these functions are supplied and where one can purchase help for the others and just take off on cruises and tours at a whimsy. It would be nice to have a doorman and a concierge to take your packages in and mail the ones you send back. It would be nice to have a car and driver when you are over a certain age and at least know that you can afford the best doctors, regardless of your insurance.
Because we have a very weak social contract in this country some people feel propelled to work hard 'just in case' or to provide for themselves in their later years. I don't think these folks worship money or flaunt it, I just think they like that safety net and don't want to be in the street if there is a layoff or they become seriously ill. If these things do not occur, then they have a nice little retirement package.
Last edited by goldengrain; 07-28-2012 at 05:58 PM..
....Money will not buy happiness, but particularly in retirement, it sure makes life easier....
Because we have a very weak social contract in this country some people feel propelled to work hard 'just in case' or to provide for themselves in their later years. I don't think these folks worship money or flaunt it, I just think they like that safety net and don't want to be in the street if there is a layoff or they become seriously ill....
Thank you for taking the time to post such a thoughtful response.
I agree that these financial issues are all important and are things people do have to concern themselves with.
Despite how long my post was (sorry about that!), I know I didn't manage to express myself clearly--I'm still reaching for a better understanding myself.
To try to say it more simply, I'm just wondering whether I'm right or wrong in thinking that while there are some people who are very concerned with cultivating a "moneyed" appearance as a status symbol, and others who may do so because it fits their sense of style and is just their thing (not meant to compete with anyone else, just makes them happy), and others who do so to fit in with a certain group, that there are also many others who do so only when the situation requires it and otherwise would rather put their resources (time, money) into other things.
I guess what's behind all this is I just am in favor of people being free to pursue the things that seem most worthwhile to them. But if the answer to the OP's question is yes (that higher income/higher social class people do overwhelmingly dress a certain way), then is this a free, conscious choice they're making (everyone? really?) or an ingrained cultural ideal that limits people's freedom in life (because achieving that ideal requires resources, and people have finite resources).
I know I have that sense of freedom in part because of what ideas were in the air when (and where) my values were being formed.
I'm curious to know whether most people feel it's their own free choice whether they invest a lot of time and other resources in dress/appearance. (If people feel they have a choice, this would mean the answer to the OP's question would be yes for some people but no for a lot of people.)
I know I'm oversimplifying, but this post is on the way to being as long as my last one, so I'll stop here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
.
