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.
Everybody is a cog arranged in a pecking order of cogs. .............
This goes a long way toward explaining my statement, that people are in the class where they decide they belong.
Sure I had to work to eat and most of the time I was paid a salary. Even so I never felt like a cog in a machine. I felt I was pursuing a career that I wanted, that contributed to society and my efforts were being rewarded. I never felt somehow superior as a human to those who worked under me.
I never saw the "pecking order" as some sort of natural occurrence. Instead I knew I could advance upwards if I wanted to pay the price. Sometimes I did; other times it was not worth it. I felt that I controlled the machine more than it controlled me. If I did not like my work environment, I left. I did that several times often moving to another State for my next job. I never worked for a boss I did not like. I never worked for a boss who held me back or failed to notice my contributions. I always picked my bosses as well as picking where I worked. One time my boss was fired and replaced by someone I did not like. I left soon afterwards.
This goes a long way toward explaining my statement, that people are in the class where they decide they belong.
Sure I had to work to eat and most of the time I was paid a salary. Even so I never felt like a cog in a machine. I felt I was pursuing a career that I wanted, that contributed to society and my efforts were being rewarded. I never felt somehow superior as a human to those who worked under me.
I never saw the "pecking order" as some sort of natural occurrence. Instead I knew I could advance upwards if I wanted to pay the price. Sometimes I did; other times it was not worth it. I felt that I controlled the machine more than it controlled me. If I did not like my work environment, I left. I did that several times often moving to another State for my next job. I never worked for a boss I did not like. I never worked for a boss who held me back or failed to notice my contributions. I always picked my bosses as well as picking where I worked. One time my boss was fired and replaced by someone I did not like. I left soon afterwards.
Perception is not reality or you argue about the pyramids without bottom? Every hierarchical system allows for cogs hierarchy, even a medieval serf could advance up the feudal ladder. What unites all the hierarchical systems is the fact that satisfaction and bargaining power of a few more priviliged cogs rests on the broad shoulders of powerlessness and misery of the rest of the peons. What makes things much worse today compared to the earlier ages is the ideology of "making something of yourself" adding psychological misery to psysical deprivations. Everybody can make it therefore your place in the order is a reflection of your broader human worth. As a result misery and dysfunction mushrooms as humanity "advances", people not just self destruct they take livable human environment and culture with them. Segregation goes berserk, and even "winners" of the cog wars have to redefine their ideas about "good" life to compensate for the loss of basic human environment, a major side effect of everybody "knowing" they can advance upward.
Btw, workers hierarchy goes back to the early industrial age, owners found out fast that introducing workers hierarchy cuts down on sabotage (since there were no strikes back then), this simple ingenious scheme still does its miracle 400 years later. It is classic prisoner dilemma.The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely "rational" individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Hundreds of millions of rational individuals fight for the shrinking number of desirable cog spots as world goes to the hell instead of changing the rules and psychological conditioning of the game.
First time I ever heard the word "class" discussed was by a teacher in high school who was explaining to us that our school did not have class distinctions like schools in bigger towns. I had no idea what she was talking about. Now that I know it is evident to me that everybody I went to school with was "First class." That's why when people describe others as having no morals or doing crime because of their income, it makes me ill. Class has nothing to do with how much money you make. It is how you were brought up and taught to live and how much respect you have for yourself and others.
People with the most class are those who live by the Holy Bible, love their neighbor, would starve rather than steal, and spend their life doing good deeds. It was totally culture shock when I left the neighborhood where I was born. I also feel very sorry for the ignorance on this thread that seems to want to be condescending to southern people. Most of you could only wish you had experienced my childhood. One of the main reasons southerners are thought of as dumb is that they are too polite to tell you what you look like from their point of view. Southerners know when they have been cheated and mistreated. They just choose to ignore it.
First time I ever heard the word "class" discussed was by a teacher in high school who was explaining to us that our school did not have class distinctions like schools in bigger towns. I had no idea what she was talking about. Now that I know it is evident to me that everybody I went to school with was "First class." That's why when people describe others as having no morals or doing crime because of their income, it makes me ill. Class has nothing to do with how much money you make. It is how you were brought up and taught to live and how much respect you have for yourself and others.
People with the most class are those who live by the Holy Bible, love their neighbor, would starve rather than steal, and spend their life doing good deeds. It was totally culture shock when I left the neighborhood where I was born. I also feel very sorry for the ignorance on this thread that seems to want to be condescending to southern people. Most of you could only wish you had experienced my childhood. One of the main reasons southerners are thought of as dumb is that they are too polite to tell you what you look like from their point of view. Southerners know when they have been cheated and mistreated. They just choose to ignore it.
Awesome post. I think it also underscores the importance of class in a location. An area's community will dictate class, not necessarily on economic lines, and will often override economic class. Those who are unable to nominally become first class people in an area can try to utilize economic class to bring themselves up.
The economic elites such as Bernie Madhoff, Kenneth Lay, the mortgage securitization team leaders at Goldman Sachs and others may be able to lay claim to controlling massive cash flows, at the expense of others, but have little impact into items that money can't buy. An old easy audit red flag has been companies that give well publicized and large donations to charities.
I've lived in parts where those who value an honest day's work and good living are labeled suckers. I've lived in parts where no police officers are needed and firefighters are all volunteers. Figuring out how to scale a community to encompass different cultures and values is never easy. Driving to a luau in Hawaii last week I couldn't help but see billboards along the norther part of Oahu expressly saying No to development. The rich and the poor are at peace and their community is stable. Nobody in a place like that wants a hotshot group to come in and buy everything to remake it in their own image.
In my current hometown of San Jose, which went from 50,000 people to over 1,000,000 since the 50's, there is no predominant area culture, but a mixture. It breaks into different class systems, and their relevence itself can take on it's own pecking order. Am I the best Native, or the best Tech Guru, or most pius Buddhist. It will take a time of stability for more blending to occur. We also tend to give more relevance to a mold that makes us better.
The opportunities are available to push to another economic class, but it isn't necessary to be a standout respected citizen in an area. Put too much emphasis on economic class, and you'll find people looking to cheat each other to win. Not enough emphasis, and an area will stagnate. Economic class is just one of the cogs. Remember when being called a yuppie was a negative thing?
There are economic elites. And there are social elites. Many times, they are the same. At other times they are not.
Social elites are generally - 1. Not materialistic. 2. Not fascinated with the trapping of wealth 3. Well read 4. Well educated.
5. Involved in helping the disadvantaged. 6. Eschew conspicuous consumption. 7. Value history. Older homes over new, for example. 8. Study the liberal arts and value critical thinking. 9. Can be of any political party, but tend to abide by certain social traditions. (marriage before children, for example) 10. Are not fanatical about religion.
There are economic elites. And there are social elites. Many times, they are the same. At other times they are not.
Social elites are generally - 1. Not materialistic. 2. Not fascinated with the trapping of wealth 3. Well read 4. Well educated.
5. Involved in helping the disadvantaged. 6. Eschew conspicuous consumption. 7. Value history. Older homes over new, for example. 8. Study the liberal arts and value critical thinking. 9. Can be of any political party, but tend to abide by certain social traditions. (marriage before children, for example) 10. Are not fanatical about religion.
This seems like a very idealistic and lionizing view of your social elites, judging by my "casual ethnography" while out-and-about with this set in NY, the UK, Australia, NZ, Honolulu, and Singapore.
1 and 2 can be read in multiple ways. They're not materialistic/fascinated by toys because said toys' presence in their lives has long since been taken for granted. When Uncle Peter has been taking you for a spin in his father's Bugatti since before you were old enough to walk, you're not going to get excited about a gently used Porsche like an Eye-talian kid out of working class Queens who got lucky and just got his first bonus from working with his I-bank. Friends from college can spare a bedroom/wing/house so that when you go to Maui, you're not having to fork out for a mediocre tourist hotel. The home is beautifully furnished.
3 and 4 generally are true.
5 leaves me heavily conflicted. Foundations can harness resources for a great deal of good and advance agendas (of various stripes). They can also drift for want of leadership and/or merely act as a tax-advantaged method to furnish the family with sinecures in perpetuity. Having participated in the charity ball scene, I became disillusioned watching the ball committees play out middle school banal social politics. The irony of exorbitant tickets to cover free flowing champagne and dinner to benefit the hungry and homeless - oy! I have more respect for those slinging sandwiches to homeless rather than those who consider picking out an outfit to get drunk in as a form of charity work. Often, there is an implied social bargain involved (most conspicuously highlighted in Hong Kong) - "we" donate mega $$$ to the schools, hospitals, and universities; "you" don't agitate about the incredibly cozy relationship between the property tycoons and the HK government.
6 Varies. The consumption happens, but it's not instagrammed. The garage with the nice cars is kept closed and hidden up a long driveway. A sumptuous Easter brunch occurs at "the club," not the trendy restaurant downtown.
7. Old money loves history, as many tie self-worth into generations getting into the books. It's also a great way to establish superiority over those deplorables who bootstrapped their way into the elite.
8. Liberal arts definitely are a luxury good. Intellectual curiosity and critical thinking vary as with all socioeconomic groups. Many seem happy to coast with what the group sanctions, like most members of any human group.
9. Agreed. I'd add that there is a much stronger communitarian/group sensibility based around family, school, business, and social organizations than what you find in the more individualistic middle class.
10 Again, agreed. The post-enlightenment upper classes in Western countries have frequently been marked by an ambivalence or even disdain for religion. I'd argue that access to a rational/secular education will have that effect.
I'd add that in democratic societies, social elite status does not tend to persist for very long after a family's "economic elite" status (being able to live passively off the fortune) has dissipated. Perhaps one generation can still hobnob off of the family name. After that, the successors have mortgages and student loans to worry about. Maintaining the lifestyle of top education, patronage of cultural institutions, and charitable events can cost tens of thousands of dollars per year.
Unless the wealthy person is in a position of authority, they really aren't anything special and shouldn't be treated as such.
What do you mean?
If you work in a corporate setting, and you've pegged yourself as working class, rather than managerial or professional, it WILL affect your career.
By "pegged", I mean your vocal inflections, dress, mannerism, subject of causual conversation, vocabulary, etc, sound lower class. Even with college educated lower-class, people from upper middle class can peg someone in ten minutes who does not have the proper background for managerial advancement. One of the biggest tells is your attitude toward authority. Generally, a distrust toward authority is a big no-no for promotion. I was appalled at how mindlessly the employees accepted the obvious lies that management was dishing out.
For a while, I temped at a very large company that mostly hired from temp workers. I could tell, with 100% accuracy, which of the temps would be brought on as real employees, with the great benefits, and which would stay temps till their contract ran out. All the people who were brought on full time were perky, sorority-type women and hail-fellow-well-met males.
Most working-class kids do not grow up in an environment where they are brought out for a while at dinner parties and cocktail parties, where they get to listen in and eventually join into intellectual conversations. They don't learn the clever, polite ways of correcting or shaming people. It's a skill that is very difficult to pick up as an adult. People don't feel too bad about correcting a kid, but they won't give advice to an adult, they'll just note the lack of social skills, and decide they're not really management material.
They may move up to supervisor, but generally won't move up to insider status. I said, "Generally". I know there are exceptions, like Ken Lay.
As someone said, 'Class only matters to those who have it'.
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.
