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.
complete BS ! if you saw me in person, you would think I was lower class ... and then say I am lower class and act like lower class. .. by Salary I am upper-middle class
Maybe you need to factor the generation information then? Obviously if you're 2nd or 3rd generation in the upper class, it would be more natural. If you transitioned from one class to another (social elevator), you can still keep thinking and behaving from your "original" social class, if that makes sense.
Regarding just cars people drive alone, just curious how would you group the following in terms of socio-economic status (i.e., middle class, upper-middle class, upper class, etc.):
1. Generic entry-range Honda or Toyota vehicle
2. (All intended as the mid-range or higher-end models) Ford Mustang, Dodge Challenger, Chevy Camaro, or Dodge Charger
3. BMW or Audi
4. Corvette
5. Ferrari or Lamborghini
6. Rolls Royce
My own personal best guesses:
1. middle class
2. middle class to upper-middle class
3. upper-middle class to upper class
4. upper-middle class to upper class
5. upper class
6. upper class
ETA: adds
Assets, income- wise I am consider very upper class in the Phx metro but in an area like Northern California I'd be simple middle class.
I plan to buy a new Honda Fit for around 16 grand next year.
There's nothing about me that reads money. (Between my rental properties and job. I save 10 grand almost every month. This year alone I've banked $75 grand. When I reach 250K I plan to retire and manage the rentals myself.)
However, I never talk about money except with my wife and mother.
There's a book called the millionaire next door which my wife bought and the author could have been talking about me.
I might have a bit of money but my tastes haven't changed from my younger days when I could barely make ends meet.
As long as I can buy want I need at the supermarket, not have to worry about the price of gas, can buy a new car, can afford health insurance, good to the movies and eat at Mexican restaurants I'm good.
I suppose I'd have to say, what of it? People are "like" in many ways based on identity; whether it SES, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, vocation, etc. Does it allow someone to predict the behavior of each person individually?
In some cases, I believe it does.
For example, if you pay attention to the content of many of the posts by particular users on different forums here on c-d, you can make out some distinct patterns in how they think.
A person's experience of a city can differ vastly from that of another person. These differences are often unmistakably tied to the person's socioeconomic status.
a lot or even most middle class or upper middle class change their cars like at least every 5 years or so.. And like don't want to deal with repairs etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Express subways
A lot or most of the upper middle class ain't keeping cars and constantly fixing them...
This might be true in the 1970's or even today if you buy American cars but a good Japanese car will easily last you 10+ years with no major repairs. At 12K miles per year on the average the car will easily last 120-150K miles. My 2000 Honda Accord runs strong at 140K miles with no problems as are my 2005 Odyssey and 2007 Camry Hybrid. Why would I want to change them every 5 years.
I spend most of my time with upper middle, or other wealthy people who act like they are middle class. As a whole, they are much more pleasant to be around than wealthy people who act wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Express subways
thats kinda sad...
Express, I know a few upper middle calls and decently wealthy people who don't blow their wealth by having extravagant toys. Living middle class lifestyle is what gets them to the wealthy group. And one does not suddenly change their living style after you acquire a certain amount to money. You might have a bigger /better house in nicer neighborhood and take more vacations abroad but other than that you are just like others. Only the tax man and the brokerage will know your true wealth.
Are we all defined and pigeon-holed by our socioeconomic status?
Yes and no. For the most part we are, but I think that's only because everyone wants everyone else to know their place in society.We are a consumer driven society and the one thing that matters to us the most is how much money we and everyone else has (has, not earns. In this country, we don't care about how you get your money, just that you have it). That's a sad fact, but it's true. You're perceived to be dumber, darker, less worthy, and less able the less money you have.
If someone has enough money here in the US, a black person can be white and a woman can become a man. Money is the only thing most people respect, next to power. And with enough money, you can buy power.
A rich person is usually very much like other rich people.
An upper-middle class person is usually very much like other upper-middle class people.
A lower middle-class person is usually very much like other lower-middle class people.
And on and on.
Even a homeless person is usually very much like other homeless people whether they're in New York, Chicago or San Francisco. It's all the same.
So, are we under this big illusion about our own personal uniqueness and individuality when in fact who we are and what we are is largely determined by our socioeconomic status?
I used to do a lot of hitch-hiking when I was decades younger, and I got hundreds of rides, by many many different kinds of people. I came from a lower working-class background.
I eventually began to realize that the skills needed to enhance and protect wealth are different from the skills needed to create wealth. The uber-rich people I met (and yes, they did pick up young women hitch-hiking) were very private, and paid people to maintain their privacy, and lived in expensive enclaves that kept people out.
I met a lot of go-getters, who were constantly networking, reaching out to others, etc. The ones that had upper-class mannerisms and contacts were clearly doing better than those who bought their clothes off the rack at department stores and who did not have proper grammer and enunciation, and who were a bit more exhuberant than was comfortable. These people displayed their lower-class backgrounds, and did not find it as easy to meet and get access to the wealthy.
The skills needed to acquire wealth are different from the skills needed to live well without wealth.
By far, most the people who gave me rides were not rich, nor trying to become rich. Most of them were poor. Many were having a good time without needing a lot of money (although they had enough money to own and drive a car). Most of these were "hippies".
The people who seemed the most tense and unhappy were the middle-class people who were living beyond their means, trying to put forth an image of earning more than they made. These were the "normal" people, with regular jobs, and a suburban or city residence with department-store furniture, and brand-name, industrial foods in their kitchens. I got a fair number of rides from people like this, as well.
...We are a consumer driven society and the one thing that matters to us the most is how much money we and everyone else has (has, not earns. In this country, we don't care about how you get your money, just that you have it). ...
I would argue that emphasis is on how that money is deployed, and not on the mere fact of whether it is possessed. This goes deeper than celebrating garish and unsustainable consumption, in the sense of McMansions or stylish baubles. Most people in most circumstances are expected to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with their resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by margaretBartle
... the skills needed to enhance and protect wealth are different from the skills needed to create wealth.
Indeed. The skills requisite in enhancing/protecting wealth are fundamentally conservative, longsuffering and unglamorous. They're built up over generations, and have much to do with formal education and upbringing. The skills needed to create wealth are mercurial and aggressive, more to do with spunk and hustling than with education or good breeding. For the middle classes, "wealth" is really identified with wealth-creation, not wealth-shepherding. The latter is alien and suspect, vaguely nefarious and "elitist". Wealth-creation, meanwhile, is celebrated as wholesome and necessary for an energetic and upstanding people.
I would argue that emphasis is on how that money is deployed, and not on the mere fact of whether it is possessed. This goes deeper than celebrating garish and unsustainable consumption, in the sense of McMansions or stylish baubles. Most people in most circumstances are expected to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with their resources.
If that were the case, no one would know who Warren Buffet is.
I'd have to argue that we don't really expect the rich to act rich. But I will agree that we certainly expect the poor to act poor, even beyond the expectations of them living within their means and that is how they get pigeon-holed.
Consider the poor in earlier times. Over and over I've heard and read about people being happier decades ago when they were poor because 1) everyone around them was just as poor and 2) poor people really didn't know they were poor, compared to most Americans. And when the majority of people in America were poor say, 70 years ago or so, I don't think they were looked down on as quite as much as they are now. People didn't really care that other people were poor unless they felt sorry for them.
Today, though, people are expected to have money and if you don't, people think there's something wrong with you. Or they think you failed in some way. That pigeon-holes poor people into the category of perpetual losers, especially when the majority of Americans think that no one today is successful unless they own a house, a car, and a computer. Consider how people think of renters as opposed to how they think of home owners.
Look at the difference between how we think of people who were displaced by the Depression in the 30s and how we think about the people who were displaced during the Great Recession of 2008. We don't have near the same amount of compassion for the people who lost their homes and jobs in 2008 that we do for the ones who lost their homes and jobs in 1933. Why? Because by 2008 our expectations were that people shouldn't be poor and should have money and when we found out as a nation that they didn't, we became angry. I don't ever recall reading anything about people blaming the migrants of the 30s for their losses of jobs and homes. Yet here are today, doing just that to the people who experienced the same thing in 2008. Why?
That's why I say, even if you don't spend your money, you are expected to 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.
