What economic class do you fall into?

Zombie_Babies · Jan 14, 2014

Bullgrit said:
I own the land my home is on, (about a quarter acre), as do most U.S. homeowners.

Bullgrit

Noooooo they don't. The bank owns it and they make payments. The mark of the middle class is debt, after all.

Anyhoo, regarding the difference between UK middle class and US middle class, from what I understand it's a matter of extras. The UK looks to more than wealth, the US does not. It's a simple matter of money here. How much you make, how much you're worth determines where you fall.

I believe most Americans identify themselves as middle class because, well, it's the class in the middle. Lately there has been some stratification, though, and it seems to be taking on more importance as some folks see the middle dying out and a future with only two classes. The reality, of course, is that there are only ever two classes to begin with: The Rich and The Rest.

Bullgrit · Jan 14, 2014

Morrus said:
You sound like you've never heard of the UK's historical class system and its titles. You know we have a monarchy, right? Think of it like D&D. There's lots of that in D&D. Or watch some Downton Abbey, perhaps.

Here's more info if you want to read up on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...ingdom#Archaic

These days a lot of it is viewed as archaic and more modern structures based on wealth and occupation are popular, just like in the US.

Oh, I know of it -- the *historical* system -- but I guess I've just been ignorant that the historical class system is still in use. That a historical/family title actually carries any real weight in the 21st century. I mean, it's sort of like knowing you've always had royalty, but then learning that they actually still have any real power/effect on the country.

I never expected historical aristocratic titles to matter in a discussion about economic class in 2014. My knowledge of *historical* Britain is relatively good, up to maybe 100 years ago. Do you still have a navy? I haven't heard anything about it recently. (That's a joke.)

Bullgrit

Umbran · Jan 14, 2014

Zombie_Babies said:
Noooooo they don't. The bank owns it and they make payments.

I think that's legally incorrect. "Ownership" is defined by rights over the thing owned. Typically, the homeowner owns the land. The bank has almost no rights concerning it - it can make no changes, cannot sell it, gains no profit off business done with it, and so on. The bank only gains ownership if the owner fails to make payments such that foreclosure occurs.

Morrus · Jan 14, 2014

Bullgrit said:
Oh, I know of it -- the *historical* system -- but I guess I've just been ignorant that the historical class system is still in use. That a historical/family title actually carries any real weight in the 21st century. I mean, it's sort of like knowing you've always had royalty, but then learning that they actually still have any real power/effect on the country.

Wealth and celebrity likely have more effect. Any 'power' from the class stuff is more about who you know; people associate with people like themselves, wherever they are - UK, USA, Mars. Just like in your country. You guys don't use titles, but the Kennedies, Rockefellers, and the like are pretty much aristocracy. I think you use the phrase "old money" and you have a published book/index which lists the to-dos in the same way something like Burke's Peerage does. I don't recall it's name, though.

It's just nomenclature. The actual reality of life isn't particularly different. Celebrity is the new worldwide aristocracy.

delericho · Jan 14, 2014

Bullgrit said:
Oh, I know of it -- the *historical* system -- but I guess I've just been ignorant that the historical class system is still in use. That a historical/family title actually carries any real weight in the 21st century.

Oh, it only really carries any weight for a very, very small minority of people. As Morrus said, it's mostly just nomenclature - we seem to delight in calling things some other name, probably to confuse foreigners.

But it's less than ideal when you get the likes of Guardian commenters going on huge tirades about the evils of the "middle class" when what they actually mean are the "rich".

I mean, it's sort of like knowing you've always had royalty, but then learning that they actually still have any real power/effect on the country.

On paper, the Queen has quite a lot of power. In practice, she has a lot of power provided she never uses it. The moment she actually tried to wield that power, it would provoke a constitutional crisis and we'd probably get rid of the monarchy altogether.

(Fortunately, the Queen appears to understand this, and has done her duty as our slave in a gilded cage. It also appears that William and Kate understand it, but they also understand their huge power as celebrities. It's rather less clear that Charles understands it.)

Bullgrit · Jan 14, 2014

But we/I was discussing economic class. A celebrity millionaire isn't considered in a higher economic class than a CEO millionaire. They're both considered upper class. Bill Gates is not old money upper class, but he's not considered a different economic class than an old money Rockefeller. Donald Trump isn't considered upper economici class because of a title.

A local celebrity making $70,000 isn't considered in a higher economic class than a software developer making $70,000.

Contrast the above with:

In the UK, it seems middle class mostly means, "rich, but not actually aristocracy". You need a title (of some sort), or perhaps to own some land, to be upper class, making middle class the top that can be achieved by wealth alone.

This says that a title makes the difference between middle class and upper class, more than the person's actual income. In the U.S., being rich means you're upper class, a title notwithstanding, (not existing).

Bullgrit

Morrus · Jan 14, 2014

Bullgrit said:
Contrast the above with:

Bullgrit, it's just names. You call pavements sidewalks; we have words for certain demographics that you don't. You're getting too hung up on what is, essentially, nomenclature.

It's pretty much the same as it is there, except some of the labelling is different. That's all. It's not the middle-ages; titled people can't lop the heads off of peasants or anything.

. In the U.S., being rich means you're upper class, a title notwithstanding, (not existing).

Yes, we know.

Bullgrit · Jan 14, 2014

My whole branch of this discussion was because of this distinction:

In the UK, it seems middle class mostly means, "rich, but not actually aristocracy". You need a title (of some sort), or perhaps to own some land, to be upper class, making middle class the top that can be achieved by wealth alone.

That's someone, not me, defining the nomenclature differently based on location -- in the U.K., rich = middle class, title = upper class, compared to in the U.S., moderate income = middle class, rich = upper class. I just expressed my surprise at that difference.

I now have the feeling that an argument has grown of this, and I'm not sure why or to what point.

Bullgrit

delericho · Jan 14, 2014

Bullgrit said:
My whole branch of this discussion was because of this distinction:

That's someone, not me...

Yep, that would be me. I apologise for any confusion caused.

Part of the complexity may be that, like many Brits, I have a hard time separating strict 'economic' class from 'social' class - the first just isn't something we would discuss by that name.

But also, yes, our nomenclature is confusing and largely unhelpful.

Morrus · Jan 14, 2014

Bullgrit said:
My whole branch of this discussion was because of this distinction:

I think the problem is you keep going back to that one sentence, despite many paragraphs of attempted explanation of it since.

It was a clumsily worded sentence (sorry, [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]!). There's much more pertinent info to be gained from all the effort we've been putting in to explain it since.