4 ms·
The problem with the lower, middle, upper hierarchy is that it doesn't correspond to anything meaningful about one's lifestyle, or at least hasn't since it stil
by dfranke 19y ago
The problem with the lower, middle, upper hierarchy is that it doesn't correspond to anything meaningful about one's lifestyle, or at least hasn't since it still meant serf, merchant, and nobility. How about a more meaningful set of labels?
Welfare class: Those unwilling or unable to sustain themselves without government or family (other than spouse) support.
Working class: Those dependent on employment to maintain their chosen standard of living.
Independent class: Those able to earn their income directly in order to achieve their chosen standard of living. Freelance consultants, entrepreneurs, etc.
Investment class: Those who can achieve their chosen standard of living entirely from investment income.
- rms 19y agoThis works, except both working class and independent class each cover the full income spectrum of the traditional lower, middle, and upper class.
- dfranke 19y agoFor the most part that's by design. After further consideration, though, I have to add the caveat that this system only makes sense in first-world economies. It doesn't make much sense to put a subsistence farmer in the second-highest of four classes.
- byrneseyeview 19y agoCould be okay, although 'working' might be a term you should reserve for the super-rich, many of whom get that way working insane hours. Bill Gates lost a girlfriend because of his "7-hour-turnaround" rule: he had to be back in the office within seven hours of leaving, every day. I'm not sure many people in your version of the working class have that issue. Perhaps the "working but not saving class" would be more appropriate.