13 ms·

This is a difference between British and American English. In the UK, "middle class" basically means rich. In the US, it means that maybe you own a house.

by TillE 11y ago

nommm-nommm 11y ago
In the US middle class has always meant middle - not at top in income/wealth (mostly income) but not at the bottom. How they obtain the money (education, job) or how they spend it (house, holiday) is not important by definition - however there is some social expectations of the American middle class. Many Americans don't have the time off work for two holidays a year, even if they have plenty of money, which is another difference, which changes the American social expectations of the US "middle class." A family with nurse and a teacher for example (two professionals) would bring in somewhere around $100,000/yr and be upper class. There's a lot of variations by geography (cost of living) and stuff too, but I simplified it. In reality the amount of financial security a family has is often a function of how well they manage it (as long as you are making above a certain amount where it becomes possible for financial security). If the above mentioned family over spent on a big house, two cars, a motorcycle, and other luxuries they consider normal, or even needed, then they can surely feel like they are living without much financial security, which doesn't "feel" upper class. Unfortunately, middle class is a totally useless term because almost everyone describes themselves as middle class, I guess because they are somewhat out of touch with their spending and don't feel rich (previously mentioned family) or they are towards the bottom they don't want to feel poor. People who have a household income of $200,000 describe themselves as middle class. One of my coworkers, with a straight face, described me as middle class. I couldn't believe it - with a household income more than 3x the median household income in the US I can't with a straight face say I am middle class. That's why politicians pander to "the middle class," because the majority of Americans identify with the middle class - even poor ones who don't consider themselves middle class but feel they will be there soon. On the other side of the coin I have a friend who makes a middle class income, spends lavishly on consumer goods, and is always complaining about how poor she is. Like I said, totally useless term.
- arethuza 11y ago
  "middle class is a useless term because almost everyone describes themselves as middle class" It might actually be simpler in the UK - nobody describes themselves as working class anymore and there are very real upper class people so everyone from the PM down is middle class. http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/08/10/how-middle-class-are-you-take-the-david-cameron-test/ http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/08/10/how-middle-class-... NB I like that quiz - if you enjoy drinking to excess and fighting you are working class or upper class but definitely not middle class (by UK standards). Edit: I guess another way of defining "middle class" by UK standards is "someone worried about social status" - traditionally neither the upper classes or the working classes cared about social status.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  So you'd day you were "upper class"? What I don't understand is why you'd turn class into a proxy for personal wealth, there are already lots of ways to refer to that - wages, household income, net worth - whereas class [in the UK] is a far more nuanced measure of ancestry, culture, occupation and attitudes to all of those things.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    Probably because our history and collective cultural values are very different in that regard. And we don't have, like, actual royality. The US has a very "anyone can get rich" kind of cultural ethos so it makes sense our definitions would be very different. There's also a distinction between upper class and the "frigging filthy rich" (salary in the millions) in the US. Lately they've been called "the 1%."
    - StevePerkins 11y ago
      The "1%" starts at $193K, which would easily include a household with two 30-year old software developers (or similar professionals). http://whatsmypercent.com/ http://whatsmypercent.com/
      - 11y ago
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
Are you from the UK, would you call David Beckham (say) Upper Class? He's as wealthy as they come but pretty clearly working class IMO.
- coldtea 11y ago
  That's because the British think of class as some BS blue-blooded royal thing. Beckham is by no means "working class" -- though he might have been born as such. He is just not royalty and hadn't grown up from families owing castles and being members in the house of lords.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    It's not snobbery, no one is looking down [well few are] on Beckham saying "oh he's only working class". Football is a working class game, it's players are primarily working class; that's a great source of pride for many. I'm (lower) middle class, earn less than a lot of working class people; there are different cultural circles that follow different lines to financial worth. That's how the class system is seen here. Being royalty wouldn't make him any better, just different, probably make him far worse in many people's eyes but if he were royal he'd be part of the peerage whether he lived in a council flat or a palace.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >It's not snobbery, no one is looking down [well few are] on Beckham saying "oh he's only working class" On Beckham no. On working class people but not Beckham-rich, many. I've had some experience with BBC people. All the technicians and lower level staff were working class. All the journalists were public school people (in UK, "public school" actually means: expensive prestigious school). They didn't seem to have any social connection, didn't even eat all together at the same table at the end of work -- each group had their own table. And I'm not talking famous journalists and tv-stars snubbing mere mortals: it was just actual run of the mill reporters and journalists. You don't get this behavior in where I come from. I was also surprised to find out that from Monty Python to Mr. Bean (R.A), and Hugh Laurie, Fry, etc, almost all famous TV comedians (at least up to the 90s) in Britain were public school people -- and all of these were specifically Cambridge and Oxford. Which shows what it took to be on TV back in the day. You don't get that in the US either.
arethuza 11y ago
Traditionally at least, classes in the UK were based on social status, not the amount of money you have. For example, I've known impoverished upper middle class people, people who self identified as working class (e.g. drinking in the miners welfare) even though they had millions in the bank and not particularly well off upper-class people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United... Edit: As might be expected, nothing about the class system in the UK is clear cut, consistent or particularly logical.
csixty4 11y ago
> In the US, it means that maybe you own a house. Geography plays into this quite a bit, too. The cost of living is lower in the Midwest so it's possible to live a larger lifestyle on more of a working-class salary.
chrisseaton 11y ago
Yes, as a British person I'd say an example of a middle class sitcom is something like Frasier, not Roseanne.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  Frasier is very upper-middle IMO. Not because of the wealth per se but because of the professions, attitudes and cultural mores.
- coev 11y ago
  Frasier was funny in America because everyone on the show but the dad was so hoity-toity upper class.
J-dawg 11y ago
This comparison made me smile. In the UK, we are rapidly reaching the point where owning a house === rich
dragonwriter 11y ago
Well, yeah, British usage has some hangovers from pre-capitalist class structures wherein the nobility constitute the upper class, and what became the capitalist upper class is part of the middle class between the nobility and the peasantry. Whereas American English mostly, when it adopted class language, got it from traditional discussions of capitalist class structure, but its since evolved to where frequently "middle class" is used to mean "middle income" (solidly in the working class in the classical divide of classes in capitalist society), and the traditional capitalist middle class is "upper middle class" (or sometimes even "upper class"), and the capitalist upper class -- the owners of capital who rent labor -- are mostly just not discussed at all as a class of people, but as abstract institutions if at all.

This is a difference between British and American English. In the UK, "middle class" basically means rich. In the US, it means that maybe you own a house.

by TillE 11y ago

This is a difference between British and American English. In the UK, "middle class" basically means rich. In the US, it means that maybe you own a house.

nommm-nommm 11y ago

In the US middle class has always meant middle - not at top in income/wealth (mostly income) but not at the bottom. How they obtain the money (education, job) or how they spend it (house, holiday) is not important by definition - however there is some social expectations of the American middle class. Many Americans don't have the time off work for two holidays a year, even if they have plenty of money, which is another difference, which changes the American social expectations of the US "middle class." A family with nurse and a teacher for example (two professionals) would bring in somewhere around $100,000/yr and be upper class. There's a lot of variations by geography (cost of living) and stuff too, but I simplified it. In reality the amount of financial security a family has is often a function of how well they manage it (as long as you are making above a certain amount where it becomes possible for financial security). If the above mentioned family over spent on a big house, two cars, a motorcycle, and other luxuries they consider normal, or even needed, then they can surely feel like they are living without much financial security, which doesn't "feel" upper class. Unfortunately, middle class is a totally useless term because almost everyone describes themselves as middle class, I guess because they are somewhat out of touch with their spending and don't feel rich (previously mentioned family) or they are towards the bottom they don't want to feel poor. People who have a household income of $200,000 describe themselves as middle class. One of my coworkers, with a straight face, described me as middle class. I couldn't believe it - with a household income more than 3x the median household income in the US I can't with a straight face say I am middle class. That's why politicians pander to "the middle class," because the majority of Americans identify with the middle class - even poor ones who don't consider themselves middle class but feel they will be there soon. On the other side of the coin I have a friend who makes a middle class income, spends lavishly on consumer goods, and is always complaining about how poor she is. Like I said, totally useless term.

arethuza 11y ago
"middle class is a useless term because almost everyone describes themselves as middle class" It might actually be simpler in the UK - nobody describes themselves as working class anymore and there are very real upper class people so everyone from the PM down is middle class. http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/08/10/how-middle-class-are-you-take-the-david-cameron-test/ http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/08/10/how-middle-class-... NB I like that quiz - if you enjoy drinking to excess and fighting you are working class or upper class but definitely not middle class (by UK standards). Edit: I guess another way of defining "middle class" by UK standards is "someone worried about social status" - traditionally neither the upper classes or the working classes cared about social status.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
So you'd day you were "upper class"? What I don't understand is why you'd turn class into a proxy for personal wealth, there are already lots of ways to refer to that - wages, household income, net worth - whereas class [in the UK] is a far more nuanced measure of ancestry, culture, occupation and attitudes to all of those things.
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  Probably because our history and collective cultural values are very different in that regard. And we don't have, like, actual royality. The US has a very "anyone can get rich" kind of cultural ethos so it makes sense our definitions would be very different. There's also a distinction between upper class and the "frigging filthy rich" (salary in the millions) in the US. Lately they've been called "the 1%."
  - StevePerkins 11y ago
    The "1%" starts at $193K, which would easily include a household with two 30-year old software developers (or similar professionals). http://whatsmypercent.com/ http://whatsmypercent.com/
    - 11y ago

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

Are you from the UK, would you call David Beckham (say) Upper Class? He's as wealthy as they come but pretty clearly working class IMO.

coldtea 11y ago
That's because the British think of class as some BS blue-blooded royal thing. Beckham is by no means "working class" -- though he might have been born as such. He is just not royalty and hadn't grown up from families owing castles and being members in the house of lords.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  It's not snobbery, no one is looking down [well few are] on Beckham saying "oh he's only working class". Football is a working class game, it's players are primarily working class; that's a great source of pride for many. I'm (lower) middle class, earn less than a lot of working class people; there are different cultural circles that follow different lines to financial worth. That's how the class system is seen here. Being royalty wouldn't make him any better, just different, probably make him far worse in many people's eyes but if he were royal he'd be part of the peerage whether he lived in a council flat or a palace.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >It's not snobbery, no one is looking down [well few are] on Beckham saying "oh he's only working class" On Beckham no. On working class people but not Beckham-rich, many. I've had some experience with BBC people. All the technicians and lower level staff were working class. All the journalists were public school people (in UK, "public school" actually means: expensive prestigious school). They didn't seem to have any social connection, didn't even eat all together at the same table at the end of work -- each group had their own table. And I'm not talking famous journalists and tv-stars snubbing mere mortals: it was just actual run of the mill reporters and journalists. You don't get this behavior in where I come from. I was also surprised to find out that from Monty Python to Mr. Bean (R.A), and Hugh Laurie, Fry, etc, almost all famous TV comedians (at least up to the 90s) in Britain were public school people -- and all of these were specifically Cambridge and Oxford. Which shows what it took to be on TV back in the day. You don't get that in the US either.

arethuza 11y ago

Traditionally at least, classes in the UK were based on social status, not the amount of money you have. For example, I've known impoverished upper middle class people, people who self identified as working class (e.g. drinking in the miners welfare) even though they had millions in the bank and not particularly well off upper-class people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United... Edit: As might be expected, nothing about the class system in the UK is clear cut, consistent or particularly logical.

csixty4 11y ago

> In the US, it means that maybe you own a house. Geography plays into this quite a bit, too. The cost of living is lower in the Midwest so it's possible to live a larger lifestyle on more of a working-class salary.

chrisseaton 11y ago

Yes, as a British person I'd say an example of a middle class sitcom is something like Frasier, not Roseanne.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
Frasier is very upper-middle IMO. Not because of the wealth per se but because of the professions, attitudes and cultural mores.
coev 11y ago
Frasier was funny in America because everyone on the show but the dad was so hoity-toity upper class.

J-dawg 11y ago

This comparison made me smile. In the UK, we are rapidly reaching the point where owning a house === rich

dragonwriter 11y ago

Well, yeah, British usage has some hangovers from pre-capitalist class structures wherein the nobility constitute the upper class, and what became the capitalist upper class is part of the middle class between the nobility and the peasantry. Whereas American English mostly, when it adopted class language, got it from traditional discussions of capitalist class structure, but its since evolved to where frequently "middle class" is used to mean "middle income" (solidly in the working class in the classical divide of classes in capitalist society), and the traditional capitalist middle class is "upper middle class" (or sometimes even "upper class"), and the capitalist upper class -- the owners of capital who rent labor -- are mostly just not discussed at all as a class of people, but as abstract institutions if at all.