5 ms·

Economic class is not just a function of income. The definition of middle-class is someone whose economic survival and security are reasonably assured. If you

Economic class is not just a function of income. The definition of middle-class is someone whose economic survival and security are reasonably assured. If you're middle-class, you usually aren't worrying where your next dollar is coming from. You have at least a little discretionary spending money. You have some free time. In a rural area, where the cost of living is very low (and maybe you raise some of your own food), that might be possible on $30k. In the city it's likely to take at least twice that. Conversely, as long as you have to work to maintain your lifestyle, you're middle-class, not upper-class. Even if you're making $600k, if quitting your job is not a realistic option because of the mortgage on your mansion, the payments on your Ferrari, and a couple of failed investments -- you're middle-class. You're way at the upper end of the middle class, but you're still middle-class. Now, certainly, if you're making $600k and you're reasonably careful with your money, you have a golden opportunity to make investments that can, in a relatively short time, put you into the upper class. But you're not there until you have enough passive income to live on indefinitely.

gizmo 10y ago
That's a very American perspective. In the UK a Duke or Earl can be close to broke, but nobles and gentry will always be considered upper class. In contrast lottery winners, successful plumbers or grocers and other businessmen will almost never become upper class, even if they are independently wealthy.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  Right. In Europe, it also often has to do with status. For example, you can make €25m and still not be accepted by the "upper class" (i.e. wealthy "old" nobility), because you are seen as not sophisticated enough. On the other hand, decent wealth builders (but not crazy rich) people can still be accepted in the upper class because they share certain values and habits. A lot of old noblemen look down on the capitalists / nouveau riche. At the same time, the realise they need capitalists to help them generate decent yields on their inherited fortunes. It's an interesting world at the top. Some are accepted into the group, and others are not. Source: my mom is friends with several people who carry a title.
  - pm90 10y ago
    I was always curious about this. How does this kind of acceptance/rejection manifest itself in today's world? Is it just that these people thrown parties/events and deliberately not invite the "unsophisticated sobs"? Is it membership in clubs? Some kind of political influence? Admission to elite universities for their kids?
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      I’m based in Belgium. A lot of people of European nobility (not just Belgians) actually live here. I’ve had the chance of having dinner with a few of them and it’s actually quite interesting. They don’t really think in terms of class these days. A lot of it has to do with values. They accept people without significant wealth, and see them as equals (which might not have been the case 200-300 years ago). For example, most of them are still quite wealthy (i.e. a net worth of >€5m). One cardinal rule is you don’t flaunt your wealth. You can talk about investment returns etc, but you don’t drive around in flashy $500k-1m cars. Some capitalism is good, too much of it is bad. Most also like art. They enjoy living outside of the spotlight. A lot of people of nobility have been brought up to help fellow citizens in any way they can (i.e. not just giving money, helping them out with various stuff). Overall, these are mostly good members of society that enjoy living their life outside of the spotlight. They respect the society they live in. It's not because you have you money that you shouldn't have respect for society. If you are well educated and respectful, you won't have too much trouble being accepted.
      - gizmo 10y ago
        > You can talk about investments returns etc, But only in the abstract. Saying "I bought some IBM shares which then went up 7%, which was nice" is fine. Saying how much your capital gains were in the last fiscal year is absolutely faux pas. I suspect talking about wealth in concrete numbers is deemed unacceptable because it confronts people with the moral consequences of hoarding wealth and inequality, and they really don't want those uncomfortable conversations. > They don’t really think in terms of class these days. Because their social networks are ruthlessly narrow. They don't think in terms of class because they never interact with people who aren't at least at the social level of an educated professional.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  It's not a specifically American perspective at all. Please note, I'm talking about economic class. As others have pointed out, social class and economic class are quite different things.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    You're free to define words as you please, but it gets in the way of having a good conversation. What you call the lower economic class is better known as the precariat. Those who have low income, no wealth, no meaningful social safety net, and no opportunities. What you call the upper economic class is better known as the independently wealthy. Those who don't need to work at all in order to live well. I don't think you can meaningfully talk about an "economic class" that is purely a function of one's wealth, income and expenses, which is why sociologists never do.

gizmo 10y ago

That's a very American perspective. In the UK a Duke or Earl can be close to broke, but nobles and gentry will always be considered upper class. In contrast lottery winners, successful plumbers or grocers and other businessmen will almost never become upper class, even if they are independently wealthy.

charlesdm 10y ago
Right. In Europe, it also often has to do with status. For example, you can make €25m and still not be accepted by the "upper class" (i.e. wealthy "old" nobility), because you are seen as not sophisticated enough. On the other hand, decent wealth builders (but not crazy rich) people can still be accepted in the upper class because they share certain values and habits. A lot of old noblemen look down on the capitalists / nouveau riche. At the same time, the realise they need capitalists to help them generate decent yields on their inherited fortunes. It's an interesting world at the top. Some are accepted into the group, and others are not. Source: my mom is friends with several people who carry a title.
- pm90 10y ago
  I was always curious about this. How does this kind of acceptance/rejection manifest itself in today's world? Is it just that these people thrown parties/events and deliberately not invite the "unsophisticated sobs"? Is it membership in clubs? Some kind of political influence? Admission to elite universities for their kids?
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    I’m based in Belgium. A lot of people of European nobility (not just Belgians) actually live here. I’ve had the chance of having dinner with a few of them and it’s actually quite interesting. They don’t really think in terms of class these days. A lot of it has to do with values. They accept people without significant wealth, and see them as equals (which might not have been the case 200-300 years ago). For example, most of them are still quite wealthy (i.e. a net worth of >€5m). One cardinal rule is you don’t flaunt your wealth. You can talk about investment returns etc, but you don’t drive around in flashy $500k-1m cars. Some capitalism is good, too much of it is bad. Most also like art. They enjoy living outside of the spotlight. A lot of people of nobility have been brought up to help fellow citizens in any way they can (i.e. not just giving money, helping them out with various stuff). Overall, these are mostly good members of society that enjoy living their life outside of the spotlight. They respect the society they live in. It's not because you have you money that you shouldn't have respect for society. If you are well educated and respectful, you won't have too much trouble being accepted.
    - gizmo 10y ago
      > You can talk about investments returns etc, But only in the abstract. Saying "I bought some IBM shares which then went up 7%, which was nice" is fine. Saying how much your capital gains were in the last fiscal year is absolutely faux pas. I suspect talking about wealth in concrete numbers is deemed unacceptable because it confronts people with the moral consequences of hoarding wealth and inequality, and they really don't want those uncomfortable conversations. > They don’t really think in terms of class these days. Because their social networks are ruthlessly narrow. They don't think in terms of class because they never interact with people who aren't at least at the social level of an educated professional.
ScottBurson 10y ago
It's not a specifically American perspective at all. Please note, I'm talking about economic class. As others have pointed out, social class and economic class are quite different things.
- gizmo 10y ago
  You're free to define words as you please, but it gets in the way of having a good conversation. What you call the lower economic class is better known as the precariat. Those who have low income, no wealth, no meaningful social safety net, and no opportunities. What you call the upper economic class is better known as the independently wealthy. Those who don't need to work at all in order to live well. I don't think you can meaningfully talk about an "economic class" that is purely a function of one's wealth, income and expenses, which is why sociologists never do.