5 ms·

This is kind of meandering, and it loses the thread a bit in the end (it feels like he's getting to a point he's uncomfortable with ideologically), but it's ext

This is kind of meandering, and it loses the thread a bit in the end (it feels like he's getting to a point he's uncomfortable with ideologically), but it's extremely accurate. The bigger point about creating the future - that he seems to miss - is that it's a future _not everyone wants_, which drives a huge part of the "maga/bernie" divide he discusses. He is right though - the rate of downward mobility among my young, bourgeoisie 20-somethings friends in NYC is shocking. 90%+ of my friends don't save anything, but take elaborate vacations several times a year, or go to multiple, expensive festivals. I have no idea what most of them would do if they lost their jobs. One of my friends quit their job and instantly is poor. They spent 3 weeks in Europe a month ago. He really hits the nail on the head in exploring their motivations, in my opinion.

flachsechs 9y ago
> the rate of downward mobility among my young, bourgeoisie 20-somethings friends in NYC is shocking i dunno, i'd argue these people aren't downwardly mobile because they were never upper middle class to begin with (bourgeoisie). if you have no saved money and your family can't just straight up give you money to live if you lose your job, you're lower to lower middle at best. better luck next time, etc. and if the parents have the money but aren't willing -- then they are but a cleverly constructed socioeconomic facsimile of the upper classes, but aren't truly that thing. the upper classes will stop at nothing from ensuring their progeny maintains or outperforms their own status. to them, that's _the whole point_ of having money. by definition they will give their wealth to their offspring in times of need, barring exceptional circumstances like enabling alcoholism or something equally untoward. upper middle and upper class kids can fuck off to do a phd for 8 years, or traipse around europe, or attempt to launch a business and fail, with basically no consequence whatsoever. btw the 'classes' really are a [not quintile] system, like in economics. the interesting thing is the money is secondary, it's social status that really matters. and by this, i mean it is exceedingly unlikely for classes 4 and 5 to fall down, because their money is entrenched in the financial system. i.e. they own stuff and would literally have to work at liquidating and spending it all, in a sort of drawn out socioeconomic suicide. 1. lower class (poor people) 2. lower middle class 3. middle class 4. uppper middle class 5. upper class
- arethuza 9y ago
  "it's social status that really matters" - that sounds like the "traditional" UK class system where money isn't a strong factor in where you are in the class spectrum.
  - flachsechs 9y ago
    i'd say money has a larger impact than in the UK but it's still secondary.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  If you're going by quintiles your upper middle class is 60th-80th percentile. That's 66k-105k household income for their parents. Even if you gave a 40% bump for NYC that's still not the life style you're describing.
  - flachsechs 9y ago
    yeah maybe not quintiles then. but i think there are 5 distinct classes, and probably not another number.
- colefichter 9y ago
  Your post hits the nail on the head, but complicates things more than needed. The whole idea of "middle class" is a fiction that supports the behaviours discussed in the article. In the real world, it doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way. You're either working class or you're not. If you can walk away from your job today and never look back, congrats! You're not working class. But for everyone else, you're stuck and putting a fancy label on things doesn't change much.
  - finnh 9y ago
    I'm not sure about that, because there is such a huge range of "need to work" lives. Taking it for granted that everything but "upper class" means "has to work", it's still worth drawing distinctions amongst the non-upper-classes. Those differences do exist in very meaningful ways, all the way down to life expectancy. You can't just trivialize away the difference between "college? how the fuck would I afford that?" and "it's 100% expected that I'll go, and my parents can pay the entire thing with zero debt".
CalRobert 9y ago
"They spent 3 weeks in Europe a month ago" For what it's worth, it's hard to know what to do. For a lot of people your 20's are about the only time you can spend three weeks in Europe if you're American (most don't get paid holidays). By the time you're in your thirties there's a decent chance you've found yourself stuck to a spouse, a kid, alimony, or a mortgage, and even if you do go the experience won't be the same. The other issue here is that even if the numbers show otherwise it's easy to be cynical about saving. If you actually need your money to be safe your options are limited. Even index funds go down, and saving for retirement, while a good idea, is a bet that not one government between now and your death will decide to just take it (Poland). Or dump cash in to the market using QE and devalue your assets (everywhere) or just declare some of your money invalid (India). Keep in mind that even the NYSE is basically a crapshoot. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html?mcubz=3 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110... So you think "hey, real estate!", but if you don't already own a home in a lot of places it's hardly worth trying until the next global collapse (any day now...). I may be jaded having watched a lot of people dump their money in to houses just to be completely destroyed anyway reveals they'd have been better off renting and blowing the rest on hedonism (or better yet, bitcoin). Also, you're going to die anyway. Money is good for having fun. Is the fun you have now less valuable than the fun you have later? My dad was responsible and dull his whole life, taking the occasional 10 day trip like a good American is supposed to (nothing longer!). He's going to retire soon, but he can't hike like he used to and his wife has Parkinson's. It served as a reminder to me to have a bit of fun in youth before bodily decay accelerates. It's painful to hear his regrets. If they're instantly poor that suggests your friend maybe took this to an extreme (even I made sure I had a few months of expenses before farting around Europe in my 20's) but still, maybe even poor people should have some fun and the push to save is part of a massive collective delusion to pretend we're not mortal.
- kbuchanan 9y ago
  But that's the basic point: premium mediocre represents the belief that three weeks in Europe is the right choice when you're young and near broke. It's this part of the millenial value set (whatever their economic prospects) that starkly contrasts them from past generations.
stumpf 9y ago
I can relate to this all too much. All my non-tech friends are struggling to get into tech someway, and my programmer friends sit comfortably in their premium mediocre. Interestingly enough, my non-tech friends seem to be the ambitious ones wanting to climb above that level. They are the ones who talk about reform and quasi communist ideas, while the developers sit quietly and comfortably at their computers, not giving class any thought. I am somewhere in between right now, piled with student debt wanting to get out, but wanting to spend those 3 weeks in Europe too.
robotresearcher 9y ago
The US employment rate is so high that the risk of being long-term unemployed is pretty low, outside some special groups and places (e.g. coal miners, coal towns). Interest rates are also historically low. Thus the effective discount rate on money is super low. It's a good time to take a European vacation, particularly when you are young and child free. It's gonna cost a lot more later, and you might be less secure, not more.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  The unemployment figures are mostly a fiction. The true rate of joblessness has been concealed by the huge increase in SSDI claimants, discouraged workers, people in involuntary self-employment and underemployed workers in part-time or casual jobs. There's a vast disparity between the number of people who officially count as unemployed and the number of people who want a full-time job but can't get one.
chis 9y ago
Yeah this post would be a lot more interesting with a good editor

flachsechs 9y ago

> the rate of downward mobility among my young, bourgeoisie 20-somethings friends in NYC is shocking i dunno, i'd argue these people aren't downwardly mobile because they were never upper middle class to begin with (bourgeoisie). if you have no saved money and your family can't just straight up give you money to live if you lose your job, you're lower to lower middle at best. better luck next time, etc. and if the parents have the money but aren't willing -- then they are but a cleverly constructed socioeconomic facsimile of the upper classes, but aren't truly that thing. the upper classes will stop at nothing from ensuring their progeny maintains or outperforms their own status. to them, that's _the whole point_ of having money. by definition they will give their wealth to their offspring in times of need, barring exceptional circumstances like enabling alcoholism or something equally untoward. upper middle and upper class kids can fuck off to do a phd for 8 years, or traipse around europe, or attempt to launch a business and fail, with basically no consequence whatsoever. btw the 'classes' really are a [not quintile] system, like in economics. the interesting thing is the money is secondary, it's social status that really matters. and by this, i mean it is exceedingly unlikely for classes 4 and 5 to fall down, because their money is entrenched in the financial system. i.e. they own stuff and would literally have to work at liquidating and spending it all, in a sort of drawn out socioeconomic suicide. 1. lower class (poor people) 2. lower middle class 3. middle class 4. uppper middle class 5. upper class

arethuza 9y ago
"it's social status that really matters" - that sounds like the "traditional" UK class system where money isn't a strong factor in where you are in the class spectrum.
- flachsechs 9y ago
  i'd say money has a larger impact than in the UK but it's still secondary.
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
If you're going by quintiles your upper middle class is 60th-80th percentile. That's 66k-105k household income for their parents. Even if you gave a 40% bump for NYC that's still not the life style you're describing.
- flachsechs 9y ago
  yeah maybe not quintiles then. but i think there are 5 distinct classes, and probably not another number.
colefichter 9y ago
Your post hits the nail on the head, but complicates things more than needed. The whole idea of "middle class" is a fiction that supports the behaviours discussed in the article. In the real world, it doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way. You're either working class or you're not. If you can walk away from your job today and never look back, congrats! You're not working class. But for everyone else, you're stuck and putting a fancy label on things doesn't change much.
- finnh 9y ago
  I'm not sure about that, because there is such a huge range of "need to work" lives. Taking it for granted that everything but "upper class" means "has to work", it's still worth drawing distinctions amongst the non-upper-classes. Those differences do exist in very meaningful ways, all the way down to life expectancy. You can't just trivialize away the difference between "college? how the fuck would I afford that?" and "it's 100% expected that I'll go, and my parents can pay the entire thing with zero debt".

CalRobert 9y ago

"They spent 3 weeks in Europe a month ago" For what it's worth, it's hard to know what to do. For a lot of people your 20's are about the only time you can spend three weeks in Europe if you're American (most don't get paid holidays). By the time you're in your thirties there's a decent chance you've found yourself stuck to a spouse, a kid, alimony, or a mortgage, and even if you do go the experience won't be the same. The other issue here is that even if the numbers show otherwise it's easy to be cynical about saving. If you actually need your money to be safe your options are limited. Even index funds go down, and saving for retirement, while a good idea, is a bet that not one government between now and your death will decide to just take it (Poland). Or dump cash in to the market using QE and devalue your assets (everywhere) or just declare some of your money invalid (India). Keep in mind that even the NYSE is basically a crapshoot. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html?mcubz=3 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110... So you think "hey, real estate!", but if you don't already own a home in a lot of places it's hardly worth trying until the next global collapse (any day now...). I may be jaded having watched a lot of people dump their money in to houses just to be completely destroyed anyway reveals they'd have been better off renting and blowing the rest on hedonism (or better yet, bitcoin). Also, you're going to die anyway. Money is good for having fun. Is the fun you have now less valuable than the fun you have later? My dad was responsible and dull his whole life, taking the occasional 10 day trip like a good American is supposed to (nothing longer!). He's going to retire soon, but he can't hike like he used to and his wife has Parkinson's. It served as a reminder to me to have a bit of fun in youth before bodily decay accelerates. It's painful to hear his regrets. If they're instantly poor that suggests your friend maybe took this to an extreme (even I made sure I had a few months of expenses before farting around Europe in my 20's) but still, maybe even poor people should have some fun and the push to save is part of a massive collective delusion to pretend we're not mortal.

kbuchanan 9y ago
But that's the basic point: premium mediocre represents the belief that three weeks in Europe is the right choice when you're young and near broke. It's this part of the millenial value set (whatever their economic prospects) that starkly contrasts them from past generations.

stumpf 9y ago

I can relate to this all too much. All my non-tech friends are struggling to get into tech someway, and my programmer friends sit comfortably in their premium mediocre. Interestingly enough, my non-tech friends seem to be the ambitious ones wanting to climb above that level. They are the ones who talk about reform and quasi communist ideas, while the developers sit quietly and comfortably at their computers, not giving class any thought. I am somewhere in between right now, piled with student debt wanting to get out, but wanting to spend those 3 weeks in Europe too.

robotresearcher 9y ago

The US employment rate is so high that the risk of being long-term unemployed is pretty low, outside some special groups and places (e.g. coal miners, coal towns). Interest rates are also historically low. Thus the effective discount rate on money is super low. It's a good time to take a European vacation, particularly when you are young and child free. It's gonna cost a lot more later, and you might be less secure, not more.

jdietrich 9y ago
The unemployment figures are mostly a fiction. The true rate of joblessness has been concealed by the huge increase in SSDI claimants, discouraged workers, people in involuntary self-employment and underemployed workers in part-time or casual jobs. There's a vast disparity between the number of people who officially count as unemployed and the number of people who want a full-time job but can't get one.

chis 9y ago

Yeah this post would be a lot more interesting with a good editor