4 ms·

This is only true in one direction. You can be wealthy and working class, sure. But the converse is simply impractical. How many upper class individuals are t

This is only true in one direction. You can be wealthy and working class, sure. But the converse is simply impractical. How many upper class individuals are there living in a rotting house share, on benefits, hitting up the food bank? There's a minimum amount of capital required to be able to meaningfully participate in social activities at different levels. That might not mean fantastic wealth but neither does it mean working in the corner shop (unless by choice).

chrisseaton 7y ago
If you’re born a baronet, go to Eton, take a commission in the Guards, but end your days alone and penniless in a care home then I think you’re still upper class until the day you die. Likewise I could win the lottery tomorrow but I’d never have the background and connections to become upper class.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Hmm, yeah, you're right there (on both examples). I'm still not so sure though. That's something of a special case, the extreme upper end and also at the end of one's life. It feels like you at least need to at _some_ point have the wealth if not necessarily personally (e.g. whilst growing up).
ryanmercer 7y ago
> on benefits, hitting up the food bank? While you can't be sure of their net worth (current or planned), It's not uncommon to see people in /r/leanfire and /r/financialindependence/ talking about how to keep their income below poverty thresholds to qualify for medicare and other government assistance when they decide to retire with some occasionally chiming in that they are doing that exact thing successfully right now. Fortunately some of these programs also look at your investment and bank accounts to prevent people from doing just this.
mnemonicsloth 7y ago
Back when most wealth was inherited (before 1800 say), upper class families used to practice primogeniture, or giving all the money to the oldest son. If they didn't do that, then the kids in the nth generation would get something like a 1/2^n share. In that case, nobody in the family would have enough money to support a presence at court to lobby for the family's interests, and eventually their claim to noble status would die out. Upper class parents concluded that having some wealthy sons was better than having no wealthy sons eventually. The dynamic of the younger, educated, connected but poor son of a noble family is pretty important in history, even if it isn't interesting to us in the egalitarian West. But such people did sometimes succeed in making themselves rich, and probably more often succeeded in impoverishing themselves further. A lot of them ended up as bandits.

chrisseaton 7y ago

If you’re born a baronet, go to Eton, take a commission in the Guards, but end your days alone and penniless in a care home then I think you’re still upper class until the day you die. Likewise I could win the lottery tomorrow but I’d never have the background and connections to become upper class.

esotericn 7y ago
Hmm, yeah, you're right there (on both examples). I'm still not so sure though. That's something of a special case, the extreme upper end and also at the end of one's life. It feels like you at least need to at _some_ point have the wealth if not necessarily personally (e.g. whilst growing up).

ryanmercer 7y ago

> on benefits, hitting up the food bank? While you can't be sure of their net worth (current or planned), It's not uncommon to see people in /r/leanfire and /r/financialindependence/ talking about how to keep their income below poverty thresholds to qualify for medicare and other government assistance when they decide to retire with some occasionally chiming in that they are doing that exact thing successfully right now. Fortunately some of these programs also look at your investment and bank accounts to prevent people from doing just this.

mnemonicsloth 7y ago

Back when most wealth was inherited (before 1800 say), upper class families used to practice primogeniture, or giving all the money to the oldest son. If they didn't do that, then the kids in the nth generation would get something like a 1/2^n share. In that case, nobody in the family would have enough money to support a presence at court to lobby for the family's interests, and eventually their claim to noble status would die out. Upper class parents concluded that having some wealthy sons was better than having no wealthy sons eventually. The dynamic of the younger, educated, connected but poor son of a noble family is pretty important in history, even if it isn't interesting to us in the egalitarian West. But such people did sometimes succeed in making themselves rich, and probably more often succeeded in impoverishing themselves further. A lot of them ended up as bandits.