4 ms·

> To me, 'upper class' means something like an international billionaire, or a member of a European aristocracy, someone with considerable social influence, som

> To me, 'upper class' means something like an international billionaire, or a member of a European aristocracy, someone with considerable social influence, something like that. That's a weird concept of "upper class". There are very few billionaires, they don't really make up a "class". They are part of the upper class, but pretty much anybody with a personal wealth that is far above the mean would qualify for upper class in my book. If you stopped working now and, living an average lifestyle, wouldn't have to ever work again, surely you're not middle class, but you also don't have to be a billionaire for that to be possible.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> If you stopped working now and, living an average lifestyle, wouldn't have to ever work again, surely you're not middle class I think you'd be middle class. Upper class is people with international influence, staff, significant land, titles, honours, membership of elite social organisations. It's not just people with a bit of money.
- luckylion 7y ago
  But that would make them quite literally the 1% (or 0.1%), i.e. you'd have large middle and lower classes and barely visible upper class. I wouldn't put "net wealth of 5m" into a group with "net wealth of 50k", I think the 5m person is more similar to somebody with 500m insofar that he doesn't do manual labor, has a significant income from capital gains, and has ensured that even his kids won't ever have to actually work. Something like 50% lower, 40% middle, 10% upper class, with a tiny part of that upper class making up the super rich sounds more reasonable to me. Maybe the super rich are their own class?
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > you'd have large middle and lower classes and barely visible upper class Yes, isn't that the world we live in?
    - luckylion 7y ago
      That depends on the country, I suppose. If you're in Hong Kong with an inequality rating that even makes the US seem collectivist in comparison, totally. In the US? Maybe, I don't know. In Europe? I don't think so. It's moving in that direction, but it's still quite far away. But again, that depends on who is or is not upper class. I have a few friends who got "rich" (rich from my perspective, not from Bill Gates') and I consider them very much "upper class" in financial terms, even though none of them can sway elections by making a phone call or have the Mayor step down. They aren't Louis XIV, but they don't have to ever consider "can I afford doing that instead of working" ever again.
      - leoedin 7y ago
        I think your own perspective may skew things a bit. If you're already in the top 20% (which most HN posters probably are due to their profession and education) then you may well know a lot more 1%ers than you realise. Probably most of the "rich" people you know are well into the 1%.
        luckylion 7y ago
        Possibly, my point was just that I consider the extreme form of wealth (aka billionaires or close to it) not the distinguishing feature of the upper class, the lower limits of that class are much lower (relatively, it's obviously still not easy to achieve). I wouldn't consider myself middle class with capital gains north of the median income, but I don't have a clear cut criteria to apply here.

chrisseaton 7y ago

> If you stopped working now and, living an average lifestyle, wouldn't have to ever work again, surely you're not middle class I think you'd be middle class. Upper class is people with international influence, staff, significant land, titles, honours, membership of elite social organisations. It's not just people with a bit of money.

luckylion 7y ago
But that would make them quite literally the 1% (or 0.1%), i.e. you'd have large middle and lower classes and barely visible upper class. I wouldn't put "net wealth of 5m" into a group with "net wealth of 50k", I think the 5m person is more similar to somebody with 500m insofar that he doesn't do manual labor, has a significant income from capital gains, and has ensured that even his kids won't ever have to actually work. Something like 50% lower, 40% middle, 10% upper class, with a tiny part of that upper class making up the super rich sounds more reasonable to me. Maybe the super rich are their own class?
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > you'd have large middle and lower classes and barely visible upper class Yes, isn't that the world we live in?
  - luckylion 7y ago
    That depends on the country, I suppose. If you're in Hong Kong with an inequality rating that even makes the US seem collectivist in comparison, totally. In the US? Maybe, I don't know. In Europe? I don't think so. It's moving in that direction, but it's still quite far away. But again, that depends on who is or is not upper class. I have a few friends who got "rich" (rich from my perspective, not from Bill Gates') and I consider them very much "upper class" in financial terms, even though none of them can sway elections by making a phone call or have the Mayor step down. They aren't Louis XIV, but they don't have to ever consider "can I afford doing that instead of working" ever again.
    - leoedin 7y ago
      I think your own perspective may skew things a bit. If you're already in the top 20% (which most HN posters probably are due to their profession and education) then you may well know a lot more 1%ers than you realise. Probably most of the "rich" people you know are well into the 1%.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        Possibly, my point was just that I consider the extreme form of wealth (aka billionaires or close to it) not the distinguishing feature of the upper class, the lower limits of that class are much lower (relatively, it's obviously still not easy to achieve). I wouldn't consider myself middle class with capital gains north of the median income, but I don't have a clear cut criteria to apply here.