6 ms·

Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very differen

Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very different from those in Europe. You're arguing semantics because "it's different" in the US, which may be superfically true, but not meaningfully so. Whatever you want to call it, there are de facto class structures in the US that operate as the functional equivalents of class in Europe. You are either born into these circles or you remain outside of them (for at least a few generations). Wealth is only one part of this mix, and while it certainly does pay for your tickets into elite events, it does not buy you into the circle. > social class in USA is fluid and can change And this is one of the major false-hoods that people believe to be true but simply isn't. Americans in particular suffer from this belief. Social mobility is lower than most people expect, and the trend has been heading downwards for years.

Ekaros 4y ago
Also, the perspective here might be skewed. After all this is place that observes and connects with newly generated wealth and millionaires. Which could even be considered a entirely new and separate social class. Or multiple. From your average developer, to bay area developer in FAANG and like to those that made multi-million to billion dollar companies. And all this inside single generation. Lower end is probably associated with your traditional professional classes. Then there is managerial classes. And finally the newly rich. Which might interact with others, but likely won't fully belong...
- kstenerud 4y ago
  In essence, it's the 21st century equivalent of the "new money" industrialists of the 18th century. They weren't accepted by the established class either, and had to slowly bleed in over generations. In fact, you still regularly hear the disparaging words "new money" today.
  - Enginerrrd 4y ago
    To be fair, flashy, tactless, and pointless displays of wealth for it's own sake is the kind of thing people are looking down upon when they use that term.
- f17 4y ago
  I was an engineer at a FAANG. The effects of pre-existing, generational social class are as strong there as anywhere else. If you grew up old money, you get tapped for the best projects and will make Staff by 25, Principal by 30. If you don't have the technical abilities, they'll make you a manager. On the other hand, if you come from the rabble, you stay in the rabble--you get assigned regular grunt work and performance reviews actually matter to your future.
  - greatpostman 4y ago
    I’ve never seen this and I’ve been at two FAANG totalling six years
  - _fat_santa 4y ago
    > If you grew up old money, you get tapped for the best projects and will make Staff by 25, Principal by 30. If you don't have the technical abilities, they'll make you a manager. On the other hand, if you come from the rabble, you stay in the rabble--you get assigned regular grunt work and performance reviews actually matter to your future. I could not disagree with this more. I would say that tech, unlike legal, medical or other fields, is by far the most egalitarian. You can be a kid that comes from the "rabble" and make Staff/Principle if you are really good and committed. Likewise I have seen many "old money" folks like you describe completely wash out. We had a few at my company get their foot in the door because the parents play golf with the owner. Sure they have the advantage in getting in, but once youre in if you aren't skilled technically, you're going to wash out very quick (both guys we hired were gone in ~3 months)
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      I think a lot of people might not notice it happen but it definitely happens and is common. And not just in FAANG's but in most companies. There are special people who, by virtue of something, end up being the "golden children" and are put on the express train through promotions. For reasons completely unexplainable if you believe in egalitarianism. You've got a team of people, and some NewGuy joins. They seem like your peer: they're at your level! You don't really know what their job performance is like. Then all of a sudden, they're Staff level, then Principal. Then the org-wide memo announcing that Executive X has moved on in their career and NewGuy is now Senior Director of your whole division. How TF did that happen? He was employee number 45519 a year ago! You can see it happen with actually-talented people and with bozos. It seems uncorrelated with how good at your job you are, and more correlated with less obvious/measurable things like your social standing, your background/pedigree, your "elite" mannerisms... it's hard to articulate what these things are when you're not part of the club, but they're there. You can see it in the way this class carry themselves: that haughty way they hold their head up, the fake but gorgeous smile, the handshakes, the similar speech patterns and word choices. It's like a secret code they share that's invisible to the rabble--like the aliens in They Live. They even all kind of walk the same way--that weird presence that is both carefree and commanding. Probably mannerisms they honed in finishing school, or in the Ivies or Stanford where they all seem to have come from. If you start looking for these things, you can squint and barely see them all over your company's leadership. There are always exceptions where one of the rabble got through, but they're rare.
jasode 4y ago
>Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very different from those in Europe. [...] Whatever you want to call it, there are de facto class structures in the US that operate as the functional equivalents of class in Europe. Both you and sibling commenter (zbentley) are making points that don't contradict what I was talking about in my reply to gp kstenerud. I'm not saying stratification, hierarchy, elites, etc don't exist in USA. Instead, I'm explaining why Americans don't seem to be aware of their class. To re-emphasize the specifics that I was focused on, he commented: "In older societies, everyone is aware of their class from a very young age, but in America they seem to pretend that class doesn't exist" I was dissecting his phrase "their class from a very young age" and how why Americans (e.g. USA children's brains) don't even know there are classes and thus, they're unaware which one they are in. Maybe one can call that self-awareness "class consciousness" or something similar but there's a reason Americans do not have it to the same degree as Europeans. In USA, the so-called "classes" are not _overt_ and _blatant_ to the same degree. In contrast, some societies with overt & blatant classes: - India Hindu castes with the "untouchables" - feudalism with "lords" and "serfs" - peerage with titles of nobility America's particular circumstances of nation creation means the class system emerges from money & wealth rather than the 3 examples above from religion or monarchy. A young child in India in the "untouchables" class will be self-aware they're part of the untouchables. And likewise, a serf knows he's not a lord and a lord knows he's not a serf. But an American child in deep south Alabama won't necessarily know they are "hillbillies" or other derogatory terms like "white trash". These are class terms that others give them. In America, "classes" for many people are the proverbial "water that fish don't even know they're swimming in". But to re-state your points a different way... Just because the USA doesn't have overt classes, it doesn't stop "invisible" classes from forming ("old-money") and functioning in similar ways. Some Americans authors are so exquisitely observant of subtle class differences such that they can write books where characters' self-awareness of class adds tension to their novels. Examples being F Scott Fitzgerald "The Great Gatsby" and Edith Wharton novels. Likewise, the readers of those books need to be aware of subtle class distinctions to see the significance of characters living in West Egg vs East Egg -- or that a Wharton character is driving a 2-wheeled horse & buggy instead of a more expensive 4-wheeled carriage.
f17 4y ago
> Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very different from those in Europe. You're arguing semantics because "it's different" in the US, which may be superfically true, but not meaningfully so. This. The idea that we were founded by the industrious poor of Europe doesn't really hold out. People came to the New World with all sorts of different motivations, and from all social classes. The rich who came over to get super-rich got super-rich and their descendants are now the elite. The poors who came over to work in the coal mines stayed poor and their descendants now work at Wal-Mart. And the one-sixth of this country whose ancestors were brought over against their will are still treated horribly because their skin color makes it evident (or at least likely). Not only is social mobility rare, but there's a mean-reversion. Class doesn't prevent you from attaining wealth, but it makes it harder to keep it; there are so many forces in play that most people aren't even aware of, but that exist to keep long-term upward mobility at a minimum. You can get a PhD and work at a FAANG, and you're still going to lose in project allocation and in promotion battles to 23-year-olds whose fathers and grandfathers the VPs are afraid of.
- dwater 4y ago
  And it's still happening. America is, compared to other first world countries, not the easiest to immigrate to. So out of all immigrants, who would choose to go to America (appreciating that many immigrants don't have much choice)? The ones most aligned with America's opportunities, so people who want to be capitalists. If you value a chance at getting rich over stability and safety, come to America. If you want a strong social safety net and aren't willing to arm yourself against your neighbors, go somewhere else.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  What rich people immigrated here from Europe and founded dynasties in America? How about one of the richest men in America? The son of a butcher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor#Early_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor#Early_life How about the Kennedys? Irish immigrants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._Kennedy#Early_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._Kennedy#Early_life The Vanderbilts? From an indentured servant coming to America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt#Ancestry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt#Ancestry
Archelaos 4y ago
The term "class" in the sociological sense originated in contrast to the old system of "estates". Originally, it referred to the "tax class" of a (male) person, which formed the basis for census voting rights in both the USA and Europe until well into the 19th century. This is the reason why speaking of an "aristocratic class" remains somewhat inappropriate. The term "class" was introduced specifically to mark the difference between the old society, which was dominated by heritage ("estate"), and the new society, in which this has been replaced by wealth ("class"). That there was a lot of continuity from the old to the new order is another matter. Britian seems to be very special, because there the "upper class" is a mixture of old estate and new wealth (plus celebrities from academic, sport and culture), something that is more or less absent in the rest of Europe. While a poor Lord in England is still a Lord, a poor Graf in Germany is just a poor person.
mercy_dude 4y ago
> Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very different from those in Europe. 100%. You also have to keep in mind America is much younger as a nation compared to Europe, but the classism is trending it towards the hereditary classism found in Europe over time.
onetimeusename 4y ago
I think part of this is right. Up until Kennedy's presidency, the country was run by WASPs who make up most of what is called "old money". WASPs probably still exist in some form but I probably wouldn't call them the upper class anymore because they have no power or privilege. In fact, one of their exclusive gateways to retaining power, the Ivy League, has disavowed them and white people as a whole are the only race that is underrepresented relative to population size in the Ivy League. So I do not believe WASPs can claim to be the upper class anymore although I am sure they are relatively well off. Further, as a group Asians are among some of the highest earners so it would be hard to argue that they are part of a lower class despite being so in prior generations. So I do think class has changed in the US over the last 100 years. WASPs might hold some prestige but I think as they lose power they become more irrelevant and less exclusive. I don't think it's straightforward right now who the upper class is. It feels like things are in a state of flux and amorphous or secretive. I completely agree net worth is not the only deciding factor. The upper class will always be a small exclusive group by design so regardless of who is in it, social mobility is probably lower than most people expect. So to sum it up I only disagree with you about the power of "old money" in the US now. I think there is a somewhat parallel class with actual hereditary advantages that is replacing the "old money" class.
- abnercoimbre 4y ago
  Could you spell out WASP?
  - dzdt 4y ago
    White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
  - oblak 4y ago
    I am trying to brute force it. It's about half way done at Wealthy Assholes. Need help decrypting the rest, though edit: I see dzdt has provided something useful.
rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> You are either born into these circles or you remain outside of them (for at least a few generations) What can't Jeff Bezos do that he would be able to do if he had parents from a different class?
- claudiulodro 4y ago
  Get ~$300,000 investment from his parents to start Amazon?
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    His step father was an immigrant from Cuba who came to the US at 16 without being able to speak English. His father ran a bike shop. That's old money?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Ordinary people buy houses for far more than $300,000.
    - lostdog 4y ago
      ...with a mortgage, and the house tends to maintain value. They don't have that kind of money lying around to throw into a risky business.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Not being willing to take the risk is very different from cannot raise the funds. $300,000 is simply not an outsize amount of capital to start a business. People do it all the time. Expect to put out $1.3 to 2.3 million to start a McDonald's franchise, and those are everywhere. (Other franchises are less expensive, not more.) The idea that one has to be rich to raise $300,000 is simply not true.
        lostdog 4y ago

Ekaros 4y ago

Also, the perspective here might be skewed. After all this is place that observes and connects with newly generated wealth and millionaires. Which could even be considered a entirely new and separate social class. Or multiple. From your average developer, to bay area developer in FAANG and like to those that made multi-million to billion dollar companies. And all this inside single generation. Lower end is probably associated with your traditional professional classes. Then there is managerial classes. And finally the newly rich. Which might interact with others, but likely won't fully belong...

kstenerud 4y ago
In essence, it's the 21st century equivalent of the "new money" industrialists of the 18th century. They weren't accepted by the established class either, and had to slowly bleed in over generations. In fact, you still regularly hear the disparaging words "new money" today.
- Enginerrrd 4y ago
  To be fair, flashy, tactless, and pointless displays of wealth for it's own sake is the kind of thing people are looking down upon when they use that term.
f17 4y ago
I was an engineer at a FAANG. The effects of pre-existing, generational social class are as strong there as anywhere else. If you grew up old money, you get tapped for the best projects and will make Staff by 25, Principal by 30. If you don't have the technical abilities, they'll make you a manager. On the other hand, if you come from the rabble, you stay in the rabble--you get assigned regular grunt work and performance reviews actually matter to your future.
- greatpostman 4y ago
  I’ve never seen this and I’ve been at two FAANG totalling six years
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  > If you grew up old money, you get tapped for the best projects and will make Staff by 25, Principal by 30. If you don't have the technical abilities, they'll make you a manager. On the other hand, if you come from the rabble, you stay in the rabble--you get assigned regular grunt work and performance reviews actually matter to your future. I could not disagree with this more. I would say that tech, unlike legal, medical or other fields, is by far the most egalitarian. You can be a kid that comes from the "rabble" and make Staff/Principle if you are really good and committed. Likewise I have seen many "old money" folks like you describe completely wash out. We had a few at my company get their foot in the door because the parents play golf with the owner. Sure they have the advantage in getting in, but once youre in if you aren't skilled technically, you're going to wash out very quick (both guys we hired were gone in ~3 months)
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    I think a lot of people might not notice it happen but it definitely happens and is common. And not just in FAANG's but in most companies. There are special people who, by virtue of something, end up being the "golden children" and are put on the express train through promotions. For reasons completely unexplainable if you believe in egalitarianism. You've got a team of people, and some NewGuy joins. They seem like your peer: they're at your level! You don't really know what their job performance is like. Then all of a sudden, they're Staff level, then Principal. Then the org-wide memo announcing that Executive X has moved on in their career and NewGuy is now Senior Director of your whole division. How TF did that happen? He was employee number 45519 a year ago! You can see it happen with actually-talented people and with bozos. It seems uncorrelated with how good at your job you are, and more correlated with less obvious/measurable things like your social standing, your background/pedigree, your "elite" mannerisms... it's hard to articulate what these things are when you're not part of the club, but they're there. You can see it in the way this class carry themselves: that haughty way they hold their head up, the fake but gorgeous smile, the handshakes, the similar speech patterns and word choices. It's like a secret code they share that's invisible to the rabble--like the aliens in They Live. They even all kind of walk the same way--that weird presence that is both carefree and commanding. Probably mannerisms they honed in finishing school, or in the Ivies or Stanford where they all seem to have come from. If you start looking for these things, you can squint and barely see them all over your company's leadership. There are always exceptions where one of the rabble got through, but they're rare.

jasode 4y ago

>Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very different from those in Europe. [...] Whatever you want to call it, there are de facto class structures in the US that operate as the functional equivalents of class in Europe. Both you and sibling commenter (zbentley) are making points that don't contradict what I was talking about in my reply to gp kstenerud. I'm not saying stratification, hierarchy, elites, etc don't exist in USA. Instead, I'm explaining why Americans don't seem to be aware of their class. To re-emphasize the specifics that I was focused on, he commented: "In older societies, everyone is aware of their class from a very young age, but in America they seem to pretend that class doesn't exist" I was dissecting his phrase "their class from a very young age" and how why Americans (e.g. USA children's brains) don't even know there are classes and thus, they're unaware which one they are in. Maybe one can call that self-awareness "class consciousness" or something similar but there's a reason Americans do not have it to the same degree as Europeans. In USA, the so-called "classes" are not _overt_ and _blatant_ to the same degree. In contrast, some societies with overt & blatant classes: - India Hindu castes with the "untouchables" - feudalism with "lords" and "serfs" - peerage with titles of nobility America's particular circumstances of nation creation means the class system emerges from money & wealth rather than the 3 examples above from religion or monarchy. A young child in India in the "untouchables" class will be self-aware they're part of the untouchables. And likewise, a serf knows he's not a lord and a lord knows he's not a serf. But an American child in deep south Alabama won't necessarily know they are "hillbillies" or other derogatory terms like "white trash". These are class terms that others give them. In America, "classes" for many people are the proverbial "water that fish don't even know they're swimming in". But to re-state your points a different way... Just because the USA doesn't have overt classes, it doesn't stop "invisible" classes from forming ("old-money") and functioning in similar ways. Some Americans authors are so exquisitely observant of subtle class differences such that they can write books where characters' self-awareness of class adds tension to their novels. Examples being F Scott Fitzgerald "The Great Gatsby" and Edith Wharton novels. Likewise, the readers of those books need to be aware of subtle class distinctions to see the significance of characters living in West Egg vs East Egg -- or that a Wharton character is driving a 2-wheeled horse & buggy instead of a more expensive 4-wheeled carriage.

f17 4y ago

> Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very different from those in Europe. You're arguing semantics because "it's different" in the US, which may be superfically true, but not meaningfully so. This. The idea that we were founded by the industrious poor of Europe doesn't really hold out. People came to the New World with all sorts of different motivations, and from all social classes. The rich who came over to get super-rich got super-rich and their descendants are now the elite. The poors who came over to work in the coal mines stayed poor and their descendants now work at Wal-Mart. And the one-sixth of this country whose ancestors were brought over against their will are still treated horribly because their skin color makes it evident (or at least likely). Not only is social mobility rare, but there's a mean-reversion. Class doesn't prevent you from attaining wealth, but it makes it harder to keep it; there are so many forces in play that most people aren't even aware of, but that exist to keep long-term upward mobility at a minimum. You can get a PhD and work at a FAANG, and you're still going to lose in project allocation and in promotion battles to 23-year-olds whose fathers and grandfathers the VPs are afraid of.

dwater 4y ago
And it's still happening. America is, compared to other first world countries, not the easiest to immigrate to. So out of all immigrants, who would choose to go to America (appreciating that many immigrants don't have much choice)? The ones most aligned with America's opportunities, so people who want to be capitalists. If you value a chance at getting rich over stability and safety, come to America. If you want a strong social safety net and aren't willing to arm yourself against your neighbors, go somewhere else.
WalterBright 4y ago
What rich people immigrated here from Europe and founded dynasties in America? How about one of the richest men in America? The son of a butcher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor#Early_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor#Early_life How about the Kennedys? Irish immigrants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._Kennedy#Early_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._Kennedy#Early_life The Vanderbilts? From an indentured servant coming to America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt#Ancestry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt#Ancestry

Archelaos 4y ago

The term "class" in the sociological sense originated in contrast to the old system of "estates". Originally, it referred to the "tax class" of a (male) person, which formed the basis for census voting rights in both the USA and Europe until well into the 19th century. This is the reason why speaking of an "aristocratic class" remains somewhat inappropriate. The term "class" was introduced specifically to mark the difference between the old society, which was dominated by heritage ("estate"), and the new society, in which this has been replaced by wealth ("class"). That there was a lot of continuity from the old to the new order is another matter. Britian seems to be very special, because there the "upper class" is a mixture of old estate and new wealth (plus celebrities from academic, sport and culture), something that is more or less absent in the rest of Europe. While a poor Lord in England is still a Lord, a poor Graf in Germany is just a poor person.

mercy_dude 4y ago

> Except there's plenty of old-money (hereditary class) in the US that looks, talks and acts exactly like the "class" structures you're claiming are very different from those in Europe. 100%. You also have to keep in mind America is much younger as a nation compared to Europe, but the classism is trending it towards the hereditary classism found in Europe over time.

onetimeusename 4y ago

I think part of this is right. Up until Kennedy's presidency, the country was run by WASPs who make up most of what is called "old money". WASPs probably still exist in some form but I probably wouldn't call them the upper class anymore because they have no power or privilege. In fact, one of their exclusive gateways to retaining power, the Ivy League, has disavowed them and white people as a whole are the only race that is underrepresented relative to population size in the Ivy League. So I do not believe WASPs can claim to be the upper class anymore although I am sure they are relatively well off. Further, as a group Asians are among some of the highest earners so it would be hard to argue that they are part of a lower class despite being so in prior generations. So I do think class has changed in the US over the last 100 years. WASPs might hold some prestige but I think as they lose power they become more irrelevant and less exclusive. I don't think it's straightforward right now who the upper class is. It feels like things are in a state of flux and amorphous or secretive. I completely agree net worth is not the only deciding factor. The upper class will always be a small exclusive group by design so regardless of who is in it, social mobility is probably lower than most people expect. So to sum it up I only disagree with you about the power of "old money" in the US now. I think there is a somewhat parallel class with actual hereditary advantages that is replacing the "old money" class.

abnercoimbre 4y ago
Could you spell out WASP?
- dzdt 4y ago
  White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
- oblak 4y ago
  I am trying to brute force it. It's about half way done at Wealthy Assholes. Need help decrypting the rest, though edit: I see dzdt has provided something useful.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

>> You are either born into these circles or you remain outside of them (for at least a few generations) What can't Jeff Bezos do that he would be able to do if he had parents from a different class?

claudiulodro 4y ago
Get ~$300,000 investment from his parents to start Amazon?
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  His step father was an immigrant from Cuba who came to the US at 16 without being able to speak English. His father ran a bike shop. That's old money?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Ordinary people buy houses for far more than $300,000.
  - lostdog 4y ago
    ...with a mortgage, and the house tends to maintain value. They don't have that kind of money lying around to throw into a risky business.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Not being willing to take the risk is very different from cannot raise the funds. $300,000 is simply not an outsize amount of capital to start a business. People do it all the time. Expect to put out $1.3 to 2.3 million to start a McDonald's franchise, and those are everywhere. (Other franchises are less expensive, not more.) The idea that one has to be rich to raise $300,000 is simply not true.
      - lostdog 4y ago