5 ms·

Wow. This article gets a lot of things wrong IMO. Their points on saving is stupid, when most people live paycheck to paycheck, and the idea that social class

Wow. This article gets a lot of things wrong IMO. Their points on saving is stupid, when most people live paycheck to paycheck, and the idea that social class isn't about being in X% but the values you have? What a load of crap, here's someone who's in the upper class, who has GREAT values, link: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-20120830,0,3323996.story http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman.... Being in a certain economic class does not give you a certain set of ideal that others lack, nor does it negate you any insight. Everyone is different. Also, the idea that we don't have peasants and lord anymore, really makes me confused, considering I have and know many landlords, and that most people who live in rural areas contribute to the same function as Peasants did (see Farmers). Just because things become more complex doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that their are still owners (lords) and workers (peasants), or that the same idea still isn't absurd (everyone can be rich!!!)... This article contains sweeping generalizations and a gross amount of naivety.

apsec112 14y ago
"Their points on saving is stupid, when most people live paycheck to paycheck" The whole point is that a) people shouldn't live paycheck-to-paycheck, and b) it's entirely possible for people to not do so. Many fewer people lived paycheck-to-paycheck in the 19th century, even though society as a whole was far poorer. (If a farmer had no savings, how would he live through the winter every single year?) "What a load of crap, here's someone who's in the upper class, who has GREAT values, link: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman.... http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman... First, obviously there will be assholes in every class (and indeed every social group). So what? That's always true. What does that prove? Second, that woman isn't even part of the upper class as I've defined it. She inherited her money - she never started or operated a business. She's part of the upper class in the old, medieval sense (inherited aristocracy), but such people are such a tiny fraction of our society that it doesn't seem useful to reserve the monkier "upper class" for them. "considering I have and know many landlords" Huh? Do you really think that a landlord who manages a building is the same kind of person as a medieval warlord who funds his castle's upkeep by raiding peasant villages and stealing their cows? That seems like a deliberate misunderstanding. "live in rural areas contribute to the same function as Peasants did" Peasant doesn't just mean "farmer", but "subsistence farmer who owes duties of obedience to a warlord". We don't have those in the US anymore.

apsec112 14y ago

"Their points on saving is stupid, when most people live paycheck to paycheck" The whole point is that a) people shouldn't live paycheck-to-paycheck, and b) it's entirely possible for people to not do so. Many fewer people lived paycheck-to-paycheck in the 19th century, even though society as a whole was far poorer. (If a farmer had no savings, how would he live through the winter every single year?) "What a load of crap, here's someone who's in the upper class, who has GREAT values, link: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman.... http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman... First, obviously there will be assholes in every class (and indeed every social group). So what? That's always true. What does that prove? Second, that woman isn't even part of the upper class as I've defined it. She inherited her money - she never started or operated a business. She's part of the upper class in the old, medieval sense (inherited aristocracy), but such people are such a tiny fraction of our society that it doesn't seem useful to reserve the monkier "upper class" for them. "considering I have and know many landlords" Huh? Do you really think that a landlord who manages a building is the same kind of person as a medieval warlord who funds his castle's upkeep by raiding peasant villages and stealing their cows? That seems like a deliberate misunderstanding. "live in rural areas contribute to the same function as Peasants did" Peasant doesn't just mean "farmer", but "subsistence farmer who owes duties of obedience to a warlord". We don't have those in the US anymore.