4 ms·

Not that Marc Andreessen is necessarily /right/, but the argument that the middle class "definitely exists" is, like any statement in sociology, rather difficul

Not that Marc Andreessen is necessarily /right/, but the argument that the middle class "definitely exists" is, like any statement in sociology, rather difficult to prove. In fact, "middle class" means different things in different places. In Britain, "middle class" generally refers to doctors, lawyers, bankers, senior government officials and many entrepreneurs. The higher rank "upper class" is historically reserved for genuine aristocrats - if you're not a Lord, Viscount, Baronet etc. then you're not upper class, no matter how wealthy you are. Richard Branson is "middle class" by this definition. Essentially, British middle-classness is about values rather than economic status; even a poor person can be middle class if they listen to Radio 4. (I simplify, but not by much). Marxists (again, simplifying) generally describe the "middle class" as being a fairly narrow band of people who benefit from capitalism by virtue of occupying privileged positions - bankers, CEOs and so on - without actually being capitalists (owners of capital) themselves. In Marxist analysis, this middle class is effectively bribed to support capitalism by being rewarded with power over their fellow workers, but this power is always exercised on behalf of the capitalists. Weirdly, this idea of a narrow middle class of functionaries acting in close concert with [venture] capitalists is pretty close to the Andreessen world view as described in the OP! If we accept the mainstream American definition of middle class as being about income levels, then Andreessen can still be correct if we read him as saying that the middle class does not /inevitably/ exist, or is not /inevitably/ as large as it is now. Falling median income in the US could, if continued, result in the eventual shrinkage of the middle class, or the redefinition of 'middle class' to include poorer people.

Turing_Machine 14y ago
"even a poor person can be middle class if they listen to Radio 4." If I understand the British system correctly, a poor person can even be upper class if he happens to be a Viscount whose family has fallen on hard times. Is that right?
- _mhp_ 14y ago
  Yes. A substantial fraction of the upper classes are quite poor, for many reasons, not least the rising costs of maintaining a family home. Some even turn to TV to help defray the costs, such as Francis Fulford in the series 'The F*ing Fulfords' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fucking_Fulfords http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fucking_Fulfords). You can probably find clips on Youtube.
henrikschroder 14y ago
> If we accept the mainstream American definition of middle class as being about income levels, then Andreessen can still be correct if... That's a lot of hoops, and at the end you get a result that doesn't really say anything interesting about changes in society. :-) In the European definition of class, the big divider between working class and middle class is the value placed on education, and the optimism of the middle class. They believe that through the power of education they will have boundless opportunities as adults to shape their lives, lead a good life, and see their own children do the same. And that class of people is growing, those values are spreading, so under that definition he is clearly wrong. But as you say, under the American definition, yeah median income might be falling, and that makes him technically right. But is that position useful if the values of the middle class are spreading? If I were to make meaningful predictions about society, I would place greater importance to people's hopes and dreams and visions of the future, than changes in disposable income...

Turing_Machine 14y ago

"even a poor person can be middle class if they listen to Radio 4." If I understand the British system correctly, a poor person can even be upper class if he happens to be a Viscount whose family has fallen on hard times. Is that right?

_mhp_ 14y ago
Yes. A substantial fraction of the upper classes are quite poor, for many reasons, not least the rising costs of maintaining a family home. Some even turn to TV to help defray the costs, such as Francis Fulford in the series 'The F*ing Fulfords' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fucking_Fulfords http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fucking_Fulfords). You can probably find clips on Youtube.

henrikschroder 14y ago

> If we accept the mainstream American definition of middle class as being about income levels, then Andreessen can still be correct if... That's a lot of hoops, and at the end you get a result that doesn't really say anything interesting about changes in society. :-) In the European definition of class, the big divider between working class and middle class is the value placed on education, and the optimism of the middle class. They believe that through the power of education they will have boundless opportunities as adults to shape their lives, lead a good life, and see their own children do the same. And that class of people is growing, those values are spreading, so under that definition he is clearly wrong. But as you say, under the American definition, yeah median income might be falling, and that makes him technically right. But is that position useful if the values of the middle class are spreading? If I were to make meaningful predictions about society, I would place greater importance to people's hopes and dreams and visions of the future, than changes in disposable income...