3 ms·

Not even 0.005% of the Indian populace can afford the things I mentioned as examples. Maybe the problem is that we take our cues of what is considered upper cla

by ashray 14y ago

Not even 0.005% of the Indian populace can afford the things I mentioned as examples. Maybe the problem is that we take our cues of what is considered upper class from international standards and therefore fail to acknowledge our own privileges in a local context ?

legutierr 14y ago
I think that being middle class is not about representing any kind of median level of wealth in a population (or other relative measure), but rather has something to do with the kind of resources and income you have access to relative to human needs in an absolute sense. For example, if some, but not all (or even most), of your family members need to work in order to maintain a comfortable lifestyle (which includes healthy food, a home that is not crowded, access to decent education, and one to four vehicles) then you are middle class. If you have to work but don't have these things, then you are lower-income. If you can have these things without working at all in perpetuity, then you are well-off.
- ashray 14y ago
  You're right. However, the difference in India lies in the fact that the lower-income people are .. middle class. Poor people in India are without any real income. Most of them struggle to get two meals a day. A lot of them live on under $2/day without access to food, shelter, sanitation or any type of medical facility. The stark contrast between such a person and another that drives around in an air conditioned SUV is what often shocks people. By comparison, a western middle class person in India would be considered pretty well off! Unfortunately, the Indian upper middle class/upper class do not apply those standards to themselves. There are some people commenting on this topic saying that SV millionaires are not upper class. That sounds ridiculous in India :)
  - theorique 14y ago
    There are some people commenting on this topic saying that SV millionaires are not upper class. That sounds ridiculous in India :) Part of the issue is that lots of people talk about the USA being a "classless society". Some of them even believe it. More than most nations, America loves the idea that a person can arrive as a poor immigrant or be born the child of poor immigrants, apply uncommon drive and intelligence, and create a business that makes him extremely rich. (Whether that is the rule or the rare exception is another question.)
  - intended 14y ago
    Perhaps its the other way round - as in the Indian scale goes from uber rich - upper class - middle class - lower class - impoverished - below poverty line - subsistence.
mayanksinghal 14y ago
> Not even 0.005% of the Indian populace can afford the things I mentioned as examples. Any references for that? The one I found, partly disagrees with your claims [1]. [1] also suggests that wealth disparity in India is better when compared to world. I am not saying the situation is good, but it is not as bloddy and fearing as you suggest it is. And there isn't something very particular about India in this case, I think the problem is a more widespread. And yes, the rich in India compare themselves to global standards when they determine if they are wealthy - because the world is more global now than we would like to believe. You suggest elsewhere that these people are upper class because it takes so little to help the lower classes. If that is any metric, most of the western hemisphere should be categorized as upper class because it helping a significant majority of eastern hemisphere will not have significant negative impact on lifestyle or wealth of the west. [1] http://www.wealthbull.com/stock-market-today/878-wealth-distribution-in-india http://www.wealthbull.com/stock-market-today/878-wealth-dist...

by ashray 14y ago

legutierr 14y ago

I think that being middle class is not about representing any kind of median level of wealth in a population (or other relative measure), but rather has something to do with the kind of resources and income you have access to relative to human needs in an absolute sense. For example, if some, but not all (or even most), of your family members need to work in order to maintain a comfortable lifestyle (which includes healthy food, a home that is not crowded, access to decent education, and one to four vehicles) then you are middle class. If you have to work but don't have these things, then you are lower-income. If you can have these things without working at all in perpetuity, then you are well-off.

ashray 14y ago
You're right. However, the difference in India lies in the fact that the lower-income people are .. middle class. Poor people in India are without any real income. Most of them struggle to get two meals a day. A lot of them live on under $2/day without access to food, shelter, sanitation or any type of medical facility. The stark contrast between such a person and another that drives around in an air conditioned SUV is what often shocks people. By comparison, a western middle class person in India would be considered pretty well off! Unfortunately, the Indian upper middle class/upper class do not apply those standards to themselves. There are some people commenting on this topic saying that SV millionaires are not upper class. That sounds ridiculous in India :)
- theorique 14y ago
  There are some people commenting on this topic saying that SV millionaires are not upper class. That sounds ridiculous in India :) Part of the issue is that lots of people talk about the USA being a "classless society". Some of them even believe it. More than most nations, America loves the idea that a person can arrive as a poor immigrant or be born the child of poor immigrants, apply uncommon drive and intelligence, and create a business that makes him extremely rich. (Whether that is the rule or the rare exception is another question.)
- intended 14y ago
  Perhaps its the other way round - as in the Indian scale goes from uber rich - upper class - middle class - lower class - impoverished - below poverty line - subsistence.

mayanksinghal 14y ago

> Not even 0.005% of the Indian populace can afford the things I mentioned as examples. Any references for that? The one I found, partly disagrees with your claims [1]. [1] also suggests that wealth disparity in India is better when compared to world. I am not saying the situation is good, but it is not as bloddy and fearing as you suggest it is. And there isn't something very particular about India in this case, I think the problem is a more widespread. And yes, the rich in India compare themselves to global standards when they determine if they are wealthy - because the world is more global now than we would like to believe. You suggest elsewhere that these people are upper class because it takes so little to help the lower classes. If that is any metric, most of the western hemisphere should be categorized as upper class because it helping a significant majority of eastern hemisphere will not have significant negative impact on lifestyle or wealth of the west. [1] http://www.wealthbull.com/stock-market-today/878-wealth-distribution-in-india http://www.wealthbull.com/stock-market-today/878-wealth-dist...