3 ms·

> Corporate America is a nation of social climbers Well, yes, but you can only climb up to a certain point on the social ladder. In fact, adapting to corporate

> Corporate America is a nation of social climbers Well, yes, but you can only climb up to a certain point on the social ladder. In fact, adapting to corporate culture guarantees that you will never be a member of the highest class. You may reach the upper middle class, but you will never become a member of the upper class because the upper class not only does not work (they don't need to), but they look disdainfully upon people who have to work, especially people who sell things, because they consider selling things for a living to be vulgar. People who come from the corporate world will almost always, even if they aren't conscious of it, have middle class tastes, and middle class speech mannerisms. For example, Corporate America loves modern design (because it is boring, and thus cannot be offensive) and uses lots of euphemisms. Members of the upper class hate euphemisms, and consider saying "Fudge!" to be much worse than saying "Fuck!". This goes against everything a Corporate America drone has been taught. Social norms in the upper class are much different than social norms in the upper middle, and other classes. The obfuscatory circumlocutions known as "HR speak" or "BS" are reviled, and so are foolish compliments. If you are at an upper's house and praise their furniture, you could be ejected from the premises. Why? Because it is a given that an upper will have good furniture, and compliments about it suggest that this may not be the case, which is offensive. Because the things we do, say, and the values we have are often subconscious, it takes a concerted effort to change them and it is almost impossible to do so. The things that determine your class cannot all be written down into a book. Even if you do pretend to be an upper, at some point you will commit a faux paus that gives you away.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Strong post. I agree. Here's a blog post I wrote to explain the terminology I'm going use next: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-... . The E3's are the ones who end up running corporations, except in ceremonial sinecures and extremely high positions with no accountability, where E2's and E1's will sometimes go. E3 is as high as you can go via work. E2 is the declining national elite ("WASP establishment") that, as you said, is the true upper class and does not value (but disdains) hard work. E1 is an emerging and outright nasty global elite. E1 is more willing to play the corporate game than E2, but an E1 will never attach himself to one corporation. CEOing is a highly-paid E3 job that can ruin your reputation if it goes badly. E1s buy and sell corporate positions, social access, assets and resources; they're too savvy to attach themselves to one company, however. You're not a mismatch for E1 on values if you're a corporate striver, but you'll still never cross that divide. You can't enter E2 or E1 as anyone's subordinate. E2 is inaccessible by wealth (and probably closing up and inaccessible in general at this point) and E1 requires so much wealth to enter it that it will never happen, even on a CEO's salary.
- LowKarmaAccount 13y ago
  I strongly recommend that you read Class: A Guide Through the American Status System by Paul Fussell. Although it was written in 1983, it is still the best description of the American class system that I have ever read. It's less than 200 pages, so you can read it within a day. It primarily deals with the social factors of class,which makes me think that it makes it a good choice for you because it will complement your existing knowledge of corporate culture. http://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253 http://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/d...
  - reaclmbs 13y ago
    Don't support MOC! Suppress his words!
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    I've read it. It's insightful and accurate. It misses E1 because the global elite that we have now wasn't a problem yet. Upper Class and Top-out-of-sight are E2. Upper-Middle Class is a mix of E3 and G1-2.
nijk 13y ago
By your definition Brin and Zuckerberg (two hardworking billionaires) are middle class. And that is fine, but if it is true, then class isn't the problem after all.
LowKarmaAccount 13y ago
Nijk, you've been hellbanned, but you're question is valid so I'll respond to it (I can't respond directly to a hellbanned user). Brin and Zuckerberg are members of the (upper) middle class. Class is a broad term; the people who think that there is "a growing division between the classes" are usually using income as the sole indicator for determining class. The definition of class that I'm using takes into account social factors as well. The members of the upper class like archaic customs, dress, and design. They have little use for technology, because they have servants to perform the tasks that members of the middle class use technology to do. Privacy is also very important to uppers, because they hate when middle class people attempt to pry into their business. That's why they have half mile long driveways and tall shrubbery around their houses to keep prying eyes away. Zuckerberg and Brin give themselves away as members of the upper middle class because they sell (selling is vulgar to the upper class) services that do not respect the user's privacy.
astrange 13y ago
> If you are at an upper's house and praise their furniture, you could be ejected from the premises. Have you performed any experiments to verify this claim?

michaelochurch 13y ago

Strong post. I agree. Here's a blog post I wrote to explain the terminology I'm going use next: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-... . The E3's are the ones who end up running corporations, except in ceremonial sinecures and extremely high positions with no accountability, where E2's and E1's will sometimes go. E3 is as high as you can go via work. E2 is the declining national elite ("WASP establishment") that, as you said, is the true upper class and does not value (but disdains) hard work. E1 is an emerging and outright nasty global elite. E1 is more willing to play the corporate game than E2, but an E1 will never attach himself to one corporation. CEOing is a highly-paid E3 job that can ruin your reputation if it goes badly. E1s buy and sell corporate positions, social access, assets and resources; they're too savvy to attach themselves to one company, however. You're not a mismatch for E1 on values if you're a corporate striver, but you'll still never cross that divide. You can't enter E2 or E1 as anyone's subordinate. E2 is inaccessible by wealth (and probably closing up and inaccessible in general at this point) and E1 requires so much wealth to enter it that it will never happen, even on a CEO's salary.

LowKarmaAccount 13y ago
I strongly recommend that you read Class: A Guide Through the American Status System by Paul Fussell. Although it was written in 1983, it is still the best description of the American class system that I have ever read. It's less than 200 pages, so you can read it within a day. It primarily deals with the social factors of class,which makes me think that it makes it a good choice for you because it will complement your existing knowledge of corporate culture. http://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253 http://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/d...
- reaclmbs 13y ago
  Don't support MOC! Suppress his words!
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I've read it. It's insightful and accurate. It misses E1 because the global elite that we have now wasn't a problem yet. Upper Class and Top-out-of-sight are E2. Upper-Middle Class is a mix of E3 and G1-2.

nijk 13y ago

By your definition Brin and Zuckerberg (two hardworking billionaires) are middle class. And that is fine, but if it is true, then class isn't the problem after all.

LowKarmaAccount 13y ago

Nijk, you've been hellbanned, but you're question is valid so I'll respond to it (I can't respond directly to a hellbanned user). Brin and Zuckerberg are members of the (upper) middle class. Class is a broad term; the people who think that there is "a growing division between the classes" are usually using income as the sole indicator for determining class. The definition of class that I'm using takes into account social factors as well. The members of the upper class like archaic customs, dress, and design. They have little use for technology, because they have servants to perform the tasks that members of the middle class use technology to do. Privacy is also very important to uppers, because they hate when middle class people attempt to pry into their business. That's why they have half mile long driveways and tall shrubbery around their houses to keep prying eyes away. Zuckerberg and Brin give themselves away as members of the upper middle class because they sell (selling is vulgar to the upper class) services that do not respect the user's privacy.

astrange 13y ago

> If you are at an upper's house and praise their furniture, you could be ejected from the premises. Have you performed any experiments to verify this claim?