What is your class status?

[TinCow]

I am intrigued by the apparently common acceptance that class is inextricably linked to income (not even to capital). It must be the influence of the meritocratic aspiration of the United States, as is the idea that class is flexible - in that a single person, let alone a single generation, may easily transfer between classes.

Fascinating. I might submit for discussion that a gentleman is not measured by his wallet.

Ah, Europe. I submit for discussion the the measurement of class based on anything other than wealth is an artificial notion generated over several hundred years by the aristocratic class as they began losing power due to political and social evolution. The modern idea of social class (in the typical European sense) is a largely feudal construct. In early feudal society, class was defined by wealth and power and little else. There were few connotations to education or culture, as the behavior of middle ages nobility was often little better than the behavior of middle ages peasantry, and education was non-existent outside of the Church. However, the rise of the merchant class presented the old feudal nobility with a dilemma: if class were judged purely based on wealth and influence, they would be forced to share power with the upstart merchants. This was unacceptable, so the idea of class based on something more than wealth was slowly adopted. As the middle class continued to grow and the power of the nobility continued to wane (mainly due changing economic power of both groups), this shift in class identification became more pronounced, often with the result that those who were born into nobility were considered upper class even if they were completely destitute, while some of the wealthiest and best educated men in the world were simply one step above peasants.

Over time, this has, in Europe, turned the notion of class into something that is partially innate, and partially social. With peerage essentially dead everywhere, the innate portion is in its last gasps, leaving only the social aspect of the old system intact. This dictates that 'proper' behavior is what defines a gentleman, and little else. While this current emphasis on manners can be admirable when it is divorced from the traditional notion of class superiority, it goes against the entire basis for the social construct we call class. Class was developed as a means of identifying those with power and those without. In the modern world (and frankly throughout most of history), power is in the hands of those with money. Thus, the proper means of evaluating social class in the modern world is by wealth.

This does not mean that this means of evaluation is itself proper or useful in any manner. Indeed, I believe that every person should be judged on their own abilities and accomplishments, not those of their parents. However, if social class must be determined, the proper and historically accurate method of measurement is pure wealth. All else is the residuals left over by a slow shift from aristocratic to democratic governance.

"He who boasts of his ancestry is praising the deeds of another."
-Seneca

[rory_20_uk]

I think you're probably right there, and as a hard and fast rule it makes little sense; as a guide it does have some uses: although there are many exceptions, there are things one would expect from a person in the upper middle (professional) class to do that one would not expect from the lower middle; this does often correlate with money, but not always. Footballers earn in a week more than I do in a year but I'd not describe them as upper class or upper middle.

Other rules of thumb based upon this are stating that it is best to aim to go up one class per generation. Further is possible but likely to be extremely difficult for all sorts of reasons. I have met far more people who struggled at medical school for non-academic reasons who'se parents basically did not understand the realities of the support medical students require financially. This was not the parents did not have the money, merely the "I was working at 14, and you're still wasting time at uni at 20" attitude. My parents were much worse off financially but they still managed to help.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not so sure. Think about what the Upper Class really is, a closed network of wealthy people who are connected by social and famillial ties. I think the American monatory model of Class is a rejection of the reality that such a group exists even in America among the "Old Money" elite.

Such groups affect particular traditions and customs in order to freeze-out outsiders and preserve their power.

[TinCow]

I'm not so sure. Think about what the Upper Class really is, a closed network of wealthy people who are connected by social and famillial ties. I think the American monatory model of Class is a rejection of the reality that such a group exists even in America among the "Old Money" elite.

Such groups affect particular traditions and customs in order to freeze-out outsiders and preserve their power.

I do not think it is a rejection of reality, it is simply a preference for one aspect of wealth over another. Just as the term 'New Money' was derogatory in Europe for quite a while, so too is 'Old Money' derogatory in the United States today (and, I believe, in many western nations as well, even in Europe). Americans praise New Money as the pinnacle of success because New Money is usually obtained by personal achievement. In contrast, money obtained by inheritance carries no connotations of individual ability or worth of any kind. The former, as embodied by people like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Buffet, are considered to have earned their great wealth and (usually) to have brought great benefits to the rest of society. It is not that we ignore the existence of Old Money, but more that it is regularly shunned and considered inferior to New Money, and even much of the normal middle and working classes. For proof of this, you only need to look at politics. Sure, Old Money will beat No Money any day in an election, but New Money almost always beats Old Money.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not think it is a rejection of reality, it is simply a preference for one aspect of wealth over another. Just as the term 'New Money' was derogatory in Europe for quite a while, so too is 'Old Money' derogatory in the United States today (and, I believe, in many western nations as well, even in Europe). Americans praise New Money as the pinnacle of success because New Money is usually obtained by personal achievement. In contrast, money obtained by inheritance carries no connotations of individual ability or worth of any kind. The former, as embodied by people like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Buffet, are considered to have earned their great wealth and (usually) to have brought great benefits to the rest of society. It is not that we ignore the existence of Old Money, but more that it is regularly shunned and considered inferior to New Money, and even much of the normal middle and working classes. For proof of this, you only need to look at politics. Sure, Old Money will beat No Money any day in an election, but New Money almost always beats Old Money.

Dislike for the man born with the sliver sppon is universal among the lower classes, and comes ultimately from jealousy.

Ok, so New Money beats Old in an election, what about buisness and, more importantly, funding elections? Surely "Old Money" throws it's weight around there?

[Fragony]

Dislike for the man born with the sliver sppon is universal among the lower classes, and comes ultimately from jealousy.

Nope. Born with a silver spoon fine, feel good about it, why.

[TinCow]

Ok, so New Money beats Old in an election, what about buisness and, more importantly, funding elections? Surely "Old Money" throws it's weight around there?

I'm not exactly an expert on this since I have nothing to do with politics, but from my general perspective as an American, I don't feel like Old Money controls business or politics in any way. If I had to point a finger at a group that did, I would point the finger at corporations and syndicates. There is a general perception in the US that companies and 'special interests' (which means individuals acting on behalf of entire industries or other large groups) are the ones that influence the results the most. The evil of wealth in the US tends to be seen as the greed and corruption of faceless men heading large businesses, not heirs or trust-fund kids.

I actually don't think most Americans could even name many of their fellow citizens who would qualify as Old Money. Most would probably cite Paris Hilton, who frankly doesn't qualify in any way as her family hasn't been wealthy for long enough and she's actually earned most of her personal wealth herself. You'd probably have some people list the Kennedys and the Rockefellers, both of which are valid choice. However, while the former certainly qualify as Old Money (and are as close to nobility as it's possible to get in the US), that didn't help Caroline Kennedy too much in her attempt to get the NY Senate Seat a few months ago and the Rockefellers are today synonymous with philanthropy. Being married to Teresa Heinz was actually considered a negative thing for John Kerry during his presidential bid, and she wasn't even born into the Heinz family. There are certainly many anonymous American heirs of old fortunes out there somewhere, but if no one knows them or pays attention to them, presumably that's proof enough of how little influence they wield.