The class thread

[Duke Malcolm]

as an off shoot of the social justice thread, I thought it might be nice to start a thread about the social classes. I think first it would be appropriate to define and characterize the classes:

1. The "thrash"

The lowest class, usually unemployed, often drunk. Known by different names in different countries, for instance, the infamous 'chavs'. Actually a very small class, but often appears in concentrated areas.

Education: HS drop outs, mostly
Jobs: what ?
Hobbies: watching reality tv, drinking

2. The lower class (the working class)

One of the big classes, traditionally the biggest class, though not anymore. usually work hard and don't waste too much money on luxuries, tend to like the simple things in life

Education: HS, some additional technical training sometimes
Jobs: The blue collar workers, manual laborers, owners of night shops and food stalls etc
Hobbies: watching soap operas and the like, fishing, bowling or other not too active sports

3. The middle class

the white collar workers, the biggest class of all, they spend most of their life trying to be or at least appear upper class. Tend to look down on the lower class. Care a lot about image. Dream of a house in the suburbs.

Education: HS, higher education, uno
Jobs: office drones, middle and lower management, engineers, small bossiness owners (newspaper shops etc),..
Hobbies: often something active to compensate for their not physically demanding jobs, tend to like to travel, like to appear upper class

4.The upper class

people that are or appear important because of their job or position in society. Usually have demanding jobs the pay a lot.

Education: uni
Jobs: upper management, doctors, politicians
Hobbies: various, though they tend to work a lot

5. the elite

people born into extrodinary wealth and/or fame. Rich bastards that don't have to work if they don't want to.

Education: uni, or nothing if they don't feel like it
Jobs: politicians, big business owners,...
Hobbies: if they work it's basically a hobby for them.

Hmm... I have problems with a few of these definitions. Firstly, I thought the 5 classes were:
Lower-
Lower-Middle-
Middle-
Upper-Middle-
Upper-

Secondly, The "Thrash" and the Lower class are often grouped together, because the former are generally the idle offspring of the latter.

Also, I hardly think most middle-class people try to appear upper-class. They might try and "keep up appearances", that is, be polite and calm, the "stiff upper lip", that sort of thing.
Furthermore on the matter of the elite, they rarely don't have to work if they don't want to. And the idea that the elite are only born into what they have is entirely wrong. Many people achieve that position through hard work, effort, sleep-less nights and such. They also work for philanthropic causes. Lord Sainsbury aims to donate £1 billion to charity, thus he works for that aim, as well as improving his company.

Also, there is more about the mindset of the classes...
Children nowadays are often told that they can achieve anything, which is just plain wrong. Many years ago, they were told that they cannot achieve anything beyond their class, which is also wrong. However, the former produces an idea that society must pay for the lack of achievement. The latter does not, but can stifle achievement.

Some copying and pasting from my post on the Social Justice thread, with a bit added on :-

If you give a lower-class person £10000 much of it would generally become disposable income : if you give a lower-middle- or middle-class person £10000 much of it would generally be put aside for better things - university and school and such : If you give an upper-middle- or upper-class person £10000 much of it would generally be invested in some way.

Even though the lower-class person has more reason to save, to invest, they do not. Why? The Mindset of the classes.

Doc_bean retorted with something, but made a mistake in his typing, so if you could please amend and reproduce here, perhaps...

Perhaps I could write an entire counter-definition...

[doc_bean]

Hmm... I have problems with a few of these definitions. Firstly, I thought the 5 classes were:
Lower-
Lower-Middle-
Middle-
Upper-Middle-
Upper-

Hey, I'm a continental, we've abadoned the class system (in it's formal form) long ago.

Secondly, The "Thrash" and the Lower class are often grouped together, because the former are generally the idle offspring of the latter.

I think this is a bit unfair towards the hard working lower class. There's probably just as much 'trash' that comes from a middle class background.

Also, I hardly think most middle-class people try to appear upper-class. They might try and "keep up appearances", that is, be polite and calm, the "stiff upper lip", that sort of thing.

Well, that's just my experience with what I defined as middle class.

Furthermore on the matter of the elite, they rarely don't have to work if they don't want to. And the idea that the elite are only born into what they have is entirely wrong. Many people achieve that position through hard work, effort, sleep-less nights and such.

Then I would throw them into upper class rather than elite, their children might be elite because they were raised in such a wealthy environment.

They also work for philanthropic causes. Lord Sainsbury aims to donate £1 billion to charity, thus he works for that aim, as well as improving his company.

I said they don't have to work, not that they don't work.

Also, there is more about the mindset of the classes...
Children nowadays are often told that they can achieve anything, which is just plain wrong. Many years ago, they were told that they cannot achieve anything beyond their class, which is also wrong. However, the former produces an idea that society must pay for the lack of achievement. The latter does not, but can stifle achievement.

You can achieve a lot though, if you just put the effort in it. But it's far easier for the rich to achieve something than for the poor.

Some copying and pasting from my post on the Social Justice thread, with a bit added on :-

If you give a lower-class person £10000 much of it would generally become disposable income : if you give a lower-middle- or middle-class person £10000 much of it would generally be put aside for better things - university and school and such : If you give an upper-middle- or upper-class person £10000 much of it would generally be invested in some way.

Even though the lower-class person has more reason to save, to invest, they do not. Why? The Mindset of the classes.

Doc_bean retorted with something, but made a mistake in his typing, so if you could please amend and reproduce here, perhaps...

I've found that the lower class actually tries to save its money more than the middle class. They tend to like simpler (cheaper) things in live, and most work hard (overtime pays, a lot), so I'm not sure about your statement.

Now if you were to give someone poor £10000, they'd probably buy something they needed for a long time. If you give a person of normal wealth £10000, they'd probably save most of it for a rainy day (or travel the world, depending on who you give it to), since they don't need the money as badly as the poor. If you give a rich person £10000 (s)he probably wouldn't care too much about this little extra, and will indeed invest it, since there won't be any need for the money in the short run anyway.

The upper class, or generally, rich people, doesn't necessarily have better character or more intelligence than the lower class. It takes money to make money, the rich just have it easier in life and can afford to pay a not-so-good-student's way through uni, a luxury not everyone has.