What is your class status?

[CountArach]

My family is probably upper-middle class. Obviously I don't really identify with this and indeed my parents don't either. My grandfather on my father's side was a working class builder who dragged himself up to middle class, so that could perhaps explain why my father doesn't identify along this class line. I'm (hopefully) going to end up in much the same place if I can pull off my plans to get a PhD in history.

[Caius]

I can't identificate my family and my economical situation. The analisys of our lifes here is constructed in the basis that "can live well", or not. My father is engineer, and I will be engineer too. My mother was teacher of P.D., but when she had me, she left her job. And never returned. We had bad and good times. It is not a commie capricho, it is life.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Cute Wolf]

Meh... dividing people by class is a good way to get another revolution... better keeping the peace... class aren't important, that's important is contribution...

[Fragony]

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.

Got a point there. My sister's husband is dirt-poor but he comes from a very wealthy family. He considers himself to be upper class, the arrogant little prick.

[Megas Methuselah]

Got a point there. My sister's husband is dirt-poor but he comes from a very wealthy family. He considers himself to be upper class, the arrogant little prick.

I don't think that's exactly what he meant, but a good point nonetheless.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

I'm rather inclined to agree, money has nothing to do with Class, merely the ability to affect the trappings of it. I was discussing this on Saturday with a friend of mine in rural Hampshire while we ruminating on the severe lack of English tennis players. What he said was this:

In the Working Class you are expected to earn money with your hands.

In the Middle Class you earn with your brain.

In the Upper Class you suceed by virtue of your inheritence and inate talent.

I think this is true, though I would add that ownership is a mark of the Middle Class and up. A wealthy farmer will amass land not only by hard work, but also by good management, placing him above the Working Class.

Interestingly, this also places most artisans (builders, Carpenters, Plumbers) in the Wrking Class, unless they are what we used to call a Master, in which case they would be Middle Class, I suppose.

I think this works even in the US, where you have Blue Collar, White Collar and Old Money. Even here the consistant picture is that although you can, with difficulty, move between Working and Middle Class, you can only be born into the Upper Class; or perhaps marry into it.

[CountArach]

Meh... dividing people by class is a good way to get another revolution... better keeping the peace... class aren't important, that's important is contribution...

On the contrary, class is crucially important. In fact you acknowledge this in your post in the bolded section. That someone can see that class would lead to revolution is as good a reason as any to remove class distinctions. In order to remove the class distinctions we must first acknowledge that class distinctions exist.

And if we are judging by contribution then I think we can say our current system is rather poor...

[Meneldil]

My dad is teacher, my mum is nurse. Both are coming from upper middle class, though my mother would now be considered lower middle-class on a purely money-making basis.

Personally, I think this whole topic is useless as long as nobody defines what is a class. Are we using Marx's classification system? The oversimplistic anglo-saxon three classes one? Is class only defined by income? Are education and family to be taken into account as well?
I find Marx's theory to be at least as valuable as the lower/middle/upper class system. The french classification also has its flaws, as it only takes job into account. I'd be defined as a student. Is a student part of the lower/middle/upper class? Does he belong to the petty bourgeoisie? Obviously it depends on his education and social background, and those are apparently not even considered in the lower/middle/upper class idea.

In short, I don't even know what class I do belong to. I don't make any money most of the time (I only work during summer), my education level is - I'd say - higher than it is for most of the population. My familly has both upper class and working class roots. And there I am.

[miotas]

Upper class may be less physical work for more money, but they tend to do longer hours. Middle class would probably have more free time than upper or lower.

[Furunculus]

My dad is teacher, my mum is nurse.

same here.

one side of the family was catholic working class scouser, whose father worked in the docks, and was the first of their family to go to university.

the other side was anglican, home counties, well-to-do army officers who drifted between india, japan and hong-kong, and are connected to the 19th century hong-kong banking magnates.

bit of a mix.

[Andres]

Just like Meneldil's parents, my father was a teacher (primary school) and my mother a nurse (both are retired now).

As for myself, I finished law school and now find myself in the middle class, according to the standards of this thread. My wife has a master degree in history. Our incomes are decent. No debts, except a mortgage.

In our family, I was the first to go to university.

[pevergreen]

Educationally, both parents top out at Working Class, Dad having gone straight from school to two jobs, mum..I'm not sure.

Dad's tale through life inspires me. He went from working two jobs, of which his main one was sitting at the expo's at a booth all day, to working in a servo, to managing, to an office job for Caltex, to regional, to state, to state managerial, to owning 3 servo's, to General Manager of a chain of stores to the military, then acting CEO, then CEO and now Dealer Principle of a communications store to the small business market. He has put work first his entire life, barely being involved in his kids (mine and others) lives, but he has never given the illusion of being stressed or on the edge, even though I now know how close we have come to having nothing many times, including quite recently. However, we seem (to me) to function as middle class, with my older brother getting a degree and being offered a discount to keep studying at the uni (accepted as the 3rd best in Australia, best in our state) myself and my sister both on academic scholarships at private schools (however mine cost about half of hers, and I'm finished now...and I didnt do too well)

Where am I going...I'ma shut up now, I got work in the morning.

[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.

[SwordsMaster]

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

Exactly. I would base the differenciation more on education, general culture, interests, and lifestyle.

My parents are difficult to define: They were both brought up in the USSR (my dad an engineer, my mom a computer programmer) and moved to Europe in 92. My dad, through evolutions and lots of hardship (even I remember weeks we had to eat beans and bread, literally, because that's all there was) has managed to climb up the ladder into middle class. My mom, with 3 kids, stayed at home with us.

My dad was college educated, my mom I suppose had what you'd call an associate's degree these days. In terms of education, culture, and interests, i'd say my mom is upper-middle class, and my dad middle class.

Myself I have a masters degree from a good university, have no debts (thanks to my own hard work, and my parents' generosity) and I consider myself upper-middle class with aristocratic tendencies even though i don't really fit into the salary bracket. My lifestyle is financed mainly through gambling and living in countries where 1 Euro/USD goes much further than it does in the home country.

After all, wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said "A gentleman who lives within his means suffers from lack of imagination"?

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think I wanna pick that one, but do not understand "Curries". A store?

Yeah, it's a store that sells general electric appliances etc... I think I went and spelled it wrong... it should be "Currys".

[drone]

My mother's father was from working class, who brought himself into middle class thanks to the US Army Air Corps pilot training during WWII. My mother's mother was from upper middle class (dentist). My father's parents were middle class, descended from upper class "dispossessed" from the Civil War. I grew up middle class, and would probably be upper middle class by now if I had any real ambition. Instead, I prefer to post here and slack.

[Vladimir]

Everyone says they are middle class, because they don't want to be at the "bottom". There is always the underclass too, which isn't mentioned on the charts which is the non-working classes. Only real classes are the people and the elites, the rest and there just to divide people.

Hah! Thanks for the chart but it doesn't factor cost of living. According to that chart I'm upper-middle but I live near DC so deduct about 30k from my worth.

[Samurai Waki]

my view on "class" makes absolutely no distinction as to the worth of a person's character. Obviously classes based on wealth do exist, but purely on a materialistic basis, which should not, but unfortunately does, dictate the temperament of far too many people.

[Romanus]

Measuring class based on wealth, how vulgar. Class is about culture, good manners, education.

[TinCow]

Measuring class based on wealth, how vulgar. Class is about culture, good manners, education.

Ironically, measuring someone's class based on those criteria strikes me as far more elitist than measuring based on wealth. It is entirely possible for a poor person from an inner city or a rural area to become successful, contribute a great deal to society, and yet never have a formal education or travel enough to become 'cultured.' While good manners are perfectly accessible to even the poorest people, the whole concept of manners is defined by what the upper class finds acceptable. The poorer you are, the less likely you are to have been raised in a manner that will be deemed acceptable by upper class standards.

The end result of this is that by using these criteria for class, there is a perpetuation of the class divide purely based on one's ancestry. Those who were born into upper class families remain upper class, even if they are lazy louts who accomplish nothing. Those who are born into poor families continue to be regard as 'vulgar' even if they have become icons of industry and gained great political power. This is exactly what I described before: a method for the increasingly obsolete hereditary aristocracy to maintain their elitism despite becoming increasingly less useful to society as a whole.

[rory_20_uk]

If they are thought of as "vulgar" more fool the dolts that think that way:

Coming from poor / ill-educated roots be a massive success is very rare. Vulgar is Latin for common...

[SwordsMaster]

Ironically, measuring someone's class based on those criteria strikes me as far more elitist than measuring based on wealth. It is entirely possible for a poor person from an inner city or a rural area to become successful, contribute a great deal to society, and yet never have a formal education or travel enough to become 'cultured.' While good manners are perfectly accessible to even the poorest people, the whole concept of manners is defined by what the upper class finds acceptable. The poorer you are, the less likely you are to have been raised in a manner that will be deemed acceptable by upper class standards.

It is exactly why class is a different concept from wealth. Anyone can be wealthy. Just because someone won the lottery doesn't make them upper class. It is culture, education, tastes and manners that distinguish between classes.

From the relevant definition: Class:
a. A social stratum whose members share certain economic, social, or cultural characteristics.
b. Social rank or caste, especially high rank.
c. Elegance of style, taste, and manner.

As you can see, economic situation is only one of the criteria.

[TinCow]

It is exactly why class is a different concept from wealth. Anyone can be wealthy. Just because someone won the lottery doesn't make them upper class. It is culture, education, tastes and manners that distinguish between classes.

From the relevant definition: Class:
a. A social stratum whose members share certain economic, social, or cultural characteristics.
b. Social rank or caste, especially high rank.
c. Elegance of style, taste, and manner.

As you can see, economic situation is only one of the criteria.

I don't disagree that that is the current basis on which class is determined. It certainly is. However, I do believe this has not always been the case, and I believe that the decreasing emphasis on wealth is the result of the loss of wealth and power by nobility across the globe, not because of the inherent attributes of 'class' itself. As I see it, the current definition of class is artificial and has been distorted from the much older version of 'class' which placed greater emphasis on money and power and less on individual behavior. There are many people who would have been considered 'upper class' 2000 years ago who would not have been upper class in Victorian Britain, and vice versa.