of classes

[roid]

do you think we live in class based society?
and what are your thoughts on it... as in, is the whole system worth acknowledging? or does it make you sick beyond even that.

we live in tiers of various class based societys, all having differing symbols of wealth.
there's money. that's the obvious one everyone seems to think of first.

but those who don't have money, or won't touch the stuff - there are other classes within their own systems, such as (but not limited to of course):

military. i'd say this was a system in it's own.

scientific.
medical. these 2 systems i'd group together, being so similar, they have such similar classes to chase after within them. these 2 systems don't seem so bad at all, why is that.

it's an open topic, dump your thoughts on it

[Avder]

We live in a Three-Tier society.

The Rich

The In-Betweens

And The Dirt Poor's.

[Lothar]

There are certainly differences between the really rich, the really poor, and the in-between... but not nearly to the level I think of when I think about traditional "class" societies. We're not an "everybody is equal and has exactly the same stuff" society, but the differences between people of different economic levels are small enough that they're not really a problem (I can't speak to Australia's system.)

We don't have different voting rights for different classes / economic levels. [Cue: Goob, complaining about minority disenfranchisement.] We don't have different laws for different classes. We don't have laws that lock people who start in one class into that class for life.

Now, the active military is something of a class of its own, in that its members don't have much interaction with the rest of society. But other than that, at least in my experience, people from most classes (including the sciences) regularly interact with people from other classes on a personal level. People in the sciences, the poor, the rich, or whatever interact with a lot of people from other backgrounds and other economic levels (though not necessarily EVERY other level.)

Slightly related: I remember an interesting comment I read from an EMT. He said he'd often be called to a medical emergency for somebody poor, and he'd go into their house and it would be messy and smell bad, but the computer would be hooked up to the cable internet and people would be watching cable TV and whoever had the emergency called from a cell phone. A friend of mine whose social security insurance is his only income (less than $600/month, plus about $80/month food stamps) still has a computer, a cell phone, and cable TV. There are poor people in this country -- but they're nothing like "the poor" as traditionally understood or as understood in most other countries.

[roid]

the poor in our cultures are like you describe with cable tv, internet and cell phones because they are living beyond their means so they can "Keep up with the Jones's". the marketing and advertisement industrys have much blame there.

it's like fat chicks walking around with midriff (no, i'll call it GUT) showing shirts. do they not know how horrible they look? do these people not know how horribly kept and unsanitary their homes are? those things must not be glamourised in their minds as much as the latest in fashion.
it's not poor. it's ★■◆●ing disgusting and stupid. you can be poor without being stupid and disgusting.

yes it's very true, we don't have laws that lock people into one class.
HOWEVER, i think there are differing voting rights for various classes. not "voting" per-se, but the upper classes have access to methods of getting what they want, even better than "voting".

watch the policeman protect the upperclass FROM the lower classes.

it's not just in money based class. obviously the upper classes of military are the ones in their system who have the power.
my only point in initially bringing the military into this, was that i wanted to be able to bring this out: That although the military, and science/medical fields are similar in their respective system's classes, to me they seem - USING CLASS BASED CONCEPTS - to be almost the exact opposites of eachother.

in science/medicine you will be the most respected (by me) by how much you help other people, and how you show your priorities - are they money or idealism.

and then, there are classes within an intelectual social system - rewarding the most inteligent uber geeks with alpha geek status .

what is class based on in the military system, what is the "currency", the symbols (perhaps invisible) of wealth? theoretically... and practically.

[dissent]

Yeah, sure.

Some people have class, some people have no class, and some people are in-between.

But seriously, folks ...

[Will Robinson]

the poor in our cultures are like you describe with cable tv, internet and cell phones because they are living beyond their means so they can "Keep up with the Jones's". the marketing and advertisement industrys have much blame there.

Lol!

[woodchip]

Slightly related: I remember an interesting comment I read from an EMT. He said he'd often be called to a medical emergency for somebody poor, and he'd go into their house and it would be messy and smell bad, but the computer would be hooked up to the cable internet and people would be watching cable TV

When I was down in Honduras on a bird shooting trip, going by peasants one room adobe houses with hammocks for beds, all of them had electricity and all of them had a T.V.

[Foil]

We don't have different laws for different classes. We don't have laws that lock people who start in one class into that class for life....

You're right, in that people aren't legally bound to a given lifestyle.

We also have to look at the forces which tend to keep the poor in their poverty, and/or unfairly protect the super-wealthy from economic downfall. These kinds of influences do exist (i.e. some types of tax benefits, educational systems in minority areas, etc.).

The economic gap between the rich and poor gets wider every year (and thus, the "middle class" gets smaller every year). So even though we don't have anything near an (economic) class society, there are some clear trends in that direction.

There are poor people in this country -- but they're nothing like "the poor" as traditionally understood or as understood in most other countries.

Very, very true. In third-world countries, even the relatively rich sometimes don't even have access to the things that many lower-income Americans take for granted.

On the other hand, there is a pervasive stereotype about the poor in America, which says that "they're just slobs who really could work for a living, and they all have cable TV and cell phones anyway".

While this is true of some, the truth is that there is a much larger group of people who are impoverished for reasons beyond their control (mostly, who can't work, or are the working poor), and many of these don't even have homes, much less cable TV outlets. To see this, just go down to your local homeless shelter; better yet, go see that area under the bridge or in the alley where the poorest of the poor stay. (And please don't come back with the standard "it's their fault they're on the street!" argument; some of them may have mental/alchohol/drug problems, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore our ethical duty to help them as much as we can.)

[Lothar]

We also have to look at the forces which tend to keep the poor in their poverty...

Yes, of course -- but certainly not as powerful as the forces that exist in societies with a true "class" structure. There are also forces at work trying to reduce the aforementioned forces -- things like special inner-city / low-income education programs (like the GK-12 program I worked for).

The economic gap between the rich and poor gets wider every year (and thus, the "middle class" gets smaller every year).

I've heard that stated over and over again for the past 15 years, yet the middle class seems to be alive and well in this country. (Also: that site has some pretty loony ideas in some of its other articles.)

I've always wondered, though: does it matter what the income gap is? I seriously don't care how much Bill Gates is making. It doesn't matter. What matters is how well off those at the bottom of the ladder are -- not how far above those at the top are.

To see this, just go down to your local homeless shelter; better yet, go see that area under the bridge or in the alley where the poorest of the poor stay.

Or maybe I could go down to the food bank I helped build back in Denver, or the homeless ministry I deliver food to, or the cluster housing unit where my not-quite-sane friend lives on under $600/month, or any of the 3 shelters I've helped people move into our out of in the past year.

I'm not ignorant of the plight of the poor. I know the sort of problems that plague the systems to help the poor, too -- especially here in Seattle. But I also know that, in this society, the "class" system is a lot weaker than in most other societies, to the point where I don't think it even makes sense to call it a class system (that's such an impersonal term.) Call it what it is -- a collection of individuals in varying circumstances and with varying skills, with some needing more help than others. Once we've recognized it for what it is, maybe we can do a better job of dealing with the problems that hit the people on the lowest end of our society.

[Foil]

...There are also forces at work trying to reduce the aforementioned forces -- things like special inner-city / low-income education programs (like the GK-12 program I worked for)....

Agreed! Those kinds of programs, as well as church/individual-sponsored programs, are absolutely vital, and despite what some people think, they make a huge difference!

Note: I didn't mean for my post to appear as a debate to yours; I just wanted to use your thoughts as a "launch point". Guess I have some BB etiquette to learn.

The economic gap between the rich and poor gets wider every year...

...that site has some pretty loony ideas in some of its other articles...

I found the link while doing a quick search for something to reinforce what I meant. Looking back at the site, I see what you mean. My bad.

...maybe I could go down to the food bank I helped build back in Denver, or the homeless ministry I deliver food to, or the cluster housing unit where my not-quite-sane friend lives on under $600/month, or any of the 3 shelters I've helped people move into our out of in the past year... I'm not ignorant of the plight of the poor...

I didn't mean to imply that you were. Again, I just wanted to make a point, because the thread was starting to head in a "poor people have nothing to complain about" direction.

...to the point where I don't think it even makes sense to call it a class system (that's such an impersonal term.)

I wouldn't call our society a "class system", either. But as my wife (who has a degree in Sociology) would say, there are some forces of the U.S. culture which still divide people, especially in terms of economic status, and the overall trends in this area are still pretty negative.

From what it seems, you're much more aware of this issue than most people (and sad to say, most Christians). With all the selfish crap I see at work all the time, it's good to hear about someone working to make a difference...

[roid]

the poor in our cultures are like you describe with cable tv, internet and cell phones because they are living beyond their means so they can "Keep up with the Jones's". the marketing and advertisement industrys have much blame there.

Lol!

please post content. i don't know what you're laughing at.

[Will Robinson]

please post content. i don't know what you're laughing at.

Blaming advertising for the fact that some people try to live beyond their means.

[Ford Prefect]

The Economist had an excellent article in the January 1-7 issue titled Meritocracy in America:â??Ever Higher Society, Ever Harder to Ascend,â?

[roid]

please post content. i don't know what you're laughing at.

Blaming advertising for the fact that some people try to live beyond their means.

it's a factor. and i stand by my statement.
you must consider, by using the word "blame" i am not suggesting to sue these industrys (pardon my pre-emption if this wasn't what you were reading into my posts).

you still havn't posted your thoughts on the matter. i do hope my close talking is fogging the sights on your sniping gun.

[Will Robinson]

Ok, I'll bite.
Advertising is a factor in getting people to spend too much and live beyond their means just like gravity and tall buildings are a factor in causing the death of people who jump off in a suicidal swan dive.

As to classes within our society I can't speak to other countries but here in the barbaric U.S. we have no "class system".
A crack head can be mayor of the nations capital and dirt poor farmers can become president, filthy rich go to prison on a regular basis.
As to other measures of 'class' like geography or family history or any other benchmark you care to use it seems they are used by some people to form cliques but they are not supported by law. Your example of "watch the police protect the rich from the poor" holds no water here. Maybe your point holds true in your country but not here. We have more police providing service to the poor than the rich because that is where the majority of crime is...Duh.

We have "classes" based on income but people are free to move in and out of the different levels and often do. There is more opportunity for middle and upper income people because people like to business with like minded people and with people who can fund their own enterprise. I'd rather partner up with someone who has a good idea and will finance his half of the risk than someone with a good idea but wants me to finance the whole risk.

Also race is a factor, people tend to gravitate to relationships with people that look like they do. Marriage, picking a neighborhood for your home, picking a seat in the school cafeteria....black, white, brown, it doesn't matter, people of all races tend to flock together. That is why we see minorities get less opportunity than whites because a poor white guy can get an interview with a rich white business owner a little easier than a brown or black man can.
Since the majority of businesses are owned by whites that's the way it is. It's not a conscious effort so much as a natural phenomenon.

As to the military, it's important that the military has that system and you shouldn't try to judge the civilian population by factoring in the internal structure of the military as if it represents the civilian society, it doesn't. The military is a machine, there is nothing fair about it, it wasn't designed to be fair and fair is something that would weaken it. Leave it alone.

As to science / acedemia I spent very little time there and don't know enough to comment on it.

So to summarize, we do have some economic divisions and you could call them 'classes' but it's not at all like the class system from other cultures where it is enforced by governments and citizens are openly forbidden to cross the lines.
We have lines that are drawn up by human nature, by pure instinct and also by a persons economic resources *but* citizens are encouraged to cross those lines by our government and even subsidized by government to facilitate the move. Those that suceed in crossing the line are celebrated by society as heros, the proverbial american success story.

[Lothar]

The Economist had an excellent article...

Woo, fun with statistics.

Here's an outline of the article:
1) income at the very top of the ladder grows a lot faster than income at the bottom of the ladder
2) the very top politicians all come from very top families
3) "surprisingly" people don't jump from the bottom 1/5 to the top 1/5 as often as in years past
4) same thing happened in the 1880's, and then rich people started spending a lot on philanthropy
5) there don't appear to be signs of a similar reform movement now, probably because (a) people engage in competition their whole lives, and don't realize they're mostly competing with people identical to them and (b) universities are reinforcing patterns that tend to give them higher-income students and (c) companies are becoming more efficient so it's harder to go from bottom to top.

I've already discussed point (1) -- essentially, I don't care about income gap, and neither should anyone else. If quality of life is improving for the person at the bottom, who cares if the person at the top has a faster increase?

Point (2) is more an indictment of our political system than society as a whole. It's only slightly relevant, if at all.

Point (3) is the crux of the matter -- they say it's surprising that people aren't making the jump from lower to higher as often as before. Here, I think, the statistics are misleading. That is, they're looking at jumping from lower percentiles to higher percentiles, and noticing it's getting harder. Well, OF COURSE! The percentiles have gotten farther apart (see item 1.) If the 20th %ile of income is $20,000 and the 80th %ile is $200,000 it's easier to make the jump than if it's $30,000 to $3,000,000.

What I'd be interested to see is how often people are making the jump in real (or adjusted) dollar amounts -- not in comparison to the rest of society, but in comparison to themselves. That is, is it more or less likely for someone to jump from $20,000 to $200,000 income now than it was 10 years ago (possibly adjusted for inflation)? It might not be easier to jump from $20,000 to "within the top 20%", but again, I'm less concerned with "the top 20%" than I am with simple increases in overall income.

I don't know what to make of point (5), except to say that there are still a LOT of programs out there designed to help those whose circumstances put them in a crappy spot.

Overall, the article seemed much more concerned with whether or not people were breaking into the top few % of the population, income-wise, than with whether or not those at the bottom were able to gain ground. That is, it spent far more time talking about the possible formation of an "elite" than about whether or not the poor were stuck being poor. There was far too much concern there for the fact that rich people's kids tend to remain rich -- as if that's somehow a problem.