RE: Class Warfare

RE: Class Warfare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 6:19:23 AM)
That there's no universally recognized definition of middle class means there's disagreement about where to draw the lines -- not that the definition should be in the top 10% of income earners. Ask the question a different way to people: "Do you think people at the line of the top 10% of income earners are in the middle class?" without telling them the income amount. "Should they be included in programs to help the middle class?" I'll bet the same folks clinging to their misperceptions about income levels would rant "hell no." See, wherever you draw those "middle" lines -- they still would have to be somewhere in the middle. That's how middle works.

Zonie63 -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 6:40:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That there's no universally recognized definition of middle class means there's disagreement about where to draw the lines -- not that the definition should be in the top 10% of income earners. Ask the question a different way to people: "Do you think people at the line of the top 10% of income earners are in the middle class?" without telling them the income amount. "Should they be included in programs to help the middle class?" I'll bet the same folks clinging to their misperceptions about income levels would rant "hell no." See, wherever you draw those "middle" lines -- they still would have to be somewhere in the middle. That's how middle works. Understood, although I'm not sure how quibbling over this point is particularly relevant in a thread about class warfare. One keeps hearing stories about how the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the "middle class is shrinking." But if we define "middle" just by quintiles and percentages, then the middle class will never actually "shrink," since it will always encompass the same percentage of the population no matter what.

Musicmystery -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 6:46:37 AM)
Well the point there would be actually looking at the data rather than subjective beliefs. That the gulf is widening between rich and poor is true. Very true, in fact. At the same time, middle class wages are, and have been, increasing faster than inflation. And, by looking at the income levels defining these quintiles, we also get a sense of the disparity. Currently, the middle three quintiles range from $26,000 to $100,000. That 60% of the population is still going to be 60% of the population, whatever those borderlines are or become. So what exactly is "shrinking"? It's a soundbite.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 6:51:51 AM)
When I was a kid, "working class" were those that did the manual and factory work and farmers, regardless of what they earned. The "upper class" were those born, or bought into, the echelons of the aristocracy. Those people that had big mansions and acres of land and (usually) posh cars and fancy titles. Everyone else, like office workers and managers etc, fitted into the "middle class". These people didn't do hard manual labour or 'dirty' work with their hands but didn't have posh titles either. These days, "class" is a little harder to define.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 6:59:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Here's a clue...read carefully . . . A lot of what gets said by people in leadership roles isn't true. That's why there are fact-checking sites, for example. Hey, dipshit, I know leadership lies A LOT. I get that. But, if you define American society as "Upper Class," "Middle Class," and "Under Class," there aren't any mathematical requirements, and that still satisfies the English definition. So, while I appreciate your adherence to math, it's, obviously, not the way it's being defined in American society.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 7:00:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 So, if there's no universally recognized definition of middle class, what's all the arguing about? The arguing is about defining the middle class.

Musicmystery -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 8:37:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Here's a clue...read carefully . . . A lot of what gets said by people in leadership roles isn't true. That's why there are fact-checking sites, for example. Hey, dipshit, I know leadership lies A LOT. I get that. But, if you define American society as "Upper Class," "Middle Class," and "Under Class," there aren't any mathematical requirements, and that still satisfies the English definition. So, while I appreciate your adherence to math, it's, obviously, not the way it's being defined in American society. Hey, dipshit, however you define it, the middle isn't in the upper 20.

Zonie63 -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 10:23:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well the point there would be actually looking at the data rather than subjective beliefs. That the gulf is widening between rich and poor is true. Very true, in fact. At the same time, middle class wages are, and have been, increasing faster than inflation. And, by looking at the income levels defining these quintiles, we also get a sense of the disparity. Currently, the middle three quintiles range from $26,000 to $100,000. That 60% of the population is still going to be 60% of the population, whatever those borderlines are or become. So what exactly is "shrinking"? It's a soundbite. I think it's something that's not easily quantifiable, especially a term like "middle class" which can be applied in different contexts. In a society where some salaries can go into 7-digit or 8-digit figures, someone earning a mere $250k (or even $500k) might still seem closer to the range of "middle class" than they would to those at the very top-level range of income. To someone earning $30 million, those earning $250k would seem like mere "peasants" who were only just a little bit better off than the actual peasants.

Marini -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 10:47:26 AM)
Zonie, that is why there has been a level called, UPPER MIDDLE CLASS for some time now. There must be some cut off points, or we will end up with 20 categories. Also, in the DC area/NYC/San Fran/and LA, $28,000 is hardly considered Middle Class. As far as I know, it is also a regional situation. safe to say, for many people $50,000-$90,000 is considered "Being in the Middle Class". We can debate Lower Middle Class {Below $50,000} and Upper Middle Class {Above $90,000}. Of couse people can split on hairs on here, until the end of time. Happy Thanksgiving!

Lucylastic -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 10:58:46 AM)
For me n mine, its always been:- Working class.... workers, Middle class=management Upper Ruling classes= the 1% Giving it a monetary value to me, is pointless because of the changes between countries Ive lived in and the US.

VeryMercurial -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 11:09:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic For me n mine, its always been:- Working class.... workers, Middle class=management Upper Ruling classes= the 1% Giving it a monetary value to me, is pointless because of the changes between countries Ive lived in and the US. Good point Lucy, but here in the states many non-mangerial people {including myself} are considered solid middle class, in fact these professions make up a LARGE portion of the middle class. These professions include: policemen, firemen, nurses, public school teachers. We are Middle Class also in the states.

Lucylastic -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 11:22:34 AM)
Thats where it differs, because at home, the UK back when I lived there : policemen, firemen, nurses, public school teachers. were all working class:") In all my years as a nurse, I never considered it to be a middle class job. so its a crap shoot on definitions for many people:) My Brother in law is a cop, my sister a nurse My other sister is management and calls them working class, but she can be a snotty lil bitch at the best of times. My ex was a fireman, and my landlady here in Canada was a teacher. All call themselves working class. Different strokes for different countries I guess:) and another reason, I wont put any finer defiinition on it:)

Zonie63 -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 11:33:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 When I was a kid, "working class" were those that did the manual and factory work and farmers, regardless of what they earned. The "upper class" were those born, or bought into, the echelons of the aristocracy. Those people that had big mansions and acres of land and (usually) posh cars and fancy titles. Everyone else, like office workers and managers etc, fitted into the "middle class". These people didn't do hard manual labour or 'dirty' work with their hands but didn't have posh titles either. These days, "class" is a little harder to define. We don't really have "titles" of that sort here in America, although we still seem to have our own skewed forms of "nobility" and "aristocracy." But "middle class" also can get defined in other ways, sometimes cultural as well. People might think of middle class as being the Average Joe, just a regular down-to-earth kind of guy who drinks beer, goes bowling, that sort of thing. Upper class people are more snooty and join yacht clubs and things like that. Upper class people go to fancy restaurants and have to wear fancy clothes, whereas middle class people can just go down to the mom-and-pop diner in t-shirt and jeans. I don't know if it's a matter of actual income in some cases. Some people might be living well beyond their means in order to give the appearance of being "upper class." People want to "keep up with the Joneses," so to speak. While people aren't inclined to state their actual income, they still like to show off and impress their friends and neighbors. I don't know if that's a different form of class warfare or not. If one is actually "born" into a particular class, that might create a different perception than under a system which purportedly allows greater class mobility. After all, if one is born into a lower class, then it's just a matter of the dice roll which doesn't reflect badly on the individual. In the US system, theoretically anyone can succeed and move up into the upper class by individual achievement and ingenuity. So, those in the upper class are clearly those who deserve to be there, while the same is said for those in the lower class. It's not due to luck, probability, birthright, or any other external factors, but simply due to the individual's own drive to succeed. The real difference between "upper class" and "middle class" might be best summed up from this quote from the movie Goodfellas: "For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again" In case anyone is wondering why some people are rich and a lot of people are poor, that's usually how it happens. All we do is find more sophisticated and elaborate ways of doing it, but it still turns out the same. But history has shown that there are times when the "goody-good" people actually do fight back and they may not even be that "goody-good" after a certain point.

YouName -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 2:26:39 PM)
I would like to add to Zonies already good post that there is something we could call the occassional poor but old upper class family or historically the poor (and often times lower) aristocracy. In many circles these people, as long as they are honorable and get by are thought of as more noble and closer to the real "upper class" or what ever than the newely rich who in the other sense of the Word often lack class edit: By good I don't mean I agree with Everything but I still like it :)

DesideriScuri -> RE: Class Warfare (11/27/2014 5:23:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Here's a clue...read carefully . . . A lot of what gets said by people in leadership roles isn't true. That's why there are fact-checking sites, for example. Hey, dipshit, I know leadership lies A LOT. I get that. But, if you define American society as "Upper Class," "Middle Class," and "Under Class," there aren't any mathematical requirements, and that still satisfies the English definition. So, while I appreciate your adherence to math, it's, obviously, not the way it's being defined in American society. Hey, dipshit, however you define it, the middle isn't in the upper 20. Hey, dipshit, I never said it was.

NorthernGent -> RE: Class Warfare (11/28/2014 10:02:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 When I was a kid, "working class" were those that did the manual and factory work and farmers, regardless of what they earned. Working class is a state of mind, as opposed to what money you earn. I will always be working class, and proud of it, billionaire or otherwise. There is a cultural difference here. In England people cling doggedly to being working class (for good reason).

tj444 -> RE: Class Warfare (11/28/2014 10:22:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YouName Ah common Music. Let's have some fun! So this is a paper that concerns which basis (Social Class or Income "Class") is best used for the measurment of consumer practises. Let's begin with two facts: The author acknowledges both. The author suggests there is a conflict / debate on which is the best to use in this case. Social Class: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class Social Class vs Income Class Full version in case you don't have access: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=25986788798051912619 Quote: quote: "The results of the two studies clearly contradicted the conclusions of earlier social class researchers who found significant relationships between social class and consumption, but concluded that social class was superior to income without examining income. The range of consumption areas examined by Myers et al. (1971) and Myers and Mount (1973) is sufficiently broad to justify conclusions vis-c-vis the general superiority of social class or income. " The paper does not define social class. But your critique was that it was absolutely baffling that people didn't use income quintiles as foundations for class. But let's go a bit more on the issue. We were discussing the working class and the middle class in England earlier. Here is one discussing it from an american perspective: Link that blew up the forum It clearly talks about how income is blurred over the class lines and is apparently critical of previous publications that say it is not so. (On a very rapid and selective reading) Anyway this is interesting: quote: it has been argued on the one hand that the middle class is losing status and is likely to undergo a "status panic," while the working class, on the other hand, is gaining status. Let's remember this was done in the 1960's! A bit of curious history. Point being that your continous inclination to only look at income and then to even deny the other side of the issue and that there even is an issue is ridiclous. edit: Lol that link blew up the forum! edit2: How's this for a reference, can it become any more explicit: Economists and Sociologists converging ". Communication between economics and sociology is hindered by intellectual barriersuch as fundamentally different assumptions with regard to the roles of induction and deduction, as well as by institutional and professional obstacles. Opportunities are grawvingfor integrating sociologicalnd economic explanations, asthe interests of sociologists and economists are converging and more work is now occurring on the border between the two disciplines" Meaning that they haven't been before :-) Also Swedberg acknowledges that especially economists have been very reluctant to take in the perspective of the sociologist. Apparently the theory of the rational man was in 1995 bridging the gap. The rational choice theory is actually being burried now 20 years after the publication of that article. It's funny how you bash Sanity. Let's see if you'll take this in yourself or not. where exactly did I bash Sanity???

Marini -> RE: Class Warfare (11/28/2014 10:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 When I was a kid, "working class" were those that did the manual and factory work and farmers, regardless of what they earned. The "upper class" were those born, or bought into, the echelons of the aristocracy. Those people that had big mansions and acres of land and (usually) posh cars and fancy titles. Everyone else, like office workers and managers etc, fitted into the "middle class". These people didn't do hard manual labour or 'dirty' work with their hands but didn't have posh titles either. These days, "class" is a little harder to define. freedom dwarf, in the states it is often about money first, class second. I know of plumbers and electrians that can make in the 6 figures, often more than people in lower management. It is at the point now in the states to have ANY job that is FULL-TIME, has benefits, and pays a living wage, is becoming harder and harder to obtain. Personally, I think we are heading towards an era in which, we are going to create a large and seemingly ever-growing under-class. Those of us that manage to work, will end up paying higher taxes, and we will STILL NOT have single pay health care. Many of the "new jobs" that are available even for college graduates, are often part-time and low paying. At the end of the day, most of us are working class/ even those of us that are considered middle class. I am middle class, and also proud to say working class! [:D]

tj444 -> RE: Class Warfare (11/28/2014 10:35:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery What's wrong with making money? nothing.. but then don't pretend like you give a crap about the 99%... I don't have a problem with him or any of the 1% making money other than that and using politicians and scamming taxpayer money to do it... Making money is fine and good, its the unquenchable greed of the 1% that isn't (imo).. that is one of the biggest causes of human suffering and death (tobacco corps, big war, big insurance, etc etc).. Whoa. What on earth are you talking about? When did only the 1% make money? What makes you think everyone in the 1% came by their wealth via ill-gotten gains? What makes you think being in the 1% automatically precludes you from caring about the rest? Does your generalization include people like Richard Branson (who's actually a great guy)? Or Bono? Or Andrew Carnegie, who gave away millions when that was unheard of? Are you describing Oprah Winfrey? Or Jeff Skoll? Or Muhammad Yunus? I never said only the 1% make money.. I never said everyone in the 1% came by their wealth via ill-gotten gains.. if I said that, show me where.. I also never said that being in the 1% automatically precluded them from caring about the rest.. I just happen to think Buffett is a big hypocrite and sleaze, but he is good at appearing to care about "the rest".. Do you happen to know Richard Branson (to know he is actually a great guy)? I have no opinion on him, other than he does stunts which seem a little strange to me.. but PR is PR, I guess.. Most of those I don't have an opinion on (some I have never heard of) with the exception of Bono, he is just another hypocrite imo.. a guy that transfers his music business to another country to avoid paying taxes has no right to criticize other countries about how they spend their tax money imo.. he can take a hike.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314543/Bonos-ONE-foundation-giving-tiny-percentage-funds-charity.html Actually, you really did say that. Exactly that. Sounds to me more like you simply hate anyone with more cash than you. Guessing that's a lot of people. no, I never said all the 1% had unquenchable greed.. I gave examples of those 1%ers with unquenchable greed (tobacco corps, big war, big insurance, etc etc).. its not about how much money they have/make, its about what they are willing to do to get that money.. when it kills people, damages their health, poisons their food, etc.. that to me is unquenchable greed..

tj444 -> RE: Class Warfare (11/28/2014 10:46:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini YouName, Most American citizens are well aware that the divide is widening between the those at the top and those at the bottom. The Middle Class has been suffering and the number of families considered to be Middle Class continues to decline. The Black middle class has suffered tremendous losses, and has been losing ground for at least the last 15-20 years. Many of the new jobs are low paying, often part-time, and usually offer no benefits. Those Americans that are not aware of the steady decline in the numbers of the American middle class, are either ignorant, uninformed, or often as on here, pretending to be deliberately ignorant/oblivious/and or obtuse. CNN Money- Part time jobs put MILLIONS in poverty CNN Money-- 7 set backs for the middle class Salon.com RIP American Middle Class 1946-2013 RIP American Middle Class, as a "younger" baby boomer, I remember it well. It was a great run while it lasted. RIP American Middle Class 1946-2103 [sm=goodnight.gif] I really wonder what the US will be like in 20 years.. the young today are screwed, it seems to me.. I look at the yearly cost of care for a senior with dementia and a facility charges from $73,000-146,000 to house them.. if they are on medicaid then the govt covers that cost.. someone with dementia could live 10 years there or longer.. how is this country going to support the increasing need of boomers when they become too old to take care of themselves? If you think things are bad today.. imo its gonna get a whole lot worse..

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02