Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnpenton | Hacker News Reader

That sounds pretty middle class to me. Professional people - lawyers, bankers, management, etc. The US doesn't really have an upper class at all - just lots of rich middle class people.

Maybe it's a British thing, but to me class is only minimally about money, so you can't just say the Gates family are rich so they're upper class.

In Britain you can be penniless but still be upper class, or a billionaire but still working class. Take David Beckham - rich but working class. You can probably find some destitute Baronets somewhere who are definitely still upper class.

View on HN

> That sounds pretty middle class to me. Professional people - lawyers, bankers, management, etc.

Professional people (as people who are predominantly workers, but usually not on living paycheck-to-paycheck and often with small capital holdings that may suffice for a comfortable retirement) are general middle class, yes.

> The US doesn't really have an upper class at all

The US actually does have an upper class, people who are primarily capitalists rather than workers.

> In Britain you can be penniless but still be upper class, or a billionaire but still working class.

You seem to be describing a pre-capitalist, essentially feudal view of class (in a capitalist society, meaningful class distinctions still aren't exactly about money, per se, but more where that money comes from, though there's a relation between the two -- you can't be penniless and be maintaining a comfortable standard of living primarily from capital -- whereas in a feudal class system its more about station of birth independent of money, though, in societies where such a class distinction is meaningful rather than a mere historical artifact, there's a close association between that station and both money and how you get it.)

Yeah I sort of see what you're saying.

But then do you have a different term for what I'm talking about? What would you call someone who comes from a well known family lineage, speaks with a refined accent, was privately educated, went to Harvard, listens to classical music, collects french poetry first editions, but earns a pittance as faculty in the classics department at a college somewhere and has no savings or investments?

They don't earn anything, but you can't lump them in with a poor fast food worker can you? What term do you use for this in the US, if you don't call it 'class'? If the UK they would absolutely be upper class. What would you call them?

Here's an insight into the British class system for you: some Army regiments are essentially segregated by the class of their officers. A state school educated officer could join the Royal Tank Regiment but would probably never join the King's Royal Hussars. Of course this is unspoken.

> But then do you have a different term for what I'm talking about? What would you call someone who comes from a well known family lineage, speaks with a refined accent, was privately educated, went to Harvard, listens to classical music, collects french poetry first editions, but earns a pittance as faculty in the classics department at a college somewhere and has no savings or investments?

He'd be middle class in the US, mostly because of his income. He's got connections but still middle class. A fast food worker would be lower class. A fast food worker who went to Harvard, with all those connections and hobbies, would largely be the same. But that's an incredibly contrived example. Class distinctions work because of general income-hobby-family background correlations that generally exist.

Also, there isn't much of a "refined accent" in the US that I'm aware of. At least nothing as marked as cockney vs british.

> They don't earn anything, but you can't lump them in with a poor fast food worker can you?

There's a meaningful economic class distinction to be made, probably, between a tenured faculty member at a university and a fast food worker, even if somehow their income ends up similar (the former having greater economic security than the latter, likely).

But I think the distinction you are making is more about subculture than economic class. This particular axis of subculture may sometimes be referred to as "class" (particularly by the people on the "higher" end of it) -- though its probably less common in the US to do so than it would be in Britain -- but its really a largely orthogonal concept to economic class distinctions. Not completely independent though, as -- as many axes of subcultural variations do -- it can have important relations to social networking opportunities that play a role in economic opportunities.

This is clearly even more visible, and arguably more substantive, in the United Kingdom -- where, in addition to the kind of examples you cite, there are, for instance, still hereditary peers in the House of Lords, and, heck, still a House of Lords -- than the United States.

I presume the example university employee doesn't have the luxury of tenure. The distinction is actually pretty straightforward. The "well-spoken" junior assistant librarian with their 2:2 in Latin from Exeter could get a job at McDonalds, if need be. The pretty-smart high-school leaver earning a fair percentage above minimum wage as a store manager at McDonalds would struggle to get a job as a junior assistant librarian at a university library even if they were willing to accept the pay cut.

Needless to say there are also plenty of "uneducated" plumbers whose skills earn them well above the national average wage whilst many marketing graduates embark on serial unpaid internships updating Twitter feeds in the hope someone will eventually deem their university-enhanced flair for on-brand 140 character communication worth paying for.

In the UK more so than most places "economic class" owes as much to Veblenesque notions of the luxury status of jobs as it does to how much employees actually earn and whether real opportunities for progression exist.

> But then do you have a different term for what I'm talking about?

In french I believe the upper class you are referring to would be called "aristocratie" or "noblesse", while the capitalist upper class would be called "bourgeoisie". I know there are similar words in English but I'm not sure if they carry the same meaning.

In the U.S.A. we use the following terms:

Blue collar: an individual whose earnings are derived primarily from physical labor, following someone else's instructions. Blue collar workers are often paid via hourly wages.

Brown collar: a subset of blue collar. The differentiating factor is that these people work outdoors. The brown is often explained by dirt on the collar, but in reality, most people who use this term use it because this type of worker is overwhelmingly likely to be a dark-skinned person.

Khaki collar: a subset of blue collar. Used for military jobs.

White collar: an individual whose earnings are derived primarily from labor requiring specialized knowledge or skills. White collar workers are often paid via weekly salary.

Tailored collar: a subset of white collar, except restricted to executive management, and possibly their immediate subordinates, depending on the size of the business.

Rich: an individual whose earnings are derived primarily from business ownership and investment returns. Rich people may also work in one of the aforementioned categories, but most prefer to enjoy leisure activities, volunteer for charitable causes, manage their own property portfolio, or pursue political goals.

Additionally, we have some terms for class-related nuances.

Ghetto/Barrio/Trailer Trash/Crab Bucket: this person grew up in the lower class, and exhibits many of the negative qualities of people raised in an impoverished, survival-oriented environment. These people are overwhelmingly ignorant of the social norms respected by higher classes.

Trust Fund Baby: this person grew up in the upper class, and exhibits many of the negative qualities of people raised in an affluent, self-realization-oriented environment. These people are overwhelmingly ignorant of the social norms respected by lower classes.

Welfare Queen/Welfare King: this person has no desire to earn their living, and survives primarily on government benefits. Ironically, these people often continue to receive benefits even as people who would rather work than be on the dole are cut off, because they are experts in gaming the bureaucracy.

Beltway Bandit: Welfare Royalty of the incorporated business variety. So named for the Beltway bypass highway around Washington, D.C.

Ivory Tower/Academian: this person was raised to value education above all else, and somehow managed to not learn anything of actual value. Usually white collar, but poor.

Hack: this person only does their job because it pays well. Often compensates for job dissatisfaction and high earned income via conspicuous consumption and being a dick to co-workers.

Wage Slave: contrasts with Hack, in that they are paid only enough to survive and continue working. These people would like to do something else, but cannot afford to support themselves at their preferred job. In the US, this is often someone who would have attended college, but could not afford it. May also be a person who graduated college, but cannot earn enough in their chosen field to pay off their student loans.

Brick/Backroom Boy: this person is absolutely competent and reliable in their job, and perform high-value work, so naturally other people stand on top of them and steal their credit.

Rainmaker: contrasts with Brick, in that they actually get some recognition for the value they produce. Often the top-producing salespeople at a company are recognized as Rainmakers.

Greenspun claims that Gates had a $1000000 trust fund. It does not sound like middle class at all:

http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com