The Middle Class defined...
Moderator &
Senior Member
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 31,440
Likes: 4
From: The Bluegrass State
Originally posted by Habibi
Yup, yup, Burt is hung like a bull-budgie.
Well, that's what Rockpick told me anyway.
Yup, yup, Burt is hung like a bull-budgie.
Well, that's what Rockpick told me anyway.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
EnglishAdam's right
Yup, in global and traditional terms, if you need to work for a living, regardless of salary, you're working class. The wealthy don't work. Working class is one step above being indigent.
Here in the U.S., the majority of people work for a living, and distinguishing "class" in terms of salary is genuinely silly. We're mostly all "working class". What's different here in the U.S. is we don't have a noble class in the sense that England (or any number of other countries) has. And wealthy Americans typically don't want to appear (at least publicly) as a separate class - rather just as 'Merkuns who've made it good.
While I work for a living, and would be "upper class" (or at least, not "middle class') by either of the definitions in the first post, I also live in Santa Barbara, CA, where you can see plenty of the truly "wealthy" or "upper class" people. The gulf between these people, and those of us that need to work for a living, (even making more than $95K a year) is immense - so much so that calling me "upper class" or "wealthy" on the basis of my salary is truly laughable. More likely a well-paid member of the working class.
Most Americans likely don't understand this unless they've traveled to a place with a true, class society, such as the U.K. or some of the Middle East kingdoms.
By my observation it's the democrat party candidates who indulge in faux pluralism and raise the specter of an equally false "class warfare". Coming from people like Kerry (personal wealth approx $600 million through his second wife) or Gephart (also remarkably wealthy) such speech is utter hypocracy.
With globalization, we're being forced to realize ever more clearly that labor is a global commodity. There are 70,000 grocery clerks here in So Cal finding this out the hard way.
Here in the U.S., the majority of people work for a living, and distinguishing "class" in terms of salary is genuinely silly. We're mostly all "working class". What's different here in the U.S. is we don't have a noble class in the sense that England (or any number of other countries) has. And wealthy Americans typically don't want to appear (at least publicly) as a separate class - rather just as 'Merkuns who've made it good.
While I work for a living, and would be "upper class" (or at least, not "middle class') by either of the definitions in the first post, I also live in Santa Barbara, CA, where you can see plenty of the truly "wealthy" or "upper class" people. The gulf between these people, and those of us that need to work for a living, (even making more than $95K a year) is immense - so much so that calling me "upper class" or "wealthy" on the basis of my salary is truly laughable. More likely a well-paid member of the working class.
Most Americans likely don't understand this unless they've traveled to a place with a true, class society, such as the U.K. or some of the Middle East kingdoms.
By my observation it's the democrat party candidates who indulge in faux pluralism and raise the specter of an equally false "class warfare". Coming from people like Kerry (personal wealth approx $600 million through his second wife) or Gephart (also remarkably wealthy) such speech is utter hypocracy.
With globalization, we're being forced to realize ever more clearly that labor is a global commodity. There are 70,000 grocery clerks here in So Cal finding this out the hard way.
