Class vs. Income vs. Status vs. Wealth

[Capitalist Lawyer]

A great blog post.

Source (http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/05/class_vs_income.html)


Wealth is how much money you have, income is how much you earn, status is how many people you have working for you and class is how much other people think you have based on how you behave.

People often don’t realize class exists because most people only associate with people of their own class. They don’t comprehend that people from other classes behave and think in ways totally alien to them.

If people are aware of class, it’s only of the class directly below them whom they feel superior to. Yes, class has a lot to do with looking down at people, which is why it’s a topic that’s seldom talked about. It’s not politically correct to admit that you look down at people.

People don’t pay as much attention to the class above them. Perhaps because people fear sinking in class so they make sure not to behave like the class below them. Fear is a powerful motivator. Or perhaps it’s because people are unable to admit to themselves that they are inferior to people above them, so they avoid observing how the class above them is different. It’s much more psychologically comfortable to focus on how you are superior to people below you.

Now, unlike some people on the right, I think that income mobility and the unfair distribution of wealth is a topic worth talking about. But the topic of class I find even more interesting because it’s so seldom discussed and because it’s so hidden and mysterious.

I suspect that liberals hate genuine discussions of class because they envision that the government can “fix” the uneven distribution of wealth by redistributing it, but the government can’t redistribute class. When a construction worker wins the lottery, he may be rich but he still has no class, and other people in his new wealth bracket aren’t going to want to hang out with him or be his friend.

Nor can a communist revolution distribute class.

Shouldn't communists change their motto from "class struggle" to the more accurate depicting, "status struggle"?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Thats not what communists mean by class. You have been here so long i thought you would have known that by now.


The person who wrote that blog post seems to be looking at what appears to be class, but when pressed, would probably faulter very quickly when asked to give accurate descriptions of class/classes.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Thats not what communists mean by class. You have been here so long i thought you would have known that by now.

I know that. But have you ever said to anyone, "You have no class"?

This is how I see it: Donald Trump is of high status but of low class.

This means that a janitor can be of higher class than some millionaire/billionaire CEO. While still of lower status.


very quickly when asked to give accurate descriptions of class/classes.

Here's a good synthesis from the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, by Paul Fussell.

Top

Out-of-sight 0.5%: Philanthropist, Billionaire CEO

Upper middle 7.5%: BIGLAW Lawyer

Middle

Middle: 33% School teacher, Accountant

Working Class

High-Prole 30%: Aviation mechanic

Mid-prole 15%: Truck driver

Low-prole 5%: Walmart

Destitute Underclass

Low 8%: Welfare Receipient, minimum wage worker

Bottom

Out-of-sight 1%: Convict

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You know, after reading that book I think that the biggest hurdle to the legitimacy of communism is the middle class.

And it's apparent that the middle class is shrinking due to the new type of economy that has been seeping into all professions.

That new type of economy is the "Winner Takes All" economy. And since we're moving away from an Information Economy and to a Marketing Economy, it's completely plausible to fear growing class disparities in capitalism.

And we all know that sales, marketing or any other service occupation are "Winner Take All" professions. And not everybody can make a living doing marketing or sales.

So where does that leave everyone else? Computer programming jobs are being outsourced. Engineering is being filled by immigrants here and abroad willing to work for lower wages. Automation can replace all the mundane jobs.

Where are people going to work? How are they going to fend off destitution? Not everybody wants to drive cabs or trucks or scrub floors.

Maybe communism is inevitable after all?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 01:40 pm

Thats not what communists mean by class. You have been here so long i thought you would have known that by now.

I know that. But have you ever said to anyone, "You have no class"?
So what? I don't see how the concept of class being a purely psychological thing is real at all. Sure, the term refers to people who act like a certain class, but it still maintains a status implication, even in the definition given above.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

So what? I don't see how the concept of class being a purely psychological thing is real at all. Sure, the term refers to people who act like a certain class, but it still maintains a status implication, even in the definition given above.

Ok fine, there is Class and there is "class".

Class or class is your relation to the means of production.

"class" is how you behave.

I just think the word 'status' is a much better term to use. But the term, "Ruling Status" just doesn't sound right.

At least comment on the blog piece.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by crapitalist "lawyer"
Ok fine, there is Class and there is "class".

Yes, there is class and there is "class".

Considering the latter, son you're like school on Saturday:

no class.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 01:14 pm
A great blog post.

Source (http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/05/class_vs_income.html)


Wealth is how much money you have, income is how much you earn, status is how many people you have working for you and class is how much other people think you have based on how you behave.

People often don’t realize class exists because most people only associate with people of their own class. They don’t comprehend that people from other classes behave and think in ways totally alien to them.

If people are aware of class, it’s only of the class directly below them whom they feel superior to. Yes, class has a lot to do with looking down at people, which is why it’s a topic that’s seldom talked about. It’s not politically correct to admit that you look down at people.

People don’t pay as much attention to the class above them. Perhaps because people fear sinking in class so they make sure not to behave like the class below them. Fear is a powerful motivator. Or perhaps it’s because people are unable to admit to themselves that they are inferior to people above them, so they avoid observing how the class above them is different. It’s much more psychologically comfortable to focus on how you are superior to people below you.

Now, unlike some people on the right, I think that income mobility and the unfair distribution of wealth is a topic worth talking about. But the topic of class I find even more interesting because it’s so seldom discussed and because it’s so hidden and mysterious.

I suspect that liberals hate genuine discussions of class because they envision that the government can “fix” the uneven distribution of wealth by redistributing it, but the government can’t redistribute class. When a construction worker wins the lottery, he may be rich but he still has no class, and other people in his new wealth bracket aren’t going to want to hang out with him or be his friend.

Nor can a communist revolution distribute class.

Shouldn't communists change their motto from "class struggle" to the more accurate depicting, "status struggle"?
income, class and status are not one and the same.

A persons class is dictated by their role in society (ie their ownership of production means)

A person isnt ruling class because they are rich. Wealth is a side effect of class.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 06:23 pm
At least comment on the blog piece.
Okay, the concept that a new social order cannot chang ehuman behavior is absurd.

Our U.S. gov't has taken our so-called "class" by encouraging us to be anti-arab, anti-persian and anti-islamic bigots. I would say that is less classy than our former state of mind. So in that sense a government can redistribute class.

But it is true that neither a temporary authority like a revolution nor a state can change our essential social activity. Only humans can, and only if a revolution is somewhat universal and altogether humanist can it actually change these things. But a revolution purely of class interest will fail, and it's sad to see so many comrades dull their interests to such a point as to make it as inhuman and one-topic as it appears here.

Still, the general point of the article seems completely erroneous because it looks at one thing to claim that another is out-of-reach. I think the person was high (really high) when they wrote it.

[JazzRemington]

I type this fast, because I just woke up, am hot, and need to ram some food into me quick. And I'm also on a Sun keyboard, so excuse any errors in typing.


Wealth is how much money you have, income is how much you earn, status is how many people you have working for you and class is how much other people think you have based on how you behave.

Most sociologists use these terms differently. They do use wealth in the same way as above, but they do not use class and status the same way. Max Weber, an important sociologist working in the 19th century, wrote that basically "status" is a social "marker" which indicates how highly or lowly people think of you. The writer's term for "status" seems to be that of "hierarchy" or a beuracracy of some sort. As for class, that seems like a twited version of the "status" efinition I gave above. Most sociologists do not define "class" as "what other people think of you," but of some grouping based on common elements, such as income, interests, standing in the economic structure (i.e. a given objective relation to someone or something else), etc. etc.


People often don’t realize class exists because most people only associate with people of their own class. They don’t comprehend that people from other classes behave and think in ways totally alien to them.

Uh, OK...or it could be the fact taht the American (at least) education system promotes that we are all equal and there is no such thing as class.


If people are aware of class, it’s only of the class directly below them whom they feel superior to. Yes, class has a lot to do with looking down at people, which is why it’s a topic that’s seldom talked about. It’s not politically correct to admit that you look down at people.

Interesting, it's wrong to look down on people...but it's right to look up to others? Ah, I see. Only the Upper Class isn't a class and everyone else is.

But it's not exactly that it's poltiically incorrect to talk about how one looks down on others...it's more like the discussion of class has to do with "communism," which has always been taught as an evil thing.

I would also like to see where this writer got his idea that people only recognize those below them as being in a class.


People don’t pay as much attention to the class above them. Perhaps because people fear sinking in class so they make sure not to behave like the class below them. Fear is a powerful motivator. Or perhaps it’s because people are unable to admit to themselves that they are inferior to people above them, so they avoid observing how the class above them is different. It’s much more psychologically comfortable to focus on how you are superior to people below you.

Um...ok...


I suspect that liberals hate genuine discussions of class because they envision that the government can “fix” the uneven distribution of wealth by redistributing it, but the government can’t redistribute class. When a construction worker wins the lottery, he may be rich but he still has no class, and other people in his new wealth bracket aren’t going to want to hang out with him or be his friend.

Ah, now it's liberal bashing! But I like how this writer says the construction worker has no class...especially after stating that class exists and people are a part of different classes. But there's no evidence that his friends aren't going to hang out with him anymore because he's rich. Unless he tries to act elitist or an asshole.

God, it's like the writer knew he couldn't write this article using the commonly accepted sociological definitions of status, class, income, wealth so he had to bastardize them.

[Janus]

CL, you made the same claims in your thread here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66435&hl=) which were thoroughly refuted. You're not going to convince anyone by repeating the same ridiculous arguements.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:00 pm

I suspect that liberals hate genuine discussions of class because they envision that the government can “fix” the uneven distribution of wealth by redistributing it, but the government can’t redistribute class. When a construction worker wins the lottery, he may be rich but he still has no class, and other people in his new wealth bracket aren’t going to want to hang out with him or be his friend.

Ah, now it's liberal bashing! But I like how this writer says the construction worker has no class...especially after stating that class exists and people are a part of different classes. But there's no evidence that his friends aren't going to hang out with him anymore because he's rich. Unless he tries to act elitist or an asshole.

God, it's like the writer knew he couldn't write this article using the commonly accepted sociological definitions of status, class, income, wealth so he had to bastardize them.
On rereadign this particular quote, it seems like the argument is an old one: you are poor becasue you have a poor mentality; aka blaming the poor for their own stupidity, poverty, or here a lack of "classiness." Old, bigoted bullshit.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

On rereadign this particular quote, it seems like the argument is an old one: you are poor becasue you have a poor mentality; aka blaming the poor for their own stupidity, poverty, or here a lack of "classiness." Old, bigoted bullshit.

I recognize the importance of chance in life but there are people who make bad decisions in life. Even ones who come from middle-class families. It is possible to sink down in status, in case you have forgotten.

All the author was suggesting is that class and status are terms that are often confused with each other.

[JazzRemington]

If by confused with each other you mean the author is confusing definitions and using his own definitions then yes...people do confuse each other.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27, 2007 10:47 pm
I recognize the importance of chance in life but there are people who make bad decisions in life. Even ones who come from middle-class families. It is possible to sink down in status, in case you have forgotten.

All the author was suggesting is that class and status are terms that are often confused with each other.
That's because the terms are reflective of the same mentality - that is, a class - oriented way of looking down at people (class meaning status).

Even saying "they aren't classy" is to imply some or all of the negative traits of the material class below you. Just like Marxism, which seeks to recognize and analyze class, the social but "immaterial" form of class is also interested in status distinctions, but not so muh in how they actually are, but how they appear. It is still the same classism, it is just more inclined towards judgement of apparent class subtleties than the big picture.