The Social Class Ladders—Labor, Gentry, and Elite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

No, physics PhD and engineering MS here (nevermind that HYPS schools don't offer business majors).

What you are saying does not negate what I said. Just because E's don't start most businesses doesn't mean that the E's I knew in school were more likely to consider starting a business than G's. I think it has a lot to do with how one views barriers to accessing capital.

[Anonymous]

^^were not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

Es make up a much smaller percentage of the population. Not a statistics major, are you?

PhD in math only a masters in statistics

Hmmmm. For some reason I don't believe you... Strange, that.

I controlled the study to not include rebranding and restructuring. Stanford grads are so sensitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

No, physics PhD and engineering MS here (nevermind that HYPS schools don't offer business majors).

What you are saying does not negate what I said. Just because E's don't start most businesses doesn't mean that the E's I knew in school were more likely to consider starting a business than G's. I think it has a lot to do with how one views barriers to accessing capital.

They are less likely to start the business but they are more likely to help find the funding which is why G's are so desperate to go to HPY.

Masters of course, nobody cares about undergrad except family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

Es make up a much smaller percentage of the population. Not a statistics major, are you?

PhD in math only a masters in statistics

Hmmmm. For some reason I don't believe you... Strange, that.

I controlled the study to not include rebranding and restructuring. Stanford grads are so sensitive.

A disgruntled U member trying to have a laugh by acting ridiculous... I see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how the author lumps pilots in with plumbers and electricians. Airline pilots generally have degrees, and many are former military officers. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone have a theory on that?

I agree that it is unfair, but nowadays airline pilots are like glorified bus drivers, especially if you are working for a small podunk airline and getting paid pennies.

True. My father was an airline pilot, but back in the "heyday" of the industry--the 40s-80s. They really were much more revered and looked up to years ago. Our neighbors were always execs/lawyers/doctors, and he was the one with the good stories.

I think that skilled pilots are still revered (fighter pilots, helicopter pilots - Prince William, Sully, etc). The pilots that basically let the planes fly themselves, not so much.

Fighter and helicopter pilots are absolutely not viewed as similar to execs/lawyers/doctors. They might be respected, but I think they are very much L1/G3.

And *all* pilots, including Capt Sully, use autopilot. It's silly not to, and it does not diminish from the difficulty of what they are doing. If you think that the Captain of a 747 is not a highly-skilled pilot just because s/he uses autopilot, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I assume you are addressing that to me. My point was actually only that the pay was very similar back then, if not more. (He worked for an airline that had the highest paid pilots in the world, and he was very senior). The stories were because he was also a Flying Tiger, among other things.

He used to say pilots were well paid for the off chance that their skills were needed --the sheer moments of terror. Like Capt Scully--not for the hundreds of hours of mundane work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how the author lumps pilots in with plumbers and electricians. Airline pilots generally have degrees, and many are former military officers. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone have a theory on that?

I agree that it is unfair, but nowadays airline pilots are like glorified bus drivers, especially if you are working for a small podunk airline and getting paid pennies.

True. My father was an airline pilot, but back in the "heyday" of the industry--the 40s-80s. They really were much more revered and looked up to years ago. Our neighbors were always execs/lawyers/doctors, and he was the one with the good stories.

I think that skilled pilots are still revered (fighter pilots, helicopter pilots - Prince William, Sully, etc). The pilots that basically let the planes fly themselves, not so much.

Fighter and helicopter pilots are absolutely not viewed as similar to execs/lawyers/doctors. They might be respected, but I think they are very much L1/G3.

And *all* pilots, including Capt Sully, use autopilot. It's silly not to, and it does not diminish from the difficulty of what they are doing. If you think that the Captain of a 747 is not a highly-skilled pilot just because s/he uses autopilot, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I assume you are addressing that to me. My point was actually only that the pay was very similar back then, if not more. (He worked for an airline that had the highest paid pilots in the world, and he was very senior). The stories were because he was also a Flying Tiger, among other things.

He used to say pilots were well paid for the off chance that their skills were needed --the sheer moments of terror. Like Capt Scully--not for the hundreds of hours of mundane work.

The comment could have been addressed to me. I have a private pilot's license; I don't think most pilots are highly skilled. I have friends who are pilots for the Air Force, Navy, Marines. A friend of mine went to Embry Riddle and went on to fly for a small regional airline. He was paid peanuts. I have another friend who flies for Avianca who also gets paid peanuts.

Sully was old school; I don't think there are many pilots like him nowadays.
http://nymag.com/news/features/53788/index1.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

Es make up a much smaller percentage of the population. Not a statistics major, are you?

PhD in math only a masters in statistics

Hmmmm. For some reason I don't believe you... Strange, that.

I controlled the study to not include rebranding and restructuring. Stanford grads are so sensitive.

I'm the second PP in this thread, and I didn't type any of the other responses. i assume this is directed at me, though, since I used HYPS instead of HYP. You got me. I do have a Stanford degree, but I also have an HYP degree. And I have multiple grad degrees...Could I be any more Gentry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is an interesting discussion that hits a nerve. I, too, find the undercurrent in the comments depressing. I understand why the PP with an L-->G husband was put off. I am a combination of L (by birth) and G (by education, profession). Being told that Gs can sniff you out from a mile off, secretly pity you, and don't want their kids marrying your kids is a pretty nasty gut-punch.

If that's playing nice, I wonder what playing nasty looks like. I understand the social class is very powerful, but do you really enjoy feeding it crackers? Don't all the college degrees inspire some cultural flexibility?

And here I thought working hard, going to honors college, getting a graduate degree, and trading in ideas and information was supposed to earn me gentry street cred. No?

Well, of course the Gs don't want their kids marrying Ls -- more risk of falling lower down the social ladder, and, if you far enough down the L chain, you start running into people not only not sharing your values but openly disdaining them. My G mom married an L, and, though he never said anything until they were headed towards divorce, I think it broke my grandfather's heart that he'd spent so much time and effort making sure his kids got a college education to have her end up with someone uneducated (that she ended up supporting). I've been called over-educated, had my job mocked because the profession is seen as uppity, told I'm going to hell for not taking my children to church, and I've been criticized for not knowing who particular NASCAR drivers are. Humans are pack animals, and we're more comfortable with people who are like us. I love my in-laws dearly - they are wonderful, caring people - but I am always on guard around them not to come off as too smart and smile and nod rather than attempt to discuss any sort of nuanced political or social issue with them.

The idea that working hard, going to college/grad school, etc. is your entry to a higher social class is a myth and it's why the whole pulling-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality is so maddening. Very few people make it on sheer grit. Most people have a leg up, a connection, a network, or something that gives them the opportunities to stay at the top. And they see those resources as finite and guard them with their secret club rules.

I understand your concern. Since I have some roots in what you are describing, I both understand the rules of that world and have spent a lot energy in fleeing it. One reason I maintain some distance is that, frankly, my own education and interests are sometimes viewed as threat. This is doubly the case because I am a woman. There are some rules I won't live by, and I don't want my child to internalize them. I wasted too much time and effort getting an education, over economic and logistical barriers, with a certain amount of pushback (as well as some fierce advocates) -- why have the next generation have to repeat the same journey? They should move onto a new project.

That said, thinking back on my own experiences for a minute, I don't see allies and adversaries in this project strictly along strictly class lines. Perhaps this is because my own migration was through and out of a religious movement that itself contained class strata. For example, in my church group, there was some serious L policing of gender and politics, that I found frustrating. But it was always possible to round game that attack a bit by appealing to the value of work and family values. So, I could express my emerging feminism this way, "Don't you think that girls should be able to fix cars and fend for themselves if they need to take care of their children? I'm just saying everyone should be able to stand on their own two feet." However, the lower level "G" strata of the same evangelical world were interested in Theology, and they didn't deal so much in practical questions -- the project from that angle to is coax the world-as-it-is to fit a theological model. Only the model is True. So they would detect nascent apostasy in my advocacy and come out flying -- after all, who did I think I was? And a woman. Go figure. This is why you don't let women get out of line. The Model predicted it. This lower level G self-defense is one where Biblical literacy and the authority to speak about it cloaks both class and gender privilege.

Now, if I could get high enough in the evangelical G strata, they wanted their daughters educated and successful, if also married well. The tone changes considerably in those quarters.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying that in my early life I knew Ls who were relatively easy to get along with, from my "uppity" point of view, as well as a plenty of Gs who seemed to have the time, energy, and cultural mandate to make themselves very frustrating.

Needless to say, religion, region and race are all factors that vastly complicate any narrative we want to tell about American social life.

Anyway, here's a point to which I want to migrate, off my long detour: I think that I understand your concerns. But I guess my own experience as a kind of cultural and class migrant, as well as someone who now lives in a fairly diverse community, is that I tend to look for and understand the value of cultural hospitality. Every tribe of people has something they want to defend and conserve. That is natural. But my own experiences and education have led me to value the practice of understanding people and making room for them. It is true that people cannot simply "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps;" that being the case, I certainly hope that when someone has taken the effort to fit themselves in and they will also be invited to stay. I understand your concern about, say, a person with a master's degree marrying someone with a high school education and no particular interest in education. But the working class kid who reads veraciously and put themselves through the same master's program?

The argument that runs, "We will always see their background and know who they really are," is - to me - not so very far off from my old church adversaries who refused, straight up, to understand anything about LGBT people in the same town, or people who want to see immigrants as outsiders even after they've been in town for 20 years. I get it. There's some truth to it.

But let's not stop short at that point. There's some suggestion in the comments that there's a limit to friendships across boundaries. I beg to differ. I know people from considerably different backgrounds, and while that can often be a barrier, I have seen people move across those barriers many times.

[Anonymous]

DH and I have advanced degrees but work in public interest careers (lawyer-advocate and government). We live in a great school district in a big but modest home. We have friends who are contractors/construction, plumbers, etc. who have far nicer homes---including vacation homes (the plumber has three vacation homes: beach, mountain/lake and Europe; the contractor has two, but travels abroad twice a year).

If you live in a bubble and don't have friends in the various sectors described by the op, then that says something about your personality. I don't think it's unusual to have friends from different sectors. I also don't think labels are a good thing...ever.

[Anonymous]

Im still reeling from the fact that there are people who fall outside of E1-E4. Where do they live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im still reeling from the fact that there are people who fall outside of E1-E4. Where do they live?

Follow the smell of bbq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is an interesting discussion that hits a nerve. I, too, find the undercurrent in the comments depressing. I understand why the PP with an L-->G husband was put off. I am a combination of L (by birth) and G (by education, profession). Being told that Gs can sniff you out from a mile off, secretly pity you, and don't want their kids marrying your kids is a pretty nasty gut-punch.

If that's playing nice, I wonder what playing nasty looks like. I understand the social class is very powerful, but do you really enjoy feeding it crackers? Don't all the college degrees inspire some cultural flexibility?

And here I thought working hard, going to honors college, getting a graduate degree, and trading in ideas and information was supposed to earn me gentry street cred. No?

Well, of course the Gs don't want their kids marrying Ls -- more risk of falling lower down the social ladder, and, if you far enough down the L chain, you start running into people not only not sharing your values but openly disdaining them. My G mom married an L, and, though he never said anything until they were headed towards divorce, I think it broke my grandfather's heart that he'd spent so much time and effort making sure his kids got a college education to have her end up with someone uneducated (that she ended up supporting). I've been called over-educated, had my job mocked because the profession is seen as uppity, told I'm going to hell for not taking my children to church, and I've been criticized for not knowing who particular NASCAR drivers are. Humans are pack animals, and we're more comfortable with people who are like us. I love my in-laws dearly - they are wonderful, caring people - but I am always on guard around them not to come off as too smart and smile and nod rather than attempt to discuss any sort of nuanced political or social issue with them.

The idea that working hard, going to college/grad school, etc. is your entry to a higher social class is a myth and it's why the whole pulling-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality is so maddening. Very few people make it on sheer grit. Most people have a leg up, a connection, a network, or something that gives them the opportunities to stay at the top. And they see those resources as finite and guard them with their secret club rules.

I understand your concern. Since I have some roots in what you are describing, I both understand the rules of that world and have spent a lot energy in fleeing it. One reason I maintain some distance is that, frankly, my own education and interests are sometimes viewed as threat. This is doubly the case because I am a woman. There are some rules I won't live by, and I don't want my child to internalize them. I wasted too much time and effort getting an education, over economic and logistical barriers, with a certain amount of pushback (as well as some fierce advocates) -- why have the next generation have to repeat the same journey? They should move onto a new project.

That said, thinking back on my own experiences for a minute, I don't see allies and adversaries in this project strictly along strictly class lines. Perhaps this is because my own migration was through and out of a religious movement that itself contained class strata. For example, in my church group, there was some serious L policing of gender and politics, that I found frustrating. But it was always possible to round game that attack a bit by appealing to the value of work and family values. So, I could express my emerging feminism this way, "Don't you think that girls should be able to fix cars and fend for themselves if they need to take care of their children? I'm just saying everyone should be able to stand on their own two feet." However, the lower level "G" strata of the same evangelical world were interested in Theology, and they didn't deal so much in practical questions -- the project from that angle to is coax the world-as-it-is to fit a theological model. Only the model is True. So they would detect nascent apostasy in my advocacy and come out flying -- after all, who did I think I was? And a woman. Go figure. This is why you don't let women get out of line. The Model predicted it. This lower level G self-defense is one where Biblical literacy and the authority to speak about it cloaks both class and gender privilege.

Now, if I could get high enough in the evangelical G strata, they wanted their daughters educated and successful, if also married well. The tone changes considerably in those quarters.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying that in my early life I knew Ls who were relatively easy to get along with, from my "uppity" point of view, as well as a plenty of Gs who seemed to have the time, energy, and cultural mandate to make themselves very frustrating.

Needless to say, religion, region and race are all factors that vastly complicate any narrative we want to tell about American social life.

Anyway, here's a point to which I want to migrate, off my long detour: I think that I understand your concerns. But I guess my own experience as a kind of cultural and class migrant, as well as someone who now lives in a fairly diverse community, is that I tend to look for and understand the value of cultural hospitality. Every tribe of people has something they want to defend and conserve. That is natural. But my own experiences and education have led me to value the practice of understanding people and making room for them. It is true that people cannot simply "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps;" that being the case, I certainly hope that when someone has taken the effort to fit themselves in and they will also be invited to stay. I understand your concern about, say, a person with a master's degree marrying someone with a high school education and no particular interest in education. But the working class kid who reads veraciously and put themselves through the same master's program?

The argument that runs, "We will always see their background and know who they really are," is - to me - not so very far off from my old church adversaries who refused, straight up, to understand anything about LGBT people in the same town, or people who want to see immigrants as outsiders even after they've been in town for 20 years. I get it. There's some truth to it.

But let's not stop short at that point. There's some suggestion in the comments that there's a limit to friendships across boundaries. I beg to differ. I know people from considerably different backgrounds, and while that can often be a barrier, I have seen people move across those barriers many times.

I feel like I should clarify that these are not necessarily my concerns, just that I understand them. I am also a class migrant and can fake both sides pretty well, but it always leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling of not fitting in either place and having to be quite careful about the worlds colliding. It is exhausting to be on guard all the time. One of the reasons that we live in the DC area is that the diversity of people makes this stratification less taxing for me -- there are people like me who get it. But it took a while to find them. My first internship in DC was brutal, and I was in with high G and E kids who made it clear to me that, regardless of my education and work ethic, I wasn't and never would be one of them. I can completely understand why some people give up on climbing the social ladder. The deck feels stacked against you, and it's frustrating to invest time and money into an education on the premise that we live in a meritocracy only to find out that there are barriers education and hard work can't break down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im still reeling from the fact that there are people who fall outside of E1-E4. Where do they live?

Who do you think the people are who fix your car, your plumbing, mow your lawns, do childcare, etc. Or do you just not consider them to be real "people"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im still reeling from the fact that there are people who fall outside of E1-E4. Where do they live?

Who do you think the people are who fix your car, your plumbing, mow your lawns, do childcare, etc. Or do you just not consider them to be real "people"?

Pretty sure the post you responded to was sarcastic.