The Social Class Ladders—Labor, Gentry, and Elite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me all the posters who are saying class mobility does not exist. My H and I both grew up LMC. We're first generation college graduates. Now I have a PhD and he is in finance. Senior manager at his firm, very likely to advance. He makes >750k. I adjunct right now for the flexibility with our kids (I'm basically a SAHM for all intents and purposes - I only teach one or two courses a year to keep my toe in. It's basically a hobby job).

Anyway, my point is, we've still been invited to join the fancy country club, our kids go to an expensive private school, we vacation several times a year in the same spots as all the other parents (Caribbean, skiing, Europe, beach trip every year). I've never once felt slighted or looked down upon. Maybe our background is not obvious to others? We're mid thirties and went to good schools on scholarship/loans which we've since long paid off.

I don't get the people who are saying this ^ is not an example of class mobility.

It is, but if you think that your experience is not an anomaly, you're fooling yourself. Making $750K+ is pretty unusual in the population overall, as is having the opportunity to go to a school that the elite consider "good" from an L background. Most L and even low-G kids are raised on the idea that getting into the flagship state school is an achievement. It wasn't until I got to start hanging out with the Es in DC that I learned that I'd have been better off going to some SLAC that no one I went to high school had ever heard of than a large, public university that's well-regarded pretty much everywhere else but DC.

To be fair, Gs and low Es in the DC area consider getting into UVA/W&M as the pinnacle of their HS child's achievement.

I went to Princeton, and am thrilled that my kids both got into UVA and W&M.

was it money or grades that was the problem?

[Anonymous]

While we are on the topic of social class and educational institutions, communal values, and social mobility:

Let's say you know an L family or a lower-rung G family who value education. Financially, there are some constraints on their choices, and culturally they are not "elite" G or E. They can't decide if they should send their child to an independent school or move into a well-regarded public school. They have money for tuition or better real estate, but not both choices.

Absent any other factor (such as nickles-and-dimes cost comparison), what do you tell them to do? Why?

DH and I debate this question off and on, focusing a lot on "fitting in"/inclusion as well as the value of learning social rules outside of the ones your family knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While we are on the topic of social class and educational institutions, communal values, and social mobility:

Let's say you know an L family or a lower-rung G family who value education. Financially, there are some constraints on their choices, and culturally they are not "elite" G or E. They can't decide if they should send their child to an independent school or move into a well-regarded public school. They have money for tuition or better real estate, but not both choices.

Absent any other factor (such as nickles-and-dimes cost comparison), what do you tell them to do? Why?

DH and I debate this question off and on, focusing a lot on "fitting in"/inclusion as well as the value of learning social rules outside of the ones your family knows.

We have confronted this question as well, albeit from a slightly different place- we are G2/E3, and chose a great house in a very close-in suburb zoned for a well-regarded elementary school. We could have spent the same money on independent schools for our kids instead of a real estate upgrade, but we aren't currently in a position to do both. Our thinking was that 1) we and our kids get the benefit of a neighborhood with G2/E friends/neighbors; 2) our real estate will likely appreciate and our kids will ultimately benefit from that; 3) we might be able to afford independent schools for middle/high school even if we can't now- but the zoned schools are good enough that we won't have to do that; 5) in public school our kids aren't as likely to feel envious of others in radically more fortunate circumstances, and we'd like to keep them grounded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is a law firm associate (from a top 10 school) - turned in-house corporate counsel, turned General Counsel for a midsize non-public company?

G2 or E3/4?

What's the background? What class are that person's parents in?

That person (DH) was raised by college-educated parents who ran a lucrative small-ish family business, whose employees were mostly blue collar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:E3 married to E3. I would jump off a bridge if I was an L. Does anyone actually choose to be an L? It seems like bad luck at birth.

Well, after the apocalypse the L's will probably rebuild the world. E's probably won't survive. G's will help shape society.

I think Gs will survive the least. (G4s the most, g2s the least)
Es may have leadership, resources, know-how to stay afloat. Along with G1.

In agreement that Ls will do just fine. L1s might benefit the most.

If you were G you would understand that the artificial construct of money that defines the Elites will be irrelevant after the apocalypse (staying "afloat" will be a meaningless concept). E's are the ones the L's will be coming for with pitchforks. With the possible exception of some create E3's, I don't know any E who is truly resourceful if the resources aren't money in a society that already values it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:E3 married to E3. I would jump off a bridge if I was an L. Does anyone actually choose to be an L? It seems like bad luck at birth.

Well, after the apocalypse the L's will probably rebuild the world. E's probably won't survive. G's will help shape society.

I think Gs will survive the least. (G4s the most, g2s the least)
Es may have leadership, resources, know-how to stay afloat. Along with G1.

In agreement that Ls will do just fine. L1s might benefit the most.

If you were G you would understand that the artificial construct of money that defines the Elites will be irrelevant after the apocalypse (staying "afloat" will be a meaningless concept). E's are the ones the L's will be coming for with pitchforks. With the possible exception of some create E3's, I don't know any E who is truly resourceful if the resources aren't money in a society that already values it.

It's a nice fairytale. The reality is Es didn't get where they are by being nice people and easy targets. Even the most charitable are typically pretty ruthless and think well in tough situations. Disorganized pitchforks are pretty easy fended. More likely different Es will have Ls armies. If He suck up enough, they might survive long enough to become usefully post pitchfork stage.

[Anonymous]

He is Gs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:E3 married to E3. I would jump off a bridge if I was an L. Does anyone actually choose to be an L? It seems like bad luck at birth.

Well, after the apocalypse the L's will probably rebuild the world. E's probably won't survive. G's will help shape society.

I think Gs will survive the least. (G4s the most, g2s the least)
Es may have leadership, resources, know-how to stay afloat. Along with G1.
In agreement that Ls will do just fine. L1s might benefit the most.

If you were G you would understand that the artificial construct of money that defines the Elites will be irrelevant after the apocalypse (staying "afloat" will be a meaningless concept). E's are the ones the L's will be coming for with pitchforks. With the possible exception of some create E3's, I don't know any E who is truly resourceful if the resources aren't money in a society that already values it.

It's a nice fairytale. The reality is Es didn't get where they are by being nice people and easy targets. Even the most charitable are typically pretty ruthless and think well in tough situations. Disorganized pitchforks are pretty easy fended. More likely different Es will have Ls armies. If He suck up enough, they might survive long enough to become usefully post pitchfork stage.

Haha, you're the one living in fairytale land. I agree with you that investment bankers are not nice people...but don't make me laugh in terms of their being particularly good at thinking through tough situations in a context where the outcomes are practical (and not money). I'll give you some corporate CEOs, but I'd put more money on successful L1s as being self-made and resourceful in ways that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is a law firm associate (from a top 10 school) - turned in-house corporate counsel, turned General Counsel for a midsize non-public company?

G2 or E3/4?

What's the background? What class are that person's parents in?

That person (DH) was raised by college-educated parents who ran a lucrative small-ish family business, whose employees were mostly blue collar.

That's not enough information, since there is a lot of fluidity between G2 and E3/4. If he's older, E4 probably doesn't really apply. Whether G or E depends on how he lives his life and the type of people he's in touch with through his job (i.e. what sector, location, and customers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:E3 married to E3. I would jump off a bridge if I was an L. Does anyone actually choose to be an L? It seems like bad luck at birth.

Well, after the apocalypse the L's will probably rebuild the world. E's probably won't survive. G's will help shape society.

I think Gs will survive the least. (G4s the most, g2s the least)
Es may have leadership, resources, know-how to stay afloat. Along with G1.
In agreement that Ls will do just fine. L1s might benefit the most.

If you were G you would understand that the artificial construct of money that defines the Elites will be irrelevant after the apocalypse (staying "afloat" will be a meaningless concept). E's are the ones the L's will be coming for with pitchforks. With the possible exception of some create E3's, I don't know any E who is truly resourceful if the resources aren't money in a society that already values it.

It's a nice fairytale. The reality is Es didn't get where they are by being nice people and easy targets. Even the most charitable are typically pretty ruthless and think well in tough situations. Disorganized pitchforks are pretty easy fended. More likely different Es will have Ls armies. If He suck up enough, they might survive long enough to become usefully post pitchfork stage.

Haha, you're the one living in fairytale land. I agree with you that investment bankers are not nice people...but don't make me laugh in terms of their being particularly good at thinking through tough situations in a context where the outcomes are practical (and not money). I'll give you some corporate CEOs, but I'd put more money on successful L1s as being self-made and resourceful in ways that matter.

I will agree with you that the bottoms of the ladders are probably screwed. I think, though, that successful L1 are mostly sales which are as screwed as investment bankers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While we are on the topic of social class and educational institutions, communal values, and social mobility:

Let's say you know an L family or a lower-rung G family who value education. Financially, there are some constraints on their choices, and culturally they are not "elite" G or E. They can't decide if they should send their child to an independent school or move into a well-regarded public school. They have money for tuition or better real estate, but not both choices.

Absent any other factor (such as nickles-and-dimes cost comparison), what do you tell them to do? Why?

DH and I debate this question off and on, focusing a lot on "fitting in"/inclusion as well as the value of learning social rules outside of the ones your family knows.

Public schools are fine. I believe you go to private school for specific reasons. Some people send their kids to private school "just because" or some other fairly nebulous reason as "better education", or "better networking". No, I think it has to be something specific. Otherwise a good public school pyramid is perfectly fine.

Fitting in is important - we are social animals and as such inherently associate with people who are like us rather than those who don't fit in. Of course I would not go overboard with the fitting in, to the point of judging yourself by what others think of you. There has to be some balance. Confidence is foolish if you don't balance it with some outside input.

[Anonymous]

Wow, so in reading this, it appears that I'm a G2 and DH is E4; I come from an L4/L3 family and his family was more L1. My BIL is more L3 and it is SO interesting to see the difference in dynamics about where to eat, where to vacation, etc. One of my really good friends from HS and I absolutely differ this way as well.
While DH and I are coming from lower levels, we never felt the need to try to fit in. I think one of the things is that I bought real estate at 22 and that has been keeping us pretty stable before we have kids. I do think there is a much different mindset about how we view money-- it is different than, say, probably an E2 or E3, which is something we aspire to be and think of from a legacy perspective. We've started thinking more about other investments and eventually me owning my own business, which I know I can do, but right now my job/career is quite awesome and stable.
I do agree that some people won't let you in for whatever reason. I use to think it was because I am Black and from an L1 background, although I went to an elite university for undergrad and grad. I naturally get along with everyone but there are clear divides and clear exclusions for whatever reasons. I decided to just let it go... no one else is paying our taxes but us so why should I care? If we want to go to the movies, we go. If we want to go to the Opera, we go. We are truly blessed to be able to choose what we want to do, when we want to do it and how we want to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me all the posters who are saying class mobility does not exist. My H and I both grew up LMC. We're first generation college graduates. Now I have a PhD and he is in finance. Senior manager at his firm, very likely to advance. He makes >750k. I adjunct right now for the flexibility with our kids (I'm basically a SAHM for all intents and purposes - I only teach one or two courses a year to keep my toe in. It's basically a hobby job).

Anyway, my point is, we've still been invited to join the fancy country club, our kids go to an expensive private school, we vacation several times a year in the same spots as all the other parents (Caribbean, skiing, Europe, beach trip every year). I've never once felt slighted or looked down upon. Maybe our background is not obvious to others? We're mid thirties and went to good schools on scholarship/loans which we've since long paid off.

I don't get the people who are saying this ^ is not an example of class mobility.

It is, but if you think that your experience is not an anomaly, you're fooling yourself. Making $750K+ is pretty unusual in the population overall, as is having the opportunity to go to a school that the elite consider "good" from an L background. Most L and even low-G kids are raised on the idea that getting into the flagship state school is an achievement. It wasn't until I got to start hanging out with the Es in DC that I learned that I'd have been better off going to some SLAC that no one I went to high school had ever heard of than a large, public university that's well-regarded pretty much everywhere else but DC.

To be fair, Gs and low Es in the DC area consider getting into UVA/W&M as the pinnacle of their HS child's achievement.

I went to Princeton, and am thrilled that my kids both got into UVA and W&M.

I think the Ivies are very overrated for undergrad, so they didn't apply to any.

was it money or grades that was the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me all the posters who are saying class mobility does not exist. My H and I both grew up LMC. We're first generation college graduates. Now I have a PhD and he is in finance. Senior manager at his firm, very likely to advance. He makes >750k. I adjunct right now for the flexibility with our kids (I'm basically a SAHM for all intents and purposes - I only teach one or two courses a year to keep my toe in. It's basically a hobby job).

Anyway, my point is, we've still been invited to join the fancy country club, our kids go to an expensive private school, we vacation several times a year in the same spots as all the other parents (Caribbean, skiing, Europe, beach trip every year). I've never once felt slighted or looked down upon. Maybe our background is not obvious to others? We're mid thirties and went to good schools on scholarship/loans which we've since long paid off.

I don't get the people who are saying this ^ is not an example of class mobility.

It is, but if you think that your experience is not an anomaly, you're fooling yourself. Making $750K+ is pretty unusual in the population overall, as is having the opportunity to go to a school that the elite consider "good" from an L background. Most L and even low-G kids are raised on the idea that getting into the flagship state school is an achievement. It wasn't until I got to start hanging out with the Es in DC that I learned that I'd have been better off going to some SLAC that no one I went to high school had ever heard of than a large, public university that's well-regarded pretty much everywhere else but DC.

To be fair, Gs and low Es in the DC area consider getting into UVA/W&M as the pinnacle of their HS child's achievement.

I went to Princeton, and am thrilled that my kids both got into UVA and W&M.

I think the Ivies are very overrated for undergrad, so they didn't apply to any.

was it money or grades that was the problem?

So, it was both money and grades. Got it!

[Anonymous]

What are the reasons why Gs are always trying to get their kids into the best school districts?

Is it mainly the 'better' peer group? If so, what is the 'better' peer group? kids whose parents are professionals?