Teach Me to Raise an "Upper-Middle Class" Child

[Anonymous]

Interesting thread.

A couple PPs mentioned avoiding toys with batteries, which I agree with, but I'd also add "no play guns". Nothing advertises a lower-class background more than a bunch of kids running around the house shooting at each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find the butter discussion fascinating! I had no idea that you are not supposed to butter your whole piece of bread

Really? You are either young (under 35) or not raised UMC.

Not that poster, but I'm 36, and my Dad was a law firm partner, so we were comfortably upper middle class. And yet I butter my bread wrong. If I ever heard of it before, I've totally forgotten. Maybe people have been secretly judging me all this time. Oh well. Frankly I think the focus on etiquette as a marker of class may be somewhat regional. My DH's family can be weird and formal about stuff like that even though in many respects they are far more working class than my family. But they are from up North. I'm from the South, and people don't generally focus on formalities as a sign of class status. Politeness and chivalry are a pretty big deal, but politeness is judged by how you relate to others, not table manners and knowing where to put a spoon.

It may be regional, but I think you're from a different part of the South than I am. My southern family was not rich, but very focused on table manners (including the bread/butter thing), and formalities as a sign of class status. It was drilled into us.

Yes, this is true.

My DH was raised very wealthy in the posh suburbs of NYC and his table manners are atrocious. He eats fast and finishes before everyone, holds his spoon in a babylike way sometimes, and eats "Continental" because it is "more efficient." True but he does not need to be any more efficient. He will also walk out ahead of me unless he's thinking about it, and I'm not a dawdler.

I have come to accept most of it but wish his parents had taught him better manners so he didn't have to be so conscious to remember to eat slowly and walk beside other people. By the time you send them off to college, this stuff ought to be automatic. It makes everything so much easier when manners are just there instead of having to try and remember them all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that this is the money and finance forum, I am surprised at how few responses are focused on money management.

I have been around UMC from a variety of cultures and one thing they all seem to have in common is careful husbandry of resources. There are a few things they won't skimp on--books, education, and travel are typical--but otherwise purchases are made carefully weighing costs vs. benefits. (This may not be the case with the newly rich.)

Children often are taught to manage money through an allowance. Usually this is not tied to chores--those are things you do because you are a member of the family and you are supposed to pull your weight.

Rather, regular allowances are given to teach children how to weigh costs vs. benefits in terms of what they spend. Usually, it is not particularly generous. Allowance is never withheld for any reason, including as a disciplinary measure. (This could change in later years if a substance abuse problem is suspected. )

Clear rules about what the allowance is supposed to cover are set up front. Children are strongly encouraged to save part of their allowance, and many families encourage a portion be set aside for donations. For example, if the child is given five dollars a week, the recommendation may be to save $1 and contribute $1 as a donation.

The allowance is a valuable UMC tool for teaching both careful spending and the obligation to help those who are less fortunate.

I agree with this. Is this UMC specific because the wealthy are never taught to live within particular means, and the poor don't have enough money to know how to manage it, much less teach their children how to do so?

I think it probably is a UMC thing. UMC people are rich, but they work for their income...so they are very aware of how they got it. People who are wealthy via passive income have a different relationship to their money, and people who are not rich usually have short-term practical concerns that make ideal money management more difficult.

I'm the PP who said that a UMC kid would never insist that they should be allowed to buy something just because it's cheap, and I maintain this is true. I never realized it before, but I've always had a strange reaction to people who are well-off who make those kinds of arguments...and I realize it's completely a class thing. My family has always had enough money (or at least always projected that they did), so something being cheap is irrelevant. From forever, we were taught to make decisions about money based on need and value. Not whether we have enough to buy X. I wouldn't even say "taught". It's what my parents did, and so it's what I learned. IME, people who have imbibed spending decisions that are made entirely by budget rather than value and need tend to get locked into golden handcuffs more easily. At least, that's what I observed among my college friends who went into high paying careers. The ones who grew up decidedly UMC were able to walk away from their jobs when they wanted to...those who didn't were more likely to have not saved.

[Anonymous]

OP, as long as you don't eat your peas with your knife, you're fine in my book.

https://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/2011/05/08/etiquette-violations-eating-off-your-knife/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find the butter discussion fascinating! I had no idea that you are not supposed to butter your whole piece of bread

Really? You are either young (under 35) or not raised UMC.

Not that poster, but I'm 36, and my Dad was a law firm partner, so we were comfortably upper middle class. And yet I butter my bread wrong. If I ever heard of it before, I've totally forgotten. Maybe people have been secretly judging me all this time. Oh well. Frankly I think the focus on etiquette as a marker of class may be somewhat regional. My DH's family can be weird and formal about stuff like that even though in many respects they are far more working class than my family. But they are from up North. I'm from the South, and people don't generally focus on formalities as a sign of class status. Politeness and chivalry are a pretty big deal, but politeness is judged by how you relate to others, not table manners and knowing where to put a spoon.

It may be regional, but I think you're from a different part of the South than I am. My southern family was not rich, but very focused on table manners (including the bread/butter thing), and formalities as a sign of class status. It was drilled into us.

Yes, this is true.

My DH was raised very wealthy in the posh suburbs of NYC and his table manners are atrocious. He eats fast and finishes before everyone, holds his spoon in a babylike way sometimes, and eats "Continental" because it is "more efficient." True but he does not need to be any more efficient. He will also walk out ahead of me unless he's thinking about it, and I'm not a dawdler.

I have come to accept most of it but wish his parents had taught him better manners so he didn't have to be so conscious to remember to eat slowly and walk beside other people. By the time you send them off to college, this stuff ought to be automatic. It makes everything so much easier when manners are just there instead of having to try and remember them all the time.

Just out of interest, I'm from the UK and so I eat "Continental" style (which I assume means knife in one hand, fork in the other, cutting and eating as you go?) Is this style of eating considered lower class or bad manners in the US? I'm not planning to change, just interested! Where I'm from, I'd say the US style is considered either bad manners or, if the person doing it is American, then it would be excused as "American", but still not considered the proper way to eat. Interesting, I think, because I think it highlights that the really important aspects of class and manners are in how to treat other people, and that is probably international and universal, although there are differences as to what is considered courteous and polite in different cultures. But table manners are very cultural - e.g. the way one would eat in Japan and appropriate table manners are very different to those in Europe and the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Just out of interest, I'm from the UK and so I eat "Continental" style (which I assume means knife in one hand, fork in the other, cutting and eating as you go?) Is this style of eating considered lower class or bad manners in the US? I'm not planning to change, just interested! Where I'm from, I'd say the US style is considered either bad manners or, if the person doing it is American, then it would be excused as "American", but still not considered the proper way to eat. Interesting, I think, because I think it highlights that the really important aspects of class and manners are in how to treat other people, and that is probably international and universal, although there are differences as to what is considered courteous and polite in different cultures. But table manners are very cultural - e.g. the way one would eat in Japan and appropriate table manners are very different to those in Europe and the US

My parents are Indian, and so I was taught British table manners including keeping my knife in my right hand. I'm not PP, but I think there's a difference between eating slowly and how you use your knife. It sounds like the issue is not the hand he's using for his knife, but the fact that he's shoveling food in his mouth. My completely anecdotal experience is that British people eat slowly, more like Americans. British people don't come across as poorly mannered because of this. But Europeans eat much faster, which does appear a little rude by American standards.

[Anonymous]

Yes, manners classes are a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just out of interest, I'm from the UK and so I eat "Continental" style (which I assume means knife in one hand, fork in the other, cutting and eating as you go?) Is this style of eating considered lower class or bad manners in the US? I'm not planning to change, just interested! Where I'm from, I'd say the US style is considered either bad manners or, if the person doing it is American, then it would be excused as "American", but still not considered the proper way to eat. Interesting, I think, because I think it highlights that the really important aspects of class and manners are in how to treat other people, and that is probably international and universal, although there are differences as to what is considered courteous and polite in different cultures. But table manners are very cultural - e.g. the way one would eat in Japan and appropriate table manners are very different to those in Europe and the US

My parents are Indian, and so I was taught British table manners including keeping my knife in my right hand. I'm not PP, but I think there's a difference between eating slowly and how you use your knife. It sounds like the issue is not the hand he's using for his knife, but the fact that he's shoveling food in his mouth. My completely anecdotal experience is that British people eat slowly, more like Americans. British people don't come across as poorly mannered because of this. But Europeans eat much faster, which does appear a little rude by American standards.

I noticed just the opposite, that Americans tend to eat very efficiently, so very quickly, making the other nationalities feel a bit uncomfortable: "am I eating too slowly?".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find the butter discussion fascinating! I had no idea that you are not supposed to butter your whole piece of bread

Really? You are either young (under 35) or not raised UMC.

Not that poster, but I'm 36, and my Dad was a law firm partner, so we were comfortably upper middle class. And yet I butter my bread wrong. If I ever heard of it before, I've totally forgotten. Maybe people have been secretly judging me all this time. Oh well. Frankly I think the focus on etiquette as a marker of class may be somewhat regional. My DH's family can be weird and formal about stuff like that even though in many respects they are far more working class than my family. But they are from up North. I'm from the South, and people don't generally focus on formalities as a sign of class status. Politeness and chivalry are a pretty big deal, but politeness is judged by how you relate to others, not table manners and knowing where to put a spoon.

It may be regional, but I think you're from a different part of the South than I am. My southern family was not rich, but very focused on table manners (including the bread/butter thing), and formalities as a sign of class status. It was drilled into us.

Yes, this is true.

My DH was raised very wealthy in the posh suburbs of NYC and his table manners are atrocious. He eats fast and finishes before everyone, holds his spoon in a babylike way sometimes, and eats "Continental" because it is "more efficient." True but he does not need to be any more efficient. He will also walk out ahead of me unless he's thinking about it, and I'm not a dawdler.

I have come to accept most of it but wish his parents had taught him better manners so he didn't have to be so conscious to remember to eat slowly and walk beside other people. By the time you send them off to college, this stuff ought to be automatic. It makes everything so much easier when manners are just there instead of having to try and remember them all the time.

Just out of interest, I'm from the UK and so I eat "Continental" style (which I assume means knife in one hand, fork in the other, cutting and eating as you go?) Is this style of eating considered lower class or bad manners in the US? I'm not planning to change, just interested! Where I'm from, I'd say the US style is considered either bad manners or, if the person doing it is American, then it would be excused as "American", but still not considered the proper way to eat. Interesting, I think, because I think it highlights that the really important aspects of class and manners are in how to treat other people, and that is probably international and universal, although there are differences as to what is considered courteous and polite in different cultures. But table manners are very cultural - e.g. the way one would eat in Japan and appropriate table manners are very different to those in Europe and the US

It would depend. In an area like Washington, people would just assume you did not grow up in America and are using your native manner of doing things. Perfectly fine. If you were American doing it I think it would just be considered unusual and/or an affectation. This style of eating as far as I know is not associated with the lower class in the US, nor is it necessarily considered bad manners--just not the right manners for an American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just out of interest, I'm from the UK and so I eat "Continental" style (which I assume means knife in one hand, fork in the other, cutting and eating as you go?) Is this style of eating considered lower class or bad manners in the US? I'm not planning to change, just interested! Where I'm from, I'd say the US style is considered either bad manners or, if the person doing it is American, then it would be excused as "American", but still not considered the proper way to eat. Interesting, I think, because I think it highlights that the really important aspects of class and manners are in how to treat other people, and that is probably international and universal, although there are differences as to what is considered courteous and polite in different cultures. But table manners are very cultural - e.g. the way one would eat in Japan and appropriate table manners are very different to those in Europe and the US

My parents are Indian, and so I was taught British table manners including keeping my knife in my right hand. I'm not PP, but I think there's a difference between eating slowly and how you use your knife. It sounds like the issue is not the hand he's using for his knife, but the fact that he's shoveling food in his mouth. My completely anecdotal experience is that British people eat slowly, more like Americans. British people don't come across as poorly mannered because of this. But Europeans eat much faster, which does appear a little rude by American standards.

I noticed just the opposite, that Americans tend to eat very efficiently, so very quickly, making the other nationalities feel a bit uncomfortable: "am I eating too slowly?".

This really depends on the individual. I often eat with groups of other nationalities, mostly European, overseas, and I notice I am usually the last to finish a course. But it happens with Americans as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that this is the money and finance forum, I am surprised at how few responses are focused on money management.

I have been around UMC from a variety of cultures and one thing they all seem to have in common is careful husbandry of resources. There are a few things they won't skimp on--books, education, and travel are typical--but otherwise purchases are made carefully weighing costs vs. benefits. (This may not be the case with the newly rich.)

Children often are taught to manage money through an allowance. Usually this is not tied to chores--those are things you do because you are a member of the family and you are supposed to pull your weight.

Rather, regular allowances are given to teach children how to weigh costs vs. benefits in terms of what they spend. Usually, it is not particularly generous. Allowance is never withheld for any reason, including as a disciplinary measure. (This could change in later years if a substance abuse problem is suspected. )

Clear rules about what the allowance is supposed to cover are set up front. Children are strongly encouraged to save part of their allowance, and many families encourage a portion be set aside for donations. For example, if the child is given five dollars a week, the recommendation may be to save $1 and contribute $1 as a donation.

The allowance is a valuable UMC tool for teaching both careful spending and the obligation to help those who are less fortunate.

I agree with this. Is this UMC specific because the wealthy are never taught to live within particular means, and the poor don't have enough money to know how to manage it, much less teach their children how to do so?

I think it probably is a UMC thing. UMC people are rich, but they work for their income...so they are very aware of how they got it. People who are wealthy via passive income have a different relationship to their money, and people who are not rich usually have short-term practical concerns that make ideal money management more difficult.

I'm the PP who said that a UMC kid would never insist that they should be allowed to buy something just because it's cheap, and I maintain this is true. I never realized it before, but I've always had a strange reaction to people who are well-off who make those kinds of arguments...and I realize it's completely a class thing. My family has always had enough money (or at least always projected that they did), so something being cheap is irrelevant. From forever, we were taught to make decisions about money based on need and value. Not whether we have enough to buy X. I wouldn't even say "taught". It's what my parents did, and so it's what I learned. IME, people who have imbibed spending decisions that are made entirely by budget rather than value and need tend to get locked into golden handcuffs more easily. At least, that's what I observed among my college friends who went into high paying careers. The ones who grew up decidedly UMC were able to walk away from their jobs when they wanted to...those who didn't were more likely to have not saved.

Actually, in my experience, the generationally wealthy do teach their children how to preserve wealth through careful spending so that the money can be passed on to the next generation.

I once lived overseas where the expat community was small and close. Among our numbers was a woman with a recognizable last name who had a trust fund likely in the mid eight figures. (She was overseas doing charitable work.) We were visiting a British friend of UMC background (her father had been a judge) who had just had a baby and was living in straightened circumstances. She was very concerned about her money situation with the new baby. The first thing trust fund lady asked British lady was about her budget. When the latter said she had never made a budget in her life, trust fund lady was truly shocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a poor immigrant family. We now have a seven figure HHI. I just try to expose my children to a lot of things. They know how to swim because I consider it a life skill that my parents did not teach to me.

If you went to HYP, I find it hard to believe that you don't know what an upper middle class lifestyle is. We want our kids to know the basics - how to play tennis, golf, ski, swim, etc. we vacation often. We eat out.

We are not and never will be country club people and that is fine. We have friends from all different backgrounds.

I went to HYP and don't know how to play tennis, golf, or ski and I swim poorly. Yikes! Better return my three Ivy League decrees!

Didn't you have to pass a swimming test before you graduated? It was required at Princeton when I went and I understood at Harvard and Yale too. Undergraduate lore was that the swimming test was instituted after the Titanic sunk and some graduates were lost because they didn't know how to swim. Always unclear how much knowing how to swim would have helped in the frigid waters.

It wouldn't have helped at all. Most people drown in cold water in seconds due to cold shock.

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/WhatIsCold.html

What?? this cannot be true. Is it?
signed,
lower middle class person

Did you not read the link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that this is the money and finance forum, I am surprised at how few responses are focused on money management.

I have been around UMC from a variety of cultures and one thing they all seem to have in common is careful husbandry of resources. There are a few things they won't skimp on--books, education, and travel are typical--but otherwise purchases are made carefully weighing costs vs. benefits. (This may not be the case with the newly rich.)

Children often are taught to manage money through an allowance. Usually this is not tied to chores--those are things you do because you are a member of the family and you are supposed to pull your weight.

Rather, regular allowances are given to teach children how to weigh costs vs. benefits in terms of what they spend. Usually, it is not particularly generous. Allowance is never withheld for any reason, including as a disciplinary measure. (This could change in later years if a substance abuse problem is suspected. )

Clear rules about what the allowance is supposed to cover are set up front. Children are strongly encouraged to save part of their allowance, and many families encourage a portion be set aside for donations. For example, if the child is given five dollars a week, the recommendation may be to save $1 and contribute $1 as a donation.

The allowance is a valuable UMC tool for teaching both careful spending and the obligation to help those who are less fortunate.

I agree with this. Is this UMC specific because the wealthy are never taught to live within particular means, and the poor don't have enough money to know how to manage it, much less teach their children how to do so?

I think it probably is a UMC thing. UMC people are rich, but they work for their income...so they are very aware of how they got it. People who are wealthy via passive income have a different relationship to their money, and people who are not rich usually have short-term practical concerns that make ideal money management more difficult.

I'm the PP who said that a UMC kid would never insist that they should be allowed to buy something just because it's cheap, and I maintain this is true. I never realized it before, but I've always had a strange reaction to people who are well-off who make those kinds of arguments...and I realize it's completely a class thing. My family has always had enough money (or at least always projected that they did), so something being cheap is irrelevant. From forever, we were taught to make decisions about money based on need and value. Not whether we have enough to buy X. I wouldn't even say "taught". It's what my parents did, and so it's what I learned. IME, people who have imbibed spending decisions that are made entirely by budget rather than value and need tend to get locked into golden handcuffs more easily. At least, that's what I observed among my college friends who went into high paying careers. The ones who grew up decidedly UMC were able to walk away from their jobs when they wanted to...those who didn't were more likely to have not saved.

Actually, in my experience, the generationally wealthy do teach their children how to preserve wealth through careful spending so that the money can be passed on to the next generation.

I once lived overseas where the expat community was small and close. Among our numbers was a woman with a recognizable last name who had a trust fund likely in the mid eight figures. (She was overseas doing charitable work.) We were visiting a British friend of UMC background (her father had been a judge) who had just had a baby and was living in straightened circumstances. She was very concerned about her money situation with the new baby. The first thing trust fund lady asked British lady was about her budget. When the latter said she had never made a budget in her life, trust fund lady was truly shocked.

+1. So interesting about the wealthy having budgets. I recall reading a biography of Michael Eisner (former CEO of Disney). Eisner grew up wealthy in Manhattan as his family had owned a successful uniform company for generations.

When Eisner was a teen, he took a cab somewhere in NYC. During the ride, he looked out the window and saw his grandmother getting on a bus. She spotted him too, and was mortified that her teenage grandson would splurge to take a cab when the bus was available.

[Anonymous]

Here are some little things that I notice:

(1) When someone walks in a room and you're sitting down, you stand up to greet them.

(2) When you are taking a food item (even a cookie off of a plate) at a school or work function, you use tongs. (You don't just touch the cookie directly.)

(3) You eat slowly and take small bites.

(4) You have a lot of emotional intelligence -- greet people warmly, show a genuine interest in people, ask questions, etc.

(5) You have good orthodontics and take good care of your teeth.

(6) You do not lick your fingers when eating.

(7) Here's one that I'm having a had time teaching my kids -- When eating something with your hands (like a sandwich, burger, or pizza), you put the item down between bites and wipe your mouth with a napkin. You do not hold the food item continuously until you're done with it. And after wiping your mouth, you would ideally ask your dinner companion a question about their day or something of interest to them. Then, while listening to their answer, you can pick up the food item and continue eating it.

[Anonymous]

Every time this thread pops back up I go to get some bread and butter.

Pavlov's communal butter knife.