The Social Class Ladders—Labor, Gentry, and Elite

[Anonymous]

Take a look at the thread on the guy wondering how to make more money

Gs think that education is the path toward more money.

Es know its really about knowing the right people.

Its a totally different path and approach to being successful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't think it's getting into the right crowd as much as it is avoiding slipping down to an L.

What I'm gathering from this whole thread is that the biggest jumps up and down happen between generations for the most part. At 32, I'm a G and inalways will be. So is dh. Dh's brother is an L and always will be. Give us more or less money and we just move up and down our own ladders. BUT the kids have the most opportunity for movement, whether up or down (or the same). Their life experiences (first education, other life exp, then relationships) will place them in ladder, and they will mostly stay in that ladder.

So education can be a huge factor, and Gs (and Es from a social perspective) know it.

[Anonymous]

how do kids differ from L3/L4/G4/G3 to G2/G1?

middle class neighborhoods typically consist of a mixture of L4/G4/G3. The upper middle class, typically with the better school systems, seem to be mostly G2s. How do the children compare between L3/L4/G4/G3 vs G2? Is drug use the same? are G2 kids more likely to be bratty/spoiled/entitled/etc....?

[Anonymous]

I live in a house whose current value is six months of my income. My wife and I enjoy living with real folks. Funny part my house is all 1980s siding with a cracked concrete patio and rusty BBQ. My neighbors think I am poor. Once I was actually trying to fix my house and a women in a BMW was handing out coffee. Turns out volunteers were in neighborhood helping fix run down houses and they did a coffee run. Good coffee.

[Anonymous]

There's nothing radical about this scale. It merely acknowledges that social class in the US is much more complex than just income or even net worth. I can hardly believe that this is new to American social scientists! I've been saying that money is a poor indicator of class on this board for years and you've all shoot me down.

I'm British and class has always been accepted in Britain as much more complex than money. It's about your education and aspirations, it's about your attitude to work and the books you read and how you spend your spare time. It's about the type of job you hold, not how much money you bring in.

I haven't studied US literature on this but I can't believe that this is the first time a social scientist (or is he just a blogger) has analyzed these distinctions. But apparently because there's a link to a web page (not an academic journal) you folks on DCUM are all over this, something that doesn't happen in 30 pages of discussion on whether $300k is upper or middle class.

[Anonymous]

The breakdown is interesting, but it does seem to reflect mostly east coast culture.

I find it hard to place on the scale, for example, people who are the largest landowners, and for several generations, in a county in what DCUM often refers to as flyover country. Often these are high net worth, but not necessarily top 1% of the nation in income people. Depending on personal characteristics, these people are viewed by others in the area as greedy and mean or paragons of decency who use their means to help the community.

There is a whole element of high prestige (based on family and personal characteristics and behavior) people but not necessarily rich who are not captured on the scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The breakdown is interesting, but it does seem to reflect mostly east coast culture.

I find it hard to place on the scale, for example, people who are the largest landowners, and for several generations, in a county in what DCUM often refers to as flyover country. Often these are high net worth, but not necessarily top 1% of the nation in income people. Depending on personal characteristics, these people are viewed by others in the area as greedy and mean or paragons of decency who use their means to help the community.

There is a whole element of high prestige (based on family and personal characteristics and behavior) people but not necessarily rich who are not captured on the scale.

On this scale, these people would be considered elites, albeit regional ones. That said, even in "flyover country" (which is where I am from) I would be shocked to learn that a major landowner would not be in the national 1% (net worth of $8-9M): https://dqydj.com/net-worth-in-the-united-states-zooming-in-on-the-top-centiles/

[Anonymous]

To PP right above (for some reason can't quote you) I'd veer toward elite as well. Calling it regional elite helps. I agree about the net worth, and did say high net worth, but income is not necessarily in top 1% of nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because we value knowledge. Much like the Es value power and the Ls value money, knowledge is the most sought after commodity for Gs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because we value knowledge. Much like the Es value power and the Ls value money, knowledge is the most sought after commodity for Gs.

No, I don't think this is it. I'm a G. It's because we're hoping our kids will make the leap from G to E by being among the "right" peer group. In this area, there are public school zones where E families actually use public schools. If you are a G or even an L who can afford a home in those zones, your child can hopefully make a lateral move just by being the right place at the right time and knowing the right people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because we value knowledge. Much like the Es value power and the Ls value money, knowledge is the most sought after commodity for Gs.

No, I don't think this is it. I'm a G. It's because we're hoping our kids will make the leap from G to E by being among the "right" peer group. In this area, there are public school zones where E families actually use public schools. If you are a G or even an L who can afford a home in those zones, your child can hopefully make a lateral move just by being the right place at the right time and knowing the right people.

You think like that because you're not really a G. You can't wrap your head around the fact that this particular scale only has loose associations with wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because we value knowledge. Much like the Es value power and the Ls value money, knowledge is the most sought after commodity for Gs.

No, I don't think this is it. I'm a G. It's because we're hoping our kids will make the leap from G to E by being among the "right" peer group. In this area, there are public school zones where E families actually use public schools. If you are a G or even an L who can afford a home in those zones, your child can hopefully make a lateral move just by being the right place at the right time and knowing the right people.

Huh? How is your G or L child going to make a lateral move by just being around E kids in public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't think it's getting into the right crowd as much as it is avoiding slipping down to an L.

What I'm gathering from this whole thread is that the biggest jumps up and down happen between generations for the most part. At 32, I'm a G and inalways will be. So is dh. Dh's brother is an L and always will be. Give us more or less money and we just move up and down our own ladders. BUT the kids have the most opportunity for movement, whether up or down (or the same). Their life experiences (first education, other life exp, then relationships) will place them in ladder, and they will mostly stay in that ladder.

So education can be a huge factor, and Gs (and Es from a social perspective) know it.

Answering the conversation in the post above...... Because of what this person said. A young person can shift somewhere between age 14-25, depending on what opportunities they are given, what people they meet up with, specific educational and work experiences, etc.

[Anonymous]

^and relationships. If a G marries (or cohabitiates with) a trailer-raised, L class partner, they're making a shift. If a G marries an E, and they smoothly transition into that life, they're making a shift too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because we value knowledge. Much like the Es value power and the Ls value money, knowledge is the most sought after commodity for Gs.

No, I don't think this is it. I'm a G. It's because we're hoping our kids will make the leap from G to E by being among the "right" peer group. In this area, there are public school zones where E families actually use public schools. If you are a G or even an L who can afford a home in those zones, your child can hopefully make a lateral move just by being the right place at the right time and knowing the right people.

You think like that because you're not really a G. You can't wrap your head around the fact that this particular scale only has loose associations with wealth.

Sure, you can tell yourself that. I am a G2, but since there's no blood test for it I guess you can't know whether I'm really a G. My parents were G2's. My father, an immigrant, always hoped we'd make the leap to E, but none of us chose to pursue the fields that would have placed us in that category, and, thanks to family money, we live comfortably enough as G2's to not have felt compelled to give up more meaningful work for money as E3's. I suspect, like my father, many G parents hope that their children will at the very least remain stable in their current social positions, and that is why parents are so concerned with school districts. It has nothing whatsoever to do with valuing knowledge above all else. You're in denial. When talking about K-12 school districts, we're talking about valuing the demographics of a school, not the talent of the staff nor the depth of the curriculum (curriculum is the same across school districts--you can get better curriculum at top privates, but not by changing school zones within the Metro area, and the best staff is usually sent to the neediest schools rather than the schools with the wealthiest demographics).