Anyone else culturally rich but asset-poor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little confused by the level of hostility some people are displaying here towards people with less money (ie, the OP). OP didn't say anything insulting about people with money, but some posters seem defensive an are implying there's some sort of moral superiority in having wealth. I think OP was just observing that there are different vectors of privilege, and they felt that they were rich in one but not the other. It's definitely possible to be cultured with or without money, and the same for being uncultured.

See above PPs when they explain that people like OP are "insufferable and pretentious a-holes" and "arrogant, conceited, and smacks of narcissism"
Simply the worst of the worst.
"Literati" PP is Exhibit A for this type.

I think people are projecting quite a bit into the 15 words that OP wrote. And frankly, the people calling other people names look far worse to me. Is this what rich and cultured looks like?

[Anonymous]

Culturally rich = prestigious degree from top university with somewhat prestigious job in a low earning profession, but oops no trust fund or spent it or something went wrong. Married someone similar and neither had any money sense, but feels somehow culturally superior despite those values leading to a less affluent less materially successful lifestyle. Aka came from money but didn’t make money themselves. See: Henry James, Edith Wharton, Theodore Dreiser, EM Forster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Culturally rich = prestigious degree from top university with somewhat prestigious job in a low earning profession, but oops no trust fund or spent it or something went wrong. Married someone similar and neither had any money sense, but feels somehow culturally superior despite those values leading to a less affluent less materially successful lifestyle. Aka came from money but didn’t make money themselves. See: Henry James, Edith Wharton, Theodore Dreiser, EM Forster.

So basically, you’re educated and employed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Culturally rich = prestigious degree from top university with somewhat prestigious job in a low earning profession, but oops no trust fund or spent it or something went wrong. Married someone similar and neither had any money sense, but feels somehow culturally superior despite those values leading to a less affluent less materially successful lifestyle. Aka came from money but didn’t make money themselves. See: Henry James, Edith Wharton, Theodore Dreiser, EM Forster.

Disagree that you need a degree from a top university to be culturally rich. You’re just describing someone who is downwardly mobile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little confused by the level of hostility some people are displaying here towards people with less money (ie, the OP). OP didn't say anything insulting about people with money, but some posters seem defensive an are implying there's some sort of moral superiority in having wealth. I think OP was just observing that there are different vectors of privilege, and they felt that they were rich in one but not the other. It's definitely possible to be cultured with or without money, and the same for being uncultured.

It’s because people in DCUM need to constantly convince themselves that they are wealthy because they are smart and only bc they are smart (and deserving). When you question this belief and remind them that there are lots of very smart people (academics, teachers, scientists, etc) who don’t make 400k and live in McMansions—-they get a little defensive and go on attack mode by insulting people—-like the OP.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I call this happy and unencumbered!

[Anonymous]

The fact that most people here don't understand the concept of cultural capital speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little confused by the level of hostility some people are displaying here towards people with less money (ie, the OP). OP didn't say anything insulting about people with money, but some posters seem defensive an are implying there's some sort of moral superiority in having wealth. I think OP was just observing that there are different vectors of privilege, and they felt that they were rich in one but not the other. It's definitely possible to be cultured with or without money, and the same for being uncultured.

It’s because people in DCUM need to constantly convince themselves that they are wealthy because they are smart and only bc they are smart (and deserving). When you question this belief and remind them that there are lots of very smart people (academics, teachers, scientists, etc) who don’t make 400k and live in McMansions—-they get a little defensive and go on attack mode by insulting people—-like the OP.

This. Presumably these are the sorts of people who believe you can’t be intelligent if you didn’t attend college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that most people here don't understand the concept of cultural capital speaks volumes.

Is it super shocking though? Based on the number of is this upper class/what is UMC/what is considered rich? posts, it’s not.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of cultured people who don’t have a lot of money/ why is this a debate or cause for insults?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ulturally rich as in connected to your heritage? Or like, playdates on the mall?
C
Either way, finding aspects of your life that are going well according to your metrics is a healthy way to deal with any feelings of insecurity or jealousy w/r/t other people having more money. [/quote

Yeah, what is "culturally rich"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Culturally rich = prestigious degree from top university with somewhat prestigious job in a low earning profession, but oops no trust fund or spent it or something went wrong. Married someone similar and neither had any money sense, but feels somehow culturally superior despite those values leading to a less affluent less materially successful lifestyle. Aka came from money but didn’t make money themselves. See: Henry James, Edith Wharton, Theodore Dreiser, EM Forster.

Edith Wharton was crazy rich. Henry James actually wasnt very well off snd Wharton used to secretly fund all sorts of literary contests. She would pass them the James to enter--and he would win!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, I am ignoring the sophomoric argument above. You described my family. Two PhDs whose house is full of books--everything from Journey to the West to Terry Pratchett. A friend of mine calls us "the literati." We talk a lot of politics, talk a lot about social justice, and what books we read. However, we are so broke (poor is systemic). It is what it is. We hope our kids also have rich intellectual lives and have a good education. That is what we can give them. I do want to distinguish that it isn't champagne tastes. I don't want anything from Van Cleef & Arpels. I don't care about your NYC or Paris shopping trip. Nor do I care about cars or the size of your house. I just don't care. This means I can't identify with a lot of the people in the DC suburbs. I literally got caught in a convo once about how Kia has a luxury car brand. It was not my thing.

It is interesting that you associate money with shopping, cars or luxury jewelries. Money is much more than that. Money allowed me to take my kids to more than 50 countries around the world and experience different cultures not from books, but to have first hand experience. Money allowed me to send my kids to great private schools that also expand their horizons. For example, when they studied about Ancient Greece in middle school, the traveled to Greece and drove across the country for two weeks as part of their class work. Money allowed us to learn several languages (each family member speaks 4-5 languages). I don't buy jewelry either, even the cheaper ones, but I buy business class flight to Vienna to see Klimt's Kiss one more time even though I've seen it dozen of times before or flight to Amsterdam to see the latest exhibit or concert. Money allowed me not just talk about social justice but actually do something about it. I don't care about your talks because people like you they are just that, talk and no action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, I am ignoring the sophomoric argument above. You described my family. Two PhDs whose house is full of books--everything from Journey to the West to Terry Pratchett. A friend of mine calls us "the literati." We talk a lot of politics, talk a lot about social justice, and what books we read. However, we are so broke (poor is systemic). It is what it is. We hope our kids also have rich intellectual lives and have a good education. That is what we can give them. I do want to distinguish that it isn't champagne tastes. I don't want anything from Van Cleef & Arpels. I don't care about your NYC or Paris shopping trip. Nor do I care about cars or the size of your house. I just don't care. This means I can't identify with a lot of the people in the DC suburbs. I literally got caught in a convo once about how Kia has a luxury car brand. It was not my thing.

It is interesting that you associate money with shopping, cars or luxury jewelries. Money is much more than that. Money allowed me to take my kids to more than 50 countries around the world and experience different cultures not from books, but to have first hand experience. Money allowed me to send my kids to great private schools that also expand their horizons. For example, when they studied about Ancient Greece in middle school, the traveled to Greece and drove across the country for two weeks as part of their class work. Money allowed us to learn several languages (each family member speaks 4-5 languages). I don't buy jewelry either, even the cheaper ones, but I buy business class flight to Vienna to see Klimt's Kiss one more time even though I've seen it dozen of times before or flight to Amsterdam to see the latest exhibit or concert. Money allowed me not just talk about social justice but actually do something about it. I don't care about your talks because people like you they are just that, talk and no action.

NP. Unfortunately money can’t buy class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it meant highly educated and well-traveled, knowledgeable about the arts, but not wealthy. I think this describes a lot of people in academia, particularly in the humanities.

Bingo! And this is what DCUM misses all the time. All the dozens of threads about what makes upper class seems to overlook this. It’s not entirely about your income it’s also about your outlook and your education and what you do in your free time.