The Social Class Ladders—Labor, Gentry, and Elite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a third generational lawyer who only makes $100,000 is what? Gentry I assume and not the lowest Elite?

My read is that it would depend on how they are employed. If they run their own firm and typically handle non-corporate/non-contract work, then they are likely somewhere in the Gentry ladder. To me, I read the Elite as primarily the rentier class, though lower rungs of Elites are simply in a position to acquire assets that enable them to live off of passive income. Depending on lifestyle choices they make, their kids would be more solidly Elite.

Overall, this is a very worthwhile read. One interesting thing about this is that it's extremely difficult for me to figure out where physicians land in this system. I think somewhere between G3-G2, but the details of either don't fit particularly well.

These categories actually help explain why I am currently unhappy in my high-paying job. I'm pretty sure I'm culturally solidly G2, but my job is probably a better fit for someone who would feel right at home as a G3. Notably, DH is probably more G3, which is why he doesn't really understand what it is I don't like about my job. Before moving due to DH's job, I used to have a much lower-paying job where my co-workers were G2's and E2's (maybe a couple E3/4's), and I was much happier there despite earning that far lower salary.

Third generation lawyer who's a corporate wage slave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are psycho. All I was doing was sharing my story of where we fit into this, as others were doing.... Fact is we are already G, my friend. We're already hanging out with you. We're fitting in. No one thinks his life was sad....... huh? He wasn't Underclass.....

What you're saying is no one can truly move between L and G. That's false. Read the article lady, there is a lot of movement between L and G. Get used to it.

Not backing down here because you're the type of person who should be ashamed of themselves. Imagine saying what you're saying publicly. Snot.

There's movement between it, sure. But the people who were born into G look down on it. Obviously that bothers you- too bad. The truth is the truth.

Np here. You are quite literally insulting someone you don't know. I think this is an important 'fight' here, whether or not anyone cares about this particular husband, it's an interesting case study.

Pp thinks because she is 'old money G' (meaning she has 2-3 generations of G grandparents), she can lord over the 'new money G' (the other person's dh). She's saying there's old and new, and that old pities and never truly accepts new money G.

I'm not sure what to say, except I don't think old money G really exists. As mentioned above, it just means your grandparents and parents are G too. Sounds like the DH is all G, just doesn't have parents in G. I think day to day, since you don't walk around with your parents, your lineage doesn't matter much. It would for an E, where inheritance / family connections are important. But I don't quite see it for G.

I'm going to side against pp because she does seem to want to keep the DH down. Really. Someone claims he's a G, and you say in summary, 'he can never truly be a G.' There's something about that middle class that doesn't want to let in any economic competition. And that perceives themselves to be the gatekeeper, almost an E trait, but without any grace.

She doesn't understand old money.

[Anonymous]

So what is trump?
-L1?
-a sort of grossly self-made E2? (Nothing against self-made, just that his version is gross.)
-a G1 hopeful?

Or, because he is a celebrity, and the article points out that celebrities are a weird cross section of all three, is he just in the weird celebrity category?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work in finance but would not be embarrassed to be a university professor. Many many people in my professional circle have taught university courses at some point. Maybe g2 moving up to G3?

G3 is lower than G2. And "taught university courses at some point" is not the same as being a university professor. I don't know if it's necessarily about embarrassment when moving between G2 and E3 so much as life satisfaction.

You chose finance over pursuing a career as a university professor. There must be a reason for that. But I agree that there is a lot of mobility between what Church describes as E3 and G2.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the article that it's very difficult to truly move up. Even if you do, you will never be accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the article that it's very difficult to truly move up. Even if you do, you will never be accepted.

I disagree. He calls a few categories a "young people" category. So people have to start somewhere.

Likewise, a lot of people can move down. A child raised E who would rather be a G. A child raised G who gets into an addiction, or who surrounds themselves in a lower culture. A child raised L, but who stops effectively working and begins 2 generations of Underclass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are psycho. All I was doing was sharing my story of where we fit into this, as others were doing.... Fact is we are already G, my friend. We're already hanging out with you. We're fitting in. No one thinks his life was sad....... huh? He wasn't Underclass.....

What you're saying is no one can truly move between L and G. That's false. Read the article lady, there is a lot of movement between L and G. Get used to it.

Not backing down here because you're the type of person who should be ashamed of themselves. Imagine saying what you're saying publicly. Snot.

There's movement between it, sure. But the people who were born into G look down on it. Obviously that bothers you- too bad. The truth is the truth.

I'm sure some people do, though certainly not all. Or perhaps if this schema is accurate it is (a) Gs with no connection to extended portions of their family containing Ls, (b) Gs who have a desire to move to the E scale of values or (c) Gs lacking in empathy and human connection.

Or perhaps this schema is an abstracted simplification and doesn't adequately capture the full range of experience. Regardless, the snobbery reflected in the PP's post reflects poorly on them rather than on the poster they were addressing.

Many G's have no family members in the L section. This is not an issue for them

PP. No extended family or close friends? This seems so strange to me - even going to hyper-elite schools you interact with folks who come from these backgrounds. If you can't learn to see and respect them, that is your failing, not theirs.

Although perhaps it's just my odd perspective. Classic American mutt that's the protect of family across the spectrum, so don't exactly fit in anywhere, though the intellectual and feminist values described as Gentry here certainly fit best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are psycho. All I was doing was sharing my story of where we fit into this, as others were doing.... Fact is we are already G, my friend. We're already hanging out with you. We're fitting in. No one thinks his life was sad....... huh? He wasn't Underclass.....

What you're saying is no one can truly move between L and G. That's false. Read the article lady, there is a lot of movement between L and G. Get used to it.

Not backing down here because you're the type of person who should be ashamed of themselves. Imagine saying what you're saying publicly. Snot.

There's movement between it, sure. But the people who were born into G look down on it. Obviously that bothers you- too bad. The truth is the truth.

I'm sure some people do, though certainly not all. Or perhaps if this schema is accurate it is (a) Gs with no connection to extended portions of their family containing Ls, (b) Gs who have a desire to move to the E scale of values or (c) Gs lacking in empathy and human connection.

Or perhaps this schema is an abstracted simplification and doesn't adequately capture the full range of experience. Regardless, the snobbery reflected in the PP's post reflects poorly on them rather than on the poster they were addressing.

Many G's have no family members in the L section. This is not an issue for them

PP. No extended family or close friends? This seems so strange to me - even going to hyper-elite schools you interact with folks who come from these backgrounds. If you can't learn to see and respect them, that is your failing, not theirs.

Although perhaps it's just my odd perspective. Classic American mutt that's the protect of family across the spectrum, so don't exactly fit in anywhere, though the intellectual and feminist values described as Gentry here certainly fit best.

Of course you interact with some- and you might even, in some cases, become friends with them. And your view of that friendship will always be colored by your awareness of their background.

Family members? No. And the friends I have who do have family members like that- think of them as an oddity and look down on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the article that it's very difficult to truly move up. Even if you do, you will never be accepted.

Yes. He's very right about that. And it's unfortunate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are psycho. All I was doing was sharing my story of where we fit into this, as others were doing.... Fact is we are already G, my friend. We're already hanging out with you. We're fitting in. No one thinks his life was sad....... huh? He wasn't Underclass.....

What you're saying is no one can truly move between L and G. That's false. Read the article lady, there is a lot of movement between L and G. Get used to it.

Not backing down here because you're the type of person who should be ashamed of themselves. Imagine saying what you're saying publicly. Snot.

There's movement between it, sure. But the people who were born into G look down on it. Obviously that bothers you- too bad. The truth is the truth.

I'm sure some people do, though certainly not all. Or perhaps if this schema is accurate it is (a) Gs with no connection to extended portions of their family containing Ls, (b) Gs who have a desire to move to the E scale of values or (c) Gs lacking in empathy and human connection.

Or perhaps this schema is an abstracted simplification and doesn't adequately capture the full range of experience. Regardless, the snobbery reflected in the PP's post reflects poorly on them rather than on the poster they were addressing.

Many G's have no family members in the L section. This is not an issue for them

PP. No extended family or close friends? This seems so strange to me - even going to hyper-elite schools you interact with folks who come from these backgrounds. If you can't learn to see and respect them, that is your failing, not theirs.

Although perhaps it's just my odd perspective. Classic American mutt that's the protect of family across the spectrum, so don't exactly fit in anywhere, though the intellectual and feminist values described as Gentry here certainly fit best.

Of course you interact with some- and you might even, in some cases, become friends with them. And your view of that friendship will always be colored by your awareness of their background.

Family members? No. And the friends I have who do have family members like that- think of them as an oddity and look down on them.

PP again. I find what you wrote incredibly depressing. Do you truly think most people think like this? Or perhaps I am wrong and most people do, in which case I choose to keep the rose colored glasses on because that view of the world is stark and ugly. We can be better than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the article that it's very difficult to truly move up. Even if you do, you will never be accepted.

Yes. He's very right about that. And it's unfortunate

Can you quote where he says this? It's a long article, and I haven't found where he says this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are psycho. All I was doing was sharing my story of where we fit into this, as others were doing.... Fact is we are already G, my friend. We're already hanging out with you. We're fitting in. No one thinks his life was sad....... huh? He wasn't Underclass.....

What you're saying is no one can truly move between L and G. That's false. Read the article lady, there is a lot of movement between L and G. Get used to it.

Not backing down here because you're the type of person who should be ashamed of themselves. Imagine saying what you're saying publicly. Snot.

There's movement between it, sure. But the people who were born into G look down on it. Obviously that bothers you- too bad. The truth is the truth.

I'm sure some people do, though certainly not all. Or perhaps if this schema is accurate it is (a) Gs with no connection to extended portions of their family containing Ls, (b) Gs who have a desire to move to the E scale of values or (c) Gs lacking in empathy and human connection.

Or perhaps this schema is an abstracted simplification and doesn't adequately capture the full range of experience. Regardless, the snobbery reflected in the PP's post reflects poorly on them rather than on the poster they were addressing.

Many G's have no family members in the L section. This is not an issue for them

PP. No extended family or close friends? This seems so strange to me - even going to hyper-elite schools you interact with folks who come from these backgrounds. If you can't learn to see and respect them, that is your failing, not theirs.

Although perhaps it's just my odd perspective. Classic American mutt that's the protect of family across the spectrum, so don't exactly fit in anywhere, though the intellectual and feminist values described as Gentry here certainly fit best.

Of course you interact with some- and you might even, in some cases, become friends with them. And your view of that friendship will always be colored by your awareness of their background.

Family members? No. And the friends I have who do have family members like that- think of them as an oddity and look down on them.

PP again. I find what you wrote incredibly depressing. Do you truly think most people think like this? Or perhaps I am wrong and most people do, in which case I choose to keep the rose colored glasses on because that view of the world is stark and ugly. We can be better than that.

Oof. I don't mean to shatter your illusions of the world. Perhaps your friends think differently about your background. I am just speaking on my personal experience and, yes, the other "born into it" friends that I know. Perhaps this is why these discussions are important- I think there are many things that are going on that people don't want to address and would rather not hear. As the saying goes, the truth, quite literally, hurts.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that there's anything wrong with acknowledging class differences. It beats the hell out of the false narrative that anyone can become elite if they just work hard enough. Of course the ruling class doesn't want to admit the peasants - duh. It's part of what all the elite college BS in the Colleges and Universities forum is all about. Es and upper Gs want to stay on top and are fine excluding those who don't know their unwritten rules.

I am in a weird place where my mom "married down" and was raised by high-G/low-E grandparents and probably L2/G4 parents. By the Daily Kos definitions, I'm a G2, and I think it's only because of the time I spent with my more upper-class family that I know enough of the rules to fit in. It has, however, taken a lot of keeping my mouth shut when the Gs start disparaging people like my family, and I only deal with it at work/professional networking, not socially. The L parts of my family and my husband's are not the types to put up with that sort of bullshit, so passing from L to G is a lot more difficult for them.

[Anonymous]

This explains why even though my husband and I have the same exact formal education and make about the same amount of money, he is a G not far removed from an L ("who cares how to set the table?") and I am an E3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are psycho. All I was doing was sharing my story of where we fit into this, as others were doing.... Fact is we are already G, my friend. We're already hanging out with you. We're fitting in. No one thinks his life was sad....... huh? He wasn't Underclass.....

What you're saying is no one can truly move between L and G. That's false. Read the article lady, there is a lot of movement between L and G. Get used to it.

Not backing down here because you're the type of person who should be ashamed of themselves. Imagine saying what you're saying publicly. Snot.

There's movement between it, sure. But the people who were born into G look down on it. Obviously that bothers you- too bad. The truth is the truth.

I'm sure some people do, though certainly not all. Or perhaps if this schema is accurate it is (a) Gs with no connection to extended portions of their family containing Ls, (b) Gs who have a desire to move to the E scale of values or (c) Gs lacking in empathy and human connection.

Or perhaps this schema is an abstracted simplification and doesn't adequately capture the full range of experience. Regardless, the snobbery reflected in the PP's post reflects poorly on them rather than on the poster they were addressing.

Many G's have no family members in the L section. This is not an issue for them

PP. No extended family or close friends? This seems so strange to me - even going to hyper-elite schools you interact with folks who come from these backgrounds. If you can't learn to see and respect them, that is your failing, not theirs.

Although perhaps it's just my odd perspective. Classic American mutt that's the protect of family across the spectrum, so don't exactly fit in anywhere, though the intellectual and feminist values described as Gentry here certainly fit best.

Of course you interact with some- and you might even, in some cases, become friends with them. And your view of that friendship will always be colored by your awareness of their background.

Family members? No. And the friends I have who do have family members like that- think of them as an oddity and look down on them.

PP again. I find what you wrote incredibly depressing. Do you truly think most people think like this? Or perhaps I am wrong and most people do, in which case I choose to keep the rose colored glasses on because that view of the world is stark and ugly. We can be better than that.

Oof. I don't mean to shatter your illusions of the world. Perhaps your friends think differently about your background. I am just speaking on my personal experience and, yes, the other "born into it" friends that I know. Perhaps this is why these discussions are important- I think there are many things that are going on that people don't want to address and would rather not hear. As the saying goes, the truth, quite literally, hurts.

I am the schema PP, not the L-->G husband PP. I don't know what my friends think of my background - it's not hyper elite, but highly privileged. I suppose I just prefer to see and expect the best in people, and to operate under an assumption that accepting the world as it is (which I admit I struggle with) doesn't mean that we have to accept that as the way it should be.