The Social Class Ladders—Labor, Gentry, and Elite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of social mobility in this country, at least moving from top to bottom. On my Dad's side, several GG Grandparents were fancy New York E1s -- mansions on 5th ave, country estates, membership in elite clubs and Mrs. Astor's 400, etc -- but I'm now a G2 at best. Same for my wife. Some of my cousins and connections are still E1s, but some have slipped to hybrid G4/L1 status. My Dad still considers himself to be an E, but his financial and living situation is more like an L (which happens when you quit work in your 40s to spend down inherited capital...).

There's always social mobility downwards, not so much upwards. And I truly doubt your Dad would be accepted by fellow L's if he went up to them and tried to gripe about being unable to afford the country club anymore, however similar their current financial situations may be. Many of these classes don't even have to do with money, but with actual background, mindset, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't that just a common believe most people have? If the class system in America is what you want to dedicate your life to changing, have at it and good luck. I'm just explaining the way things are. You mentioned yourself being a "mutt"- so I was just saying what I/people I know would think of that. In the context of this thread which is discussing said class system and mobility within the class system. It is what it is!

So I'm curious, from this discussion - where exactly would you place me and what exactly are you judging? Honestly curious. What are your assumptions? What do you and your friends judge in others from different backgrounds that holds regardless of what you subsequently learn about them as an individual? And are you OK with this aspect of yourself or is it something you identify as true but that you would strive to change?

Why are you even talking to this person and asking her where to "place" you? She's getting off on her ability to convince you and her that she's superior. She's gross.

[Anonymous]

I don't really understand how the author lumps pilots in with plumbers and electricians. Airline pilots generally have degrees, and many are former military officers. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone have a theory on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how the author lumps pilots in with plumbers and electricians. Airline pilots generally have degrees, and many are former military officers. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone have a theory on that?

I didn't get it, either. Not for the reasons you stated, though, but bc pilot pay is pretty crappy, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't that just a common believe most people have? If the class system in America is what you want to dedicate your life to changing, have at it and good luck. I'm just explaining the way things are. You mentioned yourself being a "mutt"- so I was just saying what I/people I know would think of that. In the context of this thread which is discussing said class system and mobility within the class system. It is what it is!

So I'm curious, from this discussion - where exactly would you place me and what exactly are you judging? Honestly curious. What are your assumptions? What do you and your friends judge in others from different backgrounds that holds regardless of what you subsequently learn about them as an individual? And are you OK with this aspect of yourself or is it something you identify as true but that you would strive to change?

Why are you even talking to this person and asking her where to "place" you? She's getting off on her ability to convince you and her that she's superior. She's gross.

Because I'm fascinated with how people think and perceive the world, how we interpret information and place it within our mental construct. That thought pattern is clearly different enough from how I think that I'm interested in understanding it. And because my background has enough privilege and E that I am somewhat inoculated from someone else's sense of superiority on that front so it doesn't bother me. I'm actually far more fascinated by the statement that the judgement she displays is not something she would seek to change in herself. That type of statement gets at the value system dimension that I think is missing from this model and that I alluded to in another post. It's hard for me to wrap my head around a mental view of the world that doesn't see that kind of bias as something to correct for.

[Anonymous]

The mention of the military adds an interesting wrinkle. Are enlisted L, and officers G?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Mutt PP here. Interesting points. I think something I see missing in this discussion is the personal role of drive for success / power / control within whichever value system you align with, I.e. do you feel personally motivated to obtain influence in your sphere. So in the discussion provided it seems to be conflating class as defined by drive with class as defined by values with class as defined by heritage, which I think muddies things (or just oversimplifies things.) My guess is a better model would be multi-dimensional to capture those differences. It is interesting to see the disassociation of class and wealth, at least within the G segment. Interesting thought pieces to be had there for sure.

I'm the PP you are responding to, but I'm clipping my response to keep this post from being too long.

I don't really agree that additional dimensions are needed. I'm not sure if you read the original Church post or one of the reaction posts, but I think his rungs cover some of the nuances you are discussing pretty well. The 3/4 rungs are very much the "striver" rungs, where drive plays a big role. It makes sense, because these are typically the rungs you would get on when transitioning ladders. It makes sense that people on the higher rungs would view their class status more through a cultural/hereditary lens, because they were likely born on the ladder that they are on. I think in Church's framework, values are primarily what defines each class ladder...so that is the primary mechanism for separating the ladders: Labor values work above all, Gentry values education/intellectualism above all, and Elite values connections above all. Because the Elite comprise both socialites and corporate overlords, it's not surprising that both Gentry and Labor feel affinity to them. Corporate CEOs, even the generational owners of private corporations, *do* work very hard. It's just that hard work isn't the *only* thing that defines their success. Labor ladder people, though, can relate to their hard work. Gentry can relate to the fact that most of the Elite are also well-educated and in modern society money buys you a lot of influence.

OT of this post, I am still stuck on how difficult it is to place physicians in this framework. I think it's because MDs are a very different sort of professional than bankers or lawyers. If bankers and lawyers so choose, they can limit their work to only interacting with Elites, thereby getting access to the sphere of connections. MDs can't do this. Their profession requires them to interact with a much larger set of people which is why it's much more difficult for an MD to break into the Elite sphere solely through their professional efforts.

[Anonymous]

I think it is interesting but he is missing a lot... i mean A LOT.

Even the article says he is missing mercantile and clearly the IT world is missing. They are missing the whole world of immigrants and forced immigrants (African Americans). If I were to add morality/happiness to the "ladder" it would look more like this....

For my family that has gotten to E2 and back down to L1 (and a few who went to U) and back up and down and all around.

It's silly to put this in a latter as if you would climb if you could. So many don't climb because they are moral or happy.


So roughly:

E2 (those who use wealth to better the world)

G2 E4
L1 G3 G2 E4
L2 G4 G1 E3
L3 E2 (those who use worth to grow wealth)
L4
U E1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is an interesting discussion that hits a nerve. I, too, find the undercurrent in the comments depressing. I understand why the PP with an L-->G husband was put off. I am a combination of L (by birth) and G (by education, profession). Being told that Gs can sniff you out from a mile off, secretly pity you, and don't want their kids marrying your kids is a pretty nasty gut-punch.

If that's playing nice, I wonder what playing nasty looks like. I understand the social class is very powerful, but do you really enjoy feeding it crackers? Don't all the college degrees inspire some cultural flexibility?

And here I thought working hard, going to honors college, getting a graduate degree, and trading in ideas and information was supposed to earn me gentry street cred. No?

Well, of course the Gs don't want their kids marrying Ls -- more risk of falling lower down the social ladder, and, if you far enough down the L chain, you start running into people not only not sharing your values but openly disdaining them. My G mom married an L, and, though he never said anything until they were headed towards divorce, I think it broke my grandfather's heart that he'd spent so much time and effort making sure his kids got a college education to have her end up with someone uneducated (that she ended up supporting). I've been called over-educated, had my job mocked because the profession is seen as uppity, told I'm going to hell for not taking my children to church, and I've been criticized for not knowing who particular NASCAR drivers are. Humans are pack animals, and we're more comfortable with people who are like us. I love my in-laws dearly - they are wonderful, caring people - but I am always on guard around them not to come off as too smart and smile and nod rather than attempt to discuss any sort of nuanced political or social issue with them.

The idea that working hard, going to college/grad school, etc. is your entry to a higher social class is a myth and it's why the whole pulling-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality is so maddening. Very few people make it on sheer grit. Most people have a leg up, a connection, a network, or something that gives them the opportunities to stay at the top. And they see those resources as finite and guard them with their secret club rules.

[phone]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is an interesting discussion that hits a nerve. I, too, find the undercurrent in the comments depressing. I understand why the PP with an L-->G husband was put off. I am a combination of L (by birth) and G (by education, profession). Being told that Gs can sniff you out from a mile off, secretly pity you, and don't want their kids marrying your kids is a pretty nasty gut-punch.

If that's playing nice, I wonder what playing nasty looks like. I understand the social class is very powerful, but do you really enjoy feeding it crackers? Don't all the college degrees inspire some cultural flexibility?

And here I thought working hard, going to honors college, getting a graduate degree, and trading in ideas and information was supposed to earn me gentry street cred. No?

Well, of course the Gs don't want their kids marrying Ls -- more risk of falling lower down the social ladder, and, if you far enough down the L chain, you start running into people not only not sharing your values but openly disdaining them. My G mom married an L, and, though he never said anything until they were headed towards divorce, I think it broke my grandfather's heart that he'd spent so much time and effort making sure his kids got a college education to have her end up with someone uneducated (that she ended up supporting). I've been called over-educated, had my job mocked because the profession is seen as uppity, told I'm going to hell for not taking my children to church, and I've been criticized for not knowing who particular NASCAR drivers are. Humans are pack animals, and we're more comfortable with people who are like us. I love my in-laws dearly - they are wonderful, caring people - but I am always on guard around them not to come off as too smart and smile and nod rather than attempt to discuss any sort of nuanced political or social issue with them.

The idea that working hard, going to college/grad school, etc. is your entry to a higher social class is a myth and it's why the whole pulling-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality is so maddening. Very few people make it on sheer grit. Most people have a leg up, a connection, a network, or something that gives them the opportunities to stay at the top. And they see those resources as finite and guard them with their secret club rules.

[phone]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how the author lumps pilots in with plumbers and electricians. Airline pilots generally have degrees, and many are former military officers. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone have a theory on that?

I didn't get it, either. Not for the reasons you stated, though, but bc pilot pay is pretty crappy, isn't it?

No, pilots make six figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how the author lumps pilots in with plumbers and electricians. Airline pilots generally have degrees, and many are former military officers. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone have a theory on that?

It's based on what's valued in the class hierarchy:

Labor = Skills

Gentry = Education

Elite = Connections

Airline pilots' jobs are based on their skills, not based on their education/degree, or their personal network.

Most military personnel would be considered Labor until you get to pay grade O7. Some officers at lower ranks might be G3 depending on their level of autonomy and university attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how the author lumps pilots in with plumbers and electricians. Airline pilots generally have degrees, and many are former military officers. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone have a theory on that?

I didn't get it, either. Not for the reasons you stated, though, but bc pilot pay is pretty crappy, isn't it?

That depends. For regional commuters, yes. For captains on big airlines, they make upwards of $200k/yr for very little actual work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most military personnel would be considered Labor until you get to pay grade O7. Some officers at lower ranks might be G3 depending on their level of autonomy and university attended.

Probably why so few senators have kids in the military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Mutt PP here. Interesting points. I think something I see missing in this discussion is the personal role of drive for success / power / control within whichever value system you align with, I.e. do you feel personally motivated to obtain influence in your sphere. So in the discussion provided it seems to be conflating class as defined by drive with class as defined by values with class as defined by heritage, which I think muddies things (or just oversimplifies things.) My guess is a better model would be multi-dimensional to capture those differences. It is interesting to see the disassociation of class and wealth, at least within the G segment. Interesting thought pieces to be had there for sure.

I'm the PP you are responding to, but I'm clipping my response to keep this post from being too long.

I don't really agree that additional dimensions are needed. I'm not sure if you read the original Church post or one of the reaction posts, but I think his rungs cover some of the nuances you are discussing pretty well. The 3/4 rungs are very much the "striver" rungs, where drive plays a big role. It makes sense, because these are typically the rungs you would get on when transitioning ladders. It makes sense that people on the higher rungs would view their class status more through a cultural/hereditary lens, because they were likely born on the ladder that they are on. I think in Church's framework, values are primarily what defines each class ladder...so that is the primary mechanism for separating the ladders: Labor values work above all, Gentry values education/intellectualism above all, and Elite values connections above all. Because the Elite comprise both socialites and corporate overlords, it's not surprising that both Gentry and Labor feel affinity to them. Corporate CEOs, even the generational owners of private corporations, *do* work very hard. It's just that hard work isn't the *only* thing that defines their success. Labor ladder people, though, can relate to their hard work. Gentry can relate to the fact that most of the Elite are also well-educated and in modern society money buys you a lot of influence.

OT of this post, I am still stuck on how difficult it is to place physicians in this framework. I think it's because MDs are a very different sort of professional than bankers or lawyers. If bankers and lawyers so choose, they can limit their work to only interacting with Elites, thereby getting access to the sphere of connections. MDs can't do this. Their profession requires them to interact with a much larger set of people which is why it's much more difficult for an MD to break into the Elite sphere solely through their professional efforts.

Not necessarily. MDs have started doing this by going into practices that don't accept any insurance at all, where everything is pay for service. Also concierge medicine and specialties like upper end plastics.