The Social Class Ladders—Labor, Gentry, and Elite

[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 agree that it is unfair, but nowadays airline pilots are like glorified bus drivers, especially if you are working for a small podunk airline and getting paid pennies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yet so many congressman/senators have served in the military. It's interesting. And it is (or used to be) a good way for people to move up the social/economic ladder in the US.

[Anonymous]

I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

[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 agree that it is unfair, but nowadays airline pilots are like glorified bus drivers, especially if you are working for a small podunk airline and getting paid pennies.

True. My father was an airline pilot, but back in the "heyday" of the industry--the 40s-80s. They really were much more revered and looked up to years ago. Our neighbors were always execs/lawyers/doctors, and he was the one with the good stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 agree that it is unfair, but nowadays airline pilots are like glorified bus drivers, especially if you are working for a small podunk airline and getting paid pennies.

True. My father was an airline pilot, but back in the "heyday" of the industry--the 40s-80s. They really were much more revered and looked up to years ago. Our neighbors were always execs/lawyers/doctors, and he was the one with the good stories.

I think that skilled pilots are still revered (fighter pilots, helicopter pilots - Prince William, Sully, etc). The pilots that basically let the planes fly themselves, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yet so many congressman/senators have served in the military. It's interesting. And it is (or used to be) a good way for people to move up the social/economic ladder in the US.

For the 30% of the population that's the underclass or L1, it's indeed a good path forward. You can move up the Labor ladder or potentially jump to G3 if you take advantage of the GI Bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 agree that it is unfair, but nowadays airline pilots are like glorified bus drivers, especially if you are working for a small podunk airline and getting paid pennies.

True. My father was an airline pilot, but back in the "heyday" of the industry--the 40s-80s. They really were much more revered and looked up to years ago. Our neighbors were always execs/lawyers/doctors, and he was the one with the good stories.

I think that skilled pilots are still revered (fighter pilots, helicopter pilots - Prince William, Sully, etc). The pilots that basically let the planes fly themselves, not so much.

Fighter and helicopter pilots are absolutely not viewed as similar to execs/lawyers/doctors. They might be respected, but I think they are very much L1/G3.

And *all* pilots, including Capt Sully, use autopilot. It's silly not to, and it does not diminish from the difficulty of what they are doing. If you think that the Captain of a 747 is not a highly-skilled pilot just because s/he uses autopilot, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Very great points. ITA. I think these are nuances between G's and E's which most people would have no idea about and wouldn't even notice. You really have to be inside of it to see these small differences which seem inconsequential but matter so hugely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

Es make up a much smaller percentage of the population. Not a statistics major, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

Es make up a much smaller percentage of the population. Not a statistics major, are you?

PhD in math only a masters in statistics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Most businesses are NOT started by E's. You are not a business major are you? Now we can begin to understand the overrated thread.

Es make up a much smaller percentage of the population. Not a statistics major, are you?

PhD in math only a masters in statistics

Hmmmm. For some reason I don't believe you... Strange, that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Very great points. ITA. I think these are nuances between G's and E's which most people would have no idea about and wouldn't even notice. You really have to be inside of it to see these small differences which seem inconsequential but matter so hugely

Anyone who goes to a fairly elite college would notice this, and agree. The difference between an employee mindset and a business owner is not a "nuance."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up E and I definitely agree that class mobility is limited. The vast majority of the people I hang out with are Es and the few that aren't grew up E-adjacent. And we still don't really consider them one of us.

As a wealthy G who has spent most of her life E-adjacent, I agree with this. To me, the class difference is very obvious...and the consequences of it have become more obvious with time.

One huge difference between wealthy G's and true E's is how they think about their wealth and their wealth-potential. Most kids who grew up E are far more likely to think about starting their own business, while most G's think about how they can implement their ideas in some existing institutional framework (either academia or a corporate hierarchy). I went to HYPS undergrad and grad schools, and this difference between people who have similar education and in some sense access to the same external resources is striking. G's just don't think about this in the same was that E's do. Silicon Valley has shaken this up quite a bit, but only for a tiny fraction of people in tech fields. I would say celebrity entrepreneurs fall somewhere between G1 and E3...which Sheryl Sandberg being the epitome of someone who has attained a lot of cultural influence but remains very much a corporate servant.

Very great points. ITA. I think these are nuances between G's and E's which most people would have no idea about and wouldn't even notice. You really have to be inside of it to see these small differences which seem inconsequential but matter so hugely

Anyone who goes to a fairly elite college would notice this, and agree. The difference between an employee mindset and a business owner is not a "nuance."

What a weirdly combative way to voice an agreement.