Anonymous wrote:Oh my gawd, how did I miss this gem of a post...

Anonymous wrote:The definition of social class by money and a diploma conveys the hollow nature of society in this country.

Money is a proxy for the amount of contribution that a person makes to society. While acknowledging outliers and exceptions, people who contribute more in general get more money. The market based economy of the US is the best manifestation of this principle in the world. One notable exception is when a person is a student. But in this situation, a diploma is recognition of a person's educational achievements. Therefore, money and diploma are very real and substantial indications of a person's achievements, the exact opposite of hollow.

Anonymous wrote:Integrity, character, the cultivation of others and self meant something, but there is a structural rot in modern society.

So how do you assess that a person practices integrity, character and "cultivation of others" in their every day life? Secondly, how are these more important than a persons contribution to society in terms of material contribution and advancement of knowledge? While I am not arguing that integrity/character/charity are not important, they are certainly not more important, and definitely not the opposites of money and knowledge.

Anonymous wrote:
It is akin to the institutional corruption that Larry Lessig talks about lately. In pursuing good and bad, people ignore institutional ethics and design. One that values materialism, consumerism and the vapid idea that selfishness leads to a greater good.

Pursuing good leads to pursuit of ethics and design. You have China as a shining example of this: introduction of free market elements have led to more pursuits of good, which has directly led to increasing demands people have on the ethics of their government, and regulations to improve their environment. The pursuit of ideals for ideals' sake is what led that country astray under communism. Ideals without basis in reality or natural human nature is dangerous.

I will respond to your three responses below. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

1. Yes, money and education are proxies. By themselves, they likely provide necessary but not sufficient public and private goods to nourish a healthy and vibrant society. Having a society that is institutionally designed to prize just money and education is in my opinion hollow. If what you propose is true, then the country should just be a plutocracy. I don't think that was the design envisioned in the American experiment of governance.

2. I didn't say that integrity, character and caring for others and self were more important than other things, but that they are necessary components in good institutional design that are less and less valued by current US society relative to money and (in pedigree obsessed DMV) education. Just because it is more difficult to measure, and i suspect, to show off to others, as well as less remunerative in a lot of cases, it shouldn't be ignored. Certainly i didn't say that money and education are inherently hollow. It is the pursuit of these by society without good judgement, character, integrity and caring that is hollow.

3. I think you're arguing a straw man here because i never suggested that ideals should be substituted for pragmatism. Money and education again are necessary but not sufficient. Models of socioeconomic status presented here show dimensions only along money and education. That is an institutional design that herds people into pursuing those stated goals. Many people will realize that they need more to be fulfilled in their lives, but the way that they actualize this won't be along social norms because there is no explicit prescription for it.

Oh my gawd, how did I miss this gem of a post...

Anonymous wrote:The definition of social class by money and a diploma conveys the hollow nature of society in this country.

Money is a proxy for the amount of contribution that a person makes to society. While acknowledging outliers and exceptions, people who contribute more in general get more money. The market based economy of the US is the best manifestation of this principle in the world. One notable exception is when a person is a student. But in this situation, a diploma is recognition of a person's educational achievements. Therefore, money and diploma are very real and substantial indications of a person's achievements, the exact opposite of hollow.

Anonymous wrote:Integrity, character, the cultivation of others and self meant something, but there is a structural rot in modern society.

So how do you assess that a person practices integrity, character and "cultivation of others" in their every day life? Secondly, how are these more important than a persons contribution to society in terms of material contribution and advancement of knowledge? While I am not arguing that integrity/character/charity are not important, they are certainly not more important, and definitely not the opposites of money and knowledge.

Anonymous wrote:
It is akin to the institutional corruption that Larry Lessig talks about lately. In pursuing good and bad, people ignore institutional ethics and design. One that values materialism, consumerism and the vapid idea that selfishness leads to a greater good.

Pursuing good leads to pursuit of ethics and design. You have China as a shining example of this: introduction of free market elements have led to more pursuits of good, which has directly led to increasing demands people have on the ethics of their government, and regulations to improve their environment. The pursuit of ideals for ideals' sake is what led that country astray under communism. Ideals without basis in reality or natural human nature is dangerous.

Anonymous wrote:The definition of social class by money and a diploma conveys the hollow nature of society in this country.

Integrity, character, the cultivation of others and self meant something, but there is a structural rot in modern society.

It is akin to the institutional corruption that Larry Lessig talks about lately. In pursuing good and bad, people ignore institutional ethics and design. One that values materialism, consumerism and the vapid idea that selfishness leads to a greater good.

Lot of people in the money and finance board seem to be here not to figure out what to do in regard to these, but to validate some of the choices and mistakes that they've made in their lives. Even when there are clearly things that they recognize as wrong in these choices.

Meaning it's wrong to pursue making billions, and then pledge to give half away?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who spells "uber" as "ubber" in a published chart? Immediately suspect.

The word is über. You could spell it right before correcting others.

Sorry I don't have an umlaut on my phone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is SES? Senior Executive Service?

If you have to ask, you sit squarely it he Low category.

You are incorrect. I am new to forum. You are not , apparently.

different PP, SES is not an acronym exclusive to this forum. I am surprised you have not run across it before.

Different poster here, I also have never seen SES before. It just doesn't come up in my normal day to day conversation and I only started browsing this sub forum in the past week or so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is SES? Senior Executive Service?

If you have to ask, you sit squarely it he Low category.

You are incorrect. I am new to forum. You are not , apparently.

different PP, SES is not an acronym exclusive to this forum. I am surprised you have not run across it before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is SES? Senior Executive Service?

If you have to ask, you sit squarely it he Low category.

You are incorrect. I am new to forum. You are not , apparently.

The definition of social class by money and a diploma conveys the hollow nature of society in this country.

Integrity, character, the cultivation of others and self meant something, but there is a structural rot in modern society.

It is akin to the institutional corruption that Larry Lessig talks about lately. In pursuing good and bad, people ignore institutional ethics and design. One that values materialism, consumerism and the vapid idea that selfishness leads to a greater good.

Lot of people in the money and finance board seem to be here not to figure out what to do in regard to these, but to validate some of the choices and mistakes that they've made in their lives. Even when there are clearly things that they recognize as wrong in these choices.

Anonymous wrote:Who spells "uber" as "ubber" in a published chart? Immediately suspect.

The word is über. You could spell it right before correcting others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class is a matter of learned behaviors, mores, and shared values. It has nothing to do with income.

Don't be obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. I've just taken a sociology class or two.

Really, a class or two? The quality of these classes are highly suspect since you apparently have not attained the ability to reliably count on one hand. Economic status is very much a defining part of social class.

This is typically true. But one can portray(fake) social status without having the required economic status. They tend to eventually get "found out" and/or go totally broke.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I'm 17:09 and I was thinking about this some more. Most of the time I don't feel upper middle class however when I go places outside of my social circle (MVA) for example- I definitely feel upper middle.

Perhaps if you volunteered some time at a homeless shelter you would feel wealthy.

^^^ I'm 17:09 and I was thinking about this some more. Most of the time I don't feel upper middle class however when I go places outside of my social circle (MVA) for example- I definitely feel upper middle.

Anonymous wrote:Here's a chart of class definitions.

We are worth $2M (Including Retirement) or $700K without (all home equity).
Our income is $225K.
I don't know if I feel upper middle class or not. Definitely comfortable but there is so much wealth in the area and social circles that I feel "normal".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class is a matter of learned behaviors, mores, and shared values. It has nothing to do with income.

Don't be obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. I've just taken a sociology class or two.

Really, a class or two? The quality of these classes are highly suspect since you apparently have not attained the ability to reliably count on one hand. Economic status is very much a defining part of social class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class is a matter of learned behaviors, mores, and shared values. It has nothing to do with income.

Don't be obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. I've just taken a sociology class or two.