A poll about class - read post first please

[Laura Corin]

Three people work together.

 

A) is the first in his family to go to university and makes a good-side-of-average living from a white-collar technical skill. His partner is a part-time nurse.

 

B) comes from a family that has a couple of generations of professional work (architect, headmaster, etc.) in its history. He himself went to university too but, due to family circumstances, now only makes 50% more than minimum wage in low-level office work. His partner is in a professional position.

 

C)'s family has no university graduates but he has worked his way up as a salesman to his current position as a fairly well paid sales manager. He holidays on another continent, drives a BMW and owns an executive villa on a golf course. His partner has a nursing background and is now a health industry manager

 

The point of the poll is to see whether old world people view class differently from new world people. That's why the poll asks you to self-identify as old world (Europe, etc.) or new world (US, Commonwealth, etc.) Make your own decision on this.

 

ETA: supplementary question: if you chose B), is it because of his family background, his education or because his partner is a professional?

 

Thanks

 

Laura

Edited September 19, 2012 by Laura Corin

[TravelingChris]

The way you phrase it makes me think Old World but with differing phrasing, it could just as easily be the New World.

[Laura Corin]

The way you phrase it makes me think Old World but with differing phrasing, it could just as easily be the New World.

 

Laura

[aggieamy]

Three people work together.

 

A) is the first in his family to go to university and makes a good-side-of-average living from a white-collar technical skill. His partner is a part-time nurse.

 

B) comes from a family that has a couple of generations of professional work (architect, headmaster, etc.) in his history. He himself went to university too but, due to family circumstances, now only makes 50% more than minimum wage in low-level office work. His partner is in a professional position.

 

C)'s family has no university graduates but he has worked his way up as a salesman to his current position as a fairly well paid sales manager. He holidays on another continent, drives a BMW and owns an executive villa on a golf course. His partner has a nursing background and is now a health industry manager

 

The point of the poll is to see whether old world people view class differently from new world people. That's why the poll asks you to self-identify as old world (Europe, etc.) or new world (US, Commonwealth, etc.) Make your own decision on this.

 

Thanks

 

Laura

 

I went with "A" because to me class is highly associated with education and profession but not neccesarily income.

[Trilliums]

I am New World and would vote C except you specify Social Class in the poll. I tend to think of class as relating to Socioeconomic Class.

 

If you mean just "social" without the economic emphasis, I would vote B.

[Elinor Everywhere]

I went with "C" and New World, because in my experience, $$ talks. And I've seen that in the "old" world, too.....having spent time in the south of France with new money who were invited everywhere and were in the thick of things in that bohemia called Cannes (ha).

 

But mostly, that's always been one of the reasons people emigrate to the U.S.; it's about who you are, not who your parents were/are. Sadly, that generally means $$ instead of education (self or institutional) and character.

[Danestress]

Because I am not sure we would think social class is linked to how much money you make or what kind of car you drive. Certainly i was not raised to think so.

 

I think (I am guessing) that most of us think that the university education is more relevant. However, in American there are universities that carry a lot of status, and universities that will pretty much issue a degree to your dog for a price. So in my mind, a very second rate education doesn't really mean much in terms of climbing a social ladder.

 

I am not sure that there people are divided by much in terms of social class. But on order to be a good participant, I am voting "b" because in last generations on the states, a university degree really did say more than it does now, cater WWII and the GI bill, lots of farm boys and tradesmen were able to attend college.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Danestress

[Laura Corin]

I am New World and would vote C except you specify Social Class in the poll. I tend to think of class as relating to Socioeconomic Class.

 

If you mean just "social" without the economic emphasis, I would vote B.

 

I'd always seen those two words as synonymous, but I suspect I'm wrong.

 

ETA: on the other hand, Wikipedia uses the terms interchangeably.

 

Laura

Edited September 19, 2012 by Laura Corin

[Crimson Wife]

Did the individual in B attend public/state-run or independent/private schools from K-12?

 

C is wealthy, but not upper class due to the family background and his own lack of education.

 

A sounds like middle-class to me. Not upper class due to the family background.

 

B is the tricky case. If he want to fancy prep schools, I'd call him upper class despite the low level white collar job. If he went to regular public schools, I'd say upper-middle-class.

 

ETA: I grew up in New England and my mom's family are WASP's so I would say that where I am from is more similar to the Old World when it comes to notions of class than pretty much any other region in the U.S.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Crimson Wife

[Laura Corin]

And I've seen that in the "old" world, too.....having spent time in the south of France with new money who were invited everywhere and were in the thick of things in that bohemia called Cannes (ha).

 

.... a signifier of social class.

 

Laura

[Mergath]

I chose B, because of family background and education. I'm New World.

[Laura Corin]

Did the individual in B attend public/state-run or independent/private schools from K-12?

 

C is wealthy, but not upper class due to the family background and his own lack of education.

 

A sounds like middle-class to me. Not upper class due to the family background.

 

B is the tricky case. If he want to fancy prep schools, I'd call him upper class despite the low level white collar job. If he went to regular public schools, I'd say upper-middle-class.

 

A) went to state-run schools and a solid but not prestigious university.

 

B) went to a mixture of state-run and private (but not fancy private) schools, and a solid but not prestigious university.

 

C) went to state-run schools.

 

Laura

[Lisa R.]

In the US, one is rarely defined by how his ancestors were educated or what jobs they held. There are exceptions for the "old money", say the Kennedys or Rockefellers, whose money and accomplishments are legendary.

 

For the most part, Americans are defined by how much they accomplish themselves. They can accomplish much by education, business ownership, or service. An ivy league graduate who is working as a low-paid artist, a successful business owner with a GED, or the president of the Red Cross would be considered highly respected by most anyone over here. Their relatives' education or family inheritance (or lack thereof) would have little to no effect on their reputation.

 

As far as class--that is something money can't buy. One only needs to watch a commercial of "Real Housewives of ________" to quickly ascertain that money and class do not go hand in hand.

[Pawz4me]

that money and class do not go hand in hand.

 

:iagree:

 

I can't vote in the poll, there's no information there that I would base a person's class on.

[regentrude]

Not sure how you understand class.

I come from Europe (if that should matter). To me, "class" is much more a question of culture and educational tradition than one of income.

So, with that in mind I selected B.

 

ETA: the information is insufficient. A person from an uneducated background can have become very cultured and educated, whereas the person with the educated ancestors and family traditions may lack class... from your info, I could only predict what I consider likely.

Edited September 19, 2012 by regentrude

[Melinda in VT]

I can't vote. I apparently don't slice my classes finely enough. ;)

 

Actually, I think I rely more on social graces and conversational topics than income or education to classify people.

[Laura Corin]

 

For the most part, Americans are defined by how much they accomplish themselves. They can accomplish much by education, business ownership, or service. An ivy league graduate who is working as a low-paid artist, a successful business owner with a GED, or the president of the Red Cross would be considered highly respected by most anyone over here. Their relatives' education or family inheritance (or lack thereof) would have little to no effect on their reputation.

 

A) has gone beyond his background and achieved a comfortable position through education, B) hasn't achieved much on the surface, but we don't know any more about the family reasons that may have held him back, C) has earned a lot of money with no family help and little education.

 

What did you choose?

 

Laura

[Abigail4476]

New world and B, because of education and lineage.

[Crimson Wife]

In the US, one is rarely defined by how his ancestors were educated or what jobs they held. There are exceptions for the "old money", say the Kennedys or Rockefellers, whose money and accomplishments are legendary.

 

I had to laugh at this, because where I grew up near Boston, the Kennedys are NOT considered "old money". Joe Sr. made his fortune as a bootlegger during the Prohibition, far too recently to be considered "old money". If your family has a house at Harvard College named after you, that is "old money" for Boston :lol:

[Elinor Everywhere]

.... a signifier of social class.

 

Laura

 

That's the question, isn't it? Are you socially high on the scale if you are in the "in", Downton Abbey crowd (not really, just the moneyed society of the day)? What outward sign is there of your social high class? I would prefer a high social class to include well-educated people reading books and discussing issues, but I think that type is falling out of favor unless one is a starving artist living in Paris or something. :tongue_smilie:

[Lisa R.]

Also, I am reminded by something I ready years ago in an autobiography by Maria Von Trapp. They were a wealthy and aristocratic family over in Austria before emigrating to the US. She was saying that when they came to the US, they did some farming. She recalled herself and her family being embarrassed when a neighbor or friend came over and found them busy working outside. She said she was surprised by her American friends that were farmers would not be self-conscious and happily greet people as they were working. She noticed the shift in thinking between Europe and America with regard to physical labor.

 

She quickly realized that hard work was respected and not considered degrading or "beneath one's status". As my ancestor's were farmers, it was interesting to hear that perspective as I'd never thought of it before. Mrs. Von Trapp did appear to change her thinking after living here and adapting to this culture.

 

Of course, that was in the late 1940s.

 

When our country was founded, back-breaking work was needed by all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds. I think that plays a big part in why a solid work ethic is highly respected over one's background here in this country.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I chose C because I do think of economics as being part of socioeconomics and he seemed to earn the most. But honestly I found it a bit hard to vote because in real life I would think of all 3 of them as being in the same middle class, even if C was more comfortable financially and might be more accurately labeled as upper middle class. I am New World.

[Abigail4476]

I can't vote. I apparently don't slice my classes finely enough. ;)

 

Actually, I think I rely more on social graces and conversational topics than income or education to classify people.

 

I doubt many of us go about classifying people all that much; :001_huh:I assume that the OP and poll have to do with a particular conversation or study. So, hypothetically speaking and outside of what I practice on a regular basis, I would put the person that is more highly educated and has a background of well-educated family members in the higher social class.

 

It's okay to theorize, even outside your comfort zone. :tongue_smilie:

Edited September 19, 2012 by Abigail4476
typo

[Lisa R.]

I had to laugh at this, because where I grew up near Boston, the Kennedys are NOT considered "old money". Joe Sr. made his fortune as a bootlegger during the Prohibition, far too recently to be considered "old money". If your family has a house at Harvard College named after you, that is "old money" for Boston :lol:

 

Good point. Let's substitute Vanderbilt or Carnegie.

[Laura Corin]

When our country was founded, back-breaking work was needed by all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds. I think that plays a big part in why a solid work ethic is highly respected over one's background here in this country.

 

I don't think we know anything about the three people's work ethic.

 

Laura

[Laura Corin]

Good point. Let's substitute Vanderbilt or Carnegie.

 

Born in Scotland in 1835, died in the US in 1919, all the money made in his own lifetime....

 

Laura

[Lisa R.]

Born in Scotland in 1835, died in the US in 1919, all the money made in his own lifetime....

 

Laura

Yes, but consider our country was founded in 1776...

[Melinda in VT]

I doubt of many of us go about classifying people all that much; :001_huh:I assume that the OP and poll have to do with a particular conversation or study. So, hypothetically speaking and outside of what I practice on a regular basis, I would put the person that is more highly educated and has a background of well-educated family members in the higher social class.

 

It's okay to theorize, even outside your comfort zone. :tongue_smilie:

 

Oh dear. I think gave the wrong impression with my post.

 

I absolutely was not saying that I thought the discussion was wrong to have. I find it interesting to think about and to read everyone's responses.

 

I would just lump all three in the same class.

[Danestress]

I edited my post to reflect that.

[Laura Corin]

Yes, but consider our country was founded in 1776...

 

That would take you back a good few years earlier than Carnegie...

 

Laura

[Abigail4476]

Oh dear. I think gave the wrong impression with my post.

 

I absolutely was not saying that I thought the discussion was wrong to have. I find it interesting to think about and to read everyone's responses.

 

I would just lump all three in the same class.

 

Drat! You quoted me before I corrected my typo!!! :D

[Lisa R.]

I don't think we know anything about the three people's work ethic.

 

Laura

 

I disagree.

 

I voted C. We can assume this person has a good work ethic if he worked his way up through a company to the point where he earns enough money to vacation on another continent. I think we can assume he did not receive his promotions because of family connections but through the achievements he's made in his company.

 

His wife is a nurse. Ever seen a nurse that wasn't a hard worker? Me neither. It would be hard to get through nursing school without working hard. Further, she's received an even higher promotion.

 

Interesting thread, Laura.

[Crimson Wife]

Born in Scotland in 1835, died in the US in 1919, all the money made in his own lifetime....

 

Laura

 

But he bought his way into high society with his philanthropy Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, all the public libraries his foundation paid to build, etc.

[Danestress]

I don't have q good Kennedy education because I find them boring and do. not. understand. the fascination my mother's generation had. But I had the general impression that the Kennedys had money but no real class, and that marrying Jackie gave him a little gloss he otherwise lacked. No?

Edited September 19, 2012 by Danestress

[Crimson Wife]

[The founding of Harvard] would take you back a good few years earlier than Carnegie...

 

Laura

 

 

Most of the houses/dorms were built in the very late 19th to early 20th centuries. The Lowells (of Lowell House) made their money in the textile mills of the mid-19th century.

[Laura Corin]

I disagree.

 

I voted C. We can assume this person has a good work ethic if he worked his way up through a company to the point where he earns enough money to vacation on another continent. I think we can assume he did not receive his promotions because of family connections but through the achievements he's made in his company.

 

His wife is a nurse. Ever seen a nurse that wasn't a hard worker? Me neither. It would be hard to get through nursing school without working hard. Further, she's received an even higher promotion.

 

Interesting thread, Laura.

 

You are right that C must have a strong work ethic, but we don't know that the others don't. Perhaps A is not very bright, but has worked very hard and done very well given his abilities. Maybe B has been forced into low-paid work after a long career break working hard to look after a disabled sibling.

 

Laura

[Laura Corin]

Most of the houses/dorms were built in the very late 19th to early 20th centuries. The Lowells (of Lowell House) made their money in the textile mills of the mid-19th century.

 

That makes sense.

 

Laura

[Lisa R.]

My opinions on this are colored by the experiences of my relatives. Both sides of my family came to America from Europe in the early 1900s. Both sides became farmers. Both sides were poor. My mother, in particular, grew up poorer than anyone I've even known. She had a single mom who worked in a factory, no electricity, no running water, one bedroom, two dresses--one for school and one for church. She was alone by herself after school and on summer breaks from the age of six on. She used to entertain herself by looking at one of the few books she owned--one volume of a geography book. She would read through it over and over and said that she would one day visit those countries.

 

One day, she did. She has traveled the world and seen herself those counties she dreamed about. Both my parents were the first in their families to receive a college education (state schools). Both earned master degrees. They have a nice house, give to charity, paid for private school, helped fund their kids' college education and so on.

 

My ancestors sacrificed and gave their descendants opportunities they didn't even know existed. For my family it was education and hard work that provided a better life.

[Stacia]

Haven't read all the replies yet, but I'd vote "B" as having the highest social class (assuming the generations before him also had degrees in addition to their 'professional' status). Mainly basing my reply on his family history of higher education & his continuation of that....

 

P.S. I come from the new world, but my dh comes from the old world. So, I feel like I have an active part in both worlds....

Edited September 19, 2012 by Stacia

[Laura Corin]

My ancestors sacrificed and gave their descendants opportunities they didn't even know existed. For my family it was education and hard work that provided a better life.

 

I certainly honour hard work.

 

I suppose that some of the the things that I am trying to tease out of the issue are: are there different kinds of value, possibly reflecting different kinds of focus or native ability? Do people in different cultures look at different proofs of 'success'? To what extent do people value familial background (like your own, based on your parents' hard work) against individual material achievement. B) is not an aristocrat - he is the distance from poverty that your grandchildren will be. His ancestors, presumably, strove just as your parents did.

 

Laura

Edited September 19, 2012 by Laura Corin

[Parrothead]

B. It is all about breeding. New world here.

[Catwoman]

I haven't read the other responses, but I can tell you that based on the way we were raised, none of the people you described would be considered anywhere near "upper class." Middle class at best, but that's as far as it would go. There's not enough long-term heritage or "old money" to qualify any of those people as being upper class.

 

If my mom was still alive, she could have given you a very succinct and specific explanation of exactly how one would define "upper class" or "old money." Of course, she would probably add that if you had to ask, you should already assume that you weren't going to make the cut. :D

 

(I forgot to add that I'm "New World," but our family has had roots here since Mayflower times, so I guess we're sort of Old New World. ;))

Edited September 19, 2012 by Catwoman

[Lady Florida.]

In the US, one is rarely defined by how his ancestors were educated or what jobs they held. There are exceptions for the "old money", say the Kennedys or Rockefellers, whose money and accomplishments are legendary.

 

For the most part, Americans are defined by how much they accomplish themselves. They can accomplish much by education, business ownership, or service. An ivy league graduate who is working as a low-paid artist, a successful business owner with a GED, or the president of the Red Cross would be considered highly respected by most anyone over here. Their relatives' education or family inheritance (or lack thereof) would have little to no effect on their reputation.

 

As far as class--that is something money can't buy. One only needs to watch a commercial of "Real Housewives of ________" to quickly ascertain that money and class do not go hand in hand.

 

:iagree: This is why I'm having a hard time answering the poll.

[kitten18]

Oh dear. I think gave the wrong impression with my post.

 

I absolutely was not saying that I thought the discussion was wrong to have. I find it interesting to think about and to read everyone's responses.

 

I would just lump all three in the same class.

:iagree:

 

 

I couldn't even figure out how to vote. I'm the only "other" vote.

 

 

I guess where I live, everything (and everybody) is so NEW (the town is about 25 years old) that I can't imagine one's family history being an issue in anything.

[Elinor Everywhere]

But he bought his way into high society with his philanthropy Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, all the public libraries his foundation paid to build, etc.

 

This is why I voted C, because from what I've seen of the world, $$ buys social status ("class" is another matter).

[Heather in WI]

I voted B because of education and family background.

 

C sounds like new money and tacky to me. :lol:

Edited September 19, 2012 by Heather in WI

[Catwoman]

In the US, one is rarely defined by how his ancestors were educated or what jobs they held.

 

That depends entirely on family background and social status. "Old money" and long term heritage can mean a lot in terms of whether or not a person will ever be truly accepted into certain groups.

[bettyandbob]

I put B. I understand "class" as you've used it to mean a family's societal ranking, which one would be born into.

 

In the US, we do not have as strong delineations based on family history as exist in the UK. My dc have been friends with a family from the UK, whose father says he will never move back because of these class distinctions. After university and some work experience he took a job with a US based country and they eventually brought him here. He says he will move anywhere in the world, but not back to the UK, because where his "class" places him in affects him negatively in career and society. He is extremely successful. He is resentful that his skills would never be fully recognized in his "home country" and he absolutely never wants that for his dc.

 

Now, I understand that is just one man's experience, but it certainly left a mark on him. I know there are other's who may be very successful in the UK and not feel the mark of a class system so closely.

[justamouse]

My friends and generation are nouveau riche, and I totally get that. I grew up around old world $. Really old, old $.

 

The inheritor of one of them is now living in a tailer park in AZ, cuz mummie wrote him out of the will for having endless affairs and then marrying the last chick. ;) Still love him awful, I just miss staying at the lake house. And I think he totally deserved it. But, he's still upper class because he has an amazing education and life experiences that just cannot be bought.

 

I know what it is, I know I don't have it. I think this shoots back to Hunter's "how many generations to make a prince".

Edited September 20, 2012 by justamouse
forgot the end of the story...

[justamouse]

I had to laugh at this, because where I grew up near Boston, the Kennedys are NOT considered "old money". Joe Sr. made his fortune as a bootlegger during the Prohibition, far too recently to be considered "old money". If your family has a house at Harvard College named after you, that is "old money" for Boston :lol:

:iagree: