BBC Article - The New Subtle Ways the Rich Signal Their Wealth

[creekland]

Here's the article:

 

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170614-the-new-subtle-ways-the-rich-signal-their-wealth

 

It seems according to that article, many of us are rich considering we attempt to eat healthy (at least most of the time) and place a higher value on education and cultural experiences, including travel, than material items...  I agree we are rich, as long as we don't check actual income because ours (personally) is nowhere near what they say the Top 1% earn.  We don't even make Top 10%.  Perhaps that's why we don't have oodles saved for retirement... but our retirement account is not empty either.  

 

I agree that many around where I live do not cherish the same things we do.  (That's part of why I found the Hive TBH.)  Some of them earn more money than we do...

 

Is materialism dying off among the Top 1 or 10%?

 

What says the Hive?

 

ps  This seems to give income percentages (for 2013) if you want to look and see where they are at:

 

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/05/01/youd-need-to-earn-this-much-to-be-in-the-top-1-5-1.aspx

[gardenmom5]

when you say you're not rich - are you considering the entire world's population?  just your country?  your locality?

 

 

[Anne in CA]

What is funny is that even though my family is very low income right now as we dump everything into our business my kids are friends with very wealthy kids. Because we have many things in common. The stress on education is huge, as well as travel, I have insisted that all my kids travel, and we do eat healthy. Ooops. 

[SKL]

That article made no sense to me.

 

Basically the conclusion is that if you are able to prioritize education and rich cultural experiences, then that will get you a good career and stuff.  Well duh.

 

But somehow making choices that lead to that equals trying to show off to other rich people that you're also rich?

 

Nobody other than very close friends and family would know how much education or cultural experiences etc. I have.  They would not think I was rich or in any way fancy.  So no, my choices are not about "signaling."  They are my actual priorities.  Nice try though, author ....

[Arcadia]

From the article,

 

"The vast chasm between middle-income and top 1% spending on education in the US is particularly concerning because, unlike material goods, education has become more and more expensive in recent decades. Thus, there is a greater need to devote financial resources to education to be able to afford it at all."

 

My family would be 3rd gen middle income on my side. A hands on physics class my oldest attended two years ago was $2,100 per academic year. Last year it was $2,500. For 2017/18, it would be $3,100. So an increase in fees of $1k in two years for the same class. If we had sent our younger son for the same class this fall, that would be $1k less to spend somewhere else. All the education costs increases adds up faster than pay increases sometimes.

 

For my neighbors, those with one or two children are more likely to switch from public to private schools. Private school tuition and home mortgage/rent is eating up quite a fair amount of take home pay for many. People around me with high school kids are more likely to think about the EFC and running net price calculators for college than about acquiring luxury goods. The rest are more worried about mortgage/rent and job security. Many in my area are likely to fall in the top 10% by AGI.

 

I do have older relatives in the lower bound of the top 1%. They spend their money on high cost country club memberships, vacations and helping their kids or grandkids with college expenses and the 20% down payment for first marital home.

[6packofun]

I was expecting way pettier things than education.  lol  

 

When I think of our friends who make in the top 8% (according to wikipedia this seems to be over 150k, which is very comfortable but not a ton, IMO), I think they signal their wealth by sharing about certain high-end experiences--in addition to vacations.  Plural.  For example, it's rather snooty to me to refer to the 3 times you've seen the Broadway show Hamilton ("When we saw Hamilton the third time...")  and that you go to San Diego ComicCon every single year ("My wallet is empty after the thousands I spend on the ComicCon trip, haha!...wahh.")  because that's just something you do.  LOL  I know a family that scraped together enough to send 2 members of the family to go to NY to see Hamilton, but not a few people seeing it a few times in different cities each time!  :P  Anyway, this is the sort of thing I expected to hear.  I don't begrudge family #1 at all for being ABLE to do those things, but it's obnoxious to bring it up in a certain way, every possible chance.  Social media is amazing for wealth-signaling, too.  LOL

[Crimson Wife]

Breastfeeding for a year plus is more a middle class thing than an elite thing because it's typically done by SAHM's rather than moms with a high paying job. The moms I know who make big bucks almost all weaned as soon as their maternity leave was up at 3-4 months post partum.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frances]

I think any changes in where the rich are spending their money may be more related to education level than anything else. More and more, education level is dividing this country into the haves and the have nots. Besides being related to income, it's increasingly related to health outcomes and marital stability. I don't think it's surprising that more educated people, regardless of income, value education, travel, health, etc over material goods. Although of course there will always be people with money who feel the need to display their wealth by purchasing lots of expensive stuff.

 

I thought all of the focus on The Econimist in the article was funny. My son and I share a subscription, he reads online and I get the print version. I don't think I've ever taken a copy out of my house, so I guess only my mail person is seeing the signals I'm supposedly sending.

[eternalsummer]

The article lost me when it described breastfeeding as pernicious.

 

Also, the wealthy spend more and more on education because it costs more and more, and they're the ones paying the bills at schools while poor and middle class kids get grants and loans.  I would also wager they are more likely to go to meet-needs schools and actually pay full price there.

 

I had an otherwise very intelligent linguistics professor at university who was convinced that you could no longer differentiate socioeconomic classes by clothing because poor people had started buying Nikes and starter jackets.  What had really happened, I think, was that he had aged out of the time where he himself could make the distinction; it was still very very very obvious to his students, who had just gotten out of high school.

[Violet Crown]

The writer of that article either hasn't actually read Thorstein Veblen, or hasn't understood him.

[Laura Corin]

It's not a BBC-written article, and that shows in the quality.

[Pawz4me]

I'm not convinced that materialism has ever really been a thing among the majority of the wealthy. There's a difference in buying quality because it's well made and durable and buying a certain brand just to show off wealth. The majority of wealthy people I know are more interested in the former than the latter. And my not yet fully caffeinated brain tells me that applies to education, too, in that money spent on education is a durable "investment."

[DawnM]

I wrote a bunch of stuff but realized it was too personal, so I will just say this:

 

I was raised with both sides of the family emphasizing education, regardless of economic status.  My grandfather rented a small room in a small NY apt and ate bread and tea for months in order to attend NYU.  He didn't have the finances, but he found a way.

 

 

[DawnM]

The article lost me when it described breastfeeding as pernicious.

 

Also, the wealthy spend more and more on education because it costs more and more, and they're the ones paying the bills at schools while poor and middle class kids get grants and loans.  I would also wager they are more likely to go to meet-needs schools and actually pay full price there.

 

I had an otherwise very intelligent linguistics professor at university who was convinced that you could no longer differentiate socioeconomic classes by clothing because poor people had started buying Nikes and starter jackets.  What had really happened, I think, was that he had aged out of the time where he himself could make the distinction; it was still very very very obvious to his students, who had just gotten out of high school.

 

 

You lost me.....the poor can now afford Nikes so he is too old to pick out Freshman?

 

How do those two statements connect?

[Guest]

I am not convinced the city farmer's market is where one gains entry to social networks, but I am convinced the food available there is mch higher quality than in my area. We.seem to get seconds...for example a pound of carrots here would be ten to twelve spindly ones, whereas its Bugs Bunny time in Manhattan. Folks here generally grow what they can in their own garden as a result, but that would only be seniors and younger middle and wealthy folks...low income doesn't bother. Grass fed beef is also middle and wealthy.

 

The writer doesnt understand education costs vs availability. Unlike the UK, the US equivalent of A levels and the path to get there isnt available to all who could do the work. If the zoned public school isn't offering appropriate classes in a violence free setting for the literate families' children, they leave for private or homeschool because they know what it takes to succeed. They pay in housing price or they pay in tuition, but either way their childrens' time isn't wasted. Doesn't matter what their income is,they aren't giving their child less of an education than they had.

 

I also agree clothing is not a marker for everyone. The ten percenters I know do not buy by brand, its fit and material. At the public school, the marker for low income is high end brands,.because that's what social services gives out. You won't see a high income child, as they left when common core became the only choice...but before that, they were wearing sears/jcp/target as we are rural and playclothes need not be high quality brands. Their marker in public was owning multiple pairs of shoes, a raincoat, and appropriate concert attire as well as the vocabulary and conversational skills.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[DawnM]

I am not convinced the city farmer's market is where one gains entry to social networks, but I am convinced the food available there is mch higher quality than in my area. We.seem to get seconds...for example a pound of carrots here would be ten to twelve spindly ones, whereas its Bugs Bunny time in Manhattan. Folks here generally grow what they can in their own garden as a result, but that would only be seniors and younger middle and wealthy folks...low income doesn't bother. Grass fed beef is also middle and wealthy.

 

The writer doesnt understand education costs vs availability. Unlike the UK, the US equivalent of A levels and the path to get there isnt available to all who could do the work. If the zoned public school isn't offering appropriate classes in a violence free setting for the literate families' children, they leave for private or homeschool because they know what it takes to succeed. They pay in housing price or they pay in tuition, but either way their childrens' time isn't wasted. Doesn't matter what their income is,they aren't giving their child less of an education than they had.

 

I also agree clothing is not a marker for everyone. The ten percenters I know do not buy by brand, its fit and material. At the public school, the marker for low income is high end brands,.because that's what social services gives out. You won't see a high income child, as they left when common core became the only choice...but before that, they were wearing sears/jcp/target as we are rural and playclothes need not be high quality brands. Their marker in public was owning multiple pairs of shoes, a raincoat, and appropriate concert attire as well as the vocabulary and conversational skills.

 

 

Around here a lot of wealthy kids attend public schools.  Our local high school is now rated by US News and World Report as being in the top 1% of all high schools in the USA.  Common Core or not, they are producing high ranked kids.   Before they were in the 1% they were in the top 3%, so they have always been high.  Our kids are attending and we have been surprised with how much we actually LIKE our local PS.  

 

The status at our school is what neighborhood you live in.  The first week of school for my 7th grader he came home and asked, "How much is our house worth?"  When I asked why he wanted to know he explained that some kids were looked down on because of their neighborhood.  I had to have a talk with him and explain that WE don't CARE what the cost of a house is, we care about the quality of the people who live there.  And I told him I didn't want to hear any more talk about neighborhoods or cost of houses people lived in.

 

And honestly, if people are that worried about it, they can check zillow.

Edited June 18, 2017 by DawnM

[Guest]

Around here a lot of wealthy kids attend public schools. Our local high school is now rated by US News and World Report as being in the top 1% of all high schools in the USA. Common Core or not, they are producing high ranked kids. Before they were in the 1% they were in the top 3%, so they have always been high. Our kids are attending and we have been surprised with how much we actually LIKE our local PS.

 

The status at our school is what neighborhood you live in. The first week of school for my 7th grader he came home and asked, "How much is our house worth?" When I asked why he wanted to know he explained that some kids were looked down on because of their neighborhood. I had to have a talk with him and explain that WE don't CARE what the cost of a house is, we care about the quality of the people who live there. And I told him I didn't want to hear any more talk about neighborhoods or cost of houses people lived in.

 

And honestly, if people are that worried about it, they can check zillow.

Wealthy kids here attend public schools in districts that offer more than common core. Ours only offers common core - students review all year if they already know the basics, they are no longer able to read while catch up and on grade level lessons are presented. Another marker you would see here is that wealthy students public schools allow students to use their own e-readers in elementary, while common core only schools heavily restrict free reading by insisting on grade level only materials from school library and don't have DEAR time.

[DawnM]

Wealthy kids here attend public schools in districts that offer more than common core. Ours only offers common core - students review all year if they already know the basics, they are no longer able to read while catch up and on grade level lessons are presented. Another marker you would see here is that wealthy students public schools allow students to use their own e-readers in elementary, while common core only schools heavily restrict free reading by insisting on grade level only materials from school library and don't have DEAR time.

 

 

Interesting.  I taught in inner city schools this year, half the day at the HS and half at the Elem, and there were no restrictions on reading, and above grade level was encouraged if the student could handle it.

[TravelingChris]

We were having a conversation at the dinner table with our SIL and rest of the family. We were talking about New Zealand and my youngest going there for study abroad in a few weeks, I remarked how strange it was that so many people were asking me if we are going to visit her there. And I said, they must think we have a lot more money than we do. We are paying full freight for her semester there along with an expensive plain ticket. Along with paying student loans for other children to help them our, we just now do not have the resources to do that now and dh won't have enough vacation time either. We are doing the much lesser cost trip to Utah and Idaho (to watch the eclipse, bird watch, and generally see cool stuff). I remarked about how some people we know have airplanes. SIL starts telling us how inexpensive airplanes are. Like 100K. Well I guess they would be inexpensive for his family where they buy their children houses with cash and bought him a new truck when he didn't even need it (also with cash). He comes to our house and sees the books, the art (not expensive since the most expensive piece is our large Belgian tapestry at 600 Euros or maybe our small Persian rug we have hanging up). He equates our education and interests with wealth but we had those even when we were poor scholarship students. I had those even though my parents were in middle income while my dad was alive and then lower income after. Even though we are now making much more money than before, we weren't doing so for so many years and we do not have 100K for a plane or for anything. His parents could do that but he seems to think we are richer than them. We are more educated and dh may make more money but we only inherited 6k while they inherited a lot. So yes this article is bunk. Yes, as we have had our income grow, we can select more expensive food. As to name brand awareness, I don't see it among people we associate with.

[Carrie12345]

Blah. As my household income rises, I spend more on education and good food. Why in the world would I intentionally choose not to?!? I pay a ton in healthcare because my country's system is ridiculous. Those in the know should read it as a signal of LESS disposable income!

 

I know how fortunate I am, even if we don't quite make the current 10%. I felt fortunate in the 50%. In both places, I've done my best to give my family the best possible. My "social status" has never changed with my financial status. But I don't live in an economically segregated area.

[FaithManor]

Breastfeeding for a year plus is more a middle class thing than an elite thing because it's typically done by SAHM's rather than moms with a high paying job. The moms I know who make big bucks almost all weaned as soon as their maternity leave was up at 3-4 months post partum.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most of my friends oh had six weeks off. I know none that could have kept their jobs and taken 3-4 months. So many on my breastfed for two weeks for colostrum, and then went to the bottle right away so baby would be willing to eat for someone else.

 

Actually breast feeding for a year is still pretty rare here. Due to stagnating wages, rising healthcare costs, etc. nearly every family is dual income. The SAHM thing is going extinct here in the middle class, and hasn't been an option for low income pretty much ever. Only the top 10% or higher has had that opportunity in this region. So I think many of these statistics are a bit meaningless because it is going to vary so much by COL, job opportunities, access to healthcare, etc.

 

We do very much value high quality food, education, and travel. That is not the norm here. Most of the kids we know have never left the state. Their parents have invested in dirt bikes, four wheelers, snowmobiles, cabins up north or elaborate campers/trailers/motorhomes for their UP vacations. I do not know if we appear "rich" to them or not. Never asked. I know we don't fit in for certain.

 

My parents valued travel, education, music, and art. So I was raised with different priorities even though my parent's were pretty low income compared to numerous friends whose dad's were working for the big 3 and making good bucks, putting away for great pensions. Mom and dad so my saved all year long for vacations, and my mom took in sewing/alterations to fund our music lessons and museum trips. Mom made all of my performance gowns, and they were drop dead gorgeous. Way better than what was on the racks. That was back when one could save a lot of money that way because patterns and fabric were low cost compared to income. I think many people saw me in those gowns and thought we were much higher income than we were. So much of this is perception.

[Alessandra]

From the article, "Given that everyone can now afford to buy designer handbags...." Well, Hermes Kelly bags cost more than $5,000. And there are many places on the Upper East Side of Manhattan where some people make a preliminary judgement based on handbags. This can be overridden by accent and background, but still....

 

IMO, the author might have mentioned sumptuary laws, which regulated dress and other consumables by class. What level qualified you to wear velvet or ermine or to eat swans, and so on. But still, in, say, Tudor times, educational differences would have been huge -- having a tutor to teach your kids to speak Latin vs illiteracy.

 

I don't get the stuff about upward mobility via the farmers market.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Alessandra

[scrapbookbuzz]

I'm not convinced that materialism has ever really been a thing among the majority of the wealthy. There's a difference in buying quality because it's well made and durable and buying a certain brand just to show off wealth. The majority of wealthy people I know are more interested in the former than the latter. And my not yet fully caffeinated brain tells me that applies to education, too, in that money spent on education is a durable "investment."

 

I think I agree with you on all of this - including the "not yet fully caffeinated brain" part" (because that's where I am at the moment)  :p

 

Also, I have known and now know a few very wealthy people. Almost all of those I know are not materialistic in the Madonna (pop singer) sense of the word.

I remember very distinctly conversing with one of them a few years ago and seeing a peace in his eyes that I don't ever see in those that aren't monetarily wealthy. He didn't have the stress of wondering if he could pay his bills or his kids tuition or ....And he wasn't flashy about it, either. It was just who he was. 

 

I don't know that I've truly known a person who truly understands wealth that is eager to show it off with flashy possessions. Makes me wonder where this "author" got their information.

[Mergath]

This article cracked me up. And I think it helps demonstrate that visible class identifiers aren't strictly based on money anymore, which is interesting. I mean, I bought some pasture-raised eggs from the farmer's market yesterday and I read the Economist, but it's definitely not  "the iterative result of spending time in elite social milieus and expensive educational institutions that prize this publication and discuss its contents." :lol: And we're not any higher than middle class from a financial perspective. 

 

Also, unless you live in a very specific, very small area of the country (and most likely not even then) "knowing which New Yorker articles to reference or what small talk to engage in at the local farmers’ market" isn't going to provide entry "into social networks that, in turn, help to pave the way to elite jobs, key social and professional contacts, and private schools." I don't know anyone who got their kid into an exclusive private school because they chatted up the right person at the farmer's market about art or current events. It's a nice thought, that the barriers to social mobility are so easily kicked down if you read a few magazines and stay current on world events, but it's crap. Money is still, in 99.99% of cases, the only way to gain access. It's almost like this article assumes most of us are idiots and is trying to soothe the angry masses by reassuring us that we too can become elite if only we subscribe to The Economist and buy organic carrots directly from the farmer.

[Mergath]

I think I agree with you on all of this - including the "not yet fully caffeinated brain" part" (because that's where I am at the moment)  :p

 

Also, I have known and now know a few very wealthy people. Almost all of those I know are not materialistic in the Madonna (pop singer) sense of the word.

I remember very distinctly conversing with one of them a few years ago and seeing a peace in his eyes that I don't ever see in those that aren't monetarily wealthy. He didn't have the stress of wondering if he could pay his bills or his kids tuition or ....And he wasn't flashy about it, either. It was just who he was. 

 

I don't know that I've truly known a person who truly understands wealth that is eager to show it off with flashy possessions. Makes me wonder where this "author" got their information.

 

:iagree:  The people I know making in the very low six-figure range are the ones who spend the bulk of their disposable income on things to show off to the neighbors. The person I know who has much, much more money than that doesn't do anything to show it off, buys what she likes, does what she wants, and couldn't possibly care less if she impresses other people or not. Buying designer stuff so other people know she's wealthy isn't even on her radar.

 

[eternalsummer]

You lost me.....the poor can now afford Nikes so he is too old to pick out Freshman?

 

How do those two statements connect?

 

 

He thinks that clothing is no longer a marker of socioeconomic status because (he says) poor people can and do buy name brand shoes and other items.  

 

It is obvious to most high school kids (who, at least when I was in school, were hyperaware of clothing as a reflection of socioeconomic status) that these distinctions can still be made; I am assuming that the reason the professor can no longer make them (that is, he can no longer judge a group of people's socioeconomic status by their clothing) is because he has aged out of the time when making such a distinction is easy.

[scrapbookbuzz]

He thinks that clothing is no longer a marker of socioeconomic status because (he says) poor people can and do buy name brand shoes and other items.  

 

It is obvious to most high school kids (who, at least when I was in school, were hyperaware of clothing as a reflection of socioeconomic status) that these distinctions can still be made; I am assuming that the reason the professor can no longer make them (that is, he can no longer judge a group of people's socioeconomic status by their clothing) is because he has aged out of the time when making such a distinction is easy.

I think that may depend on the person. When I was in high school in the 80s, I wore the clothes that Mom bought from wherever (usually K-Mart or Penney's) and I don't know that any of my classmates cared. Nor did I care about their brand of clothing. There may have been classmates who did care about the brand of clothing they wore but I wasn't aware of it. And, actually, with name brand clothing popping up in various Goodwills and other thrift stores (at least here they do), then it is quite possible someone in a lower socioeconomic bracket could very well be wearing Nike shoes and carrying around a Guess purse. (Yes, I have seen those brands in thrift stores around here.)

[PrincessMommy]

:iagree:  The people I know making in the very low six-figure range are the ones who spend the bulk of their disposable income on things to show off to the neighbors. The person I know who has much, much more money than that doesn't do anything to show it off, buys what she likes, does what she wants, and couldn't possibly care less if she impresses other people or not. Buying designer stuff so other people know she's wealthy isn't even on her radar.

 

 

This is what I was thinking as I skimmed the article.  I know plenty of people who have a big hat but no cattle, if you KWIM.    I think the author needs to read "The Millionaire Nextdoor" before she starts writing about this subject.

[Ottakee]

:iagree: The people I know making in the very low six-figure range are the ones who spend the bulk of their disposable income on things to show off to the neighbors. The person I know who has much, much more money than that doesn't do anything to show it off, buys what she likes, does what she wants, and couldn't possibly care less if she impresses other people or not. Buying designer stuff so other people know she's wealthy isn't even on her radar.

 

I would agree with this. I have a friend that is upper middle class....5 kids so that comes into play. They vacation well but they also shop at Aldi for 90% of their groceries, just bought their first ever new car (a basic reliable Subaru as they live in a rural area with bad winters). She shops thrift stores and when the kids were younger was a queen of hand me downs.

 

They invest well, save well, give generously, but never make their income something to show off.

 

Another guy I know is likely a multi millionaire....but wears old faded jeans,drove an old pick up truck, lives in a modest ranch in a middle class neighborhood. Very few would know his economic resources.

 

Then there are many others with much lower incomes trying to flaunt what they have.

[EMS83]

^^ I know people who are the millionaires next door and they shop at Walmart.  :D

[JumpyTheFrog]

I tend to assume that most people who look upper class do it with lots of debt. As "The Millionaire Next Door" points out, most of the wealthy drive cars like used Camrys, not luxury cars. Many of them are small business owners with mundane jobs who invested carefully. In other words, they didn't get rich by spending foolishly.

[eternalsummer]

I think that may depend on the person. When I was in high school in the 80s, I wore the clothes that Mom bought from wherever (usually K-Mart or Penney's) and I don't know that any of my classmates cared. Nor did I care about their brand of clothing. There may have been classmates who did care about the brand of clothing they wore but I wasn't aware of it. And, actually, with name brand clothing popping up in various Goodwills and other thrift stores (at least here they do), then it is quite possible someone in a lower socioeconomic bracket could very well be wearing Nike shoes and carrying around a Guess purse. (Yes, I have seen those brands in thrift stores around here.)

 

Of course there are individuals who dress in a different way than is standard for their socioeconomic class (in fact, large percentages of the population do this); he was also correct that poor people can and do buy expensive brands of clothing.

 

However, clothing is still a pretty reliable marker of class.  It is not just brand but style.

[SKL]

I hear about people who buy $5,000 purses so they can look rich, but I don't believe I've ever met one.  Perhaps it's a myth.

 

Now guys and cars, I've definitely seen some of that.  Can't really say for sure that they do it to show off vs. because they really really like expensive, impractical cars.  :P

 

Oh and I used to date a guy who wanted *me* to dress better so *he* would look better walking next to me.  Never really understood his mindset.

[Crimson Wife]

I tend to assume that most people who look upper class do it with lots of debt. As "The Millionaire Next Door" points out, most of the wealthy drive cars like used Camrys, not luxury cars. Many of them are small business owners with mundane jobs who invested carefully. In other words, they didn't get rich by spending foolishly.

 

Untrue. Most of the 1% drive Teslas or very high end European brands (Maserati, Porsche, Ferrari, Range Rover, Bugatti, etc.) and made their money either in the financial industry or because they lucked out in a successful startup. They don't have debt except maybe a mortgage that they've gotten a sweetheart deal like a 1% interest rate.

 

If DH had better family connections to overcome the rampant nepotism in the financial services industry, he could've been one of them, though he would not drive some flashy car. He got laid off from an investment banking job one time because senior management told his boss to eliminate 1 of 2 positions and the other guy's dad was CEO of a major client. DH grew up lower-middle-class and his dad was a low level civil servant so there was never any question about who was going to get the pink slip. His boss did help him get another position at the company but with lower comp and far less upside potential.

 

He was also finalist for a position at a venture capital firm and lost out to a partner's nephew. The hiring manager apologized but again, whom you know is far more important than what you can do.

 

I agree with whomever said upthread that the linked article makes it seem like visiting farmers' markets and reading the Economist will actually make a difference in social mobility when it's not true. 

 

[creekland]

when you say you're not rich - are you considering the entire world's population?  just your country?  your locality?

 

Actually, I was going off the article and comparing the wealthy (Top 1 or 10%) and middle class.

 

I was expecting way pettier things than education.  lol  

 

When I think of our friends who make in the top 8% (according to wikipedia this seems to be over 150k, which is very comfortable but not a ton, IMO), I think they signal their wealth by sharing about certain high-end experiences--in addition to vacations.  Plural.  For example, it's rather snooty to me to refer to the 3 times you've seen the Broadway show Hamilton ("When we saw Hamilton the third time...")  and that you go to San Diego ComicCon every single year ("My wallet is empty after the thousands I spend on the ComicCon trip, haha!...wahh.")  because that's just something you do.  LOL  I know a family that scraped together enough to send 2 members of the family to go to NY to see Hamilton, but not a few people seeing it a few times in different cities each time!   :p  Anyway, this is the sort of thing I expected to hear.  I don't begrudge family #1 at all for being ABLE to do those things, but it's obnoxious to bring it up in a certain way, every possible chance.  Social media is amazing for wealth-signaling, too.  LOL

 

I was expecting different things too, and after driving a few hours today and mulling this over... hasn't education ALWAYS been an indicator of wealth?  In the beginning you could afford a tutor or to send your kids to school if you were wealthy and your kids were uneducated or home educated if not.  Now (and in the recent past - past couple hundred years), wealthy kids are expected to have gone to college as a default.  How is this "new?"  If anything, since my grandparents on both sides (farmers and factory workers) insisted my parents go to college (in the early '60s), it's the lower to middle class that is using education to move up to higher economic levels.

 

At least, that's what I see regarding education.

 

I think any changes in where the rich are spending their money may be more related to education level than anything else. More and more, education level is dividing this country into the haves and the have nots. Besides being related to income, it's increasingly related to health outcomes and marital stability. I don't think it's surprising that more educated people, regardless of income, value education, travel, health, etc over material goods. Although of course there will always be people with money who feel the need to display their wealth by purchasing lots of expensive stuff.

 

:iagree:  As one is educated, if they use that education (about health/diet/marriage or for jobs) they increase the gap.  Those who don't know continue on in the same old (generally not as good) ways.

 

I'm not convinced that materialism has ever really been a thing among the majority of the wealthy. There's a difference in buying quality because it's well made and durable and buying a certain brand just to show off wealth. The majority of wealthy people I know are more interested in the former than the latter. And my not yet fully caffeinated brain tells me that applies to education, too, in that money spent on education is a durable "investment."

 

I'm convinced it's been a segment of the wealthy.  I went to a rich private school in the 80s and was introduced to materialism there.  Kids instantly realized I wasn't "one of them" by my clothes and lack of experiences.  Fortunately, most kids aren't automatically prejudiced regarding economic class and I had a neat group of friends.  Through them (visiting their places - they never came to mine) I learned all about expensive cars, clothes, foods, vacations, having hired help and what jobs were "beneath" their class and more.

 

The whole show, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" isn't too far off from that segment of the wealthy - those "born into it."  They looked down their noses at lottery winners or anyone who didn't fit into their "class" and "breeding."  Some who worked their way up could break in, but usually it was pedigree.

 

There is that other segment of wealthy - those who fit the book, "Millionaire Next Door."  I live right next to one solid member of that class and know there are others like him. He earned/invested and saved his money (by not buying things) to get there. We, personally, fit in better with that group - well - except we don't have the million bucks as of yet.

 

Brain-wise, we are ALL wired to think if something costs more or is in a fancier setting it's worth more.  This crosses economic classes.  That's been proven over and over again in oodles of brain and cognitive studies using the exact same items with each type of cost or setting (and the same people, of course).  What some educated folks have found is that some less expensive items are just as good (or better) than their costlier counterparts, but it takes the education from some sort of source to see that and be able to act upon it.  It can be tough to override our brains.  Marketers know this, of course.

 

^^ I know people who are the millionaires next door and they shop at Walmart.   :D

 

Ditto

 

I also know those who wouldn't be caught dead in a Walmart (or similar "commoner" store).  I'm not totally convinced that segment has changed their ways.

Edited June 18, 2017 by creekland

[Crimson Wife]

I hear about people who buy $5,000 purses so they can look rich, but I don't believe I've ever met one.  Perhaps it's a myth.

Someone apparently cannot buy those limited edition bags off the shelf even if that individual has the cash. One needs to receive an invitation from the boutique to be put on the waiting list and celebrity/being seen as an "influencer" supposedly helps.

[SKL]

Untrue. Most of the 1% drive Teslas or very high end European brands (Maserati, Porsche, Ferrari, Range Rover, Bugatti, etc.) ..... 

 

 

This might vary by location.  I don't see this were I live.

[SKL]

Brain-wise, we are ALL wired to think if something costs more or is in a fancier setting it's worth more.  This crosses economic classes.  That's been proven over and over again in oodles of brain and cognitive studies using the exact same items with each type of cost or setting (and the same people, of course).  What some educated folks have found is that some less expensive items are just as good (or better) than their costlier counterparts, but it takes the education from some sort of source to see that and be able to act upon it.  It can be tough to override our brains.  Marketers know this, of course.

 

I don't agree that we are ALL wired this way.  I never ever felt that way from the day I was born.  :P  Perhaps the majority of humans are wired that way - assuming the studies are reliable - but pretty much all of those "millionaires next door" are not - and there are many such people.

[creekland]

This might vary by location.  I don't see this were I live.

 

It does vary.  The wealthy who like to compare tend to live in similar regions.  Many of my classmates from that private school had oceanfront houses in what was then the richest zip code the US had. (I just googled.  It's not #1 anymore, but still makes the Top 10 list.) Those who didn't have oceanfront still had houses in yacht club or golf club gated communities.  I only got into the school because my grandmother had connections from working in her church thrift shop (wealthy church) and I was able to test academically into it.  Either someone paid my tuition or I got a "diversity" scholarship.  I was told I'd earned a scholarship, but as I've aged, I seriously wonder if one of her wealthy friends paid my way.  Either way, it was all networking (and the test showing I could keep up academically).  I wouldn't have been there had my grandmother not had her friends.

[creekland]

I don't agree that we are ALL wired this way.  I never ever felt that way from the day I was born.  :p  Perhaps the majority of humans are wired that way - assuming the studies are reliable - but pretty much all of those "millionaires next door" are not - and there are many such people.

 

Well... those studies also show that the vast majority of us will say we aren't this way.   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

The Millionaire Next Door folks have learned how to look through advertising - as did I one I had my first Psych class dealing with advertising.  Even then though, I catch myself doing it every now and then.

 

We're all wired that way.  With education (doesn't have to be academic), we can overcome it.

[Crimson Wife]

It is somewhat regional, but due to the high COL, to be rich here requires the family to be much better off financially than the "rich" most other places in the country.

 

"According to auto website Edmunds.com the Tesla Model S is the top-selling vehicle in eight of the nation’s 25 wealthiest ZIP codes. Tops among them: tiny and tony Atherton, where the Model S accounts for a stunning 15.4 percent of all new car registrations within its borders. Six of the eight Tesla-heavy ZIP codes are in Silicon Valley; all eight are in California."

 

 

[SKL]

Well... those studies also show that the vast majority of us will say we aren't this way.   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

The Millionaire Next Door folks have learned how to look through advertising - as did I one I had my first Psych class dealing with advertising.  Even then though, I catch myself doing it every now and then.

 

We're all wired that way.  With education (doesn't have to be academic), we can overcome it.

 

You sound very confident.  However, I clearly remember being quite young in elementary school and questioning these things, wondering how in the world anybody could think that way.  :P  For example, I had a friend who spent her entire clothing budget on a single pair of in-style jeans.  I felt a lot better going to the Salvation Army on 50c day and getting a whole new-to-me wardrobe even on a small budget.  I have always felt that people who judge based on clothes etc. were idiots.  :P

[kroe1]

My middle class self drives a Cadillac. My 1% friends drive Tesslas, Bugattis, and Ferraris. So, I think there are plenty of material items for the rich that others will never obtain. And, yes, education expenses are climbing faster than other commodities. However, homeschooling in our generation allows us the ability to even out the playing field. We can give a one on one education that even the elitist private schools do not.

[SKL]

It is somewhat regional, but due to the high COL, to be rich here requires the family to be much better off financially than the "rich" most other places in the country.

 

Well where I live, I promise you we have our fair share of "actually rich" people who *could* buy an extravagant car if they wanted to.  They just don't want to.

[creekland]

You sound very confident.  However, I clearly remember being quite young in elementary school and questioning these things, wondering how in the world anybody could think that way.  :p  For example, I had a friend who spent her entire clothing budget on a single pair of in-style jeans.  I felt a lot better going to the Salvation Army on 50c day and getting a whole new-to-me wardrobe even on a small budget.  I have always felt that people who judge based on clothes etc. were idiots.  :p

 

It doesn't have to be clothing.  That one can be easy to see.  It can be ingredients, wines, foods, experiences... all sorts of things.  ;)

 

Once in a while there's the reverse side that feels everything cheaper is better or equally as good.  Same mindset.

 

Studying the brain and cognition is a super fun thing to do - well worth being included in academic study at least at an intro level (like with videos produced by decent sources).  I use a few of them at school when I get opportunities.  (Brain Games or The Brain by David Eagleman - both at total layman or beginner levels)

[SKL]

It doesn't have to be clothing.  That one can be easy to see.  It can be ingredients, wines, foods, experiences... all sorts of things.   ;)

 

Once in a while there's the reverse side that feels everything cheaper is better or equally as good.  Same mindset.

 

Studying the brain and cognition is a super fun thing to do - well worth being included in academic study at least at an intro level (like with videos produced by decent sources).  I use a few of them at school when I get opportunities.  (Brain Games or The Brain by David Eagleman - both at total layman or beginner levels)

 

Studying the brain and cognition, when done without bias, quickly informs us that all humans are different.  There really is nothing we are "ALL" wired to do or think.  That's what keeps life interesting.  :)

 

[creekland]

Studying the brain and cognition, when done without bias, quickly informs us that all humans are different.  There really is nothing we are "ALL" wired to do or think.  That's what keeps life interesting.  :)

 

 

Suit yourself.  ;)

[sassenach]

This might vary by location. I don't see this were I live.

Crimson and I live in the same region and I do feel like that skews everything. Here, normal rich people are middle class, 1%ers are the richest of the rich.

 

I actually connected with a large portion of the article. Example, it's totally expected that in 8th grade kids will apply to a number of private schools. These mostly range in the 35-45k/year range. Kids start sorting out who has money and who doesn't based on this cultural phenomena. Don't even apply? You're broke. Apply? You are in the middle. Attend? You're the top. People aren't snobs about it, it's just an alternate reality. Ds's good neighborhood friends (2 teens) are in a 45k/yr private school. That's 360k on their kids' high school education, not even factoring in that we live in one of the most expensive places in the country, so it's not like that can scrimp on housing and other expenses. But if you saw our neighborhood, it's so NOT fancy. It doesn't say "1 percenters live here."

[TravelingChris]

I do see Range Rovers and Porsche but no Tesla, Maserati or Ferrari here. And always, there is a big difference in 1% income (my dh doesn't earn in various ways to total 1% but we are close) and wealth. Because we have a mortgage, we have a negative net worth, I guess. Not really sure how that works since I am not sure how they count pensions. If they attach no value to them, we have a negative net worth and are in the lowest 10% of people.

 

We were discussing how to dress for interviews today and youngest was offended that her older sister suggested modifying her straight long hair and doing something like adding lay

ers or putting her hair up or a few other suggestions. She was surprised that she could be fired for any reason or no reason at all. She thought men didn't have that problem and my dh said, he is certain he didn't rise up higher (which really was better for us) because he doesn't have the status look. He is taller than average but not particularly and every study shows taller men get higher status and higher paying jobs. He also mentioned his hair which won't keep anything but a center part and how that is also a detriment.

 

So all kinds of things signal status and class and much less clearly wealth or inoome. The wealthier people I know don't do ostentatious. They spend money as they like but that means that where they shop depends on what they like. One friend of mine shops only sales and outlets and the like. Another friend drives older cars and dresses completely normally- you wouldn't be able to tell their wealth by clothing or cars and not until you started talking with either couple would you really start maybe thinking they have good jobs. (In both cases the women don't work but in stead do good works).OTOH, I have seen name brands and flashier clothing on some people with lower incomes/wealth. It is really unwise to judge just by clothing or cars.

[nixpix5]

Crimson and I live in the same region and I do feel like that skews everything. Here, normal rich people are middle class, 1%ers are the richest of the rich.

 

I actually connected with a large portion of the article. Example, it's totally expected that in 8th grade kids will apply to a number of private schools. These mostly range in the 35-45k/year range. Kids start sorting out who has money and who doesn't based on this cultural phenomena. Don't even apply? You're broke. Apply? You are in the middle. Attend? You're the top. People aren't snobs about it, it's just an alternate reality. Ds's good neighborhood friends (2 teens) are in a 45k/yr private school. That's 360k on their kids' high school education, not even factoring in that we live in one of the most expensive places in the country, so it's not like that can scrimp on housing and other expenses. But if you saw our neighborhood, it's so NOT fancy. It doesn't say "1 percenters live here."

I am near Seattle and this feels alot like what I see. Cost of living is high so while DH makes good money it provides what used to be the middle class standard of blue collar America here.

 

Definitely if you have money here then private school is often sought out and we have many good schools. The schools do try to aim for diversity though and offer generous financial aid so it isn't a prerequisite but I would say by and large most of the kids in our private schools come from comfortable homes.