On my mind:
Mar. 24th, 2009 12:53 amWith all these news stories flying around, it's easy to get caught up in class warfare, i.e. political struggle. Got to remember that what ultimately matters is how comfortable I am with my own activities.
But still, something's been gnawing at me:
"Upper class", "middle class", "lower/working class". Is this still an accurate way to group American society? Was it ever? Is there a better way? What's missing?
But still, something's been gnawing at me:
"Upper class", "middle class", "lower/working class". Is this still an accurate way to group American society? Was it ever? Is there a better way? What's missing?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-24 12:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-25 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-26 06:39 am (UTC)I think most people are uncomfortable with using the terms because of implied value. It's tantamount to sin not to have money in the U.S., as you know. :) If you're poor, you're not doing it right.
I don't know if these were ever useful terms in recent memory (post-1930s). Missing is an earnest conversation about what it really costs to live in our country. Banning that chestnut about how 35% maximum of one's income should be allocated to housing costs, is one. Working poor tend to spend closer to 50% or more. Also, the "1 paycheck from poverty" thing. What gets labeled as poverty in this discussion?
I do like "going", "going", and "gone", though...
no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 05:05 am (UTC)They made an interesting point: "middle class" these days is more of a cultural identification then an actual income bracket. It represents a set of values and ideals more then it represents a 2 car garage and a 3 bedroom house on a 3/4 acre lot... struck home pretty well with me.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 05:27 am (UTC)The first 1 minute of this clip is the most concise, perfect analysis of the American socio-economic structure that has ever been articulated. The other 7 mins are a damn good watch too.