Re: Social/economic class

[Gentleman Johnny]

Yeah, in the case of Vegas its exactly that they think money entitles them to. Zappo's bought the old City Hall to move their corporate HQ into and opened a 300 million dollar development company and startup incubator designed to promote Zappo's corporate culture. Properties were bought up and displaced people only to sit empty. Yes, its legal to buy any property that will sell to you with no thought for the people you're displacing. That doesn't make it ethical. Its literally gotten to the point where the average Zappo's employee can no longer afford to live downtown. Its a Little Silicon Valley built with Silicon Valley money to import Silicon Valley culture wholesale.

Now by comparison, the neighborhood I live in is some of the original tract housing from the 60's. The local park used to be closed to keep homeless people out of it. Now that vintage Vegas is getting some cache, its going from a rough neighborhood to a working class but upscale neighborhood organically. There's a blend of hipsters, original residents, lower income working families and no HOA. The closest gas station proudly takes EBT in the same parking lot as a bar that has vintage car shows. In 10-20 years it might be different but no one will wake up to find out they have a month to relocate from the only place they could afford.

[The Wisp]

I can totally see why you'd be peeved by that sort of gentrification, that does seem unethical. I've never heard of that kind of gentrification, which involving companies doing things like that at such a large and fast pace. I agree that is unethical.

Generally, when I hear of gentrification, it's the more gradual kind where jobs of one sort slowly pop up and a handful of higher income people move to a place, which starts a self-reinforcing circle of more jobs leading to more high income people leading to more jobs and so on until the place is unrecognizable. That is the kind I was talking about and, I think, the more common kind (though I could be wrong).

[reboot]

My neighborhood is mostly gentrifying through the Gentrification Gay Strike Force, because it became the safe space. So I cannot gripe too much since who else was going to invest in downtown Phoenix? Double income, few kids brings nice shit and physics knows the rest of the Valley is not as welcoming

[the littlest viking]

Definitely identify with this so much. So many of the people I know, who I would have considered friends, have completely alienated themselves to me through the sort of language brought up by the OP. I get it, there are white men out there who basically run the whole world and make a lot of money. I'm not one of them, if there is some sort of secret cabal you're initiated into for being a white male my invitation must have gotten lost or something.

that being said, I definitely grew up in an extremely low income household, in an extremely low income county. The schools were bad, almost everyone was qualified for reduced lunches and there were bag lunches in summer for the kids who depended on them to get a meal every day. Everything came from the thrift store, nothing ever fit right, and we learned to just always consistantly feel ashamed of how we looked. It's something I've still not been able to get over to this day. I still conflate branded clothing with bullies. I consider shopping at walmart or target to be extravagence, I wear my shoes until they fall apart.

yet... because I did claw my way through college I resent the people who haven't.. and I don't associate with them. I try not to make fun of low ses people since I am one of them.. but at the same time I don't want to date one of them, I want to date someone who is in the ses bracket that I will hopefully be in. lower middle or middle middle class. But at the same time, so many of my "poor people" behaviors irk potential dates, and I get frustrated by being told to just buy a new one of something or just charge it..

MOD

The littlest viking, I am posting this as the mod and the OP of this thread, your comments on the behavior of poor people are skirting dangerously close to violating the forum guidelines and (as the OP) I find them personally offensive because they are bashing people I love deeply, who are still where they started due to luck and circumstances.

You are new and unfamiliar with how we roll here, so I will cut you some slack, but please attempt to learn our culture by reading our guidelines. I'm genuinely confused here and am afraid we may have gotten some signals crossed?

/MOD

What exactly are you talking about? I'm describing my behaviors in this post, it's my 'Poor people behavior' that runs off people who don't understand what it is like

I want to date someone who is in the ses bracket that I will hopefully be in. lower middle or middle middle class.

I found this bit interesting, because so much of what we do is overtly acknowledged to be aspirational--"dress for the job you want" etc.--but dating rarely is, and when it is, it's denigrated ("GOLD DIGGER!") Do you think that your other preferences are also strongly aspirational, e.g. preference for partner's race (which frankly comes off.... pretty gross, but I'd like to hear more about your rationale over in the standards thread) are about trying to break into a specific lifestyle you're imagining that person to come with? Like, when you're advertised a very expensive cologne, you're not being sold on how the thing smells; you're being sold on the chance to be the kind of guy who wears it. Do you think you're looking for a middle class slim white woman because of who she is (which those characteristics don't affect significantly), or because of who you think dates women like that--the kind of guy you imagine you'd like to be?

More generally, I think it's unwise to assume that dating someone of a specific SES will bring you into that SES bracket unless you're at the point of actually marrying without a prenup. What's stopping you from getting together with a woman who's smart, fiscally responsible, curious, and hardworking, but not middle class, if you two are both aspiring to upward mobility? Why not make that journey together instead of requiring that a woman already be standing at your finish line? She's not necessarily going to pull you over there, y'know?

Because there is less of a chance of us actually making it together if we are both starting out handicapped, but I see your point. I wouldn't not date some one because she was from a similar background so long as we shared values like you listed. It's more along the lines of tastes. It's pretty rare to find someone like me, from a very low ses bracket, who enjoys going to live theatre or classical music.. not saying it can't happen but it certainly has not been common in my life.

[kleenestar]

Oh, Werel, that's a very interesting point. My husband and I come from quite different economic backgrounds (for example: my parents paid for college, he took out loans and worked cleaning toilets) but it never really occurred to me that it was unusual. I think that's because in the community I come from, class markers are all kinds of weird - for example, even the poorest families send their kids to private religious school, paid for by the community as a whole - so it never occurred to me that this would be a big deal to other people. But on the other hand I also think it had a great impact on our relationship. I doubt he'd have let me pay for him on the vast majority of our early dates if he'd had more spare cash, just for example, and that turned out to be a wedge that let us reinvent gender roles more broadly.

[reboot]

See, I am from a low see background and my friends/family are still in it. They like things like live theater, opera, symphony, etc, but are unfamiliar with it and feel like they "do not belong/are not wecome", so will not go unless I am with them to advise. There is this fear of being spotted as an " outsider " or of making a mistake because they do not know the rules of behavior and being mocked. And they are not wrong to fear it. People do judge and mock and call people white trash/ghetto/hood rat/I forget the poor Hispanic slur. There is also the knowledge that they are looked down upon, so a bit of a self protective, knee jerk, "I do not want to do it anyway" reaction

[the littlest viking]

See, it took me a long time to overcome that too and I wish more could. There is a whole wealth of things, often free or low cost the are out there. Public libraries, free concerts, all kinds of things. But I also know many just aren't interested in them, and I don't judge them for it, merely that it is one more thing I don't have in common with them.

[reboot]

See, it took me a long time to overcome that too and I wish more could. There is a whole wealth of things, often free or low cost the are out there. Public libraries, free concerts, all kinds of things. But I also know many just aren't interested in them, and I don't judge them for it, merely that it is one more thing I don't have in common with them.

Lots of middle class and higher people are not interested in them either. I live in a place where rich people openly scoff at having "high brow" interests. The lack of interest is only stigmatized in those who have little money, though. This is true for many traits.

[the littlest viking]

Indeed, but I just happen to live in a place with mostly low ses people so my interactions with higher ses is limited. Usually only if I'm going to those events, or talking to the people who are volunteering at the library who tend to be higher ses ND usually retired.

[reboot]

I tend to bump into them more because I work for a nonprofit and am always hitting events networking for donors. My neighborhood is mixed income because it is in the process of gentrifying from a predominantly low SES Hispanic neighborhood to higher SES, white, and (right now) gay and gray neighborhood

[caliseivy]

I think this would be a good place to point out that there's also the issue of people from lower ses not being able to afford to take time out to take part in many activities, even free ones. It's easy to fall into the cycle of eat-sleep-work and sacrifice enjoyment because one is too exhausted. I know one woman with two jobs who has had to cut back significantly on seeing her friends or her family often because her work schedule's leave very little room for enjoyment/relaxation and when she finally has a day or half-day off from work she's just too drained to manage anything more than sleeping and preparing for the next day of work.

There's an implied but never openly stated belief in many people that lower ses people shouldn't be worrying about hobbies or fun, but should be working to I guess get themselves out of lower class? If you have time or money to spend on yourself/your enjoyment then you aren't trying hard enough and should be ashamed. I don't know where this impression originated.

[the littlest viking]

No that's also all true and I've been there.

[LadyLuck]

I think its in line with the "Poor people should look poor" thing mentioned upthread - leisure time is considered a luxury just like nice clothes or a cell phone. Nevermind that time off is important for mental health, or that many jobs require their employees have a cell phone. It turns out the things that the rich aren't the best judge of what constitutes a "luxury" vs a "necessity".

[kath]

On the different-SES-partnerships thing ... my husband is from a middle class family where they had some pretty serious swings in terms of income levels - his dad had a quite good sales job for a while when my husband was younger, and then right about when he became the age to get some type of job, his dad lost that job and was unwilling to get just any job, so he was unemployed and doing some work from home for quite a while (my mother in law seemed to go through periods of working, not-working, and freelancing, which is what she's doing now). So my husband has some pretty vivid memories of having to do flyer routes to contribute to floating the family, and he had to pay for all of his hobbies (he was very into cars so he would buy his car and then the materials to fix / soup it up from junkyards etc). But right around when we got out of college/university, his dad got another lucrative sales position and his parents could do things like pay off my husband's student loans.

My parents didn't talk about money a lot, but they were hippies who spent a lot of time getting higher education and not making a lot of money (educated garret-types) until they were about mid-thirties, and then became pretty solidly upper-middle-class (I think). But they still had the values and beliefs they had earlier, so while I am pretty sure my family was quite well off, we did not have lavish vacations, I did a lot of shopping at second-hand stores (which I still do because they are great) and got a lot of hand-me-downs. But my brother and I could have nice toys if we really wanted them, I got a lot of ridiculously nice art supplies as a kid, we went on fun vacations, we could have music lessons etc, our parents could pick good schools for us, and our parents paid for our post-secondary. They spent money where they thought it was worth it.

I got a four-year degree in a decidedly not lucrative field (visual art), and my husband got a two-year diploma in mechanical engineering. It took him longer to find a job, but he makes way more money than I do now (and my primary income is not from making art, though my salary is certainly comparable to people doing similar work, as far as I can tell). We definitely approach our combined lifestyle / how important income is pretty differently, which is interesting.

Also interesting is, a lot of the people making the theatre, classical music, contemporary art, etc are both interested in cutting-edge culutral work (though they probably are thinking a lot about whether it's high-brow, but may not be interested in making it accessible) also have fairly low incomes themselves. Where I live, there's a lot of "working-class jobs" that make way better wages than jobs for some types of highly-educated people, so there's a lot of intersection / combined factors between actual income levels, "class" (in a more general sense - and also then there are different ways of being "high class" to the extent that it can be elitist), and SES which all work together.

[Gentleman Johnny]

There's definitely an unspoken divide between "class" (SES) and "classy" (high-brow). Not that the two are mutually exclusive, just that they're almost entirely disconnected. The ranks of fine and performing artists spread all across both ranges but you can find any combination - from broke actors doing experimental theater to rave reviews up to guys like Coop (If you don't recognize him, type "Coop Devil" into Google and you'll get it.) or Ed Hardy who've become rich household names with lowbrow art. Thinking about it that way, I'd say I'm more "militant lowbrow" than "militant middle class". Culture and creativity shouldn't be something special reserved for people who have time and money. Entertainment should entertain. Art should evoke an emotional response. If you want to convey a message, fine but make an entertaining product first. I'd rather go to the zoo then experimentaaaaaahl theataaaaaah.

[The Wisp]

But they still had the values and beliefs they had earlier, so while I am pretty sure my family was quite well off, we did not have lavish vacations, I did a lot of shopping at second-hand stores (which I still do because they are great) and got a lot of hand-me-downs. But my brother and I could have nice toys if we really wanted them, I got a lot of ridiculously nice art supplies as a kid, we went on fun vacations, we could have music lessons etc, our parents could pick good schools for us, and our parents paid for our post-secondary. They spent money where they thought it was worth it..

My parents were kinda like this as well. They certainly weren't hippies, and they didn't spend forever in school (my mom never went to college (she says in her community kids weren't even informed that that was an option), my dad just got a BA. They actually did talk about money a lot and put it in context for me from an early age. But, while we were solidly upper-middle class they were actually pretty stingy with money in many ways. As a kid, in terms of consumption, pretty much all my friends had more money spent on them as kids, even those whose families probably made half as much as mine. We only went on vacations to see family, they almost never bought me toys or video games except on birthdays and Christmas, I never got any allowance (though they'd very occasionally pay me a little to do extra chores), we ate out way less than my peers, they'd only buy clothes when they were on sale and never super expensive clothes (not that I, as a shy nerdy guy cared at the time ), they didn't buy me a car in high school or even offer a loan (though I got to borrow their cars when they weren't using them, which wasn't often, unless I wanted to get up really early to drive my dad to work). So as I kid I actually didn't feel upper-middle class at all, even though I knew that I was (as my parents were pretty open about money). Also, my dad was often irrationally stressed about money, so I didn't even feel 100% secure all the time (most of the time I did, but occasionally his stress rubbed off on me).

I think they were that way because my mom grew up working class and my father's parents were very stingy albeit middle class.

In hindsight, I see a lot of advantages that their stinginess has brought me that were invisible at the time: my mother could be a stay-at-home mother without worry, my college has been and will be completely paid for, when I did drive their cars they never charged me for gas, I didn't have to think about money when it came to extracurriculars (not that shy me did many, especially as I got older), it's highly unlikely that I'll have to support them when they're older because they have so much saved, I will almost assuredly have an airtight safety-net to fall back on in terms of money, etc.

Where I live, there's a lot of "working-class jobs" that make way better wages than jobs for some types of highly-educated people, so there's a lot of intersection / combined factors between actual income levels, "class" (in a more general sense - and also then there are different ways of being "high class" to the extent that it can be elitist), and SES which all work together.

I often think class is way more complicated than one's raw income. The poor 20-something hipster with an English degree and three roommates (but middle class parents) isn't necessarily working class IMO, nor is the plumber with a secure and good paying job "upper middle class" necessarily.

ETA: I once was involved in a forum with lots of European members, and they thought it was odd that the Americans and Canadians referred to class almost purely in terms of income, whereas they seemed to view class more holisitically (granted, their societies have histories of legally entrenched aristocracies, so maybe their view wouldn't translate well to the US and Canada).

[kleenestar]

Yeah, that's why I find it hard to describe my parents in terms of class - my father's parents were penniless refugees, my mother grew up in New York tenements, but if you looked at things more holistically you'd get a very different answer than if you just looked at income. For example, my father was the first in his family to go to college, but his parents sent him to live with a Jewish family in another city at twelve so he could get the best possible education and be college-ready. That's a different kind of "first in his family to go to college" than other friends of mine.

[caliseivy]

Not meaning to derail the ongoing conversation about personal experiences with class, but I saw this article which discusses an older op ed piece that related to the discussion of class/status: the idea that poor/lower SES people have no morals or values, and the issue of poverty could be solved if they did. The writer of the op ed piece isn't the only person I have heard draw that conclusion or express that attitude in the way they communicate with people of lower SES. He does mention a need for values across the spectrum, but there was quite a bit of focus on the lower-class.
I've never understood the moral argument when the topic is about the poor.

[Gentleman Johnny]

Not meaning to derail the ongoing conversation about personal experiences with class, but I saw this article which discusses an older op ed piece that related to the discussion of class/status: the idea that poor/lower SES people have no morals or values, and the issue of poverty could be solved if they did. The writer of the op ed piece isn't the only person I have heard draw that conclusion or express that attitude in the way they communicate with people of lower SES. He does mention a need for values across the spectrum, but there was quite a bit of focus on the lower-class.
I've never understood the moral argument when the topic is about the poor.

It comes out of the 19th century if memory serves. Just Google Social Dawinism and Prosperity Christianity. Both of them have the central tenet that everyone gets the social class/wealth (pretty much the same thing in this country) that they deserve.

[kath]

There's definitely an unspoken divide between "class" (SES) and "classy" (high-brow). Not that the two are mutually exclusive, just that they're almost entirely disconnected. The ranks of fine and performing artists spread all across both ranges but you can find any combination - from broke actors doing experimental theater to rave reviews up to guys like Coop (If you don't recognize him, type "Coop Devil" into Google and you'll get it.) or Ed Hardy who've become rich household names with lowbrow art. Thinking about it that way, I'd say I'm more "militant lowbrow" than "militant middle class". Culture and creativity shouldn't be something special reserved for people who have time and money. Entertainment should entertain. Art should evoke an emotional response. If you want to convey a message, fine but make an entertaining product first. I'd rather go to the zoo then experimentaaaaaahl theataaaaaah.

This is also interesting, because of course, "entertaining" means different things to different people. I love some experimental theatre, I think other experimental theatre is self-indulgent navel-gazing* (and would love a tiny-experimental-theatre followed by trip to the zoo)! I find Last Year At Marienbad, Synechdoche, New York and Waiting For Godot are entertaining, though they probably don't meet popular definitions of it.

*Same goes for contemporary art.

I probably should not have used high-brow, I was trying to use the lingo earlier in the thread and then related terms and then ended with a mishmash. I think "contemporary" would have been a better descriptor, or "critically engaged" (what I would call it in a grant) - but also because "highbrow", "lowbrow", "avant garde", "kitsch" etc all have so much art jargon baggage that people who are doing very contemporary and not necessarily accessible work sometimes still self-identify as "lowbrow." Then there's like Ed Hardy and Michael Goddard. Very different audiences (And then there's Thomas Kinkade. Dude, Monet is the painter of light).

Where I live, there's a lot of "working-class jobs" that make way better wages than jobs for some types of highly-educated people, so there's a lot of intersection / combined factors between actual income levels, "class" (in a more general sense - and also then there are different ways of being "high class" to the extent that it can be elitist), and SES which all work together.

I often think class is way more complicated than one's raw income. The poor 20-something hipster with an English degree and three roommates (but middle class parents) isn't necessarily working class IMO, nor is the plumber with a secure and good paying job "upper middle class" necessarily.

ETA: I once was involved in a forum with lots of European members, and they thought it was odd that the Americans and Canadians referred to class almost purely in terms of income, whereas they seemed to view class more holisitically (granted, their societies have histories of legally entrenched aristocracies, so maybe their view wouldn't translate well to the US and Canada).

And the jobs I was thinking of that are common here are the guys operating oil rigs - those jobs ludicrous sums of money such that houses in drilling-heavy communities are ridiculously expensive (which might be changing soon), but the people in those jobs don't always have a ton of job security (especially right now) and won't necessarily do that for their whole career. There's a certain amount of "make the cash and get out". Also some of them then spend a lot of money on drugs, which makes sense in that very workaholic environment. (But of course there's going to be a wide range of personalities, tastes, etc in the set of "people who work on oil rigs" as  there is in any profession, and the media picture - and picture you get from people making trouble on planes who talk about their rig jobs and how they are going home to party for their four days off - even though the girl sleeping through the flight back to town might also be a rig-worker.)

Caliseivy, I definitely think the assumption (even if it's an implicit assumption rather than a consciously-held belief) still does exist. And also the idea that refusing to help other people would not be a moral problem.

Oh and, I forgot about the gentrification discussion! In a discussion group at work we read: http://www.alternet.org/culture/20-ways-not-be-gentrifier - and while this isn't going to be a pancea, I liked the advice to get to know all the people in your neighbourhood ... anyone else have perspectives on this?

(I grew up in an inner city neighbourhood from when gentrification was starting to a time when the neightbourhood had become solidly trendy. That neighbourhood is now very popular and expensive, but I do remember coming home to find the police had taped off my house because of a murder in the yard of the apartment building next door one time when I was about six ... I totally agree about missing some of the amenities we had that have gone / can't afford the rent - consignment stores, second hand bookshops, etc. And I could totally pass on the upscale furniture stores and commerical art galleries, really. But three of the greasy spoons are like solidly implanted, have their niche, and are going strong. And I don't live there anymore and MISS IT so much. But we couldn't afford to buy there .)

[Gentleman Johnny]

Well, I kind of ignored all of the current jargon use deliberately. There's definitely an association in the popular mind that, for example, Aida the opera is "high class" in both term of attracting classy people of a high status and itself being a higher form of art than Aida the Disney Broadway play with music by Elton John, which is itself still quite expensive. I find both of them entertaining for different reasons and neither one is particularly more preachy then the other about its message of Twu Wuv that crosses class lines and ends tragically. So on the entertainment/meaning scale they come out about equal. Neither one is something that everyone can enjoy but pretty much anyone can tell whether a particular production of one or the other is well executed. Still, one is more "high class" than the other.

Similarly, anyone can look at Coop's (I use him because his art is "Lowbrow" in the official art jargon and because his style is very familiar even if his name isn't) smoking devil and get what its "about", the joyful delight of the bad boy who doesn't give a fuck what you think. So its high quality as art but is distinctly for a more "common" audience than opera is. Its definitely simpler, both in content and method of delivery but simple isn't inherently inferior. Its not something that people associate with gallery showings and art critics. . .or at least it wasn't when he was doing Lord Of Acid covers.

Yet another example - I like food trucks. Not the brand spanking new vinyl wrapped ones that have 20 different fusion dishes made with lobster, the silver trailers that serve tacos, burritos and gyros at inexpensive prices. They exist to serve wage earners an affordable lunch but they also taste incredible. I'm not saying there's no room for stopping by Sausage Fest (an actual truck of the new wave in my area) between your wine tasting and going to see Orpheus and Eurydice. I just see the lower "class" art, shows, food, venues etc. get shafted or being co-opted until they're not accessible to the original working class audience often enough that I feel like someone needs to stand up and say "these are valuable, too.

[kath]

Similarly, anyone can look at Coop's (I use him because his art is "Lowbrow" in the official art jargon and because his style is very familiar even if his name isn't) smoking devil and get what its "about", the joyful delight of the bad boy who doesn't give a fuck what you think. So its high quality as art but is distinctly for a more "common" audience than opera is. Its definitely simpler, both in content and method of delivery but simple isn't inherently inferior. Its not something that people associate with gallery showings and art critics. . .or at least it wasn't when he was doing Lord Of Acid covers.

I think we have different ideas of what makes something successful / high quality / interesting as art. "Has some type of content it can communicate" is not the main qualification for me, which it seemed like was the one you were using in that paragraph?

Then again, that doesn't make it "inherently inferior", as my opinion is not a marker of inherent quality.

Still, my understanding of your point is that "lowbrow" ways of making work should also not be hated on / dismissed / looked down on for being what it is / being liked, so I'm with you. I may not think Coop's work is super interesting, but I certainly like a lot of "lowbrow" media of various stripes.

I'm not saying there's no room for stopping by Sausage Fest (an actual truck of the new wave in my area) between your wine tasting and going to see Orpheus and Eurydice. I just see the lower "class" art, shows, food, venues etc. get shafted or being co-opted until they're not accessible to the original working class audience often enough that I feel like someone needs to stand up and say "these are valuable, too.

Totally. I think my sort of ideal cultural landscape would be one where your "class background" had no correlation to which you might personally prefer, and that each of those types of cultural experiences were equally accessible, both financially, and in terms of the 'codes' they use - so like the 'code' of opera - knowing how it works, what to expect, and especially with opera, the broad strokes of the story so you can fully enjoy it when you're there, and you're not just like "I think I'm supposed to know what's going on .... ".

(I am hugely interested at working on making my art practice better at the accessibility / scaffolding part, which is one of the reasons I'm currently working in science communication)

[JP McBride]

I think that popular culture is a unifying force across the class spectrum when you look at the big picture. Opera and Coop are great, but neither of them have the cultural impact of Beyonce, the Avengers, or Game of Thrones.

[Sponsored content]