[HN Gopher] Class Bullshitters ___________________________________________________________________ Class Bullshitters Author : hn-0001 Score : 55 points Date : 2022-03-04 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (atis.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (atis.substack.com) | devoutsalsa wrote: | I'm a 1st level bard / 1st level fight / 12th level psionicist. | cudgy wrote: | Interesting combo. Did you start out as a drunk bar singer with | a propensity for fighting and later decide to pursue the art of | mind control? Or were you a devout mind control expert who | dabbled with the guitar and a few Martial arts classes along | the way? | rayiner wrote: | This is kind of an odd framing because the traditional notion of | class is hereditary. If you look at it one way, my wife and I are | the same class--professional degrees from the same school working | for similar professional firms. At one point we lived in | virtually identical 1950s split levels, on opposite sides of the | country. But my family was affluent landowners for generations | "back in old country" and my wife's family comes from a poor | rural part of the Oregon coast. Our acculturation and is | completely different. My dad thinks and acts like someone whose | dad had sharecroppers tending their farm, and her dad thinks and | acts like someone whose dad hunted game to add protein to the | family's diet. And my dad raised me and her dad raised her and we | still think and act differently as a result. It wouldn't be a | "lie," as the title suggests, for her to say she comes from a | working class background and for me to say that I don't. | 12ian34 wrote: | The whole idea of social class is so disgusting and dehumanising | that whilst I think it's important to talk about Social Mobility | and how we can improve that - I wish people would stop self- | classifying and talking about classes like they actually exist. | To me, the whole idea of classes revolves around the gatekeeping | of opportunity by (generally) the most fortunate. I always refuse | to classify myself. Aside from demographic studies by governments | to improve social mobility, what good can it do the world to know | the class of an individual? | zardo wrote: | > Aside from demographic studies by governments to improve | social mobility, what good can it do the world to know the | class of an individual? | | In large part, government decision makers are made up of people | from dominant classes. They can hardly be relied upon to | improve social mobility, as it's people like them who stand to | lose from increased social mobility. | | An oppressed class that doesn't recognize itself can't organize | as a class to combat that oppression. | nineplay wrote: | In the US, at least, people's thoughts on classes seem all over | the map. Some people think of 'working class' or 'blue collar' as | people without degrees but if a teacher makes less than a plumber | than who is in what class. | | OTOH calling yourself 'rich' is going to sound braggy. Someone | with a comfortable 6 figure income and a 2 million dollar house | may sound like they are downgrading themselves by saying 'upper- | class' but if they say 'rich' a lot people are going to think | that 'rich' means private island in the Caribbean, not two weeks | in Hawaii. | | It's best to just stay away from it. | throwaway9980 wrote: | Maybe people just don't have clear class identities? I grew up | middle, perhaps upper middle class in the US. Both of my parents, | especially my mother, came from lower social economic backgrounds | than what they provided for me. I was very close to my mom's | extend family as a kid. My grandparents grew up very poor. No | running water, dirt floors type of poor. By the end of their | lives they were upper middle class. Some of their kids did even | better, others regressed to the mean. | | We're all still part of the same family. The shared values among | the family are much stronger than any shared values across class | identities. Class just doesn't offer much explanatory value to | me. I suppose I am upper middle class today, but I don't think | "oh yes, let's instill some upper middle class values in our | kids." I don't even know what those would be. | woodruffw wrote: | Class identities are much weaker in the US: they're much more | tightly tied to economic status and are thus fungible (almost | anybody can move up or down the US class ladder by gaining or | losing wealth.) We have a "cultural class" system as well, but | it's similarly weak (with opportunity, nearly anybody can join | the starving intelligentsia). | | The author is in the UK, where class identities are _much_ | stronger and are not intrinsically tied to wealth (but are | frequently associated with wealth, thanks to generational | privilege). | | An upper-class British acquaintance recently related to me that | they'd never eaten certain foods that Americans think of as | "quintessentially" British, because those foods are lower-class | foods. They weren't afraid of eating them or snobbish about it, | it just _hadn 't occurred to them_ that it was part of the | international perception of their culture (because, to them, it | just isn't their culture). | tyjen wrote: | Unfortunately, many people from privileged backgrounds love to | lie about their background by creating a "struggle story." They | repeat the story enough that they genuinely believe that they | faced adversity equivalent to people who literally lived through | those circumstances. | | A frequent "struggle story" I've heard, is claiming to be a high | school dropout, then attending attending a 60k a year an elite | liberal arts college. They didn't dropout due to poor life | conditions interfering with school, but they claim the | association for credibility. Then it bleeds into, "Well, if I | could do it, why can't they?" It's really an extreme form of | mental gymnastics. | | I'd like to call this behavior, "poorfishing." | vmception wrote: | Would love to have this conversation about the US but UK class | system just doesnt influence enough to be so complicated | exdsq wrote: | In what way doesn't it influence enough? The political system | in the UK is fairly broken such that PPE at Oxford will get you | a long way in your goal to being an MP, and going to a public | school gets you a long way towards getting into Oxford, which | is a classist system with practical output | vmception wrote: | I was thinking enough outside of the UK, or that the UK isn't | big enough and more irrelevant with its new isolationist | direction | exdsq wrote: | Still the 6th largest economy with seats on the UN Security | Council and others - it might be going the way of | Switzerland (that's the model most Brexiters I know want) | but that doesn't mean it's fading away into obscurity on | the global stage | | (This is coming from someone who left the UK for the US and | hopes to move to Asia afterwards, so mildly biased but not | that much) | nailer wrote: | So does doing well at a grammar school (which in turn is | determined by your ability rather than your class). | exdsq wrote: | Doing well in a grammar school works to an extent but still | disproportionately less than say Eton. You can see this by | just looking at current cabinet ministers | ghaff wrote: | I registered for a The Economist event a while back. I have | never ever seen such a laundry list of titles you had to choose | from. And I don't think _not_ choosing one was even an option. | Basically the usual few plus pretty much every aristocratic and | clergy title you could think of. | dcminter wrote: | It doesn't necessarily mean much - I think there's some | standard (ISO?) list somewhere. I remember many years ago | when the www was new and spiffy the British Airways booking | website had a drop-down title selector that included "Pope" | but I can't imagine he ever flew with them! | ghaff wrote: | I'm sure there's an ISO standard :-) I've never seen that | anywhere else though. Admittedly, tech has generally gotten | away from emphasizing titles much to the point that it's | sometimes a slightly contentious topic. | showerst wrote: | I'm from the US, and when I was in college I took a British | Airways flight for the first time, and on the way home I got | a stern talking to from the gate agent in London about fraud | because I chose some random foreign (to me) royalty title. | | For a few years after that I got random junk mail addressed | to the Viscount =). | paulpauper wrote: | In the US, there is a huge cultural and economic divide between | the processional/educated class vs. the low-skilled class, | whereas elsewhere in the world not so much. In the US, the goal | or aspiration is to escape being working class, as epitomized by | the likes of JD Vance and others, whereas elsewhere being working | class is not something to be so ashamed of or to escape from. | closeparen wrote: | I am a "class bullshitter" within the American class system | because I stubbornly refuse to believe that selling my labor for | a high price and paying a lot of rent puts me in the same class | as people who buy labor and collect rent. | | I also don't think these are identity traits of mine; rather they | are contingent facts about living in a HCOL area. If I were | slinging code 9-5 in e.g. Chicago then no one would doubt I was | middle class. | xemdetia wrote: | I would agree. In the US any class is defined by the social | safety net they have and in the current workforce it's often | entirely self funded with many parents/older generation | reaching into the pockets of their children for labour or | money. Even people living a 'middle class lifestyle' are one | bump or bruise away from losing everything. Since the UK has a | different expectation of a social safety net I can see how | things might go in a different direction. If I was not | constantly under the risk of healthcare costs blowing up what | little I have built up then I probably would consider myself | middle class. But since my income stops as soon as I stop and I | don't have a huge runway to get going again I don't feel like | I'm in the middle at all. | jonathanstrange wrote: | Is "class" still considered a meaningful term in sociology? Does | it even exist? | | This is not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in a scientific | answer. | tjader wrote: | I am also interested in this. I don't understand how it makes | sense to talk about "class" in such a discrete way. | | Is a FAANG engineer who earns $250k/year really an oppressed | proletarian? Is the small bakery owner who struggles to make | ends meet really a bourgeois because he owns a mean of | production? | spacemanmatt wrote: | Social class is an abstraction of privilege. Hope that helps. | And yes, the term is still in use. | karaterobot wrote: | Understating your class background is a way to get around a | couple of different problems: if you are successful in life, your | successes are magnified because they are self-made, or even made | despite the odds being against you. On the other hand, if you are | not as successful as you'd like, a rougher background offers a | handy justification for that. The underlying message is "my | successes are more impressive, my failures aren't really my | fault". | subjectsigma wrote: | 1. In my liberal tech social circles, I hear so much talk about | "eating the rich" and how the wealthy and privileged are ruining | society that I'd be insane to self identify as anything but | middle class. | | 2. It's all relative anyways. By HN standards I'm making a measly | salary, but my salary is over double the national average. | | 3. The richer you are, the more likely people are to ask you for | things. Money, favors, etc. This is both locally and globally | true. | | 4. Some of it is a mindset. Growing up I was absolutely not poor, | but the way my parents talked about money felt different from | others. For example I didn't get a cell phone until the end of | middle school because it was "too expensive". Everyone was always | asking for my phone number and I had to tell them I didn't have a | phone. In the grand scheme of things this is really | inconsequential, but at 13 it felt like my parents were ruining | my social life with their penny pinching. | | Cars were another big thing. Our cars were ancient and my parents | refused to buy new ones. We never went to a mechanic unless we | absolutely had to. On Saturday mornings my dad would wake me up | and tell me we were doing $X to the car and I knew I would be | cancelling any plans that day. I didn't actually mind fixing the | car, but I hated telling my friends "I can't go play basketball, | I have to help fix the car" and having them wonder aloud "Why | can't you just take it to a mechanic?" because it made me feel | poor. | spacemanmatt wrote: | > I'd be insane to self identify as anything but middle class. | | People who say "eat the rich" know you're not rich enough to | count by the dearth of body guards and yachts. If you're really | that scared of your friends a therapist is advised. :| | foogazi wrote: | Why would we ever allow others to label us based on our ancestors | choices? | | Don't let your past define you | WJW wrote: | > Why would we ever allow others to label us based on our | ancestors choices? | | It seems quite understandable that people whose your ancestors | were kings, presidents and other notable figures would be in | favor of being given a leg up based on the status of their | ancestors. | mvc wrote: | But "solidly middle" is still working class really. | | My sister has a degree, and is a nurse of a about 5-7 years. Her | husband also has a degree (and even went to private school) and | does local government procurement paying ~35k. I'm sure the | author would describe both as "solidly middle". | | They're still wondering how on earth they're supposed to pay for | childcare, energy, mortgage. If the car breaks down, they're in | trouble. | brimble wrote: | Discussing this is a mess for a bunch of reasons, including | that no-one bothers to agree on a framework before starting to | argue over it, and that there's overlapping terminology, _and_ | there are major differences between countries. So you 've got | "lower/middle/upper-middle/upper" (or more nuanced versions | like Fussell's that add a few more), you've got | "working/professional/upper", et c, and terms get recycled such | that some will say "lower" in the first is the same as | "working" (and distinct from "middle") and so on. Then, on top | of that, it's all different in Britain. | | Plus there's the distinction between income and _socialized_ | class, which are tied up together, but which aren 't identical, | and lots of discussions take place without anyone bothering to | specify which they're talking about. | | [EDIT] Oh and then of course there's Marxist analysis. Folks | should lead with explaining their angle and definitions, | otherwise discussion about class tends to be a bunch of people | talking past one another. | ggm wrote: | Age can play to this. My brother is 9 years older than me, born | into postwar food rationing, a time my family would have been | teetering on the edge of financial stability for complex reasons | and hugely stressed about money, and financial stability. I was | born into the 1960s boom years, The emergence of ubiquitous | consumerism, plastics, technology. | | We have different perspectives on class, roots, class | identification. Not that we were ever working class but we own | different perceptions of our relative class status. | IntFee588 wrote: | The "protestant work ethic" promotes this vague notion that | labour, toil and suffering on earth brings one closer to god. | This is more deeply rooted in western cultures than you'd think | and feeds into the "work hard and you'll make it" attitude of | western exceptionalism. | | Because of this, people have a vested interest in glorifying | their own struggle, even if they had circumstances that led to | their professional success. They're not going to admit that they | had things handed to them on a silver platter or got lucky, | they'd think of it as some sort of moral failing. They think | success needs to be justified. | rq1 wrote: | It's not a western value at all as exclusively as you describe | it. | dijit wrote: | I get quite annoyed at this because personally I have faced | extreme adversity and only through sheer dumb luck of loving | computers from an early age have I been able to escape my | circumstances. | | I'll say it clearer for anyone who missed that: luck. | | A lot of social issues in the uk are primarily class based, you | won't even be aware of the jobs you'll be looked over for because | you didn't go to the right school, and those "right schools" pre- | select based on background. | | "Daddy is a barrister, I guess we let this one in?!" | | In the event you are born with privilege you prefer to be | underestimated, I don't think I've met many upper class people | who are genuinely happy being removed from the masses. Maybe it's | a grass is always greener thing. | | Myself, I speak with a middle class accent, desperate not to be | thrown back to where I came from. | bloqs wrote: | The biggest problem is demonstrated here too. You have no | experience of existing in a higher social category, so your | anecdotes of what you imagine it to be like are purely bogeyman | fiction traded between lower classes. | spacemanmatt wrote: | That's bollocks. I attended a prep school where most kids | came from multi-millionaire families. They knew their | privilege inside and out, and weren't shy about broadcasting | this knowledge. OP is not wrong. | Mezzie wrote: | In my experience, the rich and wealthy are pretty self- | aware. | | It's the upper-middle class who are _really uncomfortable_ | with their social position. | Jensson wrote: | That is just selection bias, people who aren't rich have | to work and therefore you meet them even when they don't | want to socialize. Rich people who don't want to | socialize don't need to, so you only see those who really | wants to be out there and meet people. | zabzonk wrote: | > "right schools" pre-select based on background | | No, on money. | gunfighthacksaw wrote: | Obviously money talks, but a school like Eton would be more | willing to take a somewhat wealthy aristocrat than a common | as muck lottery winner. | | If you come into a hundred million overnight, that doesn't | make up for your previously deprived life and the associated | markers (lower register, lack of childhood polo lessons, no | time/money/inclination to go play white saviour in the third | world) | exdsq wrote: | When I was seven I went to a public school (which in the UK | is sort of like a posh private school, from a US | perspective). To get in, at seven, we had to take an entrance | exam on maths, science, and English. So to pass this I went | to a feeder school from literally the age of two and a half | to prepare for the exam. My entire class came from others who | went to feeder schools. This in turn prepped us for the | public school exam to get into senior school (which had a | 100% success rate). And that in turn prepped a lot of people | for the Oxbridge exams and so on. | | So yes, money is the trick, but it's not worth it. I burned | out at school hard because I'd been going at it for so long. | dimgl wrote: | > only through sheer dumb luck of loving computers | | It's not healthy to frame it this way in your mind. It almost | sounds like you're ashamed of how easy it was for you to escape | your circumstances. Remember that the good times don't actually | last forever, and you might reach a ceiling in your career that | other people in other professions don't have to deal with. | | Also, being a software engineer isn't the only profession that | pays well. It just so happens that due to modernity, it's | extremely accessible. | enobrev wrote: | As someone who has been incredibly lucky _and_ has worked | very hard to surpass a rough start, I think it simply helps | to have a thorough understanding of what it means to be | lucky. | | You could be the best [whatever] in the world, but if you're | on your couch and disconnected, nobody will ever notice. Luck | would literally have to come and hunt you down at random. If | you're pretty good at [whatever] but at the right places | (including virtually) and meeting the right people, luck will | work far better for you. | | In both cases, luck is important. You can be among the best | and be at every conference and active on every forum, and do | well in every competition, and be first to launch with every | idea, and get funded every time, and still lose badly, | repeatedly. Which is why we like to say it's important to get | used to losing. Because even if you're very good and always | in the right places at the right times with the right people | - you _still_ need luck. | | You just need less luck than someone who isn't showing up | every day. And a lot less luck than someone literally doing | nothing in the middle of nowhere. But you still need luck. | klodolph wrote: | > It's not healthy to frame it this way in your mind. | | I don't think this is unhealthy. I liked computers, my | sibling liked painting... only one of us got a high-paying | job and can afford a lot of leisure time and travel. I don't | think that it requires _shame_ to acknowledge that luck had | something to do with it. Luck is ever-present in our lives. | orthecreedence wrote: | Yeah, it's luck. It's perfectly healthy to frame things as: I | took a deep interest in computers for which expertise is now | in high demand. | | I'm in the same boat: loved computers early on and had no | interest in pursuing them professionally (I was eight when I | started programming). It's _lucky_ because I could just as | well have loved botany, or auto mechanics, or pottery, etc | _but I happened to pick the one that later in life was in | high demand_. | | Sure, yeah, I worked hard, but not because "I want to make | MONEY when I get older!" but simply because I had the | interest (and supportive parents...luck again). The alignment | of my early interests and market conditions today are 100% | luck. And that's what you need: to be in the right place at | the right time. I'd attribute my success to 10% personal | factors and 90% external factors. | | You still need to work your ass off for that 10%, but the | other 90% is all out of your hands, and it's ok to | acknowledge this (and that doesn't mean you feel guilty). In | fact, if we ever want to create a world where the ratio is | not 90/10, but 80/20 or 60/40 or dare I say 50/50, we need to | acknowledge just how much of our lives is out of our control. | haliskerbas wrote: | Genuinely asking, as someone who frames my own circumstances | similarly, what would you say is a healthy way to frame | things? | sugarpile wrote: | Fwiw I disagree with it being unhealthy and I view myself | the same way. It IS lucky that my only hobby/interest I've | ever really had also happens to be something that pays so | well. | | Nothing unhealthy about recognizing one's luck and being | correspondingly grateful for it. | MichaelConlon wrote: | Just throwing another opinion in the mix. I think it's | healthy to recognize one's own work in addition to that | dumb luck. It's certainly lucky that we liked computers | but it's also true that a lot of us worked hard and took | advantage of our lucky situations. That's not to say we | succeeded on hard work alone, far from it - luck is a | crucial part, but it's also unfair to not give yourself a | little credit sometimes. | seabird wrote: | Framing any and all success (maybe not what OP is doing, | but a lot of people do this so it's probably worth | addressing) as "sheer dumb luck" implies that you think | there's a lot of things in your life that are outside your | control when they really aren't. The OP may have | deliberately chose that wording to convey that _in their | case_, their love for computers was something they pursued | completely and entirely ignorant of it being a high- | demand/high-paying field. There's a lot of people that have | convinced themselves that the odds of them getting a well | paying job and doing better for themselves are approaching | zero, for no reason other than believing that the only way | to have that happen is to be born into it or to have "sheer | dumb luck". That prophecy fulfills itself. | | There's luck involved, but it's only part of the story. | tjader wrote: | I would say it's unhealthy to think of it as _only_ luck. | | It's luck that you like something that is sought after in | the job market. But actually spending years learning about | it, and sometimes learning things you may not like so much | because they are needed for the job, takes effort. | jostylr wrote: | Being willing to take advantage of the luck by working | hard, taking risks, having a vision as to how to succeed | and be useful. It is very much about empowering both | yourself and others. The luck part is there to help prevent | the "I did this, why didn't you?" crappy privileged | perspective, but it needs to be balanced with the drive. | | As an example, over a decade ago, I quit a job with no | plans of getting another one. Someone I knew told me about | an opportunity (luck / connections), and I pursued it. It | was hard at first, but now it is almost a turn-key | operation. Still requires work, but far less than it did at | the beginning. It has netted me a good tidy sum which has | been crucial for living the life I want. | | Was it luck? Absolutely. Was it my own ability, hard work, | and willingness to take that step? Yes. What would have | happened had I said no? No idea, but probably less of a | good outcome. | | Ideally, one tries to frame one's life to be empowering but | not arrogant, not trivializing the difficulty of other's | paths. Luck is not empowering. Belief that hard work alone | can get you to the height is not empowering. Some mixture | of these things, that can be empowering. Understanding that | the goal is to be useful to others as well as yourself, | that's really empowering. | Mezzie wrote: | SO much of it is luck. | | I'm from a complicated class background myself, but my dad's | family were tinkerers. My grandfather was a factory worker who | was obsessed with televisions, so when my dad got into | microcomputers, the tools were around for him to start cheaply | because he could use/repair broken ones. And then when _I_ was | born, my father 's experience meant he could help me with | coding. (Because in his generation, you had to learn BASIC etc. | to do anything). | | I'm not any better than say, the kids of my dad's classmates. | We were just the family who did the grunt work in an area that | _really_ took off. Their grandfathers might have liked sports | instead of tearing open tvs. | bjourne wrote: | But the thing is, you could be a class bullshitter, just like | the woman the article describes! There is no objective test to | determine if you had to overcome "extreme adversity" or if you | were "privileged" like most middle/upper-class people were. | jokethrowaway wrote: | Because our moral values are wrong. | | We should be celebrating richness, not poverty. Unfortunately, | victimhood is trendy these days and I feel most of it can be | traced back to marxism. | | Why should we celebrate richness? | | If you're richer than your peers you did something that society | considered valuable. Money is the ultimate form of direct | democracy. | | Now, we can argue that people in Wall Street are screwing up | people left and right, that governments can print off money and | that governments can force people to give them money. | | These are serious issues and I'm the first one to say something | should be done about these - but still, the people in Wall Street | are providing financial services that businesses find useful. And | those businesses provide useful services to people, so the | richness of Wall Street can be traced back to useful services. | Governments printing money affects the market via inflation. | Nothing much can be done about governments taking money from | people under the threat of incarceration (unless you have an | army), but the government is, in most countries, a form of | indirect democracy - so the government still end up providing | some value to end users with the money they forcefully took. | Sure, part of it get burned in the inefficiency of centralisation | and bureaucracy but most of it keeps going around (eg. by paying | contractors to fix the roads). | | Therefore, I think becoming rich can absolutely become a moral | value and I think the world would be better that way. | | In the words of the working class hero 50 cent: Get rich or die | tryin'. | pjc50 wrote: | > If you're richer than your peers you did something that | society considered valuable | | Get born of the right parents? Meet the right oligarch? | JoeAltmaier wrote: | That's an antique notion that died in the '80s? Once the rules | changed, the rich started skimming from every transaction | (money tranfers, dividends, security exchanges, and on and on) | until they have almost all the money. The rest of us serve at | their pleasure. | | That's not how it was supposed to work. You were supposed to | succeed from being part of the generation of wealth. Not just | sitting and skimming while everybody else works. And then | passing it on to your heirs. | | I wish it worked as you describe. That's where we need to get | back to. | jmyeet wrote: | I hate to break it to the author but peole lie about pretty much | everything. | | People will lie about their incomes on anonymous surveys. People | lie in anonymous polls about their voting intent. You can boil | this down to: | | 1. People lying to themselves and then reflecting that lie to | others. A common one I see here is, for example, "it only takes | me 30 minutes on the bus to get from SF to work". At 1am on a | Tuesday with a tailwind maybe. It's a form of cognitive | dissonance; and | | 2. People lying to others. This is for personal gain and because | the person cares about how they're perceived by others. | | So if you take an example from the post (eg working class family | background) it could be either. I've known people who really | believe they're working class heroes but they're clearly middle | class. It can be woven into their identity. It can just be virtue | signaling. It can be to fit in. It can be aspirational. | | The 2000 election had Al Gore vilify the "top 1%". A survey at | the time found that 19% of people thought they were the top 1% | and another 20% thought they would be some day. So with this lie | they've told themselves (knowingly or not) you've dended up | alienating 39% of voters. | | Ultimately though a lot of these lies can be reduced to people | feeling good about themselves even if that means making other | people look bad. | | A lot of social media is built on such "flexing". Instagram in | particular. Even Tiktok has all these videos where people post | these "how am I so amazing?" videos. You just need to realize | it's pretty much all lies. | | Oh and as for this specific example from the post (ie | fetishization of a working-class background in the UK) this is | interesting because my experience in the UK was there's a lot of | value in signaling your upper class background, how you went to | Oxford, Cambridge or Eton, the BBC accent (now this is really the | modern RP accent) and so on. | | The UK is still quite classist (IME). Up until 20-30 years ago, | university applications asked your father's occupation. | brimble wrote: | > People lie in anonymous polls about their voting intent. | | Political scientists have had to develop a separate category, | along with methods to identify its members, in order to capture | _actual_ "swing voters", for related reasons. Lots of folks | like to classify themselves as "centrist" or "independent" or | "on the fence" or what have you, while _in fact_ voting party | line every single time just as reliably as someone who self- | identifies as being highly partisan. Actual swing voters are a | tiny minority of the people who identify as such (which is why | "get out the vote" is, not-so-secretly, far more important than | courting those voters--lots of seemingly odd behavior by | politicians makes way more sense when this is factored in) | | Bad political reporting (which is lots of political reporting) | won't bother to make the distinction, which results in | misleading coverage, graphs, et c. | fredley wrote: | I think one of the things going on has to do with a decade or so | of 'reality' TV being a primary source of entertainment for many | (most?) people. And in particular one aspect: the 'sob story'. | | On any TV show, and in the media in general, there are a few | different competition formats (a la Bake Off, The Apprentice, | BGT, etc.) but all include a 'sob story' element, particularly | near the end as we get to know more about the contestants. Every | single person selected by the producers for these shows has some | factor in their life that they've overcome to get this far. | | Individually, this makes for an engaging TV show, we warm to the | characters because they have a good story, but overall the effect | is damaging, I think. The effect is to create a system that only | allows people to feel successful if they've overcome some | terrible adversity. It's not enough to come from a comfortable, | middle class background, do well in school and then lead a | moderately successful life. What have you really achieved if | you've done this? | | Most people in the UK live reasonably comfortable, stable lives | (modulo class). Since--according to my theory--people need to | feel like they have something to overcome in order to be allowed | to feel successful, people will overstate hardships, and focus on | and amplify negative events and circumstances in their lives in | order to feel validated. | newacc9 wrote: | Victimhood is equated with morality, furthermore victims are | entitled to compensation. There's incentive to be seen as a | victim, because it screams both "I am moral, and I am entitled | to compensation" It happens at both the individual level and at | group levels. Its sort of a key to understanding modernity. | ishjoh wrote: | I often find it doesn't take much digging in someone else's | life to find out they have lived through something awful or | traumatic, either it happened directly to them or to someone | very close to them. I'm always amazed people are willing to | share their 'sob story' on TV, I think there are a lot of | people that wouldn't ever share their stories. | spacemanmatt wrote: | HN needs to attract some actual sociologists to talk with. | lordnacho wrote: | I had an interesting conversation about class in the UK the other | day. I took my friend and our four boys (all around 10) to a | football (soccer) game. | | It turned out that my friend had grown up with a different accent | to what he currently speaks with. He'd grown up in a rough part | of Essex, going to a school where kids normally don't even think | about university. After about two weeks at Cambridge, he realized | he was different. To sum it up, almost nobody at Cambridge speaks | like an Essex boy. That's despite Cambridge being not terribly | far from Essex. | | I noticed something similar. My family are refugees, so spread | all over the world, including an aunt North London who gave birth | to six cousins. They speak English a certain way. Coming as an | international student, I noticed a lot of accents at Oxford | (hello Brummies, Scots, Welsh, Scousers) but not a lot of | "council house between hackney and Romford" accents. | | If you've followed British politics, you've heard of something | called the Bullingdon Club. Cambridge has something similar. | Neither of the two of us knew much about it when we were there, | but we did know there were some veeeery posh kids around, because | they speak a certain way and often have a pretty expensive style | about them. | | So that was the fathers. Working class? Well if you're upper | class traditionally it means you have a title, and not many | people do, so in some sense it's legit to call yourself working | class. It doesn't say much when your job could be anything | between chronically unemployed and hedge fund manager, though. | | For dinner, we took our boys to a restaurant. Being around the | age of the 11 plus exam, the conversation turned to private | schools. It turns out one of the boys had gotten into one of the | most expensive selective schools in the country, which I pointed | out (this is why I am so sought after as a dinner guest). Since | they're kids, they still have naive ideas about money, and the | vogue among kids at the moment is to aspire to be an influencer. | "I'll make a YouTube channel and millions of followers will see | it". | | Thus followed a little talk about how many views you actually | need to make enough money to pay for two kids to go to the most | expensive school in the country, and perhaps also a house and | something to stave off starvation. | | I'm also the kind of exciting person who has official statistics | about income distributions in his head. A rough tax rate is also | part of that spiel, in case I find an uninformed primary | schooler. | | Realistically, you either need to be in the top 1% (PS175K/year) | or the top 2% (PS120K/year) with a second income (PS50K is around | 87th, so maybe two ~97th at ~PS100K ) to be able to pay for two | kids to go to a PS30K/year school, pay a PS30k/year | rent/mortgage, maybe eat and holiday for PS15K, and also pay the | tax man. | | That's what the numbers look like, and I'm not surprised at all | that kids don't know them. What are the chances when you're | sitting around at your school that you've been told is famous, | that basically every single one of your classmates has either a | top 1% earning parent or two top 3% earners? If you knew you | would certainly think you were very lucky indeed. | | So this kid, who is quite bright and has a place at a top school | that sends dozens of kids each to his dad's alma mater, can still | claim to be working class by heredity. That is what this article | seems to be about. People mostly want to feel that they deserve | what they worked for, and certainly kids in prep schools work | hard. But it's also true that you almost never see anyone doing | ordinary jobs. It's not actually that weird that a kid thinks | being a lawyer or trader is an ordinary job, when his entire | class has parents that both do something like that. It's not even | that hard to imagine them thinking their parents work really | hard. Certainly a couple of the other parents in my kid's year | are always traveling or working late. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Working class? Well if you're upper class traditionally it | means you have a title, and not many people do, so in some | sense it's legit to call yourself working class. | | Not being in the legacy pre-capitalist aristocracy doesn't mean | you are working class; basically the entire capitalist class | structure from the working class to the _haut bourgeoisie_ | exists outside of that aristocracy. Or, rather, parallel to and | overlapping it, for the most part, as, but for the senior | royals, legacy titles no longer have a firm connection to how | one relates to the economy and derives support. | lordnacho wrote: | Absolutely true. But it's still a thing you can say, however | trivial and however long ago it was that people with titles | meant something. You can also muddy the waters by pointing at | the few aristocrats who do actually have a pile of money. | | Everyone likes this working-class label for some reason. | Something between "Worked your way up" and "didn't have a | silver spoon" is the desire. | Biologist123 wrote: | Contrarian opinion: the class system in Britain is the legacy of | an ethnic hierarchy which has (1) matured and become a little | fuzzy over the course of a thousand years, and (2) is obscured by | the fact all ethnic groups are white. Normans at the top of the | hierarchy (Queenie is a descendant of William the Bastard), | Angles, Saxons, Vikings in the middle, Celts at the bottom. This | ethnic difference contributes to quite different class cultures. | | I read this is relevant to the US, as Celts by and large settled | the Appalachian uplands where soils were poor, and the population | of the mountains has maintained a distinct Celtic culture and | position in the US class hierarchy. | | Additional aside, UK weird hostility to red heads (often remarked | upon by visitors) is in fact legacy hostility to Celts. | starwind wrote: | See "Surnames and social mobility in England, 1170-2012" | | https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60593/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRAR... | brimble wrote: | > I read this is relevant to the US, as Celts by and large | settled the Appalachian uplands where soils were poor, and the | population of the mountains has maintained a distinct Celtic | culture and position in the US class hierarchy. | | These are largely the "Scots-Irish", as we call them in the US. | They originate as the Borderers, that is, the lowland folks who | lived on the border of Scotland and England (an effectively | lawless region for a long stretch of time). At some point a | bunch of them were shipped off to Ireland, then a bunch of | _those_ moved to the US. Hence, "Scots-Irish". | | The history of their migration paints a picture of a people | disliked basically everywhere. Kicked out of the Border | country, then kicked out of Ireland, then kicked out of | Pennsylvania, before finally settling in Appalachia (and being | hated there by almost everyone outside that country--it's | _still_ socially acceptable to say all kinds of horrible things | about them). | | We (I'm very, very much of that "stock" on one side of my | family) seem to be some real bastards. | jessaustin wrote: | To be clear, (we) Scots-Irish are indeed descended from | Celts, both Gaels and Picts. I doubt any of us have _only_ | that background, however. | Biologist123 wrote: | Thanks, very interesting. Wikipedia has a good page on Scots- | Irish, with a suggestion lowland Scots were originally Irish | gaels. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_Americans | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | People are trying to say, "I worked for/earned what I have." I | think it's as simple as that. | | If you've see the show Schitt's Creek, think of the two adult | children in that show. People want to not be seen as that. | nailer wrote: | > They did all the cleaning, all the cooking, all the | entertaining, and all the decorating and did really well. | | If you're cleaning foeces off the side of someone else's room | toilet you're working class. I'm not sure why the author thinks | it's obvious that "her grandparents owned a hotel" means she's | not, like the quote above doesn't count for anything. | [deleted] | achenet wrote: | Historically, those who owned property were the haves, and | those who worked it were the have-nots. | | Medieval lord/peasant, Cotton plantation owner/African slaves, | Captialist/worker, etc. | | As such, owning a hotel, which is a business that can provide | you with revenue without you working (obviously in this case | the grandparents did choose to work, but could have chosen to | have other do the work for them and still reap the profits), | generally makes you upper class. | | For another argument- If you own a hotel, you have a net worth | greater than at least 80% of the population, and hence are | upper middle/upper class. | | A hobo on the street corner might work less, but has net worth | 0, hence is lower class, which is often used as a synomym for | working class | humanistbot wrote: | Because you can easily lie about your class background, | especially to yourself. | ecshafer wrote: | A marxist class analysis clears this issue up pretty well, as its | based on the relationship to labor and capital. The example | interviewee would be working class based on their relationship to | capital. Grandparents that own a hotel (assuming its not a large | chain) would be petite bourgeoisie, as they own a small amount of | capital, but must work to make it productive and are therefore | still a kind of working class. The accountant father is still | working class, as he must work for a living, but would be | considered Private Managerial Class, as they are rewarded well | for their skills within capital. | reedf1 wrote: | This is true, but British social class is much more complicated | than that. | Ancapistani wrote: | I think the answer here is simple: "class" means different things | to different people. | | I'm an American, and I consider myself "middle class". I was born | when my mother was 17. She finished high school and went on to | work and get a two-year degree from a tiny business college that | no longer exists. She married in her mid-20s, when I was in first | grade, got a job at a company and is still there over three | decades later. She went from making minimum wage in 1991 to in | the ballpark of $350k / year today. My father - the man she | married, not my biological father - was a public school teacher. | | I attended school in a very poor area, and my experience in high | school was _far_ more comfortable than my peers. | | My dad bought me a very inexpensive truck when I was 12. It was | ~20 years old, the bed was badly damaged, and the engine didn't | run due to a combination of overuse and neglect. We parked it | outside our garage and he taught me how to work on it, return it | to operable condition, and sell it for profit. With his guidance | I pulled and completely rebuilt the engine and transmission. We | went to scrapyards on the weekends, and eventually found a steel | bed for it in good condition. We kept all the receipts. The total | cost, including purchase price, parts, and a couple of services | like having a machine shop mill the engine block flat for the new | head, was ~$2k. By the time I turned 14, when I could get a | "learner's permit" in my state, we sold that old truck for $4k. I | then had my choice - I could take that $4k (of which I had earned | about half through my labor) and buy whatever I wanted, or my | parents would sell me the truck my dad already owned for the same | price. Because I'd done so much work on "my" truck, I jumped on | that offer; I knew that his truck was well-maintained, and I | didn't want to have to rebuild a vehicle that I was going to rely | on. | | By 2002, when I graduated high school, I think my parents were | making about $175k/yr combined. I went to college on an academic | scholarship and my life fell apart almost immediately. After a | couple of years of struggling (and my parents paying for mental | health services), I was finally diagnosed with severe depression | and ADHD. It took me until I was 23 before I was "functional", | and another two years after that before I felt at all confident | that I wasn't going to fall back into that pit of despair. | Throughout that dark period of my life, my parents were there | both emotionally and, to a reasonably limited extent, | financially. They weren't paying all of my bills, but I knew they | wouldn't let me die hungry and homeless. | | Today, I'm 38. I've been with my wife since were 14, married her | at 21, and now have two daughters. We live in a five-bedroom home | that we purchased in our name, with money that we earned and | saved. While we don't feel like we have a huge safety net for | ourselves yet, we are definitely "financially stable" - and a big | part of the reason we feel like we don't have that safety net | built is because of the depth of the financial safety net that my | parents were able to provide. | | So... in summary, while I consider myself "middle class", | objectively I'm firmly in the "white collar" world. My wife | doesn't work for anyone outside our home, is able to run a side | business primarily for personal fulfillment, and our children are | happy, well cared for, and want for little. | | My wife's parents' story is very different from ours. Her dad was | "working class", and retired from Walmart as a cashier in "Tire & | Lube Express". He has a large but benign brain tumor that is | becoming more and more of an issue as he ages. Her mother has | struggle with mental health issues and has never been able to | hold down a job more than a year or so at a time. My wife moved | between her parents' home and her grandparents' home multiple | time growing up. While they have their own problems to deal with, | I think they really did the best they could raising my wife. | | One of the highlights of my adult life so far came a couple of | years ago, when my wife's parents' car broke down yet again. They | had asked us a couple of times to take them to doctors | appointments, and while I have offered fixed their vehicles a few | times over the years, they _will not_ ask me to do things like | that. I sat down with my wife, looked at our finances, and | decided that we could reasonably take responsibility for their | transportation needs from here on out. We looked at reliable used | cars, but decided that buying a reasonable new car would mean a | warranty and that the total cost of ownership amortized over the | expected lifetime of the vehicle would be comparable. Plus, her | parents had never owned a new car; at best they were able to buy | a reliable used car a couple of times in the past. | | We bought them a new Kia Rio S. It's cherry red, and her parents | cried when we gave it to them. It's still in my name, so I put it | on our insurance and bought a service contract through a local | shop. The only thing they have to pay for is fuel. | | (continued in a reply to this post) | Ancapistani wrote: | Now that I've written an abridged mutli-generational | autobiography, how does this relate to the topic? Simple - all | of the above influence how I see myself. | | I live in a town of 14k people, a few miles from the town of | <200 people where I grew up. The median household annual income | here is <$30k. The media per capita income is $16k. I work | remotely for a West Coast tech company, and my salary alone | puts us at over 5x the median income here. Relative to my | community, I think it's fair to say that we're "white collar". | | The people I work with come from a variety of backgrounds, but | with few exceptions are third generation "white collar". Those | born outside the US generally come from "merchant class" | families or higher - otherwise, how would they have been able | to afford to immigrate to the US in the first place? Relatively | to my colleagues, I come from a "blue collar" world. | | At one point, before I was able to reliably find remote work, | we moved to Virginia where I was the first tech hire at a | startup. The office I started in was actually a hotel meeting | room that they had leased while they built out their permanent | office space. While I was with that company, they expanded | twice. | | The second time they expanded, we were ready to move in to the | new office space, except the desks hadn't arrived before the | electricians left and it was going to be two weeks before they | could get back out to wire them up. We _really_ needed the | space, so I told the founders that I could install them in a | couple of hours if the electricians could swing by in the | afternoon to inspect the work for code compliance. In | retrospect, I'm sure they thought I was nuts. They agreed, the | electrician agreed, and I ran back to my apartment to grab my | tools. By lunch I had all thirty or so of the desks wired up, | the mess cleaned, and we were able to move everyone into the | new space. I left the ceiling tiles open and the covers off the | junction boxes in the ceiling so they could be easily | inspected, but otherwise the job was 100% complete. | | Why did I have the knowledge and tools to do that? After | failing out of college, I'd worked for about a year as an | apprentice electrician. I realized then that that all of my | colleagues at that company came from multi-generational | "academic class" families, and that that sort of thing was | completely foreign to them. I spent the next two years at that | company making good friends, comparing life experiences, and | learning from each other. One of them shared his investment | portfolio with me and walked me through his strategies and what | his parents had taught him. I rented a garage and taught him | basic auto maintenance - oil, tires, how an engine and | drivetrain works, how to check each fluid and what they all | did. | unfunco wrote: | I'm from a working class family but have done okay for myself, my | salary, house, and lifestyle would be considered by most people | to be middle-class now, but I still consider myself working class | because I don't feel you can change classes. However, if I were | to have children now, they would grow up in a middle-class | household and would be middle-class forever, but I am and will | always still be working class. | PaulHoule wrote: | A "working class" person in the US is blue collar. "working | class" is a subaltern identity in the UK, that is a victim of | social pathology, probably not even actually working. See | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_to_Labour | | I'd say though that culture studies today talks about "race, | class and gender" but largely ignores class. I know plenty of | white people who have black problems including a tendency towards | meaningless but dangerous contacts with the police, but if you | never got more than 50 miles from the coast you might not know | there is such as thing as a hillbilly. | pjc50 wrote: | Quite a lot of people who identify as "working class" are | retired, which produces even more policy nonsense. | samhw wrote: | > probably not actually working | | This is how we got the hilarious "but I don't work!" clip: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXZ52-XgUjA | zozbot234 wrote: | > "working class" is a subaltern identity in the UK, that is a | victim of social pathology, probably not even actually working. | | This tends to be called "underclass" in the U.S. I agree that | it should not be conflated with a traditional "working class" | identity, which in practice is far more socially developed and | less affected by social marginalization dynamics. | codeflo wrote: | It is talked about, but maybe not to the extent that it could | be. For obvious historic reasons, race and class are highly | correlated. I think this causes certain class issues to | disguise as race issues and vice versa. To be clear, both kinds | of discrimination exist, both are terrible. But people are | sometimes bad at separating correlated variables intuitively. | And, how do I put it, the social sciences don't have the | reputation to always use the most statistically sound methods. | BolexNOLA wrote: | I'd say it's less "disguised" and more lack of awareness of | the Venn diagram going on. | klodolph wrote: | Classism is definitely more pervasive in the UK than the US. This | is one part of the story about the dominance of US in tech... | during WWII, seems people in the UK were too busy waging war to | bother as much with classism. War ends, and people with the | "right breeding" come in and take over some of the tech projects, | rather than the people with the right skills. Paradoxically, | working in tech is seen as somewhat low-class. | | Keep in mind that this is a simplification, it's only part of the | story, and it's a story about a particular time in UK history, | and I'm not trying to draw larger conclusions about meritocracy | in the US and UK. (Should go without saying.) | | Also note that the narrative of British technological "decline", | often cited as lasting from 1870-1970, is usually quite | exaggerated and distorted. Entire books have been written on the | subject. Classism is a piece of the puzzle but history defies | simple explanations. | brimble wrote: | > Paradoxically, working in tech is seen as somewhat low-class. | | Fussell (though writing about the US) may have some insight | here. For one thing, _working_ is kinda low-class; for another, | being concerned about the latest-and-greatest of technology is, | separately, kinda low-class. He writes (I 'm paraphrasing) that | American old money is more likely to drive a 30-year-old truck, | to have ancient kitchen appliances, maybe even fairly old | entertainment-related electronics, than to have a flashy new | sports car and top-end appliances--because caring about new | technology is "low", so is something those sorts of people have | been socialized not to care about (much of it's the "help's" | problem, anyway, after all). | | The US has a similar thing going on, along the | "working/professional/upper" axis: many programmers make | "professional" levels of money (e.g. doctor, lawyer, upper | management at mid-level corporations, that kind of thing) but | as a society we seem to have decided it's not proper to _treat_ | them as professionals, so they remain working-class in many | respects (along with actual engineers). | klodolph wrote: | Yes, there's a lot of similar stuff going on in the US. | However, the new money / old money distinction in the US | seems to not have the teeth that it does in the UK, at least, | from the mid 20th century onwards. | | The thing about old money having old cars and appliances | applies to the UK too. If you're upper-class in the UK, you | might wear Wellington boots and go hunting with your dogs in | your Subaru hatchback. At a glance, it might look | indistinguishable from something you might find someone doing | in rural Montana. | | The Gilded Age in the US is absolutely fascinating... it | seems like at that point in history, the US was trying its | hardest to ape European conventions for class, and | simultaneously, there was a ton of economic growth fueling | the noveau riche. That's when we got people like Rockefeller | and Vanderbilt. It's the time when Wharton's _The Age of | Innocence_ was set (highly recommend this book). Old money | went to the opera at the Academy of Music Opera House, and | new money went to the Metropolitan Opera House. (Guess which | one is still around.) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-04 23:00 UTC)