Which is very different than "normal" for the eldest son of the Greshams of Greshambury when the estate he is to inherit is much reduced from the time of his grandfather, yet not entirely unrelated.classical_Liberal wrote:"Normal" for a 20-30-something struggling musician in New Orleans is very different than "normal" for a 40's middle class nurse living in a college town in the Midwest.
As Picketty noted in "Capital", 19th century literature is laden with references to how many pounds per year the affluent characters are believed to have. In the Trollope novel I just finished, sufferage is becoming more universal, but is still limited to men who hold property at least equivalent to that of a small town publican. So, a seat in the legislature in 1870 might only be decided by 900 voters. Obviously, similar social structure existed in ancient Greece or Rome.
Our notions of "freedom" or "independence" are bound up with the notions related to citizenship. So, a level of FI that is not sufficient to also purchase the trappings of "citizenship" such as a set address does not qualify. Obvious example of what I mean is that I do not declare myself to be financially independent on the basis of a spending budget which currently includes a male housemate who pays all the bills, although this would have been "normal" in 1959. However, if I could vote from the address of my permaculture project, I might.
Anyways, there is a reason (or cluster of reasons) why the diagram in "ERE" shows the Renaissance Man to be above the Working Man, beside the Business Man, and only linked at corner point to the Salary Man. The Salary Man is the type who most strongly identifies with profession BECAUSE of high relative level of investment. Even putting the Renaissance Quadrant aside, compare/contrast "I am a lawyer" with "I own a pizza parlor, play semi-pro baseball, and practice law."