Bank accounts are paramount by construction of the socio-economic scale ... but only someone from the middle-class cares about the socio-economic scale. That's how you recognize the middle-class ppl
My dislike for travel---in the geographical sense, at least when it comes to places reachable by airports---is somewhat notorious. I often remarked that all developed countries are more or less the same and that you can learn more about the human condition [in the developed world] by travelling a few miles across town from 'University Campus' to 'Government Facility' and then to 'Trailer Park' or from there to 'Financial District' and from there to 'School Teachers and Firemen' or 'Military Families' than you can by flying across the world to hang out with your own kind at the local cuisine offerings while talking about the "'istory, culture, food" as spoken in some self-important travel-blogger accent.
In regards to "anthropological studies" in the developed world, I think I'm rather very well "travelled", much more than most. I find it [this kind of travel] interesting and have kind of made of life mission out of it. This is partially what made the ERE book possible. Basically, I think have a good idea about "the territory". I know a nine-fig and few eight-figs [in USD]. I know a DC lobbyist. I know people in high science. Or top google-ranks (that's a thing now) ... I've also been to "trailer trash funerals" and invited to a wedding where most guests belonged to a gang and mostly talked about taking falls and going to prison. (That was weird
) Not really intended to start a d*-measure-contest here but more to point out that I've been "places" and that my Kevin-Bacon numbers both in the direction of the supreme top whether it's politics, finance, academia, not art though, ... or rock bottom, where people are barely scraping by, is quite low, at most 2 degrees: In all likelihood, I know someone who knows the [kind of] person you want to talk to.
Point being, I've covered most of the territory within a 2-sigma distribution. I might have some clue about how the developed world works in terms of "classes"
or maybe rather that I have more of a clue than most but that the problem is extremely complex, so I might be wrong (even if that's hard to believe
)
Feel free to disagree. I might learn something. But here's how I see it ...
First, most people/academics/theories only consider a single idiosyncratic dimension of the territory, e.g. income. Basically most theories presume to explain everything by some kind of intersection along a single dimension. I think this is misguided. I see multiple different kinds of "capital". In particular, different people focus on different kinds of that capital.
The socioeconomic poor focus on favours and tribe. "I'll mow your lawn. No, definitely don't pay me. Maybe you'll watch my dog for me some day." "Of course I'll do that. You're in my tribe. Don't mention it." (Most important kind of capital: Social/tribal)
The socioeconomic middle class. "You gave me some tomatoes or watched my dog. Now I feel obligated to reciprocate so as to even out the balance, maybe I give you a cake [of equal value] or pay you $100 or whatever the going market rate is. At work, if I do something quantifiable, like, I work really really hard, then you'll obviously reciprocate and promote me." (Most important capital: money/metric scores)
The socioeconomic upper class. "Don't worry, I know some people. They're great people. I'll connect you to them. We'll make a deal." (Most important capital: information) [No, not all of them talk like Trump
But Trump is a great example of the upper class. Notice how he doesn't give a fark about supreme middle class values such as being educated/informed/consistent/... that's because his life/values haven't been built up around the idea of being a good professional drone, unlike most people who vote D or most politicians who speak "middle class" (that's the job of politicians by the way; it's why the upper class pays them!). Incidentally, if you want to dispute this, please start another thread!!!]
The ERE class. Very different. Has certain values in common with all groups. It's intentionally designed this way.
In many ways, the middle class is special. It's an exception or an aberration. Whereas the upper class is quite like the lower class but with lots of money + the vocabulary to impress the middle class. After all, the middle class has been well trained to worship money and education as a metric.
Now, each group has their own methods for maintaining group coherence. For the underclass, it's crab mentality. For the middle class, it's debt, "education" (especially the kind that's taught at 'liberal universities') and careerism. For the upper class, it's surnames, tradition, and family. The upper-class sends their offspring to Harford, not for the superior education (I have it on reliable sources that it's not) but in order to hook up with the offspring of other families. The goals are different.
This is entirely separate from the observation that any kind of capital tends to grow where it's treated well... but please consider how different kinds of capital are treated in different kinds of places. Then it should be obvious that the question why the poor remain poor and the rich remain rich is an oversimplication and also why it's a fact.
That's not it at all. 