Squeezed?

[jacob]

I like the 3-ladder system of class described here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151006183 ... n-the-u-s/

I'm G3(+)wannabeG2 but failing at G2 because my background class is L2(*). Thus I never really knew all the things needed to navigate G2: I didn't partake in pony-riding or shoe-dancing as a child, nor did I know anything about the Nerd Olympiads and other teenage geek networking so my class-resume sucks. Failing to get accepted into the G2 structure, I therefore made my own structure. This has resulted in a minor G1 role (ERE) with which I'm not entirely comfortable.

(+) The first one in the family with any kind of degree and a high degree at that too.

(*) L[2] values hard work but hard work does not translate into success in the G2 world where the currency is relationships and the information that establishes and breaks them. Basically, you can not outwork your way into G2.

[IlliniDave]

I'm probably somewhere in the G4->L2 space. For whatever reason, I have never allowed gentrification to take root. I have the CV of a gentry novice, but not the heart.

[Clarice]

@jacob:

Thank you! That's very interesting. I"ve glanced through it. I will finish it later - have to go to work.

[oldbeyond]

Several things comes to my mind in discussions like this.

From an ethics standpoint(in the "how should we then live"-sense), one always "makes lemonade" in some way. And there is a lot to be done to avoid the squeeze or mitigate its effects. To my mind you have to take care of yourself first, and I think a lot of people can with a bit of skill, ingenuity and willpower. Otherwise you'll always have an excuse to dwell in resentment. Someone stuck there might need some tough love to unstick themselves.

That said, I understand that people can be dissatisfied with the status quo, and with good reason. Even if you manage to navigate stagnant incomes, corrupt rackets and stratospheric asset prices well, you might still have legitimate complaints about it. Sometimes I get the feeling that people rejoice in putting others down for falling off the middle class wagon, and that any complaints on the issues discussed constitute proof of failure. There is such a thing as concern for ones fellow men or holding ones society to a high standard. I think that's commendable, not deplorable.

I think there is a lot of nuance here, and the bar has certainly been raised. As IlliniDave said, the middle class of yore lived quite modestly compared to the leveraged ideal of today. But there's certainly a slowdown in the middle, whether that is stagnant incomes or slowly rising ones. At the same time, top incomes are rising fast, faster the more elite the slice. And a lot of the top income is derived from the rackets - health care, higher education, wall street, defence contractors etc.

[Riggerjack]

@ Jacob
You have posted that link before. I like his ladder system, and my experience started as U, and progressed L4 to L1-2, but transferred to an office full of G4-3.

From that perspective, I strongly disagree with the rest of his narrative. There is no need for E's to manipulate L's into hating G's to divide and conquer. G's have plenty to hate, all on their own, no manipulation necessary. The G social values are effeminate, and very poorly defined. L's are much more definitive and actionable on a personal scale. Anecdotal example, I just don't talk about the office among my friends in construction much. Even trying to describe it usually gets denounced as "what a bunch of cunts." And some good natured ribbing about what is wrong with me that I choose to but up with such dysfunction. The culture of a corporate office and the L ladder is so diametrically opposed I just don't think a sophisticated system of manipulation is necessary from this end. Of course, if I needed to justify why my Very Good Ideas weren't being adopted wholesale by my lesser brethren, manipulation by Evil Elites would have a nice ring to it.

Of course, by his model, I wouldn't see such manipulative behavior anyway, so I am willing to admit the possibility.

From the U ladder or the L ladder, the distinction between E and G is arbitrary and looks like someone trying to dissociate himself from the aspects of his class he wants to be free of. The classic "no, we're the good guys" BS, from the same people who think L's are too stupid to vote in their own self interest.

But I could be wrong.

[jacob]

But I could be wrong.

You keep saying that but I don't think you really mean it

Another way of seeing L, G, E is as Fussel's class system: https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-Am ... 0671792253 ... with lower(L), middle(G), and upper(E) classes.

Aspiring G2s are the people who only read bestsellers because that's the only thing other G2s pretend to read. There's a strong intellectual pretense in the G2 world which is well described in the Bobos in Paradise book. You gotta namedrop the right references. You have to have read "the books everybody is talking about" even if it means you only read the backcover or the executive summary and are really BS'ing your way through the conversation.

The E-ladder couldn't care less about erudition or actual leading. They're much more likely to be seen behind the glass windows at a Bears game than at a Ted talk like a typical G2. Obama hails from the G-ladder. Trump is clearly from the E-ladder.

I spent some time as an E4 in finance. It's a different world.

[Riggerjack]

You keep saying that but I don't think you really mean it

Yet I really do mean it. My body of knowledge is evolving, and always has been. What I believe today is very different from what I believed 5 years ago, which was very different from what I believed 5 years before that. If I still believe in 5 more years, everything I believe today, I would be surprised and disappointed. I try to sum that attitude up with a disclaimer that I understand that I could be wrong. That this is merely my understanding today, and always subject to change.

Aspiring G2s are the people who only read bestsellers because that's the only thing other G2s pretend to read. There's a strong intellectual pretense in the G2 world which is well described in the Bobos in Paradise book. You gotta namedrop the right references. You have to have read "the books everybody is talking about" even if it means you only read the backcover or the executive summary and are really BS'ing your way through the conversation.

Or see the entire published history of the Atlantic, or the New Yorker. Ie, the in depth think pieces that tell you everything one needs to know, to emote in the right direction at cocktail parties, with no confounding factors or uncomfortable truths that would only serve to confuse readers.

That these are the same people following the rainbow to the pot of gold, after shoving all competition off the side along the way, and now complaining about getting squeezed because the gold medallions of success seem to contain impurities, only adds to the amusement from the sidelines.

I don't think more generalized classification systems are going help me much. Reading the sum of small things was just irritating drivel. Not because it wasn't based in truth, but because it was G class explaining to G class that their values and judgements were an artifact of their class. Very clear, and not very interesting from my perspective.

I am getting far more mileage out of reading specific examples, and how they fit together, than generalities.

Honestly, I can understand why one would need an E class if one were G class, but the numbers are small enough, that it feels like a distinction only relevant to the self proclaimed G class, from here.

[7Wannabe5]

I guess I am something like G2.25-alternative-femme-frugal. The main reason why I would describe myself as some variety of G2 is that my youngest sister, whom I helped raise, and my DD27 are both clearly G2, and I am proud of them. My paternal grandfather argued 2 cases in front of the Supreme Court, filed a patent, and wandered around his rose garden smoking a pipe, so I think he was G2. So, likely that I am proud of my sister and my DD27, even though I tease them about being such yuppie hipsters, because I am my father's daughter, and he was his father's son.

OTOH, I am also very much my own person, and my perspective was more directly in alignment with my social class when I was much younger. A few major events, including my mid-life "marriage" to an affluent immigrant from a different culture have blown me further off-course eccentric, likely never to quite return.

Jacob said: Aspiring G2s are the people who only read bestsellers because that's the only thing other G2s pretend to read. There's a strong intellectual pretense in the G2 world which is well described in the Bobos in Paradise book. You gotta namedrop the right references. You have to have read "the books everybody is talking about" even if it means you only read the backcover or the executive summary and are really BS'ing your way through the conversation.

Riggerjack said:Or see the entire published history of the Atlantic, or the New Yorker. Ie, the in depth think pieces that tell you everything one needs to know, to emote in the right direction at cocktail parties, with no confounding factors or uncomfortable truths that would only serve to confuse readers.

@Jacob: This is confusing to me. If G2s are people who only pretend to read books, then who are the people who do read books? By "bestsellers" do you mean something like books on the NYT Notable list, or the sort of books that are actually on the bestseller list, such as those written by Tom Clancy or Mitch Albom (rumored to be a bit "high-maintenance" by somebody I know who had to hostess him on signing tour (see what I did there ))? When I was the inventory manager for the alpha store of a major, at one time well-respected, book chain, I used to make fun of myself because my taste in books was so NYT Notable. IOW, I was just enough of a book snob to slightly disparage the Notables

@Riggerjack: I am quite intrigued by your comments describing the G sector as "effeminate" and your take on the New Yorker/Atlantic. I feel like they may be somewhat related, and I think I understand where you are coming from, but I think there is something you are missing. Like I see a plate full of food, but all you see is the embellishment.

[jacob]

@7 - The NYT non-fiction bestseller list. Big books with simple arguments that are compatible with radio, TV, talkshows ... and therefore cocktail parties. Think Malcolm Gladwell and Michael Lewis. I have a theory that TEDx talks were invented for those G2s who don't have time to read the whole book but still want^H^H^H^Hneed to converse about it.

Disclaimer: It's hard to "do science" here since most people don't read books (even if they buy them). The Pareto effect is strong. 5% read 95% of the books. You can more or less depend on your average G2 academic NOT reading any books (by which I mean <5/year) outside their specialty.

[Riggerjack]

@7w5

Effeminate is certainly not the word I would choose on my own, I was thinking of the line

Between the Gentry and Labor, there is an attitude of distrust. The Elite has been running a divide-and-conquer strategy between these two categories for decades. This works because the Elite understands (and can ape) the culture of the Gentry, but has something in common with Labor that sets the categories apart from the Gentry: a conception of work as a theater for masculine dominance.

The linked article is all about the evil elites manipulating the labor ladder into distrust and dislike. My point is that the combination of faking knowledge, and assertion that G's know better, is enough to inspire distrust and dislike. In the parlance of the men I know, that's a "bitch play". No real man asserts authority based on knowledge he doesn't have. To do so is to set oneself up to lose any respect one has earned. From an L perspective, G's are all claiming authority they don't have.

Now I really do believe that G2-1 really does know more and better than even L1. However, when L's and G's interact, it's usually L1-2 with G3-4. And G3-4 are the loudest and most certain of their education, of the G's. Think Mt Stupid here.

It doesn't take manipulation to cause this dislike.

Couple this with the very different conflict management strategies between L and G. L is generally work location independent. If you can't get along with someone, you can at least remove yourself or him from the daily equation. This favors certain "silverback" conflict resolution strategies. G generally work in a confined space, with people they will work with as long as both work at the same place. This favors far more gentle and tolerant conflict management. This is enough of a cultural difference on it's own to cause friction.

But the end result is L knows that G is full of sh1t, and can't be trusted (because even their values are dishonorable).

That doesn't take any effort from some evil global elite, that is just what happens when those two cultures meet in the way they do. If there was more G1-2 interaction with L1-2, maybe this wouldn't be the case. But the combination of loud and ignorant at the lower levels of each ladder is to be expected, and the displacement of ladders, means there will be hostility between the lower rung of one ladder, and the upper rungs of the lower ladder. It makes me wonder if this same principal is the cause of the hostility between G and E.

[Riggerjack]

You can more or less depend on your average G2 academic NOT reading any books (by which I mean <5/year) outside their specialty.

I will take your word for it.

What I know, is that the G education seems to give them a certainty that they know better, that expertise transfers. They are the "smart ones" who deserve respect for their broad education. That what little they know about X, coupled with their expertise in Y, should trump most folks' opinions about X. After all, they are an expert in Y, and they understand how little the average person knows about Y. If a G needs specific information about X, he goes to an expert in X. But if he just needs some generic information on X, he can just work that out himself. This leads to an attitude of expertise at Y, and a general feeling of competence at the lower levels of all other fields.

Ls don't believe this. They understand that each specialty has knowledge others lack. So even though they use the same tools in the same way, you won't see an auto mechanic talking smack about hydroelectric generator designs like you would from a maintenance tech at a power plant. And yet, we can hear plenty of interior designers talk smack about the latest full story from the Atlantic. Yet the auto mechanic knows more about generators than the designer knows about racial history.

This is where the disconnect is. Righteous repetition of the whole story, as told in the Atlantic is just to be expected in some circles. But when something a G-4 says doesn't match with reality as the G-3 understands it, a further conversation resolves this, usually in the favor of the G-3.

But when the same conversation happens between a G-4, and an L, the G will continue to appeal to his authority of education. L's are extremely good at detecting BS, and a little BS goes a long way to discredit the authority of the BSer. Which is completely different from removing respect (see the L response to Trump and his BS). The G will remove respect on his own, by continuing to claim authority he doesn't have.

Ls don't have a problem with BS, but we have a real problem with people claiming authority based on BS. And too many lower level Gs do just that.

[7Wannabe5]

Disclaimer: It's hard to "do science" here since most people don't read books (even if they buy them). The Pareto effect is strong. 5% read 95% of the books. You can more or less depend on your average G2 academic NOT reading any books (by which I mean <5/year) outside their specialty.

Well, I would note that the entire G2 academic set would comprise far less than 5% of the general population. Also, based on my experience as inventory manager of the largest bookstore in the most educated city in the U.S., G2 academics do read more and with much greater depth and breadth of topic, than your average middle-class suburban dweller. However, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that affluent, educated females read more than any other group, and with a greater focus on literary fiction. So, the sort of individual most likely to have read far more than 6* of the books on this list might even be found desperately trawling a library in Wichita Falls, Texas, if her engineer BF dragged her along for the ride.

https://www.listchallenges.com/kaunismi ... -challenge


*72

[Riggerjack]

@Riggerjack

You and I must know a totally different set of L's. It's staggering how many self-proclaimed experts in climatology, ecology, governance, economics, and psychology I have met in the small town I grew up in. You'd think the primary employers there included something other than the hospital, the K-12 school system, and a tomato packing plant. Though, to be fair, an actual automotive neophyte from my hometown (probably) wouldn't try to tell you how to fix your car. It's something people in the area actually know about.

God save me from omniscient folksy wisdom.

And... This is exactly what I am talking about.

G's discount knowledge that doesn't come packaged in the way they are trained to accept. Look at the list of subjects:
Climatology
Ecology
Governance
Economics
Psychology

In other words, everything in the news and the Atlantic, with a political divide. You disagreed with them, and dismissed all they had to say, because it wasn't packaged in terms you were willing to accept.

They probably did the same thing. For the same reason. What you have to say has to pass through the BS filters they have installed, from years of dealing with people like you.

I believe Jacob is about right on climate change. I haven't run across anyone else who is, on any front. It's one of those political dividing lines with lies and propaganda and exaggeration on both sides. Reality is far more damaging and slower than either side is willing to address.

But when Gs talk about it, they are just flat out wrong on certain aspects that are important for social signalling within G circles, and Ls pick up on this. This causes the Ls to call BS on everything the G says. Because Ls don't know enough about the subject to know how deep the deceit goes, and they dislike/distrust the messenger, they dismiss it all. Besides, both the G and the L know the G doesn't belong. He is not part of the community. His knowledge therefore, doesn't need to be addressed. He can safely be dismissed as another lying G.

Of course, from the G perspective, this looks like ignorance and stubbornness. Reinforcing the Gs faith in his knowledge.

No evil Es required.

[Riggerjack]

@ZAF

I am not talking about who is right. Honestly, G's tend far closer to what I consider right than Ls.

I am talking about group interactions and distrust. In the framework of Jacob's linked ladder system.

My point is that simple interaction between Ls and Gs, partially because of the offset of the ladders, is enough to cause friction and distrust.

I don't doubt there are Evil Elites out there. But I do doubt that they are pulling strings and making moves to wind up Gs and Ls to hate each other. Or if they are, it is lower level E work, and just looks evil to Gs as much of what lower level Gs do looks evil to Ls.

But I could be wrong.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[Riggerjack]

COOL. Thanks MI, that's very similar to what I was trying to say.

Add in the distrust, and you have it nailed. The distrust is a function of different processing mechanisms, and very different social constructs.

[7Wannabe5]

Effeminate is certainly not the word I would choose on my own, I was thinking of the line
"Between the Gentry and Labor, there is an attitude of distrust. The Elite has been running a divide-and-conquer strategy between these two categories for decades. This works because the Elite understands (and can ape) the culture of the Gentry, but has something in common with Labor that sets the categories apart from the Gentry: a conception of work as a theater for masculine dominance."

This also speaks to my earlier admission/reflection on the thread that I don't fret much about my income relative to my peers due to a certain amount of old school sexism. For instance, kindergarten teacher is a perfectly acceptable career choice for a female from any class. It's admirable if you achieve this role starting from the bottom rung, and it's sweet (see Princess Di) if you choose it starting from a position at the top. OTOH, there still aren't very many women working in construction, engineering, or as high-level mortgage sharks.

Obviously, the Wall Street Playboys blog is much more entry level E oriented than ERE. When I joked about the possibility of attempting the advice offered there as a 53 year old female, my perspective was still very much G2, because I would have been motivated mainly by curiosity. I viewed it as a potentially interesting social science experiment to perform upon myself, and then talk and write about.

OTOH, off the top of my head, I can think of many realms in which the G2 ladder and masculinity very much overlap. For instance, the stereotypical behavior of Jewish-heritage guys in bed.

[Mister Imperceptible]

@Riggerjack

Like the women I date: I have you thinking about me, even when I’m not there.

[Clarice]

Since we are talking about middle class and its difficulties I'd like to develop this topic further and include other classes.
Questions:
1. What are the things that in your mind are associated with low class?
2. What are the things that in your mind are associated with high class?

I'll go first:

1. Type 2 diabetes, obesity, tattoos, strong association with a major political party (it doesn't matter R or D), Doritos.
2. Having access to the levers of institutional power, having the ability to say to a friend in need, "Let me talk to a couple of people and see what I can do.", looking good after the age of 50.

[BRUTE]

1.trailers, southern accents, wearing sweat pants in public, bleached hair
2.preppy sweaters, boat shoes, "sports" like golf, polo, horse riding, skiing or sailing (=basically peacocking how much money they can waste for such a useless activity without caring)