Squeezed?

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9373
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Squeezed?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

1) Fat old women who yell in public settings, scary parties where people drink too much, meaningless sex in the back of a potato chip truck with a guy who looks like Hutch-next time you see him he is with a girl who looks like Cher, and she stares right at you with "I'd as soon kill you" eyes.

2) Fat old men who yell in private settings, boring parties where people drink too much, meaningless sex in his friend's father's boathouse with a guy who looks like Cary Grant- next time you see him he is with a girl who looks like Grace Kelly, and she stares right past you with "I am already dead" eyes.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15908
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Squeezed?

Post by jacob »

Clarice wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:32 pm
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?
Fussell's book is great for this. Might be a bit dated but still funny because it's mostly true.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Squeezed?

Post by IlliniDave »

Hey! I wear sweat pants in public!!

"Low class" and "high class" can be taken in different ways. I'll answer as though the reference is primarily to socioeconomic class and not a spot on the continuum of sophistication or lack thereof (although there is admittedly often correlation). I've known wealthy people whose character I'd describe as low class, and poor people whose class puts me to shame. I'll exclude people in desperate circumstances from the low group. We all know the story there: crime, addiction, homelessness, etc. It's probably worth noting that I grew up in the western Great Lakes region, spent 9 years in Appalachia, and for the last 20 have lived in a mid-sized city in the more generic south (Alabama).

Lower rural: hardworking, generally independent (though they will go to great lengths to pitch in and help a neighbor). Identify strongly with places, local community (makes sense when you derive a living from a piece of ground, often for multiple generations). They often have a breadth of skills and are accomplished DIYers. They tend to take pride in their identity as relatively simple rural folks. Often mistrustful of outsiders and government, although they are typically polite and warm quickly once they figure out that you're not out to separate them from their money. They often have an undertone of sadness because they see their way of life being squeezed out (applies mostly to the Midwest where the land is of a quality that corporations tend to have interest). Many are quite religious and despite what lyrics of country music imply, many don't hang out in honky tonks or get involved with other vices. They often possess a certain folk wisdom that can be somewhat Zen-like. Tended to vote blue 30 years ago and prior, more likely to vote red now.

Lower urban: Tend to have a good work ethic but expect it to be limited to the constraints negotiated by the unions in decades past. There's an expectation of holidays, vacations, weekends off, etc. Where their rural counterparts have an undertone of sadness, the urban lower socioeconomic class tends to substitute an amount of anger and bitterness. They tend to rely on blue politics and cable news to tell them who to direct it at. They vote and have voted solid blue for probably the last 50 years at least (maybe that is beginning to change). They tend to be somewhat more educated than their rural counterparts, and being in urban areas affords more opportunities to see "how the other half lives". Although it is not to the level politically motivated pundits would have you believe, the most overt racism I've ever encountered has been among the northern contingent of the lower urban working class.

Upper rural: I've only known one who wasn't an upper class urban person that just relocated out of the city. He was a remarkable individual and as close to a true Renaissance Man as I have ever encountered. Likely he's not representative of his socioeconomic cohort. So I'll non-answer this one.

Upper urban: These are typically the "obvious wealth" people. In my limited experience they aren't much different than anyone else except they have a lot of money. They tend to take a little more interest in various leadership pursuits and tend to be very visible as donors and patrons. In the north they tend to be purple and in the south, red. They share some of the characteristics that have been discussed in other threads regarding "the X%"--tend to invest a lot of money in their children, for example, and to cluster in certain areas. They often take up emotional but somewhat illogical causes. One such friend spends substantial money funding and flying across the world to participate in US-sponsored activities intended to save snow leopards. A perfectly good cause, I suppose, but at the same time she'll passionately rant about how no one is doing anything to help the homeless in her adopted home city. I guess that is what people mean by "signalling", having causes that simultaneously say, "I'm wealthy and worldly and virtuous" more so than donating the same financial resources and time/energy to a local soup kitchen or whatever would. Almost all of the people I personally know over the age of 30 who self-identify strongly as progressives fall into this group (and/or are academics). I should clarify that I don't know a whole lot of these folks. They tend to be genuinely good people I believe, they just have worldviews that are largely orthogonal to those I can readily adopt. So I scratch my head a little when I see someone get out of a $100,000 Mercedes with an armful of tattered, recycled material shopping bags at the grocery store.

All of the above is an anecdotal summary of what I've observed. Very unscientific.

EtA: I forgot to mention that it's very common to see hybrid characteristics. I believe there is still more socioeconomic mobility occurring in the US than some give us credit for. So sometimes behaviors/values learned in childhood merge with the influences of differing circumstances in adulthood. And sometimes people just cultivate values that differ from the majority of those who share their socioeconomic circumstances (e.g., those of us who practice forms of "stealth wealth").
Last edited by IlliniDave on Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Squeezed?

Post by jennypenny »

I don't see low class and high class as having anything to do with wealth.

1. Constant bickering and loud family drama, physical altercations, disrespectfulness, low aspirations.
2. Quiet good manners, ability to turn the other cheek, strong social network, reliability, unpretentiousness.

Most people in Stepford fall into the vapid class ... aspirational veneer over a clueless mediocrity. (wow, do I sound bitter :lol: )

IlliniDave wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:49 am
Hey! I wear sweat pants in public!
I feel sorry for guys ... women can get away with wearing yoga pants (although I guess yoga pants would be high class and leggings would be low class).

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Squeezed?

Post by IlliniDave »

jennypenny wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:10 am

I feel sorry for guys ... women can get away with wearing yoga pants (although I guess yoga pants would be high class and leggings would be low class).
A meme sorta thing I saw just yesterday, paraphrased because of declining memory:

Three things that don't varnish the truth:

1. small children
2. intoxicated people
3. yoga pants

I get away with sweatpants quite fine (granted, I don't wear them away from home except while running errands or hiking on the mountains in cold weather). Of course that might be correlated with my ongoing relationship status, perhaps even causal. :lol:

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Squeezed?

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

A member of the underclass lobs a critique of labor that is typical of the gentry these days (although the critique could apply to gentry as well):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=axHoy0hnQy8

A member of the high gentry in defense of labor (or perhaps not in defense of labor, but just against whatever the gentry “stands for”):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k6utMlqMCkg

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Squeezed?

Post by Campitor »

jennypenny wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:10 am
women can get away with wearing yoga pants...
They think they can get away with wearing yoga pants - the social repercussions just differ from the sweat pants faux pas. And rich guys don't wear sweats pants - they wear under armour track suits and other stylish brands or wear sweat pants that don't look like sweat pants.

https://publicrecapparel.com/products/a ... 0678174020
https://www.betabrand.com/mens/pants/me ... -flex-pant

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15908
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Squeezed?

Post by jacob »

jennypenny wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:10 am
I don't see low class and high class as having anything to do with wealth.
Class habits tend to determine wealth in the long run, whereas wealth does not necessarily determine class.
See ERE book 3.2.1 ("Ergodicity and destiny")

I think I've been guilty of seeing class mainly through economic eyes(*) for the past 10+ years. I, therefore, mainly identify low class with behavior and values that destroy economic value, e.g. lifestyle disease behavior, debt ("bills and paychecks"), having multiple pets, leased or unmaintained cars, a cluttered/disorganized home ... ; and high class with behaviors that generate value.

(*) Which is a very middle class thing to do. The upper class takes the existence of [financial] assets for granted. The lower class don't know what [those] assets are.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Squeezed?

Post by Riggerjack »

Well, my parents were both raised middle class. It was just their economic failures that kept me growing up with similar failures. So while I am overly familiar with aspects of underclass, as they were friends and neighbors, I was held back from blending in with them by my use of proper English grammar (circa 1970's) and no slang (and of course moving, a lot). I had to intentionally adopt the language of my peers, and this really didn't sink in until the time I spent in the army. I can still see the look of horror on my mom's face when first she heard me use the term "y'all."

So I see class and economic status as entirely independent. In the underclass are plenty of failures from other classes. But also within the same economic bracket, there are plenty of fully developed high status people. And I always associated class and status. Respect, if you will. Now it's easier to stand head and shoulders above a crowd of Gnomes than a crowd of Giants, but the Bohemian class was always where my mom wanted to be. Poor was OK, if she could be admired.

But being successfully Bohemian is a high skill trade. And poverty in America anyway, is worst in the low skill levels. Poor conflict resolution skills. Poor skills at navigating modern life, from just basic job acquisition skills, to long term planning. Poor choices of what aspects of self to portray publicly.

If one is economically poor, adding income can fix that. But having that income clearly isn't enough to solve the problems, or raise their skill levels, see lotto winners. The difference between low class and middle class is a difference in skills more than money.

Middle class tries to emulate their idea of upper class, and is struggling mightily to signal upper class. Whereas upper class doesn't seem concerned by signaling, at all. A roommate who had been sent to a military academy on high school summed it up nicely. "I finally had a Members Only jacket and fit in with some guys, but the really rich kids just wore whatever they liked. If you can afford a hundred Members Only jackets without worrying about it, why would you want or need a fashionable jacket?"

But being poor, and both parents being artists, I saw more upper class people than middle class people, (because only upper class buys custom high end art.) and it was very clear who I wanted to be when I grew up.

So to me, upper class is self defining. Having the economic freedom to not work. This doesn't mean they don't work, but that their work is their choice, and not undertaken for compensation, and certainly not as any form of employee. Sometimes as a skilled professional, but only if the profession was chosen independent of compensation. So rich doctors and lawyers count, but only if they chose to be doctors and lawyers for the love of it, rather than the money. Usually, even having the skill, they rarely practiced. If they take the career part of their profession seriously, it doesn't leave much room for the personal development part, that seems to separate them. Mainly, they are owners.

Their manners seem entirely self defined. So not really matching any particular group. But I was seeing this from the perspective of a complete outsider, and as a child, so my impressions will be pretty under developed. As I got older and more aware of the difference in status, I started avoiding them to avoid my own awkwardness around them. I haven't met many as an adult. I met plenty of rich middle class folks, and many upper class folks. The difference is upper class people aren't interested in competing with OTHER people. They may compete with themselves, and strive against goals. But concern about status is a middle class issue. Upper class will use status symbols if it makes achieving a goal easier, but to signal status is pure middle class. Once one is choosing peers, status symbols are counter productive.

The real strength of ERE to me is all the ways we address all of the non-economic aspects of retirement. What we choose to do and how, that simply don't come up in standard ER sites. The development of general life skills is what separates the classes, in my mind. And it seems odd that this skill differential comes up so rarely in discussions of class and economics. To me, ERE is how to be upper class on a low cash budget.
Last edited by Riggerjack on Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Squeezed?

Post by Riggerjack »

It occurs to me just how differently I perceive upper class. For instance, all of the people ID identifies as upper class, I would consider middle class.

If one is striving, competing, or concerned by what anyone thinks of one, one is NOT upper class. Upper class comes with an immunity to judgement, in that peers have no correction mechanisms. All peers can do is exclude one from the peer group. Freeing one to choose peers. People who choose their peers intentionally, tend to have a better group of peers than those who strive to be accepted by any particular existing peer group. When one is upper class enough, even one's peers are bespoke.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Squeezed?

Post by Campitor »

  1. What are the things that in your mind are associated with low class?
    1. Harboring prejudices based on social and cultural affiliations.
    2. Harboring prejudices based on appearances.
    3. Resenting those who are trying to evolve past illogical thinking.
    4. Resenting those who are working hard in such a way that it disrupts the status quo.
    5. They believe there is something inherently wrong with the other classes therefore they must be treated as pariahs. Exceptions are made for those considered "cool", i.e, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Tom Ford, <insert admired famous person here>.
  2. What are the things that in your mind are associated with high class?
    1. Harboring prejudices based on social and cultural affiliations.
    2. Harboring prejudices based on appearances.
    3. Resenting those who are trying to evolve past illogical thinking.
    4. Resenting those who are working hard in such a way that it disrupts the status quo.
    5. They believe there is something inherently wrong with the other classes therefore they must be treated as pariahs. Exceptions are made for those considered "cool", i.e, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Tom Ford, <insert admired famous person here>.

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Squeezed?

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

CAMPITOR THE DESTROYER

CS
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Squeezed?

Post by CS »

This thread has me think my current 'retirement' from one career to another is really an effort to jump from the L2 class to the G2 class.

To me that sums it all up:

Lower class - lack of control over own life
Upper class - social power to steer one's own boat.

As such, yes I do believe circumstances (to a point) circumscribe behavior. Luck is a non-trivial factor in most people's lives.

Stahlmann
Posts: 1121
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: Squeezed?

Post by Stahlmann »

this story didn't have happy end in far-away castle in USA :lol: :(
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/l ... rants.html

I don't usually stand for propagandists of the biggest imperialist country in the world, but below video was sad
https://nypost.com/video/emotional-test ... placement/
no severence pay and training new guy? wow...

this movie was also interesting:
http://www.nfb.ca/film/after_axe/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_zkn3Ku6Is
(and such procedure started over 40 years ago :shock: )

Post Reply