OT. Middle Class ?

I started your article and I'm not surpsed to see it use class where I think they maan income.

Class is about values. When properly expressed, milddle-class refers to a group of people sharing values, mostly community values. Lower class are those who oppose the community or at least make little or no effort to be a part of it. Upper-class is perhaps a figment of their imagination, unless it's the people who have abandoned community values because they have ehough money not to get into too much trouble doing so.

You say WHAT?????? Where the hell does this come from.

Interesting analysis and has a lot of merit.

I work for a lot of folks in all income levels. Some have been asses and a lot have been stellar people with a ton of class. Their income level is not a factor.

My experience is that people expect you to treat them the way they treat other people.

And you are most correct, that type of class knows no income level.

But that is not the type of class Dean was speaking of. He was using it as income level.

I liked his analysis Comrade. He was comparing the different meanings of the word "Class".

He has a point. When people act in obnoxious ways, it is often said "they have no class" Never thought of a ranking of them though. High class are often referred to a snooty by the lower class.

There is no definite relations ship of acting with class and having money though. I've seen extremes of both.

Then there is the monetary side as referenced by the article.

In your opinion. Others use the term differently:

The "middle class" is being deprecated and replaced with the communist "social credit score" system. You must comply.

Comply or suffer a bad social credit score.

Must comply! Must comply! Must comply!

Former British Queen Elizabeth 2nd might qualify under both meanings of class.

I agree. I believe the article cited by the OP pertains to the definition of "class" as it is used by economists, not by sociologists. However, my personal belief is that net worth is much more important than annual income. I know individuals who in the top 2-3% of income earners but are leveraged to the max because they don't have the discipline to accumulate a nest egg that can provide a safety net in the event of sudden problems with cash flow.

One couple I"m thinking of, one of my friends, a surgeon in a busy practice, affiliated with a major university medical center, married to a registered nurse who is a full time nursing supervisor at a large hospital. Both are in their mid-60s with married children who have professional careers. I've been to their 3,000+ square foot home on several acres in northern Virginia, and saw their "his and her" Mercedes (new model every 2 years) in their garage. A few years ago, this friend was speaking to me about his recent distress. It seems his wife had a horseback riding accident, fell off her horse, and hurt her back. She was unable to work for at least one month and due to her lost income, they needed to sell one of their horses (raising some money as well as no longer having to pay for stabling and veterinary charges) in order to get by without his wife's income! It took my full willpower to avoid appearing surprised. I couldn't imagine how a couple with their lifestyle could choose to live that close to the financial edge. I expressed my sympathy and hopes that in the end everything would work out OK. What else could I say? A real example of a high income but a totally inadequate net worth to appropriately support their lifestyle.

Either not taking medication or taking too much?

We probably all know people like this and those that live at both extremes. There are those that live like paupers with millions in the bank. Hard to say what class they are.

'A Working Class Hero' John Lennon

Which of her many castles are you referring to? Perhaps there weren't any fancy beds at her numerous other residences. I can't imagine my dinner conversation being about trying to decide where to bed down for that night. So many choices.

I've never been a royal watcher. However, I find it fascinating to watch Charles III, who spent every one of his past 74 years seeing how it all works and preparing to assume the starring role at any moment appear so uncomfortable now that the crown has passed to him. I'm probably naive, but how badly can one screw up what is in reality a ceremonial position and aided by a huge, well trained staff that can attend to his every whim and need?

Windsor Castle.

Yeah. You and I can say something silly and no one pays much attention.