The fundamental idea here is equality vs. competition, but once a group starts to pull way '1%' we get upset. Should our children be rewarded for parent's work? These are going to be some of the more serious issues that we need to face in the years to come, though for some reason I have a sneaky feeling that most people are being kept in a perpetual state of denial.

Stalin came the closest to making a classless society by turning the Soviet Union into two classes. He was one class and everyone else was in the other.

and that totally worked :\

There's something of a difference between social class and economic class, so your question is ambiguous to begin with, I'd say.

Social classes are inevitable, so its not really relevant whether good or bad

Yeah, they earned it.

http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/

It is hard work to be a rich kid.

"I'm not rich, I'm upper middle class."

@ semck83

"There's something of a difference between social class and economic class, so your question is ambiguous to begin with, I'd say."

I agree that there is a difference between social class and economic class, but I would also argue that social class = economic class in modern Western (at least American) society. We define social class by personal wealth.

I would also argue that social classes don't really exist anymore (unless you tie it to wealth, as I stated above). Everyone has (some) inalienable rights in our society, regardless of economic class. Obviously, the extent of those rights is limited by wealth to an extent. For example, people listen to Donald Trump more than they would listen to a random liquor store clerk, so I could argue that Donald Trump's right to free speech is more powerful than the liquor store clerk's right to free speech. Also, transferable NFA-registered machine guns cost well above $10,000, which means that the rich have legal access to machine guns and the middle class/poor do not.

GF,

Those are reasonable points, although I think if you moved in some circles you would see a bit of a difference between social and economic class. Donald Trump might not be welcome at an upper crust Boston dinner party, because he's nouveau riche and rather gauche; whereas someone who grew up in that world and lost it all might. But you're right that these days in the US, this is probably restricted to ever shrinking circles.

It's just like how on webDip you can have a lot of points but still be a filthy gunboater.

Or like how you can be a heroic diplomat *cough* and still have but a few points.

Confusingly, many people with actually negative net worth, simply because of the money they used to have, are still paid a lot of attention to. They appear to have a high social class, without having the money to go through with it. I'm not sure how economic class is defined though, could someone clear that up for me?

Economic class is just where you are related to others in society in terms of your income and accrued wealth. Income is what lots of people tend to look at, but accrued wealth is more important.

@ semck

I suppose you have a point there. There will always be a somewhat fine line between "old" money and "new" money. An NBA star wouldn't be particularly welcome at a charity gala for New York financial executives, just as a New York executive wouldn't be particularly welcome at an upper-class Hollywood dance club.

But ignoring the social difference between "old" money and "new" money at the very top (you did have a good point there), I would still argue that social class and economic class are one in the same for the "bottom" 90% of the Western population.
________

To answer the OP, I would argue that yes, social classes are a good thing. A civilized world fundamentally needs leaders and followers. PM Churchill was absolutely correct about socialism/communism resulting in an equal share of misery for everyone. As the old axiom goes: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." In an ideal world, the lower classes would simply be a temporary "springboard" from which people could hit rock bottom and bounce back up into the middle classes. I see no reason why a white-collar guy shouldn't wash dishes for six months while he gets back on his feet. Alternatively, the lower classes should serve as quasi-punishment for stupid life choices. I see no reason why a drug addict should have a white-collar job or even healthcare. I realize that my views might be a little fucked up, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

I personally believe that everyone should be treated with a modicum of respect, regardless of their job. I had a lengthy conversation with an older used car salesman last week (I DESPISE used car salesmen; they are modern pariahs in my book), and I still called him "sir" until he told me to stop. Turns out that he used to be a relatively prosperous restaurant owner until his landlord screwed him over and put him out of business. I use "sir/ma'am" when I talk to homeless people too. A little respect goes a long way, and I have a basic level of respect for human dignity, regardless of social class.

I don't entirely *like* the idea of economic status being the primary determining factor of social class, but I concede that it is the most practical method and one of the more reliable methods. Hard work, common sense, a fair amount of brains, and taking initiative can still take you from lower class to upper class in our society. I've got a buddy from a poor family who joined up with the pipefitters when he graduated high school. Now he's clearing six figures a year on 40 hours a week, all on a high school diploma and with zero student loan debt. Another close friend (from a "lower" economic status) of mine joined the fire department right out of high school. He's not making as much as my pipefitter buddy, but he's still making a hell of a lot more money than his parents and he loves his job.

I would argue that the "middle class" is a happy and comfortable place to be, and as such is a worthy goal for any person. I'm middle class and the wealth distribution gap really doesn't bother me that much. Personally, I think that an end to corporate welfare and a closing of all tax loopholes would work wonders on the wealth gap, but that's a discussion for another thread. Rich guys can afford to pay top-tier accountants to squirrel their way out of the majority of their taxes, and that's admittedly fucked up.

In an ideal world, I would like to see a Starship Troopers-esque meritocracy, in which only honorably discharged veterans and those who have completed federal/state service are enfranchised and able to hold public office, but that's nothing more than a pipe dream when only a fraction of the population is either current military or honorably discharged veterans.

@Gunfighter I'm always leery of using the lower classes as a "sort of quasi-punishment' because there's never been a society in which there are more higher class-people (even middle) than lower. I'm also not entirely sure there's a viable socio-economic model that could alleviate that. Further for many people of next to lowest- or middle-class a fall to the lowest class may not be a fall they could recover from. Not to mention the fact that most people stay in whatever class they were born in, and even if someone of great "worth" (lots of natural talent, intelligence, etc) was born in the lowest class, it is already known to be increasingly difficult to work their way out of that class and turning that class of people's life into quasi-punishment is not going to make that any easier.

If they made decisions that are truly unacceptable to society then they are criminals and belong in prison. If they just made decisions that just don't lead to economic success, by what right do you punish them? Punishing the poor makes being poor immoral and being wealthy moral by contrast.

Also I honestly can not think of a policy more likely to result in severe civil instability and possible outright revolt and revolution than intentionally and (publicily if a democracy) making the poorest and largest segment of the population's life a quasi-punishment.

Therefore I don't think it's appropriate to make the lowest class exist in a state of quasi-punishment.

"In an ideal world, I would like to see a Starship Troopers-esque meritocracy, in which only honorably discharged veterans and those who have completed federal/state service are enfranchised and able to hold public office, but that's nothing more than a pipe dream when only a fraction of the population is either current military or honorably discharged veterans."

Here in the US, President Bush II is considered more patriotic for failing to finish his Air Force Reserve commitment than a US Senator that lost limbs fighting in Vietnam. Image versus substance is a flaw in how people fit into classes here.

@ Puddle

"Further for many people of next to lowest- or middle-class a fall to the lowest class may not be a fall they could recover from."

Rather than attempting to "move" everyone from the lower classes "up", I propose policies that would merely ensure that upward mobility is a reasonable possibility for sufficiently motivated individuals. I believe that there will *always* be rich people and poor people, regardless of government system. Even in the heyday of the Soviet Union, there were still plenty of poor guys and a few rich guys. To that end, I believe that injustice does not exist unless it is genuinely impossible/improbable for those in the lower classes to make a serious push "up" to a higher class on an individual basis.

"Punishing the poor makes being poor immoral and being wealthy moral by contrast."

It's important to recognize that "poor" is a subjective term, even if you define it with an arbitrary threshold such as a poverty line. The poorest, sorriest hobo in the US with a $20 bill in his pocket is still richer than a sizable chunk of the world. In less abstract terms, I think something like 90%-95% of the US population has a TV, air conditioning, a cell phone, and the net worth of a Nigerian king. Hardly starving on the street.

Furthermore, I stand by my use of the phrase "quasi-punishment". I believe that in this day and age, poverty is usually a consequence of bad or mediocre decision-making, with a definitive multi-generational impact in many cases. Wealth can create a multi-generational family dynasty of power and opportunity. Conversely, poverty can create a family trend of misfortune and difficulty.

"intentionally and (publicily if a democracy) making the poorest and largest segment of the population's life a quasi-punishment."

There's nothing "intentional" about it. I'm *definitely* not advocating for a regressive tax system or reinforcing the wealth gap. I'm just pointing out my belief that a reasonable wealth gap is an acceptable price to pay for a stable multi-class society, on condition that upward class mobility is a reasonable possibility for any qualified individual.

On an individual basis, poverty has a cause. Frequently, that cause can be linked to a bad decision at one time or another, such as substance abuse, spousal abuse, or child abuse. On a multi-generational level, it could be as simple as getting in a car with your sketchy cousin instead of continuing on to military recruitment office. Have you ever noticed how the most fucked up homes tend to be the poorest homes?

In less "cold" terms, some people are just naturally unlucky, and sometimes fate just screws people over by making them poor and making it impossible to bust out.

Lower classes should be humane and livable but spartan. I'm tired of seeing people pay for candy and doughnuts with food stamps while they text on the $400 phone that was paid for with money that they should be spending on healthy food or maybe a better education for their kid.

Middle classes and upper classes should be readily accessible and comfortable.

"Income is what lots of people tend to look at, but accrued wealth is more important."

Why?

Income only tells what money is coming in every month. Accrued wealth tells what you have done with the money that you have. It's the ability to invest that generally makes more money for you over time.

I get that wealth generates income, but if you argument is that wealth is more important than income because wealth increases income, that seems like odd reasoning..

I suppose I know what you mean though. Income from investments is generally better than from paychecks.

Working is for suckers. Owning is all that matters.

In a rentier capitalist system at any rate. :P Not something we should strive for as a society, though the 1% would disagree.

Wasn't really my point. My point was that income only gives you part of the picture. If you got your M.D. and start bringing in $600,000 a year, that's great. Yet if you owe $200,000 in student loans, go out and buy that expensive BMW & a house in the nicest neighborhood, that nice income can still not go very far.

Income kind of like the size of the pipe leading into a house. It really doesn't show how much water is in the bath tub.

Someone with a higher income could build wealth faster, but it doesn't always mean that they are building wealth at all. If the money goes out as fast (or faster) than it comes in, income doesn't really tell you much.

@ CA

Excellent point.

So if you earn a couple of million per year but you spend all of it, you're still lower/working class even though you can at any time choose to make enough money for retirement in a short period of time?

If you keep buying expensive cars and what not, you can always sell them later as well.

Also a good point, but if you put that money on the futures market or in a timeshare, then it's going to evaporate a lot faster than a sports car.

Are you merely working class if you spend all your money even if you earn a shitload of it, though?

The reason people say income is a less applicable metric than wealth is because of how income is categorized in these semi-universal calculators. Interest accrued and stock dividends typically are not counted as income but sometimes they are, things like increased value of wealth or non-liquid assets typically are not.

So if I own a whole bunch of rental properties and within the course of that year I use profits from those properties to improve my existing properties causing an increase in their value, only the revenue would be counted as income, not the increase in the value of my property.

Typically income is talking about wages. Although some wages, like those of doctors, allow people to become part of the upper class, typically the most powerful people, both politically and financially speaking are those who have no "income." In particular the people who account for the greatest concentration of wealth of people who are not earning a wage of any sort.

Class is a belief system. If the people that play a role in your game of life believe you're working class, you are working class. Simple as that. Factors that influence what people believe include accent, education, wealth, income, family etc etc, with different people being more strongly influenced by different factors.

Ultimately it doesn't matter one iota.

People are very, very good at arguing that the things that they've benefited from are actually irrelevant, if only people had a different attitude.

Mendax raises a good point. Being working class I have benefited hugely from being given thousands of pounds in the form of government grants and hardship bursaries to help pay for university, and having a lower standard to meet in order to get in. I have also benefitted from going to a real school with a well rounded education instead of those hideous single sex boarding schools that have lessons on Saturday that the poor posh sods get sent to.

Well come the revolution brothers........................................ and sisters......................