View Full Version : Class in the US
Destiny
05-20-2005, 09:26 AM
maybe we should pitch a new TV political discussion show to MSNBC or something ... somehow I suspect that a modern day variant of 'Crossfire' with exotic dancers instead would do well during sweeps week LOL ! However, I suspect that potential guests like Barbara Boxer and Ariana Huffington would turn down invitations (Ann Coulter might give it a shot though, as an opportunity for revenge over her Newsweek cover shot) ! OOOOO...excellent idea Melonie!!! Our target audience would be the millions of guys that buy Playboy to read the articles. ::)
Deogol
05-20-2005, 09:53 AM
I'm sorry you and your friend got degrees in Liberal Arts. If its any comfort, my dad spent more than that for me to get my degree and I dont' use mine either.
An excellent example of this type of "conservative" thinking.
Just make some shit up and throw out an insult. That is what talk radio does, so it must be correct.
I happen to have a mathematics degree. The last I heard that was in the Natural Sciences. That is about as far from liberal arts as you can get.
What it does do for you is teach critical thinking, something sorely missing in many parts of the nation.
Destiny
05-20-2005, 11:11 AM
An excellent example of this type of "conservative" thinking. I didn't mean to offend you. That was merely a lighthearted way to point out that simply getting an expensive degree is no guarantee of success these day. Sheesh, chill out a little.
Just make some shit up and throw out an insult. That is what talk radio does, so it must be correct. What did I make up?
Deogol
05-20-2005, 11:35 AM
I didn't mean to offend you. That was merely a lighthearted way to point out that simply getting an expensive degree is no guarantee of success these day. Sheesh, chill out a little.
What did I make up?
You need to use a smiley face for sarcasm or lightheartedness.;)
You made up that I and my friend had a liberal arts degree. This is false.
Destiny
05-21-2005, 09:23 AM
So back to the application of a "living wage" as it applies to Destiny's Delightful Thongs (we never abbreviate it).
Destiny's Delightful Thongs factory is located in the small rural town of Podunk, Miss. The community of Podunk (or "Podunkians" as they are called) has decided that a "living wage" for the area is $8/hour, which I gladly pay. Business is good, profits are rolling in, Destiny's Delightful Thongs becomes a model corporate citizen, buying raw materials that are produced using sustainable methods, making sure pollution from the thong plant is non-existent, all that good stuff. I've managed to capture a large percentage of the thong market in the southeastern U.S., mainly due to my superior intelligence and marketing skills. ::)
So I decide to expand my market. I do some research and decide to start selling thongs in San Francisco, Calif. Doing some market research, I'm surprised to find that almost as many men in SF buy thongs as women, but figure that just makes the market that much bigger! ;D The main thong maker in SF is Fruitie-Tootie Thongs. Due to the cost of living in SF, the community there has established a, "living wage" of $14/hour, which Fruitie-Tootie Thongs gladly pays to their thong sewers. This means that a basic fruitie-tootie thong in SF costs you $8. (They also sell a line of edible thongs, but I decide not to go after that market). Since my "living wage" is so much lower than theirs, I sell my thongs in the southeast for $5. I figure that I can ship my thongs to SF and sell them for $6 and make a nice profit. So I start selling my thongs in SF for $6. Business is great! Before too long, I've taken a large share of the market away from Fuitie-Tootie. After all, my thongs are 25% cheaper than theirs. Fruitie-Tootie Thongs complains to the local board that calculates the living wage. "You've got to lower the living wage we pay our workers, Destiny is killing us, she's selling her thongs for less than it cost us to make ours. if you don't lower the living wage, we will be out of business and the thong sewers will be out of jobs!"
What should be done?
Melonie
05-22-2005, 08:44 AM
What should be done?
Erect trade barriers and tariffs at the state line, of course !
Send union organizers to Podunk who will demand that wages be increased to well above $8 per hour ?
Better yet, pass a federal law that requires that Podunk employees and San Francisco employees salaries both be taxed at a higher rate, but leave tax exemptions in place for expensive San Francisco property so the Fruitie-Tootie employees don't actually have to pay much extra tax. Then extract 50% of the tax money collected in Podunk (they don't need it since business is good in Podunk) and spend it on gov't contracts buying camouflage thongs for military use from San Francisco's Fruitie-Tootie company at $25 each (because for some reason business isn't so good at Fruitie-Tootie right now). With the extra taxes now in place, Podunk employees petition that their 'living wage' now needs to be increased to $10 an hour. That should equalize things a bit.
I've got it ! Send environmental scientists from the San Francisco Research Institute (funded by a federal grant of course) to Podunk, to search for a heretofore undiscovered endangered species of Sucker fish residing in the Podunk river, which are theoretically being harmed by the one degree increase in temperature of the Podunk plant's crystal clear cooling water. Cite the Podunk plant about $1 million in environmental fines, sue the Podunk plant for unspecified damages, and pass a new law requiring the Podunk plant to install refrigeration which will lower the crystal clear cooling water's temperature by one degree. That should add about $500,000 per year in extra energy costs to the Podunk plant's cost of operations on top of the fines and court awards, forcing Destiny to significantly increase the sale price of those Podunk thongs to avoid bankruptcy. Gotta protect those Podunk Suckers at all costs !
PS Senator Machiavelli from San Francisco is re-elected in a landslide !
~
discretedancer
05-22-2005, 09:46 AM
THIS IS ABSURD...EVEN BEFORE MELONIE OPENED HER BROWSER,
Simple fact, as I've repeated so many times you should have it memorized, is that if BOTH facilities are being environmentally and socially susainable, running safe factories, etc...and the ONLY difference is that it costs less to live in one place than the other..then that's pure capitalism and needs no action. As I've said so many times, that will probably be the advantage other countries have on the US - lower costs of living - just as where my company is based we have lower costs of living because it's cheaper to live...my NYC clients love me for that, as I'm always cheaper and therefore get more work from them.
Destiny
05-22-2005, 12:40 PM
What's absurd about asking how your ideas would work in the real world? You always claim how the "living wage" makes great economic sense, I would think you would welcome the opportunity to show us how adopting it would lead us to the economic promised land.
The fact is, my little example shows that a high minimum (living) wage would lead to higher unemployment among unskilled workers in San Francisco. It would also lead to "outsourcing" those jobs to Miss.
discretedancer
05-22-2005, 02:53 PM
Wha'ts absurd is we've had this same conversation before, and my answers don't change.
According to your outsourcing theory (not the only option, but...) it would result in more people in Miss. working....and would (using common outsourcing logic of GW's closest allies) result in SanFran workers "evolving" new industries, being retrained, or finding a way to be more competitive.
alternately, one location or the other (or a 3rd in a newly developed nation) would oppress its workers, provide unsafe conditions, poison the community and produce cheaper products...screwing BOTH American communities, abusing unskilled and unrepresented workers, poisoning communties and affecting global pollution patterns while jobs still get outsourced. That's better how?
Destiny
05-22-2005, 07:25 PM
So you concede that adopting a "living wage" results in unemployment and a net wage of zero for the unskilled? That's better how?
discretedancer
05-23-2005, 05:03 AM
No, I don't accept your statement...as I mentioned in the parenthetical.
1. the situation you describe is basically an improved current status quo...companies nationwide basically have the same environmental and safety standards but the only difference is the cost of living...the only difference is the companies in your theory don't rely (aren't allowed to?) on government or opression of workers.
Now , please answer the question I posed...
Melonie
05-23-2005, 09:33 AM
companies nationwide basically have the same environmental and safety standards but the only difference is the cost of living..
ummm, forgive me for saying so, but ...
There are DRASTIC differences in environmental and labor/ safety standards from one state to another, just as there are drastic differences in state income/corporate tax rates.
discretedancer
05-23-2005, 09:36 AM
which would stay constant between status quo and Destiny';s example, proving my point
Destiny
05-23-2005, 11:17 AM
No, I don't accept your statement...as I mentioned in the parenthetical.
1. the situation you describe is basically an improved current status quo...companies nationwide basically have the same environmental and safety standards but the only difference is the cost of living...the only difference is the companies in your theory don't rely (aren't allowed to?) on government or opression of workers.
Now , please answer the question I posed...I specifically kept my scenario in the U.S. for two reasons: 1) The title of the thread is "Class in the US". 2) So as not to muddy the debate with your plans for Ecological Imperialism. If you want to talk about international trade, I'd be happy to. Start a new thread.
However, I don't see how you can deny that in my example, San Francisco's adopting of a "living wage" leads to unemployment among the unskilled.
Jay Zeno
05-23-2005, 11:47 AM
Of course, cities and states cannot impose tariffs on goods from another state:
U.S. Constitution
"Section 9:
"Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
"Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
Destiny, in your hypothetical, unskilled laborers will lose employment. Unskilled laborers in Podunk will have greater opportunities for employment. Taken in the micro sense of thong manufacturing, this is not good. Taken in the macro sense of production, the labor pool will flow to jobs. Perhaps thong manufacturing will start up in Barstow. They have higher labor costs, but they have lower transportation costs. They are able to give you a run for your money. A section of the unskilled labor market finds a new home in Barstow.
But let's take it to your solution, which is to eliminate the definition and imposition of a living wage. The Economics Council of San Francisco sees the Destiny Treatise on Economics and says, "Wait a minute, we're losing jobs. The obvious solution is to eliminate the living wage and let an unregulated market determine it." They convince the City Council to do so. (Yeah, I know, San Francisco. It's a hypothetical, OK?) No more minimum wage. The thong factories reopen in San Francisco. Foreclosures, evicitions, and entries at homeless shelters are at an all-time high, because people simply cannot pay rent and buy groceries in San Francisco for 8, or 4, or $2 an hour, but because it's unskilled labor, the company is able to cycle desperate people through their labor pool before those people get tossed out of their homes or not buy necessities in order to keep a roof over their heads. The condition of the company is good, although the unskilled labor is starving.
This is a better scenario? Depends on which side you're trying to screw over, I guess.
doc-catfish
05-23-2005, 07:05 PM
Just getting back to the green beans example:
If you raise the price of green beans, people will buy fewer green beans. That is basic economics.
FIRST...you completely avoid the point that as prices have gone up on these items, consumption hasn't gone down
I don't think that its a matter of people buying less of a product because it costs more that is the issue here, particularly in regards to a neccesity like food, but something to consider, which proponents of "living wages" and raising the minimum wage can't seem to figure out.
If a business has to raise the price of a good in order to help pay for added labor costs because the government says those laborers involved in the production, distribution, and retail sale of that good have to be paid $x/hour in order to have a "living wage", then the government really hasn't given those people anything, because now those increased wages have to be used to pay more for green beans! and peas! and carrots! Essentially you're right back to square one.
The only other option, as opposed to raising prices to cover labor costs is for the business to accept a smaller profit margin on those items. If a business owner can't make a profit margin that is desireable, then what incentive does he have to keep on running his business?
Destiny
05-23-2005, 08:25 PM
Of course, cities and states cannot impose tariffs on goods from another state:... But let's take it to your solution, which is to eliminate the definition and imposition of a living wage. The Economics Council of San Francisco sees the Destiny Treatise on Economics and says, "Wait a minute, we're losing jobs. The obvious solution is to eliminate the living wage and let an unregulated market determine it." They convince the City Council to do so. (Yeah, I know, San Francisco. It's a hypothetical, OK?) No more minimum wage. The thong factories reopen in San Francisco. Foreclosures, evicitions, and entries at homeless shelters are at an all-time high, because people simply cannot pay rent and buy groceries in San Francisco for 8, or 4, or $2 an hour, but because it's unskilled labor, the company is able to cycle desperate people through their labor pool before those people get tossed out of their homes or not buy necessities in order to keep a roof over their heads. The condition of the company is good, although the unskilled labor is starving.
This is a better scenario? Depends on which side you're trying to screw over, I guess. The point of the scenario is to show that no matter how well-intentioned, government cannot regulate a community to prosperity. It is not, "my solution" to eliminate the "living wage". The market decides what an hour of a person's labor is worth. While minimum/living wage laws distort the market to certain extent. They are not a formula for long-term success. The government of San Francisco declaring a "living wage" of $12/hour cannot magically make unskilled labor more valuable than it truly is. One obvious answer is as you mentioned, outsource the thong sewing jobs to where the combination of labor and transportation makes the product more competitive. However, companies that do that are routinely blasted on this board.
The best scenario is for San Francisco to have the most educated, highly motivated, extremely talented workforce around. Combine that with low taxation and minimal government interference and you will have a community where few people are willing to work for $8, or even $12 an hour sewing thongs. Of course, that takes more time and effort than simply passing a law guaranteeing everyone a "living wage".
"Living Wage" laws are meaningless quick fixes. They make politicians and other do-gooders feel good about themselves for having, "done something" for the little guy. However, they mask deeper problems. If a society has such a large pool of low-skilled workers that the leaders feel a need to pass a "living wage" law, the leaders have failed. As I've said before, highly skilled workers will not work in sweatshops. To borrow one of dd's favorite words, the SUSTAINABLE approach is not a higher minimum wage or higher tariffs. Its a higher skilled workforce.
Jay Zeno
05-23-2005, 09:23 PM
The point of the scenario is to show that no matter how well-intentioned, government cannot regulate a community to prosperity. And I don't think it should. However, I do think that a low-limit border is a good thing to keep people from starving for the sake of higher profits.
The best scenario is for San Francisco to have the most educated, highly motivated, extremely talented workforce around. For which an unskilled labor force is needed to provide commodities and services.
As I've said before, highly skilled workers will not work in sweatshops. I don't believe that history, particularly looking at the Great Depression, bears that out. Acquisition of a high skill does not guarantee work, nor should it, as I'm not much of a believer in a "right to work" principle, either.
I'm not advocating a "living wage" as enforced prosperity. I'm advocating a "minimum wage" as one enforcement against abuse by employers that has happened, and will happen, in the absence of a reasonable level of oversight.
Melonie
05-24-2005, 04:12 AM
If a business has to raise the price of a good in order to help pay for added labor costs because the government says those laborers involved in the production, distribution, and retail sale of that good have to be paid $x/hour in order to have a "living wage", then the government really hasn't given those people anything, because now those increased wages have to be used to pay more for green beans! and peas! and carrots! Essentially you're right back to square one.
To be a bit more accurate, where the 'living wage' scenario increases the price of green beans for both unskilled low wage workers and very skilled high wage workers, it only increases the pay rate for low wage workers. Thus when you come right down to it, 'living wage' laws are little more than a stealth method of extracting more money from the middle class and transferring it to the 'working poor' i.e. another socially engineered gov't benefit program. The only difference is that the politicians behind 'living wage' laws are legislating higher prices rather than higher taxes (which, they are hoping, voters won't notice and connect), and that the 'benefit' money is paid via an employer's payroll system rather than via a gov't check (which is also much less likely to be accounted for or draw negative election year attention).
Destiny
05-24-2005, 11:15 AM
...For which an unskilled labor force is needed to provide commodities and services. Yes, even the most technologically advanced, prosperous society still needs some unskilled labor to provide some services. But I go back to the laws of supply and demand. The smaller the supply of unskilled workers we have, the more demand there will be for their sevices and the price at which they can sell their services will increase.
I don't believe that history, particularly looking at the Great Depression, bears that out. Acquisition of a high skill does not guarantee work, nor should it, as I'm not much of a believer in a "right to work" principle, either. I probably use the term, "high skill" difffently than most people. Let me more specific. To me, being highly skilled is not necessarily about a specific job, it's having a good basic education along with the intelligence and adaptablility to be trainable and re-trainable in a variety of different areas. The highest skills a person can have are to be teachable and motivated. That will effectively guarantee that person a job. Not by any legal definition, simply by the fact that such people will always be in demand.
I'm not advocating a "living wage" as enforced prosperity. I'm advocating a "minimum wage" as one enforcement against abuse by employers that has happened, and will happen, in the absence of a reasonable level of oversight.When I got out of college, I got a job working for the government, and set about to save the world. One of the most frustrating things was the pay. My pay was set each year by a bunch of politicians I had never met. I made the exact same as everyone else doing my job with my experience. When raises were given, it didn't matter if I was the best employee or the worst, the raise was the same. To me, that's just like the minimum wage. You can sit on your butt and wait for the government to decide to raise your pay. Or you can get off your butt, get busy and improve yourself. Like I've said, I have no problem with people that support a minimum wage on humanitarian or moral grounds. I just happen to think a better lesson for people would be to teach them that the best way to insure they make a reasonable income is to make they have marketable skills and work habits.
Jay Zeno
05-24-2005, 04:58 PM
We've probably run this one into the ground, Destiny. I agree that money to train and educate is better than money to simply subsist, and I would support efforts toward that end, while also supporting reasonable and minimal wage levels that help to counter predatory employers and keep employees from starving. Wherever we disagree within that range, I'm sure we do so with respect. :)
Melonie
05-29-2005, 07:15 AM
it appears that political battle lines are starting to be drawn on the issue of 'Class Warfare'
(snip)"On Friday, May 13, the Wall Street Journal began the first of a series on challenges to the American dream with a page-one piece entitled, “As Rich-Poor Gap Widens in the U.S., Class Mobility Stalls.” The essence of this article is that few people rise above the economic class to which they were born. And compared to the socialist nations of Europe, class mobility is no greater here than there.
On Sunday, May 15, the New York Times began a series saying exactly the same thing, often quoting the same sources and citing the same data. What do you think the odds are that this one-two coverage happened by coincidence? Zero, I think.
Here is what I believe is going on. Class warfare has been the main staple of leftist ideology for hundreds of years. Especially in the 1980s, we heard over and over again in the media about how the top fifth of households was increasing its share of aggregate income. The implication was that the pie was fixed, so that the gains of one group came at the expense of the rest. But conservatives effectively demolished this argument by showing that the pie was getting larger. The real income of all groups was increasing and everyone was better off, even if some were better off than others.
The Left then shifted its argument to imply that those in each income class were essentially the same people year after year. This justified a redistributionist tax policy even if the well being of every income class was rising. It didn’t matter that the data used to justify this policy were before-tax incomes, meaning that even confiscatory tax rates would have no effect on the outcome, or that the data also omitted most welfare benefits, meaning that practically everything the government had done to equalize incomes was completely ignored."(snip)
discretedancer
05-30-2005, 06:24 AM
Arguably, it has been democratic taxation, spending, and social welfare policies which have accomplished the following ...arguably....as long as you don't provide evidence or facts to back up generalist statements.
The 'earned incomes' of middle class workers are taxed at progressively higher and higher rates, creating a 'half a step to the door' scenario in regard to ever being able to improve their position in life. Meanwhile, the tax loopholes, tax exempt and tax favored high ticket offerings allow the rich to avoid taxes altogether, and low cap gains tax rates allow the 'unearned incomes' of the rich to pay taxes at much lower levels than on earned income, thus insuring that the rich can stay rich.and this policy is so abhorrent to the GW "ultra-con" republicans (no they don't deserve the name of a formerly respectable party) that it's this administration pushing the tax structure, loopholes and other policies to protect GW's "base of thesuper elite" (his term, not mine). Yeah...wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
The aggregate cash value/standard of living stemming from social benefits received by a typical unskilled 'poor' person exceeds the amount of cash they could earn and the standard of living they could achieve if they were to start work at a menial job and lose eligibility for those social benefits, thus assuring that the 'poor' person will remain poor as well as dependent on government."but the job doesn't add enough value to pay people what it costs to live...what is the poor company (with 9BB in annual profits and a 59BB market capitalization) to do?"
these companies ASK for government assistance for them and expect it for their employees (a friend was given info on applying for SSI when she got her WalMart job)...and the elite in Section 1 get richer by it, and therefore arehappy - forcing expenses that should be their responsibility on me the taxpayer
Clearly you'd rather the unskilled worker be paid crap, have no social or health benefits, and live in slums where crime is the best way to a better life...but that's not my America.
The American public education system, will learn at a rate defined by the lowest common denominator present in the class. Those who can afford private schools make the connections necessary and learn the skills necessary to join the future 'rich/elite'. Those who cannot afford private schools are doomed to a second class education and second class post graduation opportunities. well I won't argue our schools suck...and need REFORM. But as a product of both public and private...I will say that it's not as black and white as you suggest. Also, it's usually the parents whining when their kids aren't happy enough/babysat properly by the school (parents on both whining sides ofthe aisle) tat make it hard for the schools
The wild card of course is the occasional person like David Packard of Steve Jobs or say Barack Obama or even Vin Diesel, who find themselves in the right place at the right time with the right tools to make the 'leap'. However, this is more a matter of fortunate coincidence than anything else.Of course, it's also known as the American Dream and American Opportunity...but let's not confuse the point.
Melonie
05-31-2005, 08:47 AM
arguably....as long as you don't provide evidence or facts to back up generalist statements.
This constant calling for hard evidence details in regard to well known matters of history is growing tiresome. How much evidence is needed to substantiate that LBJ instituted 'great society' social welfare programs which have been continued and amplified by Democratic state govt's in NY and CA and IL - that some 6 TRILLION dollars has been spent on such programs - that income taxes have been increased significantly to fund such programs - and the end result of these programs has effectively created a 'non-working living wage' which serves as a disincentive to unskilled recipients of benefits to abandon their eligibility by accepting a job paying anywhere near minimum wage (or to be more accurate, in NY the cash value of benefit eligibility breaks even somewhere above $9 per hour!).
Clearly you'd rather the unskilled worker be paid crap, have no social or health benefits, and live in slums where crime is the best way to a better life...but that's not my America.
Compared to your European Unionesque approach, yes this is preferable in the sense of the lesser of two evils.
NinaDaisy
06-07-2005, 06:31 AM
Hmmm, I've been following this series pretty keenly, especially since I've gotten to see quite a few of those dynamics close up since moving to New York. Everyone here is talking about living wages and economics, but there is more to class than money. Middle-class people think it's about how much money you have, neauveau riche think it's about how much you show.
A good friend of mine that moved to NYC around when I did is roommates with a hedge fund manager (why he has roomates, I don't know, guess he just likes having people around) who is from a wealthy Manhattan Upper East Side family, went to top prep schools and by hanging out with him I've met a few of his friends. My friend's roommate has the pedigree, the education, and the job.
Now...a guy that he grew up with (and went to prep school with) is currently not working and hasn't been for 2+ years (ostensibly to write a novel, as he's the son of a VERY well-known writer), has blown his modest trust fund (little net worth and practically zero income) and recently moved back in with his mother on Long Island at the age of 28 rather than get a job to keep from losing his Manhattan apartment! However, since his forebearers hitched a ride on the Mayflower and he descends from a venerable New England WASP family, he's still considered upper-class primarily because of his name and to a slightly lesser degree his eduaction, even though he has no money and spends a lot of time going on four-day benders, er, I mean "writing", leaching off his friends that actually DO have money.
My friend is a stripper, was born in a trailer park but has busted her ass for the last TEN years to put herself through business school AND support her family and between work and school likely puts in about 60 hours a week. She works harder than almost anyone I know.
Guess what? Mr. broke-ass "writer" is thought of more highly than a woman who takes her clothes off for a living because of her job and because she has no pedigree. Like people are goddamn poodles or something.
Me? I went to a better college than my friend's roommate and his friends, but went to a public (though quite good) suburban high school. I am generally considered articulate and intelligent, and my net worth is higher than the unemployed writer. Yet, as a stripper (even being semi-retired) I am "lower" than they are. Even if I quit stripping today, I would still be branded the "ex-stripper". Not to mention that I am Latina, which no one talks about, but, let's face it, when's the last time any of us heard about any one of those old-money families marrying anyone remotely ethnic? It happens, but it's EXTREMELY rare, and usually only if the old-money partner is broke and the ethnic spouse-to-be has a fortune. It's sad that people in that world rarely marry for love. It's like some backwards feudal arrangement. Plus, the pool of prospective spouses is much smaller than jus going out into the world and trying to find a mate. Many marriages among the upper-classes and about as arranged as can be without being in a third-world country. See the last installment of the "Class" series for more about this.
There are many more factors to "class" than just how much money you make, as this personal example shows. I know there are a lot of problems with the "system" but corporate America, it's evils, and our flawed taxation system aren't the sole determinants of class. Sadly, even though we THINK we live in a meritocracy, a lot of it has to do with whose womb you came out of. Oops, I think I just went from upper-middle class to lower class with that last comment! Did I mention speech was a factor too?
If you want to pass for upper-class, say "sofa", not "couch"...
Deogol
06-07-2005, 10:51 AM
NinaDaisy,
All good points and a pleasure to read....
stant
06-08-2005, 10:54 AM
...It's sad that people in that world rarely marry for love. It's like some backwards feudal arrangement...
Great post. Sounds like the classic American story, "The Great Gatsby", or certain modern day equivalents, including the movie "Arthur". Quite true, and quite a sad commentary on our supposedly enlightened culture. The collegiate Greek system may be the most widespread model of this.
Los Angeles has far less tolerance for underacheiving blue blood offspring than its commodity owning east coast counterparts. Talent rules here. Coppola's daughter is no slouch, in fact her talent may surpass Dad's. The Wrigley, Getty, and Hughes offspring have mostly fled to more underacheiving uber-rich tolerant pastures. Class in this country is an open question. But noone is immune.
NinaDaisy
06-08-2005, 12:21 PM
Coppola's daughter is a bit different because even though her father was a super-successful director, he was just a regular fella before he found fame in showbiz. The erstwhile writer's famous writer father was as well-known for his blue-blood roots as he was for his writing. The problem is, as I mentioned, the son blew the trust and has no money, just the name basically. He'll likely try to marry some Spence-educated junior socialite who is set to inherit a fuckload of money from her parents to live in the style to which he's sort of become accustomed to but would likely not want to give up in any proximity.
I should shut up now, I don't want to give too much away...This is turning into a bit of a Social Register "blind item"!
stant
06-08-2005, 12:29 PM
he was just a regular fella before he found fame in showbiz...
Sure. I was just shooting off, but you get the idea. Notice even in NYC the Upper West side is judged more on talent, and Upper East side by the old school: inbreeding.
Sick fucks, get out while you can!
NinaDaisy
06-08-2005, 12:34 PM
There's plenty of old money on the Upper West Side too, trust me. But the inbreeding comment is funny as hell; just wish I could tell you why!
MsTopaz
06-08-2005, 04:58 PM
i really hope we're not leaning towards classISM here....many people have gone from dirt poor to the 'elite rich'...and a lot of them didn't get any 'lucky' breaks...
i was born working class poor...was the first in my family to go to college...got a comp. sci. degree...and it took me SEVEN YEARS to find a job in my field...worked minimum wage up until that time...collected unemployment twice...sister was on welfare...with a kid...now has a master's degree in clinical phsyc (sp)...and worked as a counselor...
i would be classifyed as 'middle class'...which means just enough to pay bills to me...don't plan on staying here too long either...it's all a matter of goals asperations (sp) and dreams...not current economic status....
threlayer
06-09-2005, 08:29 PM
Lawyer professions are ranked at #2? That ranking must have been done by other lawyers.
Physicians, surgeons are #1
Lawyers #2
Database Administrators #3
Network System Administrators #4
What a system !!
discretedancer
06-10-2005, 04:38 AM
How many of the "class" folks here...and those that don't want public schools or any schools for parents that couldn't afford it completely....have made that class transition?
Did the girls advocating no schools for those that can't afford it not go to public school? Or is it OK the system helped you get somewhere...but now we gotta "fix it" so "they" don't take advantage?
Deogol
06-10-2005, 06:04 AM
Lawyer professions are ranked at #2? That ranking must have been done by other lawyers.
Physicians, surgeons are #1
Lawyers #2
Database Administrators #3
Network System Administrators #4
What a system !!
Don't you mean:
Sports Star #1
Rock Star #2
Movie Start #3
...
I mean, we may say the original list - but given the money and attention spent on certain groups of people...
stant
06-10-2005, 08:21 AM
Don't you mean:
Sports Star #1
Rock Star #2
Movie Start #3
...
I mean, we may say the original list - but given the money and attention spent on certain groups of people...
I totally agree. Database administrator? Puhleeze. Your list is a bit sexist, however. Here's an alternate list for women:
#1 SI Swimsuit/Victoria's Secret model
#2 Playmate
#3 That blonde chick I saw in the Mercedes on Wilshire yesterday.
#4+ all others
We're a shallow bunch at heart. It's why LA exists. Class? Who cares.
....try to marry some Spence-educated junior socialite who is set to inherit a fuckload of money...
OK. Seriously, however, Spence girls make me puke. I'm shocked ND can stand their company for more than 5 minutes. Any guy that wants one deserves her. You don't know the meaning of the phrase "stuck up bitch" 'till you've met a Spence girl. I think Mr_Punk's ex-wife was a Spence girl. It would explain a lot.
Edit: Gee, maybe I should have read the whole NYTimes article. In my defense, it's a pretty long series and they don't have many pictures... The author suggests that if Gatsby (the classic fictional social climber) were alive today, he'd be Donald Trump and be dating Britney Spears. I suppose it's no secret we're a bunch of shallow freaks. Truth be told, Trump is dating some nameless supermodel. He's obviously down with the sickness already.
NinaDaisy
06-10-2005, 05:31 PM
I've met some nice Spence girls. Some...but this is more about the labels that are associated with the upper classes, such as Spence. It is a fine school, but it's a label. A place asscociated with "good breeding" and all that crap.
Mr. Punk was married? That poor woman's therapy bills must be astronomical!