Are your close friends and/or aquaitances from a variety of different economic status' or are your friends and acquaintances close to the same income bracket as you? Any thoughts on the subject?
Economic status and friends and acquaintances
- Thread starter #@&5&49
- Start date
I'm probably what's called upper middle class, and my friends/aquaintances are a mix of all the classes, except middle-class and lower-middle class. (Ie. Some upper class investors, barristers; mostly upper-middle, and some friends that live in real poverty).
I think it is a matter of focus that influences commonality. People in the middle and lower middle are focused on paying off loans/mortgages and often times are dealing with issues of job security, childcare, bills, and aspirational tokens of social/financial advancement.
Secure, and destitute lifestyles seem more conducive to looking at the philosophy of life, and finding meaning in one's existence.
Transitional economic classes are more likely to be focused on acquiring/securing/displaying.
Perhaps, I have an affinity for people who are not actively personally engaged in the rat-race.
I think it is a matter of focus that influences commonality. People in the middle and lower middle are focused on paying off loans/mortgages and often times are dealing with issues of job security, childcare, bills, and aspirational tokens of social/financial advancement.
Secure, and destitute lifestyles seem more conducive to looking at the philosophy of life, and finding meaning in one's existence.
Transitional economic classes are more likely to be focused on acquiring/securing/displaying.
Perhaps, I have an affinity for people who are not actively personally engaged in the rat-race.
Last edited:
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,255
- 246,822
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
I am super elite, my poor friends are... poor.
Your twenties are hard because the people who were your friends in school start to divide more evidently into various classes and sometimes these things don't jive with whatever your personal agenda is as it comes to fruition or stagnates. Life is hard. Classism is stupid. A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet, and so forth.
Your twenties are hard because the people who were your friends in school start to divide more evidently into various classes and sometimes these things don't jive with whatever your personal agenda is as it comes to fruition or stagnates. Life is hard. Classism is stupid. A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet, and so forth.
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,404
- 88,885
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
Most of my close friends are artists and musicians, or grew up in a music subculture, so we have roots that don't have anything to do with economic status. We're not divided by money, class or politics.
When I was in my 20's I knew all kinds of interesting people from all walks of life. The advice I would give to any 20-something in that position is to nurture those friendships and keep your circle as diverse as possible. Even if you feel like introverting, make time for people.
When I was in my 20's I knew all kinds of interesting people from all walks of life. The advice I would give to any 20-something in that position is to nurture those friendships and keep your circle as diverse as possible. Even if you feel like introverting, make time for people.
The bigger the wage gap, the greater your personality would need to be. Otherwise they'll eventually use you for the asset of greater value.
[MENTION=12050]Scientia[/MENTION] I'm genuinely curious as to why that got a thumbs down. Too offensive in some way? I'm baffled really.
Most are pretty close to the same. Most of my friends are people I went to college with who married other college graduates. Either that or high school friends almost all of which went to college and also married other college graduates.
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
Quite a diverse group. I've got a few upper middle class friend, living in well to do areas who own property. And I've got friends who are on the poverty line. I haven't really found any problem in that. Mainly because I don't choose my friends lightly. None of them look down on the those poorer than them or blame their financial situation on others. None of them are users or assholes who have little empathy for others.
I don't think I physically spend time with anyone that makes less than 50k a year. However, gross income means nothing if your net income after all expenses, debt etc is next to nothing. I don't think much about what other people make in my social circle. I don't think their income makes them more or less compatible as a friend unless the only things you want to do in your spare time cost a lot of money.
How do you guys determine economic status? What do your labels mean?
I describe myself as working class because I need to work for a living and I don't own any other means of generating income besides selling my labour at its market value. Middle class used to mean owming other means of generating income, but the meaning of that distinction seems to have vanished - which is not a bad thing, although the symbolism has been appropriated by people who choose to make distinctions between themselves and other working class people who happen to earn less. A slightly more meaningful distinction is to do with professional work, which is now seen to be as work that is based on engagement with a body of scholarly literature, but that's changing too, as people recognise the expertise of skilled work that is not related to the validation of academic institutions. Upper class used to simply be people who didn't work, who probably seemed to be "better" than others because their hereditary wealth gave them access to better education, but that's all changing now too. I think it's all fairly interesting to think about in many ways, but at the same time I don't spend much time at all thinking about it, because I think it's all basically a load of dirty laundry.
I typically classify a person as middle class if they own a business with at least a store front, and upper if their money works for them. everyone else is a varying degree of lower.
I don't think that distinction is false exactly, I just think it shows how silly and outdated this particular distinction process is. A person may own a storefront as property but be so dependent on their work in it that they can't afford to hire anyone to work in it for them and too afraid to leave the counter, have to urinate in a bottle under the counter. While by contrast a person may work in white collar organisation on a sort of pay arrangement that amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and this person maybe has multiple teritiary qualifications, takes regular overseas holidays for leisure purposes, owns luxury cars. And yet the ranking heirarchy, "lower, middle, upper", which sort of implies that there is something superior about being higher on that classification, places the person who is living in conditions that are practically desperation conditions, at a higher place than the person who owns no business or means of production.