 |
The two pieces don't go into any intelligent detail and mainly miss the mark, in my opinion. Both pieces fail to address the truth which lies beneath the surface of most class-based mythology. I still want to know why money-power has such an impact on personality... I've watched many people come into money through no effort of their own and then proclaim they're a modern day Horatio Alger story. I've also seen the "comfortable" often moan and whine about "poor people" being "cheats" and then describe their horrible suffering... over how much to pay a nanny so she won't steal from them. *gasp* Most proletarian folks I know couldn't imagine a nanny (even if they wanted one) let alone comprehend the concept of presuming all "hired help" steals from their employers. I don't get it. Neither will anyone else by reading the scant, squeamish stories in the two bulwarks of conservo-news.
Congratulations, Ladd and Yeskel, on a VERY FINE ARTICLE!!! Richard O'Donnell
I think that the issue is very important and needs to be raised. The difficulties that develop need to be examined in an objective way with conscience as the basis for all efforts toward a more equitable and just society. More discussion is needed and these articles are a beginning.
I just hired a high school junior that arrived from Mexico 7 years ago. Her Mom cleans hospital rooms and her Dad works on machinery in manufacturing. Her brother was just awarded a full scholarship in civil engineering to University. She wants to major in accounting and I pay her $9 an hour to help me in my bookkeeping business. She and her brother have an excellent chance to move from low income to middle income. They work hard their educational opportunities. That is the key for them to succeed, and they know it.
I'm a teacher on the Tennessee/Georgia border. I have not read every article on class which has been featured in the NYTimes. However, after studying the dynamics associated with cultural factors, in turn, associated with class, things appear technically, to never change. When one considers the chances of one moving from one class to another, the fact remains, it is unlikely. There may be some "drifting," but each of us is likely to remain in the same class as our parents. There are exceptions, but it is just that, the exception rather than the rule. Also, as our society matures and becomes socially progressive, one's class is less likely to be as prominent. Good people, the wealthy top 1% to 5% must use their assets to lift others up.
I think it is significant that these ruling class organs have decided to take an interest in class. This doesn't mean that they will agree with progressives, except peripherally. It does mean, however, that these more prudent heads among the élites are wise enough to foresee trouble unless issues of class get addressed. During the depression, when issues of class, from the ruling class standpoint, got out of hand, the same kind of people tacitly accepted the New Deal, as part of a collaboration with working class organizations. They accepted unionization, or as the Communist Party used to call it: "organization of the trustified industries." There has been a fair amount of complaint on lefty websites about how the TIMES articles present an inadequate analysis. This is silly, and beside the point. Of course, their analysis is not going to get to what we consider most important. What is significant is that they are doing it at all. These articles represent ruling class disunity, and dissent from the Bush line of absolute faith in the market. Also, it means that ruling class dissent, which used to just embrace cultural issues like gender and sexual preference, is not taking a more economic form.
I read the recent NYTimes article on class. One line depressed the heck out of me. A woman from a "lower class" was saying that she had the Right Bag and the Right Shirt so that people wouldn't know she was lower class. But she also has $100,000 in education debts! I just think about how sad it is that she didn't spend all that money she puts into "the right" clothes into paying off her debt. This is the kind of reason many "upper class" people use to justify not giving money towards scholarships, etc. They say that the money will just end up going to pay for expensive running shoes or purses, instead of paying for education. And, my sincere condolences to that woman, but the rich can easily sense who is "lower class" even with an expensive pair of sunglasses, so why bother? The whole consumer-focus of our society just makes it harder for lower class people to break out of their circumstances. The richest people I know -- $1 million net worth and above -- wear cheap clothes. Yes, it's a luxury to not have to spend money on what they wear; they are confident enough about their class to not Have to be conspicuous about their wealth. And that, in turn, just gives them more disposable money to spend on education, investments and buying a home which actually allows them to boost their net worth. Let's rebel against this consumer-based classism! None of us needs more expensive STUFF. It doesn't help us rise out of our poverty. And it doesn't help break down classism; it just reinforces it, from the bottom up.
Read earlier survey responses:
May 2005: The good, the bad, and the ugly of cross-class relating
|
|
