BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Macbeth wrote:

Okay for the second time: things are measured differently and mean different things in different places. Americans have a pretty wide range of what the American middle class means and symbolizes. This isn't some U.K. is better than America thing. It just means our measurement, terms, and symbols are different.

no. even in america the working-class can be analysed through solid economic analysis and structural evaluation as accounting for 40% base of the population. in popular perception (or rather, misperception), almost everyone wants to term themselves middle-class. you have an aversion, or a self-loathing majority, who will not readily admit they are working-class. i just proposed that this is linked to the ideology of individualism and 'be all you can be' type american dreaming. perhaps that's piffle. perhaps i'm over-extending. i'm readily willing to admit that the link could be tenuous. however what is evident is that a large group of americans are probably self-deluding about their class and status. a few minor material trinkets/distractions and they think they're out of hoi polloi and into the comfy bourgeoisie. it's a class anxiety that pushes everyone towards this safe middle, even though it doesn't correspond to the obvious - and necessary - economic reality.

it's not about different definitions really, at all. the academics you linked to are neatly in line with classical definitions, in fact. it's the fact the terms have become misnomers in popular thought and public perception. again. please go to some revision because i am not passing you on this module.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Okay for the second time: things are measured differently and mean different things in different places. Americans have a pretty wide range of what the American middle class means and symbolizes. This isn't some U.K. is better than America thing. It just means our measurement, terms, and symbols are different.

no. even in america the working-class can be analysed through solid economic analysis and structural evaluation as accounting for 40% base of the population. in popular perception (or rather, misperception), almost everyone wants to term themselves middle-class. you have an aversion, or a self-loathing majority, who will not readily admit they are working-class. i just proposed that this is linked to the ideology of individualism and 'be all you can be' type american dreaming. perhaps that's piffle. perhaps i'm over-extending. i'm readily willing to admit that the link could be tenuous. however what is evident is that a large group of americans are probably self-deluding about their class and status. a few minor material trinkets/distractions and they think they're out of hoi polloi and into the comfy bourgeoisie. it's a class anxiety that pushes everyone towards this safe middle, even though it doesn't correspond to the obvious - and necessary - economic reality.

it's not about different definitions really, at all. the academics you linked to are neatly in line with classical definitions, in fact. it's the fact the terms have become misnomers in popular thought and public perception. again. please go to some revision because i am not passing you on this module.

You're only middle class if 1. you own your own house (no mortgage), 2. if you lose your job, you'd still have enough finances to cover for at least 2 years.

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

i never knew a degree in political science is considered a professional degree.

He wants to be a history teacher. He has to go to grad school and pass a license exam. It fits the definition of professional degree in American

If he hasn't gone to grad school, he's shit out of luck. Wouldn't the grad school part be considered the "professional degree?"

That's like saying pre-law is a professional degree when you plan to go get your JD.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

aren't you a political science major? do you understand a single thing about the structure or theory of the middle-class? yes? then you understand why incorporating 70% of your population into an amorphous 'middle class' is a frankly absurd pretension. it's just funny. it's one of the idiosyncrasies of america: at once both averse to 'traditional' class forms, and yet obsessed with status. again: if you understood a single thing about class structure, or even the origination and point of the term 'middle-class', you'd know that, by definition, 70% of your country cannot be it.

i don't think anyone really cares about the difference in definition between continents. except that, at least in most european countries, the term has some applicable meaning.

Okay if you want to bring academics into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_m … mic_models

So academically you are ignorant of how the U.S. is structured. Please continue bringing up British definitions and models and stuff. It is very relevant...

all of those academic models are in line with my thinking, deriving from marxist class-based analyses. all of those models state quite clearly that the working-class are the majority and base of society. what we are talking about here is how most americans who are patently working-class still consider themselves 'middle', perhaps because they have a degree, or drive a car with power-steering and electric windows. there is clearly a discrepancy between the actual class system, as structured by academics and political scientists, and the way that "class" manifests itself in popular opinion/everyday life, where everyone safely considers themselves 'middle'. this is EXACTLY what we are talking about.

you are a genius sometimes. please, take some more acid. are you going to graduate from your college with top honours? you're on a good track.

The American definitions for classes predate Marx you jackass. Life existed before Karl.

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Okay if you want to bring academics into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_m … mic_models

So academically you are ignorant of how the U.S. is structured. Please continue bringing up British definitions and models and stuff. It is very relevant...

all of those academic models are in line with my thinking, deriving from marxist class-based analyses. all of those models state quite clearly that the working-class are the majority and base of society. what we are talking about here is how most americans who are patently working-class still consider themselves 'middle', perhaps because they have a degree, or drive a car with power-steering and electric windows. there is clearly a discrepancy between the actual class system, as structured by academics and political scientists, and the way that "class" manifests itself in popular opinion/everyday life, where everyone safely considers themselves 'middle'. this is EXACTLY what we are talking about.

you are a genius sometimes. please, take some more acid. are you going to graduate from your college with top honours? you're on a good track.

The American definitions for classes predate Marx you jackass. Life existed before Karl.

lol. yes, definitions of class existed in europe before marx as well. surprising, that. but it's still the same way that tiers are broken up. you do realize the background of marx's class analysis was based on the history of the mercantile system in pre-industrial europe? another d&st poster who has clearly done the reading... you and dilbert should start a reading group.

and besides, 'middle class', in its modern definition and image is something that has only really arisen out of the post-ww2 consumer economy. you're telling me the conception of the current middle american class originated in the 18th century? must be all those white goods. the american class system before marx's time most definitely did not have an inflated 'middle class'.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-28 08:25:19)

and how has that agrarian/land-based society translated its structures to modern life? that lifestyle has nothing to do the current usage of 'middle-class'. unless you're trying to tell me that a bunch of people who live in debt under mortgages consider themselves late 17th century farm owners.

and yes, historically there were many more factory workers and farm-hands than factory owners. as you'd expect. the working class was always the largest base. especially in post-industrial society, where class stratification really became a more divisive element in society. that's why the current american pretension that the 'majority' are middle-class is quite strange. it doesn't really make much sense in terms of economic structure.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-28 08:36:10)

DrunkFace wrote:

The Rich (5%)     Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity. Generally have college degrees.

Only 5% have a networth of $1mil or more?

lol.

American household income is just 10k about our family poverty line lol.

And apparently families on 250k a year are "having a rough time"

Joel Fitzgibbon's claim this week that households on $250,000 annual income are struggling as much as anyone is an unfortunate distraction, particularly when the average wage in Australia is $69,810; and 2,265,000 people - including 575,000 children - are struggling to survive below the poverty line of $39,104 for a family.

Aussie is really fucking expensive tbh.

Lol

Sounds good. Don't see the big deal.

Well, keep me updated on what happens.

north korea's erratic behaviour? you guys are basically playing war games with them. poking the nest with a stick. sanctions and sanctions. of course they're giving the theatrical charade.

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

north korea's erratic behaviour? you guys are basically playing war games with them. poking the nest with a stick. sanctions and sanctions. of course they're giving the theatrical charade.

north korea best korea. they gonna take 150k american prisoners to demonstrate how lenient they are.

They put out a video depicting a B-2 being shot down over SK with nukes on board, where said nukes explode on impact. Clearly, Kim's huge movie collection does not include Broken Arrow.

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

north korea's erratic behaviour? you guys are basically playing war games with them. poking the nest with a stick. sanctions and sanctions. of course they're giving the theatrical charade.

north korea best korea. they gonna take 150k american prisoners to demonstrate how lenient they are.

yeah, they're deluded, but their people have had like a two decade long famine because of sanctions. of course they're gonna act moody and have all these necessary delusions and propaganda films about killing the foreign traitors/enemy. how else are you gonna keep a nation from outright revolting?