Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So, "middle class" just means "white", right? (part 2 of 2)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:57 PM
Original message
So, "middle class" just means "white", right? (part 2 of 2)
Edited on Mon Jul-18-11 04:31 PM by harmonicon
All the time, I read about "the middle class" when the people being discussed are actually the working class. What's so wrong with being working class? Nothing.

I'm not that old, but I am old enough to remember Reagan and "welfare queens" and other related terms. These were "polite" ways to denigrate poor working blacks. From the beginning, racism has been a tactic used by the wealthy to fool one group of poor people (in the US, whites) into working against their own interests. This was done by convincing these schmucks that the real opposition was another group of poor people (in the US, blacks), so that the two wouldn't join forces in solidarity against those in power over the both of them, and it's still being done today.

Once that had been done the major hurdle was over. Blacks and other minorities weren't "working class people" because they weren't "people", they were "other." As time went by, society changed and these people were generally on the same economic footing as most whites. This time, new terms were invented, like "inner city", and "ghetto". The people living in these places were just as well (i.e. poor) off as the whites living in other places, but this way they now had a name, so they could still be "other". Hurray! It's not racism if you refuse to acknowledge it.

By the time that Reagan was in power, society was integrated, the voting rights and civil rights acts had been passed, etc. What was to be done? Well, luckily enough, lots of whites had bought into moving into suburbs and segregating themselves from minorities while segregation was still legal. To make these people feel better about their racism, or to sell racism to those who weren't already, something had to be done. These people living in white communities were now "middle class". They weren't really middle class, but the poor had to stay divided. So, the whites were "middle class" and lived in "communities", and had "values" which needed to be saved! (by Reagan). Non-whites? Well, they lived in "inner cities" and "barrios", even if they now had to be - begrudgingly - called "working class people". See, it's not racist if you don't call it racism!! Sure, some minorities could live in these "middle class communities", so long as they stayed minorities. Once they become the majority, those places are no longer "middle class."

Please stop saying things are "middle class" that are not. You're just furthering the right-wing's cause of keeping the poor divided against itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. You wouldn't be spouting claptrap like that if you saw my diverse middle class neighborhood.
Should I type some random terms and get you to redefine them?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. OP's point aside, diverse neighborhoods seem to be rare
There seems to be an unspoken tipping point at which white flight occurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Which is it - part 2 OR part 2? This is confusing. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. hahah! stupid keys being next to each other! sorry. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. What's wrong with being working class? You're right. Nothing.
But broadening the definition to include a whole lot of people so that it completely dilutes it is going to help? Not to mention it lends credence to that awful trend lately of news stories of people who make 250,000 proving how they're really poor and struggling. Do we need to validate them? Ugh. I say no. I'm sorry, but the both the working and middle classes in this country aren't going to be helped if we broaden the definition and make it so nebulous that the privileged can technically join their ranks and claim to be among their numbers by the definitions you claim. I don't get the point of that. I'm sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I agree, but I think what we've seen is the opposite of what you suggest.
Really, what I think has happened is that the working class have been convinced that THEY TOO are middle class, and therefore will work to help those making 250k with their tax breaks. What we really need is for the working class to acknowledge that they have far more in common with the poorest of the poor than they do with those making a shit load of money, and I think recognizing that there is a massive working class that includes most US residents is a first step towards this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Right, but I'm not sure how pretending the 250,000 are really in the same boat they are
is going to do the trick. In fact, it would do the opposite. It's exactly why those 250,000 family sob stories exist, and I think classifying them as working class would only play right into their hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. So what class are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. the poorest of the poor - a charity case. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. Very few people in the US ...
Edited on Mon Jul-18-11 05:34 PM by surrealAmerican
... of any race, will call themselves anything but "middle class". It doesn't matter what their income is. If they have a roof over their heads and food to eat, yet don't own an island, they're middle class.

There is nothing wrong with being "working class": it's just a term that isn't much used in this country. Also, like "middle class", it's not a well-defined term, and will mean different things to different people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. True, that.
But "working class" sums up more an attitude and aspiration than anything.

I think in economic terms you do get "working class" used, but advocates have managed to find a way to efface the difference between "working class" and "poor" so that many think of them as synonymous. My old 'working class' is now apparently 'lower middle' or 'working poor.' And who wants to describe themselves as 'poor' (unless there's some way of leveraging that for personal gain)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. Once upon a time the two terms denoted "class."
Workers shlepped off to the salt mines each day while the "middle class," a motley assortment of clerics and professionals, independent in their income but lacking titles and estates, were "middle class"--between the serfs and the lords, the nobility. This petered out to some extent in the late 19th century and died in the 20th when we decided we needed "upper class" to handle some of the heavy lifting. After all, Gates may be upper class, but he's no landed nobility.

The lower echelons were also divided between the poor and the working class sensu stricto. You're a destitute widow taking in sewing and laundry, you're poor. You have a job shoveling shit out of latrines, you're working class. And the class system didn't really include yeoman farmers.

Still, some are very conservative and insist on the old ways. Or they don't see that the terms evolved with the economics. Workers were a sketchy category before the industrial revolution started to kick in, and the industrial economy and its terms fit the countryside but poorly. Marx's straitjacketed thought didn't help matters.

Now the terms "poor, working class, middle class, upper class" are financial and cultural more than anything and they work as financial and cultural terms. Better than as class terms, even though you sometimes run into ambiguity and clashes between the cultural and financial uses.

So take my parents. My father was raised working class; his father worked in a steel mill and made sure his kids all graduated high school and had time for varsity sports. They had a house, sort of (they owned the house but not the land it was on).

My mother was, I guess, "middle class." Her stepfather owned a small neighborhood store. They weren't wealthy--a major profit center was the eggs from the chickens he raised behind his house and behind the store--but he set his own hours and owned his own establishment. He also had his two sons and three stepdaughters working the store when they weren't in school, and took the two youngest out of school when they were 16 to work in the store.

Notice how well the "class" distinction is working here? Working class kids have more stability and freedom and education than the "middle class"? It gets better.

My father was formally management--the lowest rank of management, foreman. He started off working class, but as foreman he still had to go to work, punch a time card, take orders, and had no independence. He just got no overtime. He'd get time and a half if he was scheduled to be on duty on a holiday, but no overtime and he couldn't say "no" to overtime if he was already there. I guess since he was "management" he was middle class. I don't see it that way. He was "screwed working class." My mother worked hourly. His salary was nominally higher than hers. She actually earned more than he did because she'd get overtime pay--and you don't want to be the employer when an employee with 30 years' seniority is working double time on a holiday and *then* works an extra shift. Time and a half x double time. Ouch.

How's that working class/middle class distinction working out? Nice and neat and clean? Oh. Not so much.

So let's just say I grew up working class. In 1981, when I graduated debt-free from college (thanks, Dad!), my father earned around $60k. My mother earned around $80k. $140k? Not bad for working class. They paid off their house that year, a 20 year mortgage in 10 years. They never had a car loan, they each paid cash for their cars. Had a nice built-in pool added at some point. Central air. My mother had a stack of US Savings Bonds. Ah, that working class lifestyle. Then again, they worked hard for that, sometimes 50 hours a week. Which is a bit less than many professionals work. Clear on how essential that working class/middle class distinction is yet?

They retired. My father got $180k as a lump sum distribution in lieu of a pension when he was 59 1/2. It was '82 and he had 38 years' seniority--they just wanted him gone. Interest rates were in the double digits. He put it in an IRA and went back to work driving a delivery van. My mother retired in '85 and got a monthly pension. Both got social security. In 2010 it was $1270 a month, each. On their pensions and IRA disbursements they went (and took their family) to Britain, on a Baltic cruise, a Caribbean cruise, a Mississippi cruise, to San Diego and San Francisco. By themselves they went to the eastern and western Mediterranean on cruises, the eastern and western Caribbean, China, SE Asia, and Alaska. That doesn't count other trips made in state. They moved into a 2200 sq ft house in a new subdivision, continued never having a car loan, and paid off my grad school loans. When they were home they went to movies and dinner every week; I went with them to dinner a few times, seldom was it less than $30/person, not including drinks and wine.

I assume you're working class and recognize their working-class lifestyle? I know I don't.

On the other hand, they were working class. My father insisted on fixing things himself; my mother did her decorating. They never went back for any education--my mother's GED from '66 or so finished her schooling. Their physical surroundings were middle class, they liked dining out, but in their attitudes they were still mostly just snooty working class, workers with pretensions of being upwardly mobile.

They're not unique, either. My mother's sister and her husband died with $3.8 million in cash, stocks, and bonds--and that didn't include their house. He worked as a clerk; she worked as a secretary/administrative assistant. Less managerial and putatively less "middle class" even than my father. And, no, they didn't win the lottery. Those particular workers invested in stocks and bonds from the early '60s until he died. They made their money the hard way: They worked for it. They kept it the hard way: They scrimped and saved. And they got more of it the hard way: They dutifully followed the market, making very conservative investment decisions and planned on holding them for decades.

$3.8 million. Working class. What a hoot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC