How do you divide social class?

[Renampun]

In today's society, which one do you think applies? Do we consist of only two classes or three? Or maybe more?

In general, there are three classes in today's society, the lower class, the middle class, and the upper class, but if we examine it more deeply, there are actually five classes in society, namely the lower middle class and the upper middle class, this is a condition where someone cannot be categorized as a lower class, but also has not fully entered the upper class, they are in a transitional position. and usually this class is quite vulnerable to falling because they do not have a truly strong financial foundation, so the government needs to pay attention to this class so that they can continue to improve their welfare.

[slapper]

The two vs three-class argument lacks the fact that classes are not demographic bins. They are relationship types to production and risk

Who takes volatility? That is what really separates people now. The Uber driver, the freelance designer, the contract worker, they directly consume all the market fluctuations. In the meantime a pensioned, healthcare, job security person is living in an entirely different economic world at the same income level. That's not upper/middle/lower

And the middle class that everyone is mourning? It was a certain historical bargain: stable jobs + property increase + social mobility. That deal expired around 2008. We have now individuals with incomes of 150K who are precarious and individuals with incomes of 50K who have inherited a house and feel good. The categories are disintegrated yet we continue to use the old language

[doomloop]

The difference between the rich and the poor is merely the tip of a highly non-uniform social class issue, the resolution to which is obstructed by the low number of comprehensive work prospects. Admittedly, it is highly challenging to address the needs of everyone in a highly volatile economic environment, and this is why there is a rise in the financial problems. With social inequality ever expanding even to distant places, it is an indicator of a deeper issue of inequality in the dispensation of wealth and opportunity.

The first step towards closing this gap is to start making investments in vocational education and fair development of infrastructure. However, it is quite unfortunate that the biggest challenge today is actually to find solutions that is not only acceptable but also implemented effectively by all stakeholders.

The problem is that, not only we have too many unemployed people, but also the employed people are abused for more and more work, bringing more value to company, with a threat of company potentially firing that person if they do not do what they are asked, and because the employee knows that there are so many unemployed ready to take their place literally on the same day, they are forcefully accepting the abuse they get from the work.

The world is filled with people who are doing 3-4 workers job all by themselves, it's just the reality we are living in. And because of that, I can't really see how this could change, it is not going to be that great for any of us, and we should not be considering how this could be any different.

[Accardo]

It's not wrong aiming for something but if you wanted to have that decent and quite lifestyle it's better to be contented from what you already achieve or what you already enjoying, if fate turn on you success might be added and give you additional to expense for your luxuries.

Preferable. Life isn't what people think it is, authors and coaches on wealth and riches are all over the world, but few rich people still exists. Financial instructors could say save up what's left after spending, work 20 hours a day, do this and that. Yes it helps, but life makes the final decisions on how someone's life would turn out.

Businesses crash everyday, not for anything else, but the failure to work on existing success to a better standard before leveling up to the next step. Most Young entrepreneurs after first few profits, relocate too quick, increase number of employees, spend more on designing a new office etc. when the market turns red they begin to run deficits and on loan to keep the business moving.

[sana54210]

Over course of my life, I realized we do not have to divide people, they do it themselves. I do not know if it was like that in all of history, but as we can see, it has not worked out for the best of us, it is not doing that wonderful to be big powerful nations. Back in the day, it was city states, so a bunch of people who think a like, would have their own place, and they would do whatever they can do to be better.

Let's take USA for example, reason why they are a nation, is because federalists won, but if you could consider every single state as a nation, that has a pact with each other to not attack and be helpful and trade, but ruled differently, then you would realize that we are seeing a better place for all those who want to live in those nations. Texas would not be living with California under the same roof.

[NurseHub]

For me I think we have only two class, the working class and the rich, even though some people try to differentiate themselves from a particular class because they have little to survive or afford more things than others I still believe that if you're not rich then you're poor, the opposite of rich is poor so all the constructed classes are just social construct by man trying to feel different when we are all same, in one of the most popular theories we have the bourgeoisie and the proliterate, owners of means of production and the workers.

[FBCTorg]

In modern economics, various other classes are introduced and people have been divided among those classes. This has been a discussion going on since decades but there is really not much of a output here. People still prefer dividing themselves into these classes as they will than know how well they can afford to live a better life in today's world. These classes will not just decide our financial level but also decide our spending power and will make us stay under the blanket when it comes to expenses.

I would still just prefer to have 3 major class as we did in the past i.e Upper, Middle and Lower class. It makes things much easier here and also people can somehow manage to change their class by increasing their earning methodologies.

[Jewan420]

Society is now divided into three categories, there are people who can fully meet their needs and live a luxurious life. At least they can meet their basic needs as well as general needs. There is another category of people who can somehow meet their basic needs, if they have to spend anything extra beyond basic needs, they have to struggle. These are basically the middle class, who cannot meet their needs properly and can also ask for help from anyone.
Another category of people is those who do not have the ability to meet their basic needs, they live dependent on others. They even have to go through the day or night without eating sometimes.

Such social classes have been created among us mainly due to the lack of proper distribution of wealth. The government collects taxes, but does not use them for public welfare. The rich do not give the rights of the poor. The influential take away the rights of the lower class. On the other hand, the lower class and middle class people of the country fall into the trap of taxes and continue to go lower. In the case of the rich, the situation is opposite, they are busy enjoying the wealth of the lower two classes.

[Cheema02]

The two vs three-class argument lacks the fact that classes are not demographic bins. They are relationship types to production and risk

Who takes volatility? That is what really separates people now. The Uber driver, the freelance designer, the contract worker, they directly consume all the market fluctuations. In the meantime a pensioned, healthcare, job security person is living in an entirely different economic world at the same income level. That's not upper/middle/lower

And the middle class that everyone is mourning? It was a certain historical bargain: stable jobs + property increase + social mobility. That deal expired around 2008. We have now individuals with incomes of 150K who are precarious and individuals with incomes of 50K who have inherited a house and feel good. The categories are disintegrated yet we continue to use the old language

I totally agree with your. Mostly we fall back on outdated class labels that don't reflect how people actually live and work. It's just not related to earning but how we earn and how much exposed we arw to risks. For example an individual who is earning a solid income as a freelancer or gig worker can still be one bad month away from crisis while a person at job, I acknowledge has less earning but he has secured at a job, healthcare. There was a time when middle class people had stable jobs, making properties and social mobility. It really hurts now. We should talk on class that include risks, volatility and how we control our expenses.

[wiss19]

On the other hand, I agree that people from the upper middle and upper classes always attract attention and often become the main topic of discussion. I think that’s because most people hope to be like them, to own many assets and to be able to control other social classes.

The fault came from that loophole you mentioned, too many people want more and are willing to sacrifice time, energy and resources to make it happen. But the differences isn't always much to these elites because we are on same earth. Maybe that's why the Mars planet is getting fixed, the rich could cohabit there and leave the other classes on earth.

Even if they sacrifice time, energy or resources, they are able to get outputs at the end where they can earn an extra income which can make them feel good or spend on better things. Middle class is the one who will be struggling here.

Lower class will already have a lot on their plate and they would never afford sacrificing time as they can only survive tomorrow if they work today and a single day-off can ruin their finances. Middle class does have some spare time but they also live on quite a strict budget. Upper class will never care about these things as they will anyways manage their finances well and will have sufficient time left to treat themselves with a well-planned vacation.

Imagine if there is only the upper class on Mars, who will be doing their basis chores? These upper class can never take care of their chores and will need someone who can always help them with so I'm pretty sure they will take middle or lower class with them.

[coolcoinz]

To me it's three classes which is the upper class, medium classes and the lower classes. There are people who could not afford things that the upper class people will afford and same time the lower class people may hardly afford what the medium classes are using or having but what really matters in Life is when you are able to shelter and clothing, feed yourself or family properly then you are a moderate person. There are some people who may not be able to afford the middle class people has or have but in as much as they are breathing, walking and eating they are already comfortable with that.

It should be middle class, not medium and this is the class that is slowly becoming extinct. Just watch some movies from the 60s, 70s or 80s and there's a real middle class presented there. People with hoses in the suburbs, where the father alone can support a wife and 2 kids. They usually have 2 cars, are able to pay for school and spend holidays abroad. They usually have some expensive hobbies that are visible in the background, like a boat, a hunting cabin, maybe a vintage sports car in the garage that they like to work on.

There are officially 3 social classes, but recently there's been a rise of this 1% class of the very rich, because let's say you have a lower class of minimum wage earners, then the middle class is often management, small business owners and all that, and the upper class is upper management, so all the CEOs, board members and politicians will be there. What about people who own 100x more than the upper management. You can't just put the owners of companies listed on stock exchanges in the same group as the owner of a car dealership. One of them will earn $100k a year, which is already a very nice wage, but the other makes $500k a week.

[batang_bitcoin]

I would still just prefer to have 3 major class as we did in the past i.e Upper, Middle and Lower class. It makes things much easier here and also people can somehow manage to change their class by increasing their earning methodologies.

I also know that there's only three and anything that's lower than the lower class can still be classified in that class. But this doesn't matter at all for those who are only looking at the social class of people because if you've got money and even you're in the middle class, they'll think of you as someone who's rich and upper. So, it all lies on how people classify others based on their appearances and what they can see from these people. That's the reason why these societal classes are in division because some are setting standards on how they're going to come along with depending from which class you come from.

[Maslate]

I grow up believing that there’s only rich and poor existing in the society. But when I reached adulthood, that’s when I realized that we have three social classes, the rich, the middle class, and the poor ones. And if I’m gonna rate the class where I’m in today, maybe I would say I’m still in the middle class, that sometimes still experience lackingness especially if my funds are very tight.

However, regardless of these, the important thing is, we are living a healthy life and are still surviving, no matter how inflation badly affects our daily expenses and way of living.

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

I also know that there's only three and anything that's lower than the lower class can still be classified in that class. But this doesn't matter at all for those who are only looking at the social class of people because if you've got money and even you're in the middle class, they'll think of you as someone who's rich and upper. So, it all lies on how people classify others based on their appearances and what they can see from these people. That's the reason why these societal classes are in division because some are setting standards on how they're going to come along with depending from which class you come from.

Sometimes what we see isn't necessarily true because appearances are often deceiving, as many wealthy people can actually appear much more standard-minded than those in the lower middle class. Social class only indicates who's the best, but without social values, it doesn't influence anything. Many wealthy people don't care about the lives of those around them. So what's the point of wealth, since we don't take it with us when we die? There are rich people who came from poor backgrounds, and vice versa. This proves nothing, but rather the need for a standard of living that relates to any social class.

[Accardo]

Imagine if there is only the upper class on Mars, who will be doing their basis chores? These upper class can never take care of their chores and will need someone who can always help them with so I'm pretty sure they will take middle or lower class with them.

The upper lower class would do the chores for the upper-upper class. They'll have to deal with it that way, also most rich people love doing their chores when no poor person is in the picture. Billionaires know themselves, who is who, the youngest could serve the elders. However, the middle class would be privilege to be in Mars to run errands, some rich men can't move without their right hand man, who are mostly not in same class with them.

[MRY]

Sometimes what we see isn't necessarily true because appearances are often deceiving, as many wealthy people can actually appear much more standard-minded than those in the lower middle class. Social class only indicates who's the best, but without social values, it doesn't influence anything. Many wealthy people don't care about the lives of those around them. So what's the point of wealth, since we don't take it with us when we die? There are rich people who came from poor backgrounds, and vice versa. This proves nothing, but rather the need for a standard of living that relates to any social class.

That is true, money is just a mere economic brand that is usually misleading and not necessarily congruent with virtues or social acumen. It is obvious that a standard of a decent life must be based on dignity and not the amount of money because the origins of a person, be it rich or poor do not identify his personality.

Wealth without care about other people lacks the point of existence. As such, it is not the aimless and mindless accumulation of wealth at death that is beneficial, rather that wealth should be used to establish superior and fairer living conditions among the people. Society should ensure that emphasis is made on inculcating good social values as opposed to simple wealth acquisition.