Quote:
Originally Posted by apocalipstic
Makes sense 
I think in the US they wanted to be different from England in the beginning and not have the whole "Nobility" thing. So class is more based on money, education and what one does for a living, than on one's ancestral heritage. The US wanted to be a nation where anyone could make it rich and be "accepted" and a part of the "Upper Class".
I agree that it is very confusing and the more I read and study about it, the more I do not get where the lines are.
I do think it is insane that the poverty line in the US is less than $15,000 for a family of 4. I think one person would have severe difficulty with that amount, let alone four. |
It's an insanely low amount. I keep thinking about some Senator who did this experiment to show that it was possible to live off minimum wage. He, his wife and two teenagers decided they were going to live on minimum wage for one month to prove it was doable. Urgh. I wish I could remember his name.
I think this notion of class comes into play when we start to lay meanings on top of the income bracket. We start to interpret what that income level says about a person. And this is where the danger lies and where all the assumptions and stereotypes start to accumulate. eg. the assumption that if you are poor you must be lazy. We start to layer income brackets with more and more meanings. Sometimes those meanings are romaticized as Dylan was saying (poor but happy, the noble poor etc) and sometimes they just villify (poor due to laziness, poor therefore uneducated, ignorant). But the meanings and assumptions, for me, don't equal class. I think we tend to lump anything related to income level together and call it class when we need to start separating out some of the issues related to the assumptions and stereotypes.
Anyway, hope I'm making sense
Melissa