Leasure Class?

[XT]

I've only been on this board for a short time. I find it totally facinating, even though I know I'm not up to snuff on debating with some of you out there. This is all pretty new to me.

My debate question is, is there a leasure class out there? I've seen a lot of derogatory things thrown out at the 'rich elite' and 'leasure class' on the various threads and wonder if this is the general consensus. I know, from some of your posts, that many of you make 6 figures plus (as do I). I want to ask you if you are laying about, lighting cigars with $100 bills and having servants peal grapes for you. I usually work 12 hour days myself, and rarely have the time to go exploit the masses as I should. The million dollar-a-year plus CEOs that I know usually work even longer hours...14-16 hour days are not that unusual for them in my experience. Even those evil lawyer types at my wifes law firm work 10-12 hour days, many times 6 days a week. So...where is the 'leasure class'?

-XT

[John Mace]

I don't think people use "rich elite" and "leasure class" to mean the same thing. As for those lawyers, they love being evil, so long work days are fun for them! :)

[XT]

Maybe its my misunderstanding then. It just seems like people in general, and on this board in particular, are very class oriented. And that the 'upper classes' are bad and evil exploiters of the down trodden masses, etc etc ad nausium.

As to the lawyers, they may be hard workers, but I'd be the LAST person to deny they are evil. :D

-XT

[msmith537]

Originally posted by xtisme
Maybe its my misunderstanding then. It just seems like people in general, and on this board in particular, are very class oriented. And that the 'upper classes' are bad and evil exploiters of the down trodden masses, etc etc ad nausium.


The reason for this is that there are a lot of people who's knowledge of the "upper classes" is spotty at best. Think about it - if you are a poor working class stiff or a penniless hippy or a college student who did not come from money, your impression of the "upper class" ranges from an authoritarian boss to a person who sacrifices morality (in your mind) for wealth to the spoiled kid who drives a Mercedes to class and isn't worried about a job after graduation.

I kind of have to laugh when I hear people talk about lawyers or bankers or MBAs as if we are all driving Porsches and $80,000 SUVs while eating Bald Eagle Cordon Bleu, watching a $10,000 plasma screen and wearing a coat made from baby seal fur. It usually takes many years of hard work to reach a level where you bringing in the big money.

But I'm with you. I can't figure out why some people think it's nobeler to be a penniless bum than a manager, lawyer or banker.

And I have no idea what a 'leisure class' is. Maybe there is a small group of people who are so wealthy that don't have to work so they sit around all day like the Great Gatsby drinking champaign, collecting expensive cars and hanging out with millionares in tophats and monocles. The images we see on MTV portray celebrities in this way but a lot of that is just that..images. If they stop working (just like the consultants, bankers and lawyers) pretty soon they would be as broke as Hammer.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

My god, the spelling! The spelling!

[MSU 1978]

Apparently there was some leisure time in spelling class.

[msmith537]

Some of us can't afford fancy private typing schools or high tech spell checkers.

[XT]

Sorry, I didn't go to college to learn to spell...I went to party. :) My spelling (or lack there of) is legendary where I work, as is my lack of punctuation and grammar. Good thing I'm a decent network engineer or I'd probably be digging ditches somewhere, as my father always threatened. I appologize again.

But...anyone have any comments about the question? I'm really curious, and I know that some folks on this board feel there IS a leisure class etc. I would like their views.

(BTW, as a brief aside, is there a way to spell check in here? Or do you all write your responses using a word processor and then transfer them to here? Again, I'm kind of new to this.)

[John Mace]

XTISME:

I haven't been around here too long, but I can't ever recall seeing a reference to the "leisure class". Do you have a specific example (or two)? That might help get things sarted.

BTW, I think we can all agree that spelling is merely a social construct.:)

[Eve]

I adore the leisure class, except when they wear leisure suits (http://lileks.com/institute/dorcus/bono.html).

[belladonna]

There is a leisure class, albeit a very small one.

I'm thinking of people like the Hilton sisters (http://extratv.warnerbros.com/dailynews/extra/04_02/04_12b.html), or other heirs to fortunes or companies completely unrelated to their own efforts. These people can choose to work or not work as it suits their whims, or persue pet projects, hobbies, philanthropy, etc. Do I think that makes them morally inferior to us working joes? No. Am I occasionally blinded by envy at their posh existence? Hell yes.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by xtisme

But...anyone have any comments about the question? I'm really curious, and I know that some folks on this board feel there IS a leisure class etc. I would like their views.



Yes, there is a leisure class but they are a very tiny minority in the US population. These are people who come from families with so much money that they'll never have to work a day in their lives. The Hilton sisters are an excellent example as are the Du Ponts. At least the Du Ponts used to be that way I can only imagine they still are.

Marc

[XT]

John Mace, I've seen it several time on various posts. Here is a current post where its used:

From lander2k2(The Virtues of Democracy (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=182201) )

"As democracy is practiced, the politicians are empowered by the rich elite . So, at the end of the day the leisure class is senior to and has exclusive influence over the system itself. From what I understand, democracy was devised so as to take power out of the hands of the leisure class or aristocracy or monarchy and put the power back in the hands of the people. While democracy is certainly a lesser evil, it sure seems to still have an inherent quality that those who would exploit the greater population, still have the means to do so."

My bolding.

I'll try and remember what other threads I've seen it in, but its been mentioned in different forms a few times.

MGibson, I agree that there ARE people like that out there, but is it an entire 'class'? There can't be that many of them I wouldn't think, as even with a LOT of money, you can waste it away fast if you aren't making anything. At least, from my experience, the 'rich elite' I know all work like dogs. Now granted, I'm not in the Hilton circles, but it seems like this has been way over blown. From what I understand, even the anti-christ, Bill Gates, works like a dog...

-XT

[John Mace]

XT: Why not ask Mr Lander in that thread what he means? I'd guess he's using the term rather losely.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by xtisme

MGibson, I agree that there ARE people like that out there, but is it an entire 'class'? There can't be that many of them I wouldn't think, as even with a LOT of money, you can waste it away fast if you aren't making anything. At least, from my experience, the 'rich elite' I know all work like dogs. Now granted, I'm not in the Hilton circles, but it seems like this has been way over blown. From what I understand, even the anti-christ, Bill Gates, works like a dog...

-XT

Maybe a sub-class of the wealthy in general, but yeah.

Marc

[msmith537]

Well the nice thing about hte "leisure class" is that their political apathy and self centeredness generally means they have very little influence over the political system. You don't see the Hilton Sisters or Donatella Versace pushing too many bills through congress.

Hey it sucks that the rest of us have to work while the offspring of the wealthy can go clubbing all night and buy $1000 dresses. It's not like we are all working to support their lifestyle though.

[lander2k2]

Since you quoted me, xtisme, I'll throw in my definition of leisure class.

That very small percantage of people born into extreme wealth and who can live a life of super-abundant luxury and leisure off interest alone.

It does not include the those making six figures annually. It includes those who can drop six figures in a casino in one night and not bat an eyelid. I would more precisely define it as, at most, the top half a percent of wealthy persons and families in the world.

[Tusculan]

Whenever I see a reference to 'leisure class' I think of Thorstein Veblen (whom our very own TVeblen is named after, or was it the other way around?). He wrote 'The theory of the leisure class' (link to electronic version (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/VEBLEN/veblenhp.html). Its a sociological work in an essayistic style. I haven't read it and do not exactly remember his central thesis, but maybe Veb will drop by and fill you in.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by lander2k2
It does not include the those making six figures annually. It includes those who can drop six figures in a casino in one night and not bat an eyelid. I would more precisely define it as, at most, the top half a percent of wealthy persons and families in the world. [/B]

And even a lot of those people work their asses off to maintain that wealth.

That said..I've often wished that my parents had made more of themselves growing up. I think I would have made a great trust fund kid.

[december]

Originally posted by msmith537
And even a lot of those people work their asses off to maintain that wealth. Or, they work for the sake of having a job. My wife went to college with a Rockefeller daughter, who became a psychiatrist. She once worked with the son of William Hewlett. The son was a systems analyst in her consulting firm.

[Guinastasia]

Sounds like the rich set right before WWI.

Titanic, anyone?

[ralph124c]

My definition of the "leisure class"-the kennedy family. Each of them gets a big trust fund at age 21, so they don't have to work (old man kennedy was very wealthy). They usually attend college, and graduate in law of something other than engineering or science. They then persue political careers, and wind up raping women, crashing cars, and getting involved in scandals. Occasionally, they actually produce some worthwhile results.
Eventually, their livers/brains give out (an exampleof this is Senator Ted Kennedy).
The kennedy family is the best example I can think of, and proof that most ofthis class are worthless parasites.

[Eve]

"Leisure," hell—The Hilton Sisters (http://phreeque.tripod.com/hilton_sisters.html) worked their 20 little toes and 20 little fingers to the bone!

[DanBlather]

Originally posted by ralph124c
My definition of the "leisure class"-the kennedy family. Each of them gets a big trust fund at age 21, so they don't have to work (old man kennedy was very wealthy). They usually attend college, and graduate in law of something other than engineering or science. They then persue political careers, and wind up raping women, crashing cars, and getting involved in scandals. Occasionally, they actually produce some worthwhile results.
Eventually, their livers/brains give out (an exampleof this is Senator Ted Kennedy).
The kennedy family is the best example I can think of, and proof that most ofthis class are worthless parasites. The Kennedys do an enormous amount of charity work. An example is the Special Olympics in which they are actively involved. It's a big clan, so there they certainly have had their share of scandals. I'd put the Kennedys agianst the Bush twins any day, however.

[XT]

From DanBlather

"The Kennedys do an enormous amount of charity work. An example is the Special Olympics in which they are actively involved. It's a big clan, so there they certainly have had their share of scandals. I'd put the Kennedys agianst the Bush twins any day, however."

Well, so much for this thread. :) Ok...IS Bush (or the Bush clan) part of the Leisure class? I don't have specific sites atm, but I was under the impression they were business men...i.e. they WORK for a living, when they aren't being politicians. Comments? (I could be wrong about this, as I'm not a big Bush fan..if I am, please site).

BTW, I would agree with Dan about the charity stuff...I've heard they are very involved in that. Also, no matter how big your fortune, I find it hard to believe that SOMEONE isn't working hard on maintaining the Kennedy fortune over there...


From lander2k2

"That very small percantage of people born into extreme wealth and who can live a life of super-abundant luxury and leisure off interest alone."

Lander2k2, do you still also think that this small class of obviously worthless hedonists, as you put it: "...at the end of the day the leisure class is senior to and has exclusive influence over the system itself."? Are you using 'leisure class' and 'rich elite' interchangably, or just loosely? I'm curious.

BTW, thanks everyone for an interesting discussion. I still don't see how there could be a 'class' of individuals that can lie around all day doing nothing, day after day, and maintain their fortunes. I've seen too many rich folks who actually WORK and have lost it all to believe that, even with the biggest fortunes, you could spend at those incredible rates and maintain your fortune by investment and interest alone. But as I say, I'm not in those highest circles...I just know a few shlubs (like my wifes boss) that make a mere $1 Million a year....give or take a few hundred k. Does anyone have a good example of someone who is in this 'leisure class'? I haven't seen any proof that the Kennedy clan is (for the most part).


-XT

[Oy!]

I feel I'm qualified to speak on liberal attitudes (i.e. virtuous poor versus evil rich), as I am a die-hard liberal.

No one thinks the poor are virtuous by virtue (forgive that construction) of being poor, or if they do, they've fallen victim to a societal-wide prediliction to equate suffering with virtue (Personally, I blame that one on Christianity, but that's a different thread altogether).

However, they (the poor) ARE suffering. Yes, we six figure earners don't sit around all day, watching our plasma TVs etc, etc, etc. But if our cars need work, we get it done. If we're out of food, we can buy it (yeah, like we're ever out of food!). We don't usually need to worry about how we're going to come up with this month's mortgage, and if we are worrying, it's because we borrowed more than we could realistically afford in the first place. If we want to see a movie, getting a sitter isn't going to make the difference between whether or not we can afford to go.

Oh, you say, but that's because they're lazy, they don't want to work, yada, yada. Yeah, right. As a computer programmer, I certainly work harder and longer than my friend who works in a dry cleaning establishment, right? Yeah, those guys working construction and those women waiting tables have it REAL easy! Are all poor people working as hard as they could be? Of course not. Are you? I know I'm not.

Yes, I know, it took years of training to get the skills you have, and so forth and so on. I'm not saying we should all get the same pay. What I AM saying is that to cut what are, to the poor, truly vital services that make their difficult lives a TINY bit easier, so that you and I can knock off a few hundred on our taxes, is, er, morally questionable in my book. But of course, it's not to knock a few hundred off of our taxes that this kind of thing is happening. It's to save the really BIG boys hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Think about it. A million dollar a year executive (not all that unusual these days) is probably making 20 times what the highest paid person in his/her company who actually produces something that company SELLS is making. And just a million is on the low end these days, especially when you consider bonuses, stock options, perks, etc. What can these people POSSIBLY offer that makes them THAT much more valuable than a guy (possbily just as well qualified) who would be willing to do exactly the same job for say, a couple hundred $K? But of course, it isn't about performance these days; it's the star system. If you have the name, you command the bucks regardless of your performance (American Airlines as a recent example), and from down here, it looks as if the way you make the name is simply to get to know the right people.

What I'm driving at here is that, while being poor is morally neutral, you gotta admit that these days there's a fair reason for suspicion of considerable wealth. I don't think the arguments about fiscal policy on these boards have cared nearly as much about the low six-figure earner as they have about the big boys, the ones the current administration belongs to and clearly legislates to benefit (yes, I AM a liberal). Where the low six-figure and high five-figure earners come in is that we see this fiscal policy as favoring US as well, whereas to the big guys, the difference between $20K a year and $200K a year is probably pretty insignificant - we're ALL the little people down here. But we just roll over and vote these policies in, apparently never realizing that sooner or later, we WILL pay for it. But they (the big guys) won't.

Yes, this is something of a rant. So sue me.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by ralph124c
My definition of the "leisure class"-the kennedy family. Each of them gets a big trust fund at age 21, so they don't have to work (old man kennedy was very wealthy). They usually attend college, and graduate in law of something other than engineering or science. They then persue political careers, and wind up raping women, crashing cars, and getting involved in scandals. Occasionally, they actually produce some worthwhile results.
Eventually, their livers/brains give out (an exampleof this is Senator Ted Kennedy).
The kennedy family is the best example I can think of, and proof that most ofthis class are worthless parasites. [/B]

How do a couple of jerks prove that this "class" (by your definition - anyone from a wealthy family who doesn't study science or engineering) is a bunch of worthless parasites? There are plenty of poor and middle class people who rape, crash cars and commit all kinds of crimes. The Kenedy's have their own money so they aren't really parasites to anyone other than each other.

[XT]

AvhHines, you make some interesting points, and I'd be happy to debate them with you if you like...make a thread about the 'suffering poor' and we can take it there. Do you have anything about the leisure class? Do you feel that there is a significant group of folks out there with piles of money who do nothing at all? You talked about a million dollar a year executive, but thats a working man, reguardless of how you look at it. I'm looking for proof/cites/opinions/wild ass speculations on a class of folks that basically sit around smoking cigars lit with $100 dollar bills on their $10 million boats 365 days a year doing nothing at all...except spending ungodly summs of money just for the hell of it. IS there such a 'class'? As a secondary point, why do people THINK that there is such a class? Why are the rich though of as bad/evil/immoral/etc etc? I'd love to hear more from you on this...as well as from all the previous posters.

-XT

[lander2k2]

Lander2k2, do you still also think that this small class of obviously worthless hedonists, as you put it: "...at the end of the day the leisure class is senior to and has exclusive influence over the system itself."? Are you using 'leisure class' and 'rich elite' interchangably, or just loosely? I'm curious.
-XT

Firstly, I don’t regard these folks as inherently “worthless hedonists.” Very potentially, but not inherently. Those with extreme wealth have the potential to bring about great positive effects in the world. I’m not talking about sponsoring charity events and the like. I’m talking about building institutions and infrastructure that are of great and fundamental worth to humanity. However, when those born into endless wealth become fixated on protecting and expanding their wealth and living like pompous kings, then they have the means to funnel great prosperity out of society while doing nothing to contribute to the society supporting them.

As for “leisure class” and “rich elite,” the two terms overlap a lot and both terms could be applied to some, but they have different implications. The “leisure class” emphasizes a super-wealthy, yet unproductive characteristic. “Rich elite” emphasizes the highest echelon of the wealthy that can and do exert incredible influence with their wealth. In practical terms I would categorize the British royal family as a leisure class family while the Rockefellers would fit the rich elite category more appropriately. However, like I said, the terms do largely overlap and are to a degree interchangeable.

[msmith537]

What does anouncing yourself as "liberal" accomplish? Is it supposed to excuse throwing out reason and logic in favor of good intentions an self righteousness?


Originally posted by AvhHines
What can these [million dollar executives] POSSIBLY offer that makes them THAT much more valuable than a guy (possbily just as well qualified) who would be willing to do exactly the same job for say, a couple hundred $K?


I would be willing to run General Electric for a mere $100k. That does not mean that I am qualified to manage a multi-billion dollar corporation. Few people are.

I have no problem with a a CEO earning millions when he makes the company a success.


Originally posted by AvhHines
But of course, it isn't about performance these days; it's the star system. If you have the name, you command the bucks regardless of your performance (American Airlines as a recent example), and from down here, it looks as if the way you make the name is simply to get to know the right people.


How do you think you "get a name" or "know he right people"? People just don't hand over small fortunes just because they played lacross with a guy in college.

Most of these guys don't just wake up one day as a CEO. It's like anything else. Once you get a reputation for success, opportunities tend to seek you out.


Originally posted by AvhHines
...you gotta admit that these days there's a fair reason for suspicion of considerable wealth. [/B]

We have to admit no such thing. That's just something that poor people say to make themselves feel better.

[Thudlow Boink]

When I think of a "leisure class" I think of someplace like England in previous generations or centuries, and people who lived in big country estates with lots of servants and spent all their days fox-hunting and thought anyone who actually had to work for a living was hopelesly vulgar and common.

But yes, here in America we have always had people who inherited enough wealth that they never had to work if they didn't want to (the Kennedys might be a good example, as might one or both presidents Roosevelt), so they're free to live lives of hedonistic debauchery if they choose, or to devote themselves to cultural, intellectual, or philanthropic pursuits without having to worry about where the next paycheck is coming from.

[BrainGlutton]

What we have in America today is a new and very large ruling class, a "white overclass," of which the idle-rich leisure class is a only a small and eccentric subset. The straightest dope I've yet found on this subject comes from Michael Lind's 1995 book, The Next American Nation., pp. 141-145 (Free Press paperback edition):

Understanding the white overclass requires revising the most common misconceptions about class. The discussion of social class has been confused for generations by Marxist thinkers, who made the mistake of completely identifying class with economic function. Like the Marxists, old-fashioned American liberal pluralists tend to misunderstand class. What they refer to as class is typically not a social class at all, but a mere occupational or income category, such as service-sector workers or millionaires. Meanwhile, the New Left which came to prominence in the sixties has tended to drop the idea of class altogether, in favor of race and gender. . . . In recent years, conservative ideologues have added further confusion by defining political factions and lifestyle subcultures as classes. . . .

In order to think about class in twenty-first century America, we must first clear our minds of these Marxist, liberal, New Left, and conservative definitions of class, and return to the older notion of class found in classical and European political thought from Aristotle to Montesquieu.

A class is a group of families, united by intermarriage and a common subculture, whose members tend to predominate in certain professions and political offices, generation after generation. Note that the class -- the group of similar families -- has an existence independent of the offices which its members tend to hold. Indeed, we cannot talk intelligently about class unless we make a distinction between a social class and a mere institutional elite. . . .

The United States at the end of the twentieth century has both an institutional elite and a dominant social class. The institutional elite is composed of upper-level officials in the federal and state governments, plus executives and professionals in the concentrated private sector and foundation and university executives (low-level government officials and small business owners are not part of the institutional elite). Almost all of the members of the institutional elite also happen to be members of a single social class: the white overclass. . . .

. . . The white overclass is the child of the former Northeastern Protestant establishment, produced by marriage (not only figurative but literal) with the upwardly mobile descendants of turn-of-the-century European immigrants and white Southerners and Westerners. Unlike the Northeastern establishment . . . this relatively new and still evolving political and social oligarchy is not identified with any particular region of the country (though it is concentrated in East and West Coast metropolitan regions). Nor does the white overclass dominate other sections through local, surrogate establishments, as the Northeastern establishment once did. Rather, overclass Americans are found in the higher suburbs of every major metropolitan area, North and South, coastal and inland. Unlike the sectional elites of the past, members of the white overclass are not even identified with the regions in which they happen (temporarily) to live. The white overclass, homogeneous and nomadic, is the first truly national upper class in American history.

The white overclass is the product, not merely of the amalgamation of Anglo- and Euro-Americans, but of the fusion of the rentier and managerial-professional classes. This blurring of the upper and upper-middle strata is a relatively new development in the United States. In earlier generations, there were distinct landowning and rentier classes, with their own lifestyles and institutions -- cotillions, seasons spent in the country, and the like. The elaborate rituals that governed upper-class life, such as dressing for dinner, were designed to conspicuously display wealth, including a wealth of leisure time. That was a long time ago. There is a class, or rather a category, of the clebrity rich, and there are still pockets of old-fashioned rentiers in the U.S. -- in Virginia, there are still planters who do not work and who hunt foxes with hounds -- but these subcultures are detached from the summits of power. Members of the upper class who want to make a mark in the world tend to adopt the style of life and dress and speech of the managerial-professional elite. Even though they do not have to, most members of the small hereditary upper class go to college and get executive or professional jobs, and work, or at least pretend to. Instead of serving as a model for well-to-do executives and lawyers and investment bankers, the hereditary segment of the American overclass conforms to the segment immediately below it, the credentialed upper middle class.

. . . The composition of student bodies at Ivy League schools is a good surrogate for the composition of the white overclass. If you factor out black and Hispanic students admitted under affirmative action programs, you ar lef with a student body that is disproportionately of British or German-Scandinavian Protestant and European Jewish descent. There are relatively few evangelical Protestants and Catholics in the overclass, despite their significant numbers in the general population. If you are Episcopalian or Jewish, have a graduate or professional degree from an expensive university, work in a large downtown office building in an East or West Coast metropolis, watch MacNeil/Lehrer on PBS, and are saving for a vacation in London or Paris, you are a card-carrying member of the white overclass, even if your salary is not very impressive. If you are Methodist, Baptist or Catholic, have a B.A. from a state university, work in or for a small business or for a career government service, watch the Nashville Network on cable, and are saving for a vacation in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Branson, Missouri, or Orlando, Florida (Disneyworld), you are probably not a member of the white overclass -- no matter how much money you make.

Although there are residual religious and ethnic differences among members of the white overclass, these are minor compared to what they have in common. There is, for example, a common white overclass accent, which is more or less identical in corporate boardrooms from one end of the continent to another -- the "NBC standard," which is the equivalent of BBC English or Britain's Received Pronunciation (RP). As formerly distinct local elites have fused into a single national ruling class equally at home in New York and Texas and California, this accent has become the badge of elite status. In order to advance in overclass circles in America, a white American has to suppress any regional or ethnic dialect, whether it be a Southern drawl or a Boston honk or Brooklynese, and learn to speak this flat, clipped, rather nasal version of English. . . .

. . . The overclass eats pate and imported cheeses; the middle class eats peanut butter and Velveeta. The overclass sips wine; the middle class drinks beer. The overclass plays squash and tennis; the middle class plays pool and bowls (both golf, but the middle class does so at second-tier country clubs and public courses). The overclass jogs; the middle class does not. . . . These are cliches, but they are a better guide to the real class structure in the United States than income categories in the census or pseudoscientific sociological measures like the SES (socioeconomic survey).

[lander2k2]

Thanks, BrainGlutton. Great post. I think if you take the small sector of this white overclass that spends its time at country clubs and top-notch restaurants, then you would find your leisure class. If you took the sector of this class that contributes considerable sums to election campaigns and has connections to organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Royal Institute of International Affairs, then you would find what is referred to as the "rich elite." That’s how it would seem to me.

[jshore]

Originally posted by msmith537
I have no problem with a a CEO earning millions when he makes the company a success.

Well, what about the CEO of Xerox who drove the company into the ground in no time flat? When he was fired by the Board, they were obligated by contract to pay him like $600,000 / year but then they decided out of sympathy to throw another $200,000 his way. Meanwhile, I know lots of ex-Xerox employees who, how shall we put this, didn't get quite the same golden parachute.

A guy where I work used to say he would run our company just as badly as the current CEO for half the salary. When the Xerox fiasco occurred, I told him that if he had worked at Xerox, he couldn't have honestly said that because it is not clear he could have run the company that badly without a very active effort. The guy apparently took a very competent sales force and "reorganized" them in a stupid way that left them confused and their competitors eating their lunch.

And they call this "risk! Risk, my ass!!

[Neurotik]

If the Xerox board was dumb enough to give a poor CEO that contract, whatever. Too bad about your friend, though. He should get some degrees and lots of management experience and become a CEO.

[Evil Captor]

My definition of "leisure class" is much broader than the ones found here: you are a member of the leisure class if you (and your family, if you have one) can live comfortably without your working for anyone at all. For a single person that might take just $80,000 a year in most of the country, for a family of four it might take $150,000 a year.

Now, you may CHOOSE to work under such circumstances, but it's your CHOICE you see. You have that glorious thing that most of us don't, freedom.

If you HAVE to work to keep a roof over your head, you're just a wage slave like the rest of us. You can change massas, but you still gotta work in somebody's fields.

The leisure class will always be those who can live very well without lifting a finger, whether they choose to lift a finger or not. On the poor end of the scale you will always find those who do not or cannot work, but you'd have to be crazy as a WSJ editor to think they're living well.

To me, the term "leisure class" is not a term of opprobrium. If our tech continues to evolve as it has of late, almost all of us will be members of the leisure class in a few years. The capitalist formula will serve us badly when that happens.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by jshore
Well, what about the CEO of Xerox who drove the company into the ground in no time flat? When he was fired by the Board, they were obligated by contract to pay him like $600,000 / year but then they decided out of sympathy to throw another $200,000 his way. Meanwhile, I know lots of ex-Xerox employees who, how shall we put this, didn't get quite the same golden parachute.
[/B]

Quite frankly, I don't understand why the employees of Xerox or American Airlines or Enron rise up, go over to their house and kill them like they did in the old days.



Originally posted by Evil CaptorMy definition of "leisure class" is much broader than the ones found here: you are a member of the leisure class if you (and your family, if you have one) can live comfortably without your working for anyone at all. For a single person that might take just $80,000 a year in most of the country, for a family of four it might take $150,000 a year.


Where does that $80k a year come from if you aren't working?


BrainGlutton
If you are Episcopalian or Jewish, have a graduate or professional degree from an expensive university, work in a large downtown office building in an East or West Coast metropolis, watch MacNeil/Lehrer on PBS, and are saving for a vacation in London or Paris, you are a card-carrying member of the white overclass, even if your salary is not very impressive.


Exxxxcellent...[WRINGS HANDS TOGETHER]

By your definition, anyone who is a white professional is a member of the "overclass"?

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by msmith537
Where does that $80k a year come from if you aren't working?

Right now, inherited wealth, lottery winnings, savings from a really lucrative job, stock market killing, etc.

Eventaully, automated production will make it possible for most of us to eat, have a roof over our heads, travel and have nice clothes without lifting a finger. Be interesting to see how we solve that little problem. And painful, probably.

[sailor]

Yes Virginia, there is a leisure class out there and their numbers are much larger than you can imagine You can see them hanging out in street corners and Seven-Eleven parking lots. They never have to work because the government houses them and feeds them for free at the expense of the working class who are extorted part of the product of their work for this purpose.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
Eventaully, automated production will make it possible for most of us to eat, have a roof over our heads, travel and have nice clothes without lifting a finger. Be interesting to see how we solve that little problem. And painful, probably. [/B]

I'm too am curious to see what happens when we become so efficient at producing we don't require our entire population to work

[milroyj]

Originally posted by DanBlather
I'd put the Kennedys agianst the Bush twins any day, however. In what way are you comparing the Kennedy clan vs. the Bush twins? Their charity works? They're 21 year old college students. Or their scandals? In that case, have the Bush twins drowned, raped, or killed anybody?

[Sanders]

Here's the Veblen definition, FYI. This is taken from Introduction to Political Economy by Sackrey and Schneider, page 65:

"In the Veblenian system, then, the modern leisure class would consist of those whose ownership of wealth and whose control of the means of production permits them to engage in the same kind of relentless competition and predatory activity carried out by their barbarian forefathers, and more importantly, to be exempt from the menial jobs performed by ordinary workers. Modern leisure class activities would include high finance, corporate law, management, and other activities undertaken by those concerned mainly with ? "conversion of goods and persons to [their] own ends, and a callous disregard of the feelings and wishes of others, and of the remoter effects of his actions" (Dorfman 1961, 184). The modern menial class would thus consist of those who are not owners of property and thus must work for wages or salaries for someone else."

[DanBlather]

Originally posted by milroyj
In what way are you comparing the Kennedy clan vs. the Bush twins? Their charity works? They're 21 year old college students. Or their scandals? In that case, have the Bush twins drowned, raped, or killed anybody? They're only 21, give them time. They are kind of slow however, their mother had already killed someone by the time she was 17. http://www.nctimes.com/news/050400/ss.html

[milroyj]

Originally posted by DanBlather
They're only 21, give them time. They are kind of slow however, their mother had already killed someone by the time she was 17. http://www.nctimes.com/news/050400/ss.html

You, sir, are not a gentleman. The First Lady has not killed anyone. She was involved in an accident in which someone was killed, yes, but she did not kill anyone. Notice the lack of charges being filed.

And if a 40 year old traffic accident by their then teen-age mother is the best slam you can come up with against the Bush twins, you have some work to do. Even then, I seriously doubt your alleged scandals will sink to the level of the Kennedy drowning, rape, and murder scandals.

[DanBlather]

Originally posted by milroyj
You, sir, are not a gentleman. The First Lady has not killed anyone. She was involved in an accident in which someone was killed, yes, but she did not kill anyone. Notice the lack of charges being filed. That also seems to describe the Kennedy "drowning" incident pretty well.

[milroyj]

Originally posted by DanBlather
That also seems to describe the Kennedy "drowning" incident pretty well.

I knew you'd latch on to that aspect. Anyway, seeing as how Ted Kennedy was 37 (not 17) at the time, and he was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident (Miss Welch received nary a traffic ticket), I don't think the two incidents are comparable in any reasonable way.

When you come up with more false allegations against the Bush family in terms of rape and murder, let us know.

[jshore]

milroyj: Well, the article says she "ran a stop sign." It sounds like she is damn lucky there were no charges. I had never even heard of this incident before. God knows that if Hillary Clinton had done such a thing, I would have known all about it!

[BrainGlutton]

lander2k2 wrote: "If you took the sector of [the white overclass] that contributes considerable sums to election campaigns and has connections to organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Royal Institute of International Affairs, then you would find what is referred to as the 'rich elite.'"

I've heard of the CFR, but what is this Royal Institute of International Affairs?

msmith357 wrote, "By your definition, anyone who is a white professional is a member of the 'overclass'?" Not my definition, Michael Lind's -- which I find very convincing, really the best definition I've found after a lot of looking. But being a white professional (which I am) does not automatically make one a member of the overclass (which I almost certainly am not, even though I went to Georgetown U.). You also need a certain minimal level of financial success, plus certain social connections and, above all, a certain kind of acculturation or socialization. I think there is a large segment of American society who could be categorized as in the lower fringes of the overclass, or the upper fringes of the middle class, with equal plausibility; and with the potential to go up or down. This isn't Great Britain. Classes here can never be precisely defined, except where they are defined by immutable characteristics such as race, as in the Old South. Nevertheless, class is a very real and important thing here and always has been.

[milroyj]

Based the article, the only "charges" that seem relevant would be a moving violation for missing the stop sign. Otherwise, there is no evidence of any crime being committed. It was an accident.

[DanBlather]

Originally posted by milroyj
When you come up with more false allegations against the Bush family in terms of rape and murder, let us know.
`Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.

`I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'

`You mean you can't take LESS,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take MORE than nothing.'

[milroyj]

Some pills make you larger, and some pills make you small. The ones that Mother gives you don't do anything at all. Just ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by DanBlather
They're only 21, give them time. They are kind of slow however, their mother had already killed someone by the time she was 17. http://www.nctimes.com/news/050400/ss.html [/B]

What crimes have the Bush twins committed other than a little underage drinking, pot smoking and partying? In my book, that doesn't make them any better or worse than half the kids their age. It hardly indicates they belong to some kind of privledged class that lives above the law.

[jshore]

Originally posted by msmith537
What crimes have the Bush twins committed other than a little underage drinking, pot smoking and partying? In my book, that doesn't make them any better or worse than half the kids their age. It hardly indicates they belong to some kind of privledged class that lives above the law.

Well, you know there are some people who are locked up in jail for possession of marijuana or use of cocaine (which George W has refused to deny using). I'm not claiming that these are horrendous crimes but only that the treatment that the Bush clan has received for them is different than the treatment others have received. I remember a piece in the Nation by Patricia Williams noting that in the African-American community there is a widespread belief (that I personally feel has quite a bit of merit) that a poor black man who was as much of a partier / fuck-up as GW in his younger years would more likely be in jail now than President of the United States.

[j.c.]

Along with what AvhHines said, comments about Xerox, Enron, and the discussion we could be having about Jack Welch looting GE, I'd like to talk about charity work.

Ever been involved in high-dollar a plate dinner or benefit? Most of the rich people don't do anything but write checks. That chairwoman with her name in the society page probably paid her secretary to do the work. (I've seen some who do real work, but few.) "My Man Godfrey" describes there events rather well.

Back when I was more active in the art world, I spent plenty of time with trustanistas and socialites who did nothing, had never done anything, and had no plans to do anything. Mysteriously, women of this class are lousy tippers while the men are always good for 20-percent at least. That's my anacdotal evidence.

The linked article, which will cost money or require a trip to your local library or online document service, has solid, sourced data about the rise in upper-level management compenstation. (Feel free to disagree with the analysis.) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0F1EF83A5E0C738EDDA90994DA404482

[The MacDairmuid]

Originally posted by MSU 1978
Apparently there was some leisure time in spelling class. Too bad I worked through that leisure time; I might be making 6 figures as well.

Originally posted by msmith537
Some of us can't afford fancy private typing schools or high tech spell checkers. How true. I had to learn spelling the old-fashioned way--by writing the correct spellings of my misspelled vocabulary words 100 times, by hand.

[FisherQueen]

There's been a lot said about race, and I know that the moneyed class is mostly white.

Are there any black families who would fall into the 'leisure class' definition?

[BrainGlutton]

Some very rich blacks might qualify as "leisure class." At this stage of American history, however, a black who is rich enough not to have to work probably acquired his or her money through work in the past. There are very few black trust-fund kids. Yet.

Blacks might belong to the "leisure class," but not to the "overclass." Above I discussed Michael Lind's book "The Next American Nation" and his theory of the white overclass. He did address the subject of race: In his analysis, there is a "black overclass" and a "Hispanic overclass," but they are dependent, salaried auxiliaries of the white overclass. Some have high-level civil service positions, or even business executive positions, but they lack the real financial independence that characterizes the white overclass. And they are distinctly separate classes in terms of their social networks and marriage prospects. Individual blacks or Latinos -- such as Clarence Thomas -- might achieve full acceptance in the overclass, but they have to prove their acceptability one at a time.

[msmith537]

j.c.
Back when I was more active in the art world, I spent plenty of time with trustanistas and socialites who did nothing, had never done anything, and had no plans to do anything. Mysteriously, women of this class are lousy tippers while the men are always good for 20-percent at least. That's my anacdotal evidence.



My theory is that men demonstrate power and wealth by tossing money around. We buy outrageous cars and spend ridiculous amounts on alchohol. Part of the joy of being wealthy is the ability to bitch and complain about having to drop a shitload of money on something.

A woman socialite, on the other hand, generally has no skills and no source of income other than inhereted or married money. A person who basically marries for wealth is generally self-centered and greedy and is therefore less likely to tip.

Just my theory based on your annecdote.

[XT]

Maybe you are right MacDairmuid. I always felt math and science were more important...maybe thats why I make that 6+ figure salaray, though I can't spell very well. And maybe its because english is my second language. I'm much better at spanish...

BrainGlutton, I just read your long post on the white 'overclass'. Its very interesting (I'm definitely going to look up that book and read more), but I'm at a loss on some points. What does this white 'overclass' supposedly DO? Do they rule the political system? People from your 'overclass' would seem to fall into both sides of the political spectrum, though from your general description, I'd say a lot of liberals certainly fall in there. But the government seems to swing back and forth between democrat and republican, liberal and conservative...so they don't seem to be doing a very good job of keeping the ship of state on course. Or is it that they control the 'means of production'? Is this 'class' supposedly united somehow? I assume that you agree that the supposed 'leisure class' is a very small minority in this....even your rich white 'overclass' has to WORK for a living...if I understand what you wrote correctly. Please correct me if I'm not understanding you fully.

Myself, I'm a hispanic who drinks beer (well, Guiness), and I only go to London on business...Paris is not my cup of tea. I'm not a big fan of Las Vegas or any of your other underclass cities though...I'm more for Jackson Hole and skiing. I play both golf and tenis, though I also play volley ball and do martial arts...and I don't bowl, ever. :) I'm a catholic, though lapsed, so the protestant thing is clearly out. I'm clearly not part of your white 'overclass', but don't feel particularly downtrodden. I've never seen that the oppertunities were kept from me or my family, though sometimes we need to work harder than some might have too. My father owns his own business (he's the hispanic btw...my mother is 'white', so maybe I'm half overclass :))and belongs to a first tier country club, but its in Alb New Mexico so that might not count. :) He also drinks wine, which I find fairly disgusting, and smokes cigars (though not lit with $100 bills usually :)). The only category I know I fit into is American Citizen....

-XT

[j.c.]

msmith537 - your theory makes a lot of sense. Even men who didn't make their own money would follow the gender role and act as though they had. Thanks for the insight. Now... if we could only prove it!

[BrainGlutton]

xtisme: Well, as I pointed out above, no class analysis, no matter how sophisticated, can be hard-and-fast. Not in the U.S., anyway. There will always be a certain number of people on the fringe between two classes, who might be assigned to one class or the other. You might be in the white overclass, the Hispanic overclass, or the middle class. You probably won't know for certain until you see where your children end up.

What does the white overclass DO? For one thing, while it does not, as a class, rule the country -- a class is not an organization -- it does produce the people who rule the country, the "institutional elite." Here is another excerpt from TNAN, pp. 142-143, which I omitted from my earlier post in the interest of (hah!) brevity:


. . . Indeed, we cannot talk intelligently about class unless we make a distinction between a social class and a mere institutional elite. Those who talk about "the political class" or, with C. Wright Mills, about "the power elite," are confusing two very different things. Every modern society, even the most perfectly egalitarian, will have an institutional elite -- top civilian politicians, military officers, judges, diplomats, financial and industrial executives, publishers, editors and leading intellectuals, clerical leaders, and so on. The subject of class is raised only when you examine the social origins of the particular individuals who hold office in the institutional elite or elites. Learning the organization of judicial offices in a country tells you nothing about class. However, if you find out that most of the judges tend to come from old-money families in a particular region of that country, and that most attended one of half a dozen schools, then you have learned something important about that country's class system.

The United States at the end of the twentieth century has both an institutional elite and a dominant social class. The institutional elite is composed of upper-level officials in the federal and state governments, plus executives and professionals in the concentrated private sector and foundation and university executives (low-level government officials and small business owners are not part of the institutional elite). Almost all of the members of the American institutional elite also happen to be members of a single social class: the white overclass. To put it another way, the labor pool from which most elite positions are filled is the white overclass. The overlap is not complete. Though most members of the institutional elite belong to the white overclass, most members of the white overclass are not part of the institutional elite (since the overclass greatly outnumbers the elite); and -- though this is uncommon -- a person can become a high-ranking politician, military officer, judge, CEO, foundation president, or university president in the United States without having been born into the white overclass. It is possible to imagine a United States in which most members of the institutional elite did not have similar class origins. But that is not the country in which we live.


Now, as you pointed out, the overclass produces political liberals as well as conservatives. In another of his books,
Up From Conservatism, which I don't have in front of me right now, Michael Lind show how the liberalism of the overclass is very different from any political viewpoint of the working class.

And, yes, the American white overclass controls the means of production, in three obvious
ways:

1. All our major corporations (which directly own and control most productive property, including, nowadays, agricultural as well as industrial property) are run by overclass executives; in particular, the CEOs and boards of directors are almost certain to be of overclass origin.

2. All our major corporations are, technically, owned by their stockholders, and most of that stock is in the hands of overclass investors.

3. Corporate control of the means of production is to some degree mitigated by the superior power of the government, but the overclass controls that too, as explained above.

Revolution eventually!

[Evil Captor]

OK, so what schools do the overclass members go to. I'm guessing the guys go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and maybe a coupla others, because it's kind of amazing how often people who land big-money jobs or get promoted as bestselling writers, etc., just happen to have gone there. I'm guessing that Radcliffe, Bryn Mawr, Brown and the rest of the Seven Sisters.

That's why I kinda tend to buy into the overclass theory. I used to think that class was irrelevant to most Americans, but nowadays I'm inclined to think it has a lot to do with how likely you are to succeed in life -- what jobs you get offered, what opportunities you obtain. I still think you can get ahead on merit, but a guy born into the wrong class is gonna need a hell of a lot more merit than one who is.

I suppose the thing gthat put the hammer on the nail was listening to NPR and hearing a story of a young writer who had to sit with a fatuous old editor of a major east coast paper saying, "It's amazig how often the best people really are the best people!"

[msmith537]

Evil Captor
OK, so what schools do the overclass members go to. I'm guessing the guys go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and maybe a coupla others, because it's kind of amazing how often people who land big-money jobs or get promoted as bestselling writers, etc., just happen to have gone there. I'm guessing that Radcliffe, Bryn Mawr, Brown and the rest of the Seven Sisters.


Yes and no. If you want to work at a top investment bank or consulting firm like Goldman Sachs or McKinsey, it helps to graduate from a top-10 business school. Then again, with the I-banks and consulting firms laying everyone off, nothing is guaranteed. And even if you aren't laid off, you may still not be able to work 100 hour weeks or 100% travel long enough to advance above high-paid white collar slave to the "overclass" (ie MD or Partner)

What you are seeing is an institutional class system. Certain schools developed a reputation for excellence so the top companies tend to hire there. Since those schools offer access to the top jobs, the attract more students and can select the best of the bunch. Graduate in the top of your class and you can land a good job. Good jobs tend to lead to better jobs and so on.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, would you rather have your most talented and educated as the leaders of your governments, corporations and financial institutions or some fuck-o who went to community college cause he spent his HS days stoned?


The problem is that the "class" system is reinforced in a number of ways that makes it dificult to move upward from once class to another. One is simple knowledge. Most people have no idea that it takes more than just study hard/get a good job to become anything more than just a good cog in someone elses machine.

Another, of course, is the family you are built into. If you are born into a family that can afford to send you to college or subsidize your lifestyle or crackpot business plan, you certainly have an advantage over some kid who has to work 3 jobs to pay his tuition.

[XT]

Thanks BrainGlutton....given me a lot to think about. I'll check out the books and see if it changes my view on things.

One final though from me on this. No doubt that the social status of your birth (re: Race, financial strata, possibly religious affiliation) helps quite a bit. I don't see how it could be any other way, given that if YOU have money, you are certainly going to make sure your children enjoy the benifits of it. And no doubt that it also paves the way to a political ruling class (i.e. members of our political orders, reguardless of which party, are MOSTLY drawn from the wealthy). But its definitely not a ridgid system...ANYONE, reguardless of their birth status, can rise to the highest levels (from what I understand, the second anti-christ Nixon wasn't particularly rich, nor does he LOOK like the standard WASP, though I might be wrong about that...and I think Bill Gates, the first anti-christ dropped out of college and didn't come from a particulary wealthy family) through luck, skill and determination. There are plenty of examples (though mine might be bad...my best example is my dad, but it would be meanless to ya'll).

Being wealthy is not NECESSARILY a crime or evil. Being poor is not NECESSARILY noble. Many people are wealthy because they EARNED it...and many people are poor because they EARNED that. And maybe there IS a small class of useless wasters at the top spectrum (ok, no maybe there...there ARE such people, no doubt)....a leisure class. But I still feel that the majority of people considered 'wealthy' WORK for it, and many of them work harder than the average 'working man' thinks they do.

-XT

[Evil Captor]

actually, you are wrong, xtisme.

I have read sources that indicate that the vast majority of people who are wealthy inherited their wealth, they didn't build their fortune from scratch.

I have also read that there's actually very little migration from the (economic) middle class to the (economic) upper class (or vice versa). there is a large amount of migration between the lower middle class and the upper lower class, in both directions. But it's not permanent, it's more a matter of "churning" as the fortunes of individuals and families are changed by the absence or prescence of a good-paying job.

I realize that these assertions need cites to back 'em up and if anybody wants to challenge them I'll see if I can dig 'em up.

However, as for the "anybody can succeed in America" meme, you may be interested to know that every year the Roman Emperor used to free a number of slaves. The idea was to keep the slaves content by giving them the feeling that "anybody, even a slave, can become a citizen of Rome." Of course, that was not reality for the vast majority of Roman slaves. I'm hoping you see the parallels here.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
I have also read that there's actually very little migration from the (economic) middle class to the (economic) upper class (or vice versa). there is a large amount of migration between the lower middle class and the upper lower class, in both directions. But it's not permanent, it's more a matter of "churning" as the fortunes of individuals and families are changed by the absence or prescence of a good-paying job.
[/B]

I would be interested in seeing those statistics.

I would also be interested in seeing statistics on what % of CEOs are self made men like Bill Gates or Michael Dell and the income bracket these people were born into if such stats exist.


When we say "anyone CAN succeed in America" that does not mean that everyone WILL succeed. Obviously not everyone can be a CEO. What stops most people from entering the ranks of the super wealthy?
-First of all, a lot of people just don't want to. Not everyone wants to be a banker or lawyer or manage a division.
-A lot of people are just not that smart. How many people are in the top 1% academically? It's pretty hard to get into Harvard Law or Wharton or get a top job in the Fortune 500 as a C student.
-It's not that easy coming up with a good idea for a business.
-Bad luck - people get laid off, divorced, injured, whatever.
-Working your entire life to amass wealth sucks - It's great to be born wealthy. For the rest of us, to acquire that kind of wealth means an entire lifetime of working to be the best of the best - studying, working 100 hour weeks, weekends, etc. All to give it all to your stupid spoiled kids who will probably blow it all on coke and expensive cars.







Originally posted by Evil Captor
OK, so what schools do the overclass members go to. I'm guessing the guys go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and maybe a coupla others, because it's kind of amazing how often people who land big-money jobs or get promoted as bestselling writers, etc., just happen to have gone there. I'm guessing that Radcliffe, Bryn Mawr, Brown and the rest of the Seven Sisters.



Jack Welch - GE -
BS Chemical Engineering, UMASS
M.S. and Ph.D degrees in chemical engineering, University of Illinois

Lee Iaccoca - Chrysler - Son of Italian imigrants,
graduated Lehigh University
Went to Princeton on a Fellowship

Bill Gates - Microsoft - Born into a typical upper-middle class family (dad was a lawyer, mom was a schoolteacher)
dropped out of Harvard


Those are just three that I pulled off the top of my head. They all went to decent schools but hardly what I would call elite. With the exception of Gates who never finished.