This American has a stereotypically hard time disentangling class, wealth, and income, not to mention the societal- vs. self-perception thereof. Noneheless, around here, I’ve noticed a few things.
Purely cosmetic aftermarket car accessories seem to be lower class indicators. Fake portholes on the front quarter-panels, steering wheel wraps, goofy oversized wings, etc. Interestingly, cars themselves are not a good indicator: a Tahoe or Camry could have anybody behind the wheel.
Household “help” seems to correlate with higher classes. Paying someone to mow the lawn (sometimes just a neighbor kid) is common even in middle class. Higher classes frequently have landscaping services who handle planting and pruning. The upper-middle class tend to have a maid service that comes once every week or two, whereas the upper class often have a maid who works 5 days a week. Nannies are also a big indicator of upper class-indentifying dual-income households with kids.
I dunno about that. Rich bitches spend a lot of money on their hair and makeup. A halfway decent wash, cut and color at a nice salon is gonna cost you.
I’m going to get in trouble for this, but weight. The average weight of a WalMart shopper is way higher than a Nieman Marcus shopper. (Or even a Macy’s shopper.)
The corpulent fat cat of old editorial cartoons is actually probably pretty well toned these days.
I think teeth are a bigger indicator than hair. You can be poor as fuck and still have a friend or cousin who does your hair in exchange for babysitting or whatever. But you probably don’t have a friend or relative who you can trade with for braces and professional teeth-whitening.
Also, not everyone’s hair needs much work to look extremely healthy. Your teeth can look perfectly fine without much work if you’re lucky, but they’re not going to look like a movie star’s teeth.
No, I think this is exactly right. Being overweight - especially if you’re WAY overweight - is a marker of being lower class. Of course you can’t go too far the other way, either - if you’re a pumped up, juicehead-looking guy that can look lower class as well. The upper-class body type is trim and at most mildly athletic - like an amateur tennis player or a jogger.
One pointer is that the lower classes are less likely to make lists that combine things that personally irritate them to coincide with the preferences of those they consider lower class to themselves.
And they talk funny.
Not French Manicures - which is almost a certain sign you are dealing with someone who wants to be thought of as rich, but isn’t.
And it really depends on the person as well. I have a friend who comes from generational money - there is no doubt his parents, his cousins, his aunts and uncles - are of a certain class. Choate as a prep school type of family (in fact, his father and all his uncles went to Choate). They slop around the family compound (yes, family compound), in worn out sweaters, having driven up in an old SUV - and until you notice that the worn out sweater is Nautica, (and that they are schlepping around the family compound), and discover that the old SUV is the car you put the dogs in, not the one that you drive on a daily basis, you wouldn’t notice there was money by looking at them. The women don’t bother with makeup (much less manicures) and have their hair back in ponytails.
Oh, their conversation is different. Polite. They are very good at making small talk to strangers. There is a strange sort of formal casualness to them that comes naturally that I associate with “having grown up with money.”
the local pro at the golf course will be admitted into the society of the millionaires who play there. An artist or designer can become the darling of the rich. But only the top percentage of golfers and artists themselves become millionaires.
At the same time, a real estate or tech sharpie can make a quick killing, and still find the doors shut. The only society gatherings they are admitted to are the charity events where their checkbooks are their sole recommendation.
Certain hobbies, and familiarity with certain things. If someone says they like to ski, it’s likely they came from a background that could afford to go regularly. Similarly, I see families whose kids play hockey or pop Warner football tend to be more well to do than kids who play basketball.
Computer literacy could be another indicator. People who grew up in a family that could afford a home computer or attend school with lots of computers tended to be much more familiar with them as they got older since they didn’t grow up with that culture. My wife is the only computer literate person in her family, probably because she was the only one that went to college. Even as her family did Better financially and became middle class, they were so used to having to make do without a computer the concept of email, watching a movie streamed over the internet, or playing computer games is redundant to them.
I’ve noticed it more as poor people, if they have branding at all, have it very clearly and noticeably exhibited. Ralph Lauren Polo shirts with huge polo ponies and the like. Rich people, if they even wear Ralph Lauren at all, wear the tasteful stuff with the small pony embroidered on the chest.
That stereotype(?) seems to hold in general- if there’s a restrained and a garish version of something, the restrained one will be the province of the rich, and the garish one will be the province of the poor, be it fingernails, hairdos, cars/car accessories, etc…
I despise ‘branding’ as much as I despise the concept of fashion, but maybe the garish versions are those marketed as a function of price to the poor, whereas the restrained are more expensive.
The last research I read showed that weight is correlated really well with socioeconomic status for women, but not so much for men. The morbidly obese guy you see is most likely to poor, sure. But there’s a ton of awfully skinny poor dudes out there who kind of screw up the relationship. That’s my guess, at least.
It is also true that richer women who are heavier can afford to hide their girth with really nice clothes. And a nice hair cut can also have a slimming effect. A poor fat lady doesn’t have very many options.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned tattoos yet. To me, the more extreme the lower on the class scale. Sure, your upper class girl might have a butterfly on the ankle, but facial and hand tattoos seem to me a lower class or prisoner thing.
I’m going to caveat this one - where I live I’ve known of many lower level families with children where both parents work low level jobs who get a full-time in-home nanny because it is cheaper than putting all of the kids in day care. Now, are the nannies in the country legally? Is the family paying nanny taxes? One never knows, do one?
Skin tone used to be a class marker – 100 years ago.
Now all classes of people want to be as tan as possible. As a matter of fact, it’s probably upper class and upper-middle class people who are the most tan, because they can most easily afford weekly sessions in a tanning booth.
Never before has it been so socially acceptable to play Russian roulette with skin cancer.