Yes, they will – so long as they’re white. Which might change in the future. There was a time, and not so long ago, when full overclass membership was denied to the wealthiest Jews. They might grow up in the same neighborhoods as rich gentiles and have rich gentile friends, but at the age of 18 their life paths would diverge – the Jews would go to different colleges and probably end up working in different companies or law firms and never have a chance of joining the most “exclusive” country clubs. That is no longer (so much) the case.
The difference is access to a network of powerful social connections, which money can’t buy, at least not in the first generation.
Right, because your “overclass” is more of a subculture than a class.
I don’t see why it’s such a big problem. If a smart farm boy from Iowa prefers to take the ACT; go to Iowa State University; stay in the Midwest; drink beer instead of wine; listen to country music instead of NPR; and vacation within the US instead of Europe, what’s the big deal?
SWPL = Stuff White People Like
I disagree with that too. Top colleges are always looking to improve their “geographic diversity,” which is basically code for not admitting too many Jewish kids from the suburbs of New York. I grant you that legacy admissions cut the other way, but a top student with good scores who is from the West or Midwest does have certain advantages in the Ivies.
I’ve read most of the first page and skimmed over the second page so forgive me if this point has already be made. There may be an “overclass” as has been defined in OP, but this population is slowly ceasing to be relevant in the face of the “new rich” BrainGlutton has mentioned. I don’t really understand the necessity to separate these people from the general wealthy population in this day and age. I don’t think their political and social clout are distinguishable.
God, I HOPE so! And they better go back to throwing their money away because this layoff is killing me. I am annoyed with the stock market because I don’t like competition.
Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. Even accepting this idea of the overclass, Palin was popular because she was in a position of power without being a member, but she was hated because she was deliberately ignorant and unqualified.
You must understand, a subculture can be something coterminous with a class or something orthogonal to it. African-Americans have an ethnic subculture, which has shaped all African-Americans from highest to lowest to some extent. But they are not all in the same social class.
:shrug: It’s just a matter of definitions. The key point here is that the “overclass” you have defined is not exclusive in the way that most people understand classes to be exclusive. e.g. the competent Iranian who is denied a high position because he’s not from one of the 100 Families.
So I think it’s misleading to use the words “class” or “overclass.”
Instead, the word “subculture” refers to a group of people which share some set of values, mannerisms, activities, interests, or beliefs etc. Based on your description of the “overclass,” I think that “subculture” is a much more accurate word to use.
Feel free to use whatever definitions you like, but it won’t change the basic point, which is that the “overclass” (as you have defined it) is not exclusive in the traditional sense.
No it is not, as I illustrated with my example in Post #56. You yourself conceded that the hypothetical person I described would have little or no problem joining your “overclass.” If he wanted to. Which he probably would not.
I think that one way to address the subculture vs. class discussion, which comes down to the exclusivity/rigidity of the overfoo, is to look at the US senate. I think most people would agree that just about any white member of the senate would be a good candidate for the ‘white American overclass.’ So… does anyone know how many white senators come from humble roots (brazil84’s studious farmboy) and how many come from a priviliged background?
Obama - humble
Bush II - Overclass
Clinton - Humble
Bush I - Overclass
Reagan - Humble
Carter - Overclass? Not sure how big that peanut operation was - went Naval Academy.
Ford - Fell into it. Yalie, not sure how powerful
Nixon - Humble
If the issue is raising people out of the underclass, the problem as I see it is that the characteristics of the “underclass” are very difficult to eradicate by outside interference. It is very difficult to make people want to adopt middle-class values (ideally, those traditional of small-c conservatism - hard work, a certain degree of puritainism towards drinking and drugging, saving, the importance of family and education, etc.), if they do not. Simply taxing the “overclass” and distributing the wealth is unlikely to do it, whether or not that distribution is in the form of extra schooling (though that has its own benefits).
Such social change, I believe, has got to come from within.
Texas
Kay Bailey Hutchinson : humble*
John Cornyn III : humble*
*This stretches ‘humble’ quite a bit, according to my brief research both came from solidly middle class families, so I’m using ‘humble’ to contrast with ‘overclass.’
Doesn’t change the fact that neither one grew up in any kind of “overclass.” Both were solidly middle class and had to earn their place in this “overclass.”
Although Chuck Schumer is just a regular dude, even today, that really seems to enjoy public service. I think if he were forced to go to some society event, he’d duck into the kitchen and watch sports with the waiters.
