Yes, but Shaq earned $350 million by joining, and succeeding in, the NBA. Grousbeck was able to “join” the NBA and indulge his love of sports because he is worth $350 million. i.e. Shaq got rich by joining in the NBA, Grousbeck joined the NBA because he is wealthy. Their relative net worths are irrelevant to the distinction.
The question I would ask is, “Who gives a rat’s ass?” This constant focus on slicing and dicing the population into classes and putting everyone into little compartments is counter-productive and divisive.
It’s much more important to focus on A) helping the truly destitute B) improving labor and income mobility, and C) ensuring that there is opportunity to move up from even the lowest levels.
I think the discussion of who fits into what category, Sam, might be beneficial for tax purposes, for example.
It’s pretty important to any kind of sociological analysis. Whether and how the upper-middle class is distinguishable from the middle is an important question in thinking about the shape of any society where such classes arguably exist.
Well, “class” becomes important when you try to help the destitute, improve labor, increase income mobility and ensure opportunity to move up for a number of reasons. Many of the obstacles to doing this take the form of learned behaviors or institutionalized segregation that keeps people stuck in the same socioeconomic group they grew up with.
Case in point, someone growing up in a trailer park or inner city ghetto will probably not get the same opportunities to attend private schools and top notch universities that the children of affluent lawyers and investment bankers have. Not only that, they might not even be aware those opportunities even exist. And even if they were aware and did manage to attend those schools, often they aren’t in tune with many of the behaviors and social customs they will need to be successful in that environment.
If you don’t understand the nature of the barriers that separate people into classes, it makes it very difficult to break them down.
And lets not pretend there aren’t different classes of people. A highly educated doctor or lawyer is not in the same “class” as a high school drop-out grocery clerk. So lets not pretend that they have or even should have the same opportunities. What matters is if the grocery clerk has the ability to educate himself to become a doctor or lawyer if he has the desire and ability.
Remember who you’re talking to; I doubt Sam accepts the value of such things, at least as government business.
So, planning to write a nasty letter to most airlines, are you?
The concept of class didn’t get invented by 20th or even 19th century liberals. There is some stuff in Aristotle which could qualify.
Arguing past one another like this seems particularly counter-productive - I mean that was only four posts ago BG. I mean the devil is in the details ( and I often don’t agree with Sam’s ), but you’re starting in the same place.
Come to think of it, shouldn’t sociologists have a standard model by now?
My bad.
Sociologists? They make economists look like chemists, in terms of being a well-founded science.
Still, it’s the closest thing we’ve got to a science in this field, unless you count Marxism as one.