They might not consider them “lower class”, but they would consider them nouveau riche. First generation billlionaires can buy their way into the upper class, but the price can be quite steep. Even Bill Gates would have to jump through some hoops if he wanted his daughter to debut at certain events or his son or daughter to join certain Ivy League fraternities or eating societies. And there are even a few very strict circles, Charleston’s St. Cecilia society comes to mind, where even the first generation billionaire would not be welcomed. Though he or she could buy admission for the next generation by giving his or her daughter a large trust fund and marrying her to the son of a member.
Time for the Sass to put the SASS back in the -$$. About your friends, wealthy and very educated doesn’t make them ‘class’. The T-shirts and shorts to a dinner at a fancy restaurant (white tablecloth?) is not only declasse but inappropriate. Most restaurants that are really fancy have dress codes, especially for dinner. Were they wearing sneakers or flip-flops too? Even nightclubs usually forbid those, and sometimes forbid shorts.
I have to doubt the breeding of your friends. Based on Fussell, sounds prole to me :smack:
Yeah, I’ve been giving this some thought and I don’t know if “classy” is a word I’d pick to describe them… 
They’re a few rungs further up than us on some ladder, at any rate.
I don’t know when you were there, but when it first opened they called “Walk’s Place At The Pub”, which was kind of a silly name. But they had passable beer that wasn’t too expensive, and decent live music on the weekends. Being on campus, though, there was no way they were going to get a license to serve distilled spirits.
It didn’t seem particularly high or low class, but much like the same kinds of bars we’d go to off campus. Most of the students didn’t have a great deal of money; I had friends in the dorm who worked in the cafeteria or did night-watchman type work in the labs. msmith537s posts about upscale student bars makes me wonder if we’re returning to a Guilded Age scenario when the students will all be upper class. Personally, though, I can’t imagine students hanging out in a place that doesn’t have a little grunge, IME it’s been the very essence of student (life)style.
If you were there much later than I was, which was 1975 - 80, then it’s possible that after the state cracked down hard on underage drinking, an on-campus pub just wasn’t so viable anymore. In my time enforcement was very lax, and I often bought wine at the St. Germain’s liquor store, before I came of age. Nowadays they probably have an ABC agent there full time.
Hey, at least Walk’s was better than Future Foods, the vegetarian restaurant it replaced.
I’m wasting my time here, since you’ll never EVER respond to this, but…cite for homeless kids “rioting” at your local homeless shelter?
Please consider, at least once in your posting career here, backing up the outrageous statements that you make. JUST ONCE.
Sorry, but as a native RI’er, I have to nitpick: Block Island is in RI, and I don’t think it has ever been associated with “old money.” My experience of it is grizzled old fishermen. Could you be thinking of Nantucket, MA?
This reminds me of when I was in college. My girlfriend went to a different school nearby that was more “middle class” than my “elite preppy college for rich frat-guy douchebags and sorority bitches”. Anyhow, one of her friends was taking some morning classes at my school and apparently she got up extra early so she could shower, put on her makeup, do her hair and get all dressed up (as was the style back in that day). Presumably thinking that’s how “rich sorority girls” go to class, sort of like in the movies. Well, she was shocked that the girls at my school typically go to class in brown sweatpants with no makeup on and their hair sticking out the back of a distressed baseball cap.
Perhaps. Just skimming around the internet, I’ve also seen an implication that cotillions, coming out parties, debutante balls and the like are a bit of an ostentatious “new money” phenomenon these days. I don’t know. It’s not a part of society I’m involved in.
Besides, with all the corporate executives, investment bankers, lawyers, entertainers, athletes and others, I’m sure the nouveu riche don’t feel all that excluded from society.
Maybe. I was under the impression that rich people build mansions on all those little islands off Cape Cod.
The mansions on Newport, RI are probably some of the most famous. Although it’s my understanding that most of them had been sold or are being maintained by the state for historical reasons because the old money families could no longer afford the upkeep.
Which really just speaks to the ridiculousness of “class” anyway. It’s basically an attempt by people to pretend they are inherently better than others without having to actually compete as equals.
What’s ironic is that Newport used to be a symbol of “New Money.” Its where the kids of robber barons summered. The “Old Money” vacationed in other places like Bar Harbor. Most of the properties in Newport were abandoned and torn down (sometimes with the furniture still inside) when the families decided they didn’t want to pay the taxes on them anymore.
You won’t find old money anything on the Internet and “ostentatious” is one of the great sins in that world. Debutante land is not merely about coming out in a big party (in fact that party may be rather small and dingy). It’s the coming out at the right cotillions, parties, balls, etc. And old and new money debut parties are completely different in terms of rules and standards.
The corporate executives, entertainers, professional athletes, investment bankers, and rich lawyers (incidently few lawyers are rich, most aren’t even wealthy) and nouveau riche roll in a different sphere than old money. There is a completely different way of life between the two groups.
“Old money” people looking down on “new money” people always cracked me up. I have much more respect for the self-made man (or woman) who started with little or nothing and built a business from scratch. Most of them have talent and perseverance, and earned their money (although some just happened to be in the right place at the right time). It takes no skill to inherit a hundred million dollars.
Then there are people like Bill Gates, who started out with him million-dollar trust fund from his parents and turned it into billions. It’s not rags to riches, but it’s a lot more impressive than what Paris Hilton has accomplished. 
Is this question for real? You do realize that most homeless people don’t want to remain homeless, right? If you’re going to apply for a job, you really need a phone number for people to contact you, and prepaid cellphones are cheap these days – cheaper than a booze habit!
Is Paris Hilton “high class”? Her dad was “old money”, and she has plenty of cash (>$200 million). She acts a little slutty, but money covers a lot of faults.
I’d say she’s “no class,” myself, but that’s another discussion.
I once had a discussion with a sociology prof regarding class, because although growing up fiscally on the lower income side of middle class - my childhood experiences were outside of the normal class structure.
My parents were part of the artistic community, involved in fine arts & theatre. They were friends with people above and below us financially, as well as class. They’d associate with doctors, politicians, business owners, wealthy people (both old and new money) who need not work, as well as people one step from homeless and insane.
In the small duplex we lived in there were parties with all these people as guests, and often my babysitters were from families much more financially well off.
As an adult, I am still on the edge of the arts world, and in the pubs and venues which I frequent, there are people who come from all classes. I’ve been to loft parties where just like my parents parties are the same people, or at least the same types. I’ve never felt excluded or seen a vast difference in behavior between people of different backgrounds, except in subtle ways, such as those who are from poorer backgrounds bragging more about toys they buy.
Perhaps, because the arts world is a subculture, class does not apply and behaviours which indicate you as a member of the artist subculture are more important than behaviours of your class, or that behaviour between the classes is really not that different.
Ooh, you know what that sounds like? Kids being kids! Your post would be much impressive if you were talking about mature adults. But kids? Seriously? Kids don’t aspire to look “high class”. They generally want to look “cool” and popular, which has nothing to do with social class.
Which makes me think of something: many middle-class kids, when they reach a certain age, discover the wonders of thrift-store clothing. I’m betting it starts once they get their first job and discover that for the cost of one pair of GAP jeans, you can get two or three “used” Levis that look just as hip, if not hipper, at a good thrift store. It’s also a type of slumming or masking of class–no one can accuse you of being a spoiled little rich girl if you’re wearing faded jeans, run-over sneakers, and ratty old sweaters. But kids who are working-class and poor typically do not see the “coolness” of wearing old clothes, because they grew up on them*. They want clothes that are high-quality and new-looking. It may infuriate you that they aren’t “grateful” for what they have, but from their perspective, they’re trying to do whatever they can to not look like homeless waifs. Nicer clothes would do the trick.
Frankly, it doesn’t seem that hard to figure out.
*My older sister was born when my parents were working-class. All she wore was Goodwill and Salvation Army stuff as little kid, and you could tell the clothes were of poor quality in old photos. So when she hit her teens, she was all into namebrands and “cute” clothes. Fast forward to when my twin sister were coming up. We grew up in a solidly middle-class family. We wore hand-me-downs and K-Mart stuff, but we were never dragged to a thift store. We despised the “cute” clothes that our mother wanted us to wear. So when we hit our teen years, we basically lived at Value Village and dressed like bums. My older sister just didn’t get it at all.
Yes, but it can take quite a bit of skill to maintain that inheritance. One reason old money has to “look down their noses” on new money is that old money has withstood the test of time. No matter how the economies of the world shift from agriculture to industrial to service, they manage to survive. A lot of new money is gone by the third generation.
How many of the younger “old money” people have done any of that maintenance, though? And how do you know whether someone’s fortune is half what mummy and daddy left in the will, or double? If you give away half of your money to charities, does that make you less “classy” to the old-money folks because you didn’t maintain your fortune?
Actually, thinking about it, I’d disagree about basic maintenance of the inheritance. It takes a lot of skill to increase it, but maintaining it is easy if you’re ultra-conservative about the money.
Exactly! It takes a lot of skill. Especially in todays economy with all the banking fraud. It also takes a bit of restraint and living according to your means. I watched one person blow an inheritance once that their father worked hard to give them. It bothered me because I know it was a lifetimes work that was just wasted in a few years.
I actually work for some old money and it isn’t just about the money or the clothes. It’s something that money doesn’t buy. Integrity and perfect manners. Old money will treat their help like gold. They never look down on people and treat all people with respect. The attitude part that comes with new money. I am better then you would be seen as a lack of breeding in old money. “The Wives” of where ever tv shows are not about manners and integrity.
I once got a scholarship to the yacht club as a teen. I helped teach the sailing classes. I had a summer romance blossom with a “Thurston Howell the 3rd” type kid. His summer cottage was an estate. I have to give it to his parents who had class. They never treated me unkindly. I was obviously too middle class for their son. What they did was whisk him off to Scotland for the rest of the summer. I never saw him again.
I understand today that what they did was insulate him from me. They were never unkind to me though. The people with class treat their help with respect not like slaves. They pay their help a fair wage and are easy to work for. They have nothing to prove and nothing to show off.
If I am irked by homeless kids wanting to dress up like rich people it isn’t in their wanting it. I can understand that want. It’s in their doing nothing to achieve it. In expecting the taxpayers to give it to them. It’s in their lazy parents attitude that gets passed down that you deserve it without working for it. My kids also wanted nice clothes and they earned them by working in high school. I think that kids need to learn to work hard and to be smart with money. Rich people are misrepresented on tv as lazy but true rich people work hard to keep what they have. They also have manners and treat their employees well.
All the ones that will have it to pass on to the next generation.
Word gets around. It’s currently not polite to talk openly about money, but everyone knows what everyone is worth. As far as whether or not giving away half your money to charities would decrease your “classy” quotient, that really isn’t a question that would matter at that level. Certainly if you impoverished yourself giving to charity, it would seem odd, but I honestly can’t think of a single example within the last three-hundred years of anyone doing something like that. And someone who is extremely rich could easily give half their money to charity and still be extremely rich.
Maintenance would involve periodically increasing the money to keep up with inflation. Banks, stockbrokers, accountants, etc. all have to be paid. Revenue generating businesses have to be maintained and kept profitable.
I wouldn’t say “class does not apply;” rather, a different set of status-seeking rules are operating. Maybe it has to do with which influential artists you know, or even the classic “name the more obscure artist” competition straight from the sophomore bull session. The one weakness in Fussell’s work is his concluding chapter on “Class X” that supposedly transcends all the status silliness. Nonconformists conform too.