…and can it please go back?
Apparently this is the new term for poor people.
Seriously, what gives? Aside from making no sense (upper/lower, not under), this is apparently just another BS term to evade using the word poor, and of course it looks like you’re classist if you start talking about our massive poor population, and how poor people are a drain on the economy, and how I don’t want to subsidize their education and health care and mail and pavement.
Underclass isn’t a NEW term for poor people, no matter your distain for it.
Found by Fred Shapiro of the American Dialect Society.
As to your characterization of the word as BS, and continuing your diatribe, denigrating poor people as stealing out of your pocket, I guess that’s why you started this in the Pit. 
–If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. --Dickens.
Apparently it’s been around since about 1961 (as a single word, anyway). Not what I’d call a really old word, or even on a par with “Fourth Estate”, but not as new as “phat,” and “bad” in a sense of being “good”.
A little newer than “third world.”
As for meaning, it’s not just “poor.” It seems to have been coined to take the place of the older social term “undeserving poor.”
Ah! No, not me. I was…inspired…by this thead, where Brazil84 was using the term. I had never seen it before; he’s being completely discriminatory, I wanted to make a new thread about it.
It carries a certain degree of Marxist association, offensive to people who want to think of ours as a “classless” society, one without an underclass, or an overclass, or a ruling class. Its nonsense, of course. America has a ruling class of semi-old money like the Bush’s and the Kennedys. It has an overclass as well, whose privilege is strictly defined by money. This class can be entered into by someone sufficiently lucky and/or ruthless, or either of those and smart as well. We are given to believe that this makes it all OK. I’ve never quite understood why. And I don’t intend to, any time soon.
The working poor would be Shudras, the underclass would be Parjanya’s.
Although I am loathe to speak for** Brazil84** (cause then I will have to take a long shower with disinfectant), I am relatively sure that in his/her particular case, the term “underclass” was being used as a code word for “black and brown people”. I prefer my racists to be more above board though.
Hey, it could be worse- how’sabout a visit to the Backwards Classes Welfare Department on your next trip to Darjeeling?
I first heard it when David Duke was running for congress - he used “welfare underclass” as his codeword for poor black people.
Much easier when they just say untermenschen but it no longer seems in vogue.
Underclass is often in the U.K.(but by no mean always)used to talk about those who spend a good deal of their lives on welfare,supplementing their income with petty crime.
As there appears to be more white people in this group then any other ethnic group this side of the pond, I dont think that it is a racial perjorative.
It doesn’t have that connotation to me at all. As distinct from working class it signifies to my mind, those who cannot climb the ladder to better material being. It’s not just poverty but an ingrained culture of poverty that is hard for social engineers to tackle.
Where can I sign up? I really would like to join the underclass so I could drain the economy and force people to subsidize my education and health care. (And provide me with my own private pavement.) I never realized being poor could be such fun.
For what it may be worth, I got the term from this article:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23273,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
I’m not sure I agree with everything Murray says, but I do think the term “underclass” is useful in the context of the social problems he discusses. As distinguished from the word “poor.”
Many middle and upper class Americans can smugly point to their grandparents who worked in sweatshops and were otherwise poor and argue something along the lines of “see, my grandparents pulled themselves out of poverty with hard work and education” or something like that. But it seems to me they are missing an important point, which is that their grandparents may have been poor, but they were not in the underclass.
I see your point,I’d put working class pensioners in this category.
Ha! I’m with this Doolittle guy: “I’m undeserving; and I mean to go on being undeserving. I like it; and that’s the truth.”
Yes, many work class pensioners would fit in.
And don’t forget the Obamas.
Huh?
I gather Lemur means that while the Bushes and Kennedys are wealthy powerful families, they are not a ruling class in the sense of European aristocracies, especially when upstarts like Obama (and for that matter, Bill Clinton) can get the top job through intelligence, hard work and charm.
