Conquer Club

I just want to see what wealth class is dominate on Conquer Club and just so you know there is no gain for voting rich ok?

as a word of warning, people often screw up self reporting.

Also a lot of people dont really understand the technical distinction of what puts you into each strata in terms of classification.

got tonkaed wrote:as a word of warning, people often screw up self reporting.

Also a lot of people dont really understand the technical distinction of what puts you into each strata in terms of classification.

Quite. The biggest difference is usually between upper middle and lower upper. Nobody likes to voluntarily associate themselves with the rich, so say they are "upper middle class".

somewhere between lower middle and poor
which why I'm a freemium

Frigidus wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:as a word of warning, people often screw up self reporting.

Also a lot of people dont really understand the technical distinction of what puts you into each strata in terms of classification.

Quite. The biggest difference is usually between upper middle and lower upper. Nobody likes to voluntarily associate themselves with the rich, so say they are "upper middle class".

I love the rich

sailorseal wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:as a word of warning, people often screw up self reporting.

Also a lot of people dont really understand the technical distinction of what puts you into each strata in terms of classification.

Quite. The biggest difference is usually between upper middle and lower upper. Nobody likes to voluntarily associate themselves with the rich, so say they are "upper middle class".

I love the rich

Exception proves the rule...maybe?

Lower Middle...
Much like Earl, I promised myself that one day I would have a shirt for everyday of the week... and by God today I have that privildege.

My family in general is Upper middle. WIll probably move up to Lower Upper if my dad gets the promotion.

I make $1,200 a year more than the average annual salary in my county. I'd say that puts me quite squarely in the Middle.

I don't know. I got a lot of money back on my taxes though. What does that mean?

Neoteny wrote:I don't know. I got a lot of money back on my taxes though. What does that mean?

That you're a corporate criminal.

Shit. I knew the Madoff plan was a bad idea...

Neoteny wrote:I don't know. I got a lot of money back on my taxes though. What does that mean?

Only that you paid too much during the year.

Well just going to put this question out there, is anyone angry at someone pulling in 30k a month + 150-200k bonus every year? Can i ask why?

got tonkaed wrote:as a word of warning, people often screw up self reporting.

Also a lot of people dont really understand the technical distinction of what puts you into each strata in terms of classification.

What technical distinction? Money, education, housing ownership, parental class, job? Sorry but from a Marxist perspective there is really only two classes: Bourgeois (owners of the means of production: capitalists) and proletarian (producers: workers). I doubt there are any people on this forum that are bougeois. Pretty much ALL of you are proleterian.

P.S. To the OP - your poll doesn't even have working class as an option?! Poor(!) Your class loyalties are obvious!

sailorseal wrote:Well just going to put this question out there, is anyone angry at someone pulling in 30k a month + 150-200k bonus every year? Can i ask why?

First of all, sorry for the double post (but in my defence I haven't posted for 6+ months!).

In answer to your question - yes.

That level of salary is obscene. No individual requires that amount of personal wealth. No occupation deserves that remuneration.

Lvl 50 Dark Elf with Grand Fire Sword. I get 20,000 gold every mission I do!

Certainly in the UK, having lots of cash wouldn't necessarily make you "Upper Class", nor would being skint stop you being so.

Frigidus wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:as a word of warning, people often screw up self reporting.

Also a lot of people dont really understand the technical distinction of what puts you into each strata in terms of classification.

Quite. The biggest difference is usually between upper middle and lower upper. Nobody likes to voluntarily associate themselves with the rich, so say they are "upper middle class".

Not to mention that a lot of people also don't want to say that they're poor. They say things like "well, others are even worse off" and "we can still afford a roof over our heads".

Seriously, this is a ridiculous poll.

flashleg8 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:as a word of warning, people often screw up self reporting.

Also a lot of people dont really understand the technical distinction of what puts you into each strata in terms of classification.

What technical distinction? Money, education, housing ownership, parental class, job? Sorry but from a Marxist perspective there is really only two classes: Bourgeois (owners of the means of production: capitalists) and proletarian (producers: workers). I doubt there are any people on this forum that are bougeois. Pretty much ALL of you are proleterian.

P.S. To the OP - your poll doesn't even have working class as an option?! Poor(!) Your class loyalties are obvious!

Technical as is how it is currently computed for census purposes.

As to the rest of your point, even as a sympathiser its rather easy to point out we arent all marxists.

I suggest everybody lie about their class. Why be different than in the real world.

It is telling that, generally, you can talk to people about their religion, but not their finances.

got tonkaed wrote:
Technical as is how it is currently computed for census purposes.

Which census? I see you are in South Korea, how do they define class there?

As jonesthecurl points out it's not as straight forward as personal wealth (even if you are speaking in the commonly held use of the class system).

As to the poll from a traditionally held view of the class structure (in the U.K. at least) it should be:
Working class = what you would call in the US "blue collar workers", state educated, unlikely to have university education - or first generation attending Uni.
Middle Class (or if you wish lower and upper middle class) = Professional workers "white collar workers", traditionally public (U.S. private) school educated, university educated. Family history of higher education.
Upper-class = aristocratic, Eton, Oxford/Cambridge educated. Lives off inherited wealth.

You'll notice I've took out the traditionally held view that the middle classes are property owners. This really is less relevant today as more people from the traditional renting working classes can "own" their home due to cheap available credit. This makes no difference to the Marxist judgment of class as this kind of personal landowning cannot generate capital.

got tonkaed wrote:
As to the rest of your point, even as a sympathiser its rather easy to point out we arent all marxists.

Ahh, but we're all still governed by the same forces - whether you recognise them or not

Im an American abroad and as a result of course understandings of middle class may be somewhat different. In as far as most recent class models go, id say Gilbert and Thompson & Hickey (you can do a quick wiki search) as per this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class will identify as commonly acceptable starting points in terms of class. They were using the US Census Bureau data in terms of finding income i believe. Of course as a result without a five or six (at the very least) strata framework you end up having a vastly large range. Often the data is used to consider how much an individual or household income is above median income levels. If you peg the median income around 30 ish for an individual and about 45 for a house you can start to go from there. I think fairly standard (using upper and lower middle class) puts the upper somewhere around breaking 6 figures for a household and lower middle class somewhere between 50 and 100.

Part of this is probably why there is a large bit of confusion about what middle class is. You could arguably depending on the system say that anything from 40 to 100,000 (household gross income usually) is middle class even though there are probably fairly different lifestyles anywhere in there. Now part of the issue is that class status is never really solely defined by income, but that is how most people tend to imagine it, though there is usually some murky lifestyle element thrown in there. Depending on whose tonic you prefer you can argue any analgam of values or habitus youd like, but i dont think this is coherently understood by most individuals in any consistent way.

Personally if i was conducting the poll and was using income as my primary determinent (which i might not really consider that strongly) Id probably use something more akin to income breakdowns of Gilberts (whose model i happen to favor in general).

Though it would take more work i would surmise you could still use a marixan definition if you took the time to flesh out how live the capital was in this case. Obviously it would be very difficult but i would imagine you would be able to sort out a fair number of individuals who are likely to own some type of income producing property and keep a more traditional definition out there. I mean i dont think anyone losing anything out of the deal, but i dont think the shifting demographic by itself invalidates the definition.


You can be a structuralist all you like - its no more a viable alternative than any other number of methods, but it doesnt give the approach any more validity than anyone elses.

I knew this would attract some intelligence

So what should I put instead of poor?

got tonkaed wrote:Im an American abroad and as a result of course understandings of middle class may be somewhat different. In as far as most recent class models go, id say Gilbert and Thompson & Hickey (you can do a quick wiki search) as per this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class will identify as commonly acceptable starting points in terms of class.
[....]

Yes I see now what you and the OP meant by defining class. This is quite different to how we would traditionally define class in the U.K. I suppose we are the most class ridden society in the Western world and it is much harder for the system to shake off the "lifestyle elements" that you allude to that makes up our class structure due to our governing system (house of Lords, titles, Royal family etc) and imperialist past. Its interesting (but not surprising) how much your class structure is (officially at least) determined by income alone. This would be much less important to the British class system - where it is often said that your class is known the moment you open your mouth.

got tonkaed wrote: Though it would take more work i would surmise you could still use a marixan definition if you took the time to flesh out how live the capital was in this case. Obviously it would be very difficult but i would imagine you would be able to sort out a fair number of individuals who are likely to own some type of income producing property and keep a more traditional definition out there.

Yes, I agree. In Marx's day little or no working class or peasants would own land or property so he makes no effort to define ownership in this was - so people commonly confuse - as you say - "live" capital with property ownership. Even some less affluent families with perhaps a "buy-to-let" flat or two may still be defended as proletarian, they rarely derive enough income to truly sustained their living on this alone and require to work for an employer for their main wage. They may instead be classed with the petite bourgeois (the self employed or small landowners/small business owners), but from a class struggle perspective these classes should (and are) withering away back to the main body of the proletariat, due to the competition from the larger bourgeoisies.

As aside, in the U.K. traditionally office based jobs would be considered middle class, with working class jobs involving manual labour of some sort. In the post-industrial society we have in the UK there are few manufacturing jobs left a large percentage of the workforce work in service type jobs (admin, call centers, sales etc) which lead to the perception that the workers are no longer working class but middle class. I do not believe this to be the case - merely that our employment landscape is changing.

got tonkaed wrote: Part of this is probably why there is a large bit of confusion about what middle class is.

I think a lot of this is fostered by the class system itself. People "aspiring" to raise a class and working class describing them selves as middle class (as other posters have mentioned).
In reality this type of class system is really a smoke screen for the exploitation of the proletariat as a whole. The capitalists use the "divide and rule" strategy to constantly wedge divisions between the workers. As other posters mentioned to foster the "I may not be rich - but not as poor as him" feeling. Marx identified a section of the proletariat that would resist the class straggle (reactionaries) due to their perceived privileged position within the proletariat.

Racism, sexism, nationalism are all false divisions encouraged by the capitalists to further divide the working class struggle.