Class divide

The Working Class includes the 56 year old master electrician making sixty grand a year who can rewire your house blindfolded and who served in Vietnam and whose first vote for President was for George McGovern.

The High Information Creative Class includes the 23 year old C-student junior high school math teacher making twenty-five thousand a year who's working one chapter ahead of his students in the text book and who met his current girlfriend at his mega-church and of course they're both saving it until marriage.

We live in an interesting country.

Just saying.

Comments

[Linkmeister]

We recently had a high-profile murder case (without a body, but with lots of circumstantial evidence) wherein the guy being tried was a 20-something pest control technician. The defense tried to explain that the blood found in the (enclosed) bed of his truck just meant he had carried around the body of the accidentally-killed young woman while trying to decide what best to do in order to keep his $75K per year job.

$75K!

[steve duncan]

http://glassbeadcollective.blip.tv/file/784711/

[Linda]

A master electrician who only makes $60,000 is not too ambitious, or semi-retired. If you are a master at a skilled trade, you can easily make $40 an hour straight time.

[Linda]

A master electrician who only makes $60,000 is not too ambitious, or semi-retired. If you are a master at a skilled trade, you can easily make $40 an hour straight time.

[burritoboy]

It's rather strange that nobody seems to remember that talking about classes goes back to Aristotle at least - everyone just seems to think it started with Marx. Machiavelli spends large portions of his Florentine Histories talking about classes, for instance.

Anyway, strangely, I've been reading Thomas Brady's Ruling Class, Regime and Reformation at Strasbourg: 1520-1555 and it begins with an extensive discussion of the class versus estate versus order divisions throughout a long period of history. "Estate" refers to the three estates - nobility, clergy and commons. But, of course, "estate" doesn't map well to the reality of the time - some members of the "commons" were wealthier, more powerful and influential (sometimes, very much so) than the poorer or more obscure members of the nobility and clergy. And intermarriage between the nobility and the wealthier members of the commons was common (Philip van Artevelde, effective ruler of medieval Ghent, married off his daughter to an earl, for example and was himself godson of Queen Philippa). In fact, it was quite common for a person to be a titled aristocrat in one context and a member of the commons in another. There was also few distinctions between nobles and the wealthiest commoners in terms of government service - many of the commoners who sat in the ruling councils of Strasbourg also routinely and occasionally simultaneously served in the administrations of a wide variety of princes.

So, not only is this nothing new - so much so that Machiavelli has to invent a circumlocution - "princes of the people" - to describe the elite of the "commoner" party - it's absolutely bog-standard.

[burritoboy]

It's rather strange that nobody seems to remember that talking about classes goes back to Aristotle at least - everyone just seems to think it started with Marx. Machiavelli spends large portions of his Florentine Histories talking about classes, for instance.

Anyway, strangely, I've been reading Thomas Brady's Ruling Class, Regime and Reformation at Strasbourg: 1520-1555 and it begins with an extensive discussion of the class versus estate versus order divisions throughout a long period of history. "Estate" refers to the three estates - nobility, clergy and commons. But, of course, "estate" doesn't map well to the reality of the time - some members of the "commons" were wealthier, more powerful and influential (sometimes, very much so) than the poorer or more obscure members of the nobility and clergy. And intermarriage between the nobility and the wealthier members of the commons was common (Philip van Artevelde, effective ruler of medieval Ghent, married off his daughter to an earl, for example and was himself godson of Queen Philippa). In fact, it was quite common for a person to be a titled aristocrat in one context and a member of the commons in another. There was also few distinctions between nobles and the wealthiest commoners in terms of government service - many of the commoners who sat in the ruling councils of Strasbourg also routinely and occasionally simultaneously served in the administrations of a wide variety of princes.

So, not only is this nothing new - so much so that Machiavelli has to invent a circumlocution - "princes of the people" - to describe the elite of the "commoner" party - it's absolutely bog-standard.

[burritoboy]

It's rather strange that nobody seems to remember that talking about classes goes back to Aristotle at least - everyone just seems to think it started with Marx. Machiavelli spends large portions of his Florentine Histories talking about classes, for instance.

Anyway, strangely, I've been reading Thomas Brady's Ruling Class, Regime and Reformation at Strasbourg: 1520-1555 and it begins with an extensive discussion of the class versus estate versus order divisions throughout a long period of history. "Estate" refers to the three estates - nobility, clergy and commons. But, of course, "estate" doesn't map well to the reality of the time - some members of the "commons" were wealthier, more powerful and influential (sometimes, very much so) than the poorer or more obscure members of the nobility and clergy. And intermarriage between the nobility and the wealthier members of the commons was common (Philip van Artevelde, effective ruler of medieval Ghent, married off his daughter to an earl, for example and was himself godson of Queen Philippa). In fact, it was quite common for a person to be a titled aristocrat in one context and a member of the commons in another. There was also few distinctions between nobles and the wealthiest commoners in terms of government service - many of the commoners who sat in the ruling councils of Strasbourg also routinely and occasionally simultaneously served in the administrations of a wide variety of princes.

So, not only is this nothing new - so much so that Machiavelli has to invent a circumlocution - "princes of the people" - to describe the elite of the "commoner" party - it's absolutely bog-standard.

[burritoboy]

sorry!

[Jim Miles]

"the 23 year old C-student junior high school math teacher making twenty-five thousand a year who's working one chapter ahead of his students in the text book"

As a 23-year old Math teacher myself, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Part of me is disgusted that such a character could exist (and I know this particular one is a figment of your imagination, but it's not too far removed from plausibility), but then I remind myself that I work zero chapters ahead of my students in the text book. I suppose your point is that this guy doesn't know his stuff. In my case I did a Maths degree so everything I teach (from GCSE to Further Maths A-level - I'm in the UK) is a piece of utter willy piss and reminding myself of it takes little more than a cursory glance.

To me, the notion of a C-grade student teaching "junior high" Maths and not understanding it is terrifying.

Good one!