Cate Blanchett’s claim to be ‘middle class’ isn’t unique among the wealthy, or even the 1% she’s part of. Downplaying privilege among elites contributes to the problem of wealth inequality.
There’s people pulling in over a million a year, and just blowing it all almost immediately.
They’re upper class, but they can’t live that life and not work.
There’s people with millions in the bank, but live a middle class life and never stop grinding.
“Class” isn’t just about wealth. You need a minimum amount of wealth to move up, but there’s people who live a lower class life with the money to move up if they wanted, and there are people with an upper class lifestyle but it’s because they make terrible financial decisions and everything is overleveraged and they have a shit ton of debt.
Some of that isn’t a choice. I know Bond traders that make millions a year, but are constantly overextended financially because, really, they are addicts. They have to take risks at all times… It’s a compulsion like any other addiction.
How is it irrelevant? If you are going to be so dismissive, you could at least use a “because” followed by reasoning… Otherwise i will dismiss your conclusion as flawed… Because at this point it is.
Every possible choice will have an exception for someone who have a mental health disorder that keeps them from being able to make a choice. Your example is an irrelevant outlier that does not contradict the reality that 99.99% of people in the same position can make the choice
Your assumption and conclusion is incorrect based on my experience. Why do you think people with personality disorders disproportionately populate executive positions in corporations? Why are sociopaths great surgeons? Look at rates of alcoholism and suicide amongst professions, and then tell me if those rates support your conclusion that mental health issues amongst those who make money is an outlier.
I would argue anybody who outspends their capabilities is not upper class, because they’re obligated to continue working.
Like Nicholas Cage, made more money than most people ever see in their entire lives 40 times over, but spent more than he had. And therefore must do films. His burn rate is quite high. If you were to stop working, he could not maintain his lifestyle.
Where I will agree with you, is access to the political class, and the leadership class in different societies. The UK has examples of skint toffs that have a title, but no money attached to it, but by virtue of their family they have access to the leadership and political class. Most people, can leverage that, to make enough money to support their lifestyle, but there are ones who can’t.
Like Nicholas Cage, made more money than most people ever see in their entire lives 40 times over, but spent more than he had. And therefore must do films. His burn rate is quite high. If you were to stop working, he could not maintain his lifestyle.
Right…
Dude can’t stop working, because he can’t stop buying literal castles.
If he stopped, his lifestyle would change greatly.
But hed still be considered upper class to 99.999% of people by modern definitions. Because to a normal person owning triple digit castles makes no sense and they’d just sell them and retire.
It’s lifestyle creep to an extreme example.
Most people, can leverage that, to make enough money to support their lifestyle, but there are ones who can’t.
I really had high hopes for that Gentleman show, but it just wasn’t that great.
Exactly what you’re talking about about though.
The way upper/middle/lower gets split up depends where you’re at on the spectrum
Pretty much everyone (even Blanchet) view themselves as “middle class” because no matter how much wealth/power they have, chances are in social situations the people they interact with are half higher and half lower.
Even world leaders spend a lot of time with other world leaders.
Most powerful person in their country, but spends time with people in the same position but for a larger/wealthier/more powerful country.
It’s just basic psychology, we evaluate if we have “enough” by what the people next to us have. Give a kid a candy bar and they’re happy till you give the next kid 10, suddenly the first stops thinking of themselves as “candy rich” and start thinking theyre “candy broke”.
We look at Blanchets haul of candy and think it’s insane amount, but we have so little shed never even think to compare herself to us. We’re outside her frame of reference for what “enough” candy is. And she assumes it’s just a little less so we’re kind of close.
I broadly agree with you. But the reason lifestyle is the metric I use, is because it transitions between economies.
Somebody living in a subsistence economy, in an undeveloped part of the world, would see the average Australian household income as an absolute positive boon that nobody could possibly attain. relative to this person, all of Australia is wealthy beyond compare.
When you factor in cost of living, maintaining that lifestyle, it tends to shuffle out in terms of how long somebody can support themselves without working.
Nah.
There’s people pulling in over a million a year, and just blowing it all almost immediately.
They’re upper class, but they can’t live that life and not work.
There’s people with millions in the bank, but live a middle class life and never stop grinding.
“Class” isn’t just about wealth. You need a minimum amount of wealth to move up, but there’s people who live a lower class life with the money to move up if they wanted, and there are people with an upper class lifestyle but it’s because they make terrible financial decisions and everything is overleveraged and they have a shit ton of debt.
Lifestyle creep is a real thing.
They are choosing to do that though.
Maybe this is the true meaning of lacking class.
Some of that isn’t a choice. I know Bond traders that make millions a year, but are constantly overextended financially because, really, they are addicts. They have to take risks at all times… It’s a compulsion like any other addiction.
That is completely irrelevant in this context.
How is it irrelevant? If you are going to be so dismissive, you could at least use a “because” followed by reasoning… Otherwise i will dismiss your conclusion as flawed… Because at this point it is.
Every possible choice will have an exception for someone who have a mental health disorder that keeps them from being able to make a choice. Your example is an irrelevant outlier that does not contradict the reality that 99.99% of people in the same position can make the choice
Your assumption and conclusion is incorrect based on my experience. Why do you think people with personality disorders disproportionately populate executive positions in corporations? Why are sociopaths great surgeons? Look at rates of alcoholism and suicide amongst professions, and then tell me if those rates support your conclusion that mental health issues amongst those who make money is an outlier.
I would argue anybody who outspends their capabilities is not upper class, because they’re obligated to continue working.
Like Nicholas Cage, made more money than most people ever see in their entire lives 40 times over, but spent more than he had. And therefore must do films. His burn rate is quite high. If you were to stop working, he could not maintain his lifestyle.
Where I will agree with you, is access to the political class, and the leadership class in different societies. The UK has examples of skint toffs that have a title, but no money attached to it, but by virtue of their family they have access to the leadership and political class. Most people, can leverage that, to make enough money to support their lifestyle, but there are ones who can’t.
Right…
Dude can’t stop working, because he can’t stop buying literal castles.
If he stopped, his lifestyle would change greatly.
But hed still be considered upper class to 99.999% of people by modern definitions. Because to a normal person owning triple digit castles makes no sense and they’d just sell them and retire.
It’s lifestyle creep to an extreme example.
I really had high hopes for that Gentleman show, but it just wasn’t that great.
Exactly what you’re talking about about though.
The way upper/middle/lower gets split up depends where you’re at on the spectrum
Pretty much everyone (even Blanchet) view themselves as “middle class” because no matter how much wealth/power they have, chances are in social situations the people they interact with are half higher and half lower.
Even world leaders spend a lot of time with other world leaders.
Most powerful person in their country, but spends time with people in the same position but for a larger/wealthier/more powerful country.
It’s just basic psychology, we evaluate if we have “enough” by what the people next to us have. Give a kid a candy bar and they’re happy till you give the next kid 10, suddenly the first stops thinking of themselves as “candy rich” and start thinking theyre “candy broke”.
We look at Blanchets haul of candy and think it’s insane amount, but we have so little shed never even think to compare herself to us. We’re outside her frame of reference for what “enough” candy is. And she assumes it’s just a little less so we’re kind of close.
I broadly agree with you. But the reason lifestyle is the metric I use, is because it transitions between economies.
Somebody living in a subsistence economy, in an undeveloped part of the world, would see the average Australian household income as an absolute positive boon that nobody could possibly attain. relative to this person, all of Australia is wealthy beyond compare.
When you factor in cost of living, maintaining that lifestyle, it tends to shuffle out in terms of how long somebody can support themselves without working.
Nicholas Cage apparently finished paying off the insane tax debts he owed back from 2009 so he has said he will be more selective in roles.