Which means what? Of course it doesn't apply to every single individual but yes it is true, overall.Chances, averages
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which means what? Of course it doesn't apply to every single individual but yes it is true, overall.Chances, averages
There's power that comes with the money, but I will not go as far as stating that gives "the power to stay alive and mentally and physically healthier"@ChemGal, given two sets of children with the same genetic makeup and one being poor, the other being middle class, on average, the middle class child will do better. Even in extreme cases, they likely would have received better access to health care, better food, etc. Yes, there will be outliers where no amount of benefits would help, but, for the average ones, there is opportunity in being middle class, and for some, that opportunity is seen as internal power.
Did I understand the point correctly, @Kimmio ?
Okay, but there was a time when a person could get a decent paying clerical or entry job with union benefits and have an adequate standard of living. When my mom was in university, Safeway grocery clerk was a union job. The "working class" was more like the lower middle class - people could raise families. They had to be more frugal but they managed fine as long as there was work.In the middle class, contract work can be significantly more lucrative than paid employment. It is different. Not wrong.
So, is there a bias against those of wealth in middle class terms
Is there a bias against those of uber wealth?,
It feels to me that there may be around the uber rich (read Graeme's responses and Monks as compared to Carolla's). Seems the uber rich cant' win, if they don't communicate their givings, then people presume they aren't giving and are selfish.
It seems similarly there is a bias and presumption around middle class, just because they are middle class.
That's not the same as wealth giving the power that you said it does.Try staying alive without enough to buy food, have a place to sleep, to wash...with zero money...I'd say it'd be near impossible to stay healthy, save for what you can scrounge up.
Yes, it's exactly the same.That's not the same as wealth giving the power that you said it does.
Tell that to the trust fund baby who died shortly after birth.Yes, it's exactly the same.
Do you agree that developed countries with a higher standard of living (=more "middle class") have a lower infant mortality rate?Tell that to the trust fund baby who died shortly after birth.
Hi, in the opening post, i asked the question, how do you define wealth.
Chemgal has also asked you that question.
So, when you discuss the wealthy, what annual income, investment or capital assets do you consider wealthy.
@Kimmio , I agree, that many of those jobs are no longer what they are today. Look at bank clerks.
Major differences.
What I am saying is that the presumption that contract is less than full-time is no longer valid, just as the concept that working for a company for 30 years is better than working for one for three years.
Things are different.
Again, I think it is language that has shifted.
I am still wondering though, about bias.
I do my best to ensure I do not make presumptions of a negative sort regarding those who struggle with income, access to housing, medical health or income. I get there are many factors. I think that most people are good. I trust that people help each other. I have had @Seeler share stories of the generosity of those who don't have, but, offer what they do have.
Yet, I hear/read stereotypes about those who are middle class (who are wealthy to some), and the uber-rich (who are very wealth to others), and it seems ok to make negative presumptions. So, why is the bias acceptable? (or, i guess, do you agree that there is a bias)