
The 3-ladder system of social class in the U.S. (2012) - theonemind
http://sasamat.xen.prgmr.com/michaelochurch/wp/2012/09/10/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/
======
jack_halford
(first HN comment)

I’m shocked that nobody has commented, this is a really well thought out view
of the world and solidifies my optimism for the future of the 21st century. I
think most people reading HN are G2 and I completely agree that we are the
essence of the coming post-mathusalist society!

~~~
DoreenMichele
_(first HN comment)_

Your handle is green, so old timers know you are new. It takes a week or two
for the green to wear off.

Welcome to HN.

------
slededit
This pattern of writing has been used for hundreds of years.

It starts with a base mostly detached description dividing people into groups.
The groups begin mundane or at least non-threatening. The idea is the reader
will attach themselves to one of those groups so that they are insulated from
what is to come. The writing here even helps you with this, "G2 is my native
social class, and probably that of most of my readers.". A flattering upper-
middling position in the hierarchy just defined.

But past this point the article takes a hateful turn. The description of the
previous groups existed merely so that the reader could ensure they personally
don't exist as part of the target. Here the perpetrators are not people, they
are rapists, war lords, and gamblers. There is nothing virtuous about this
group, "they’re the ugliest and most broken of each nation". In effect there
are really only two groups, that of the good and that of the evil.

At this point, the reader is supposed to have two conclusions, 1. there exists
a group of bad people we must do something about, and 2. they personally are
one of the "good guys". The group descriptions merely exist to justify
collective action against of group of "bad people" who are not bad because of
actions but because of who they are intrinsically. They cannot be saved.

What action is to happen varies, this form of argument has been used to
justify everything from the taking of land and property to outright genocide.
They always target a small minority of the population and assure the reader
the violence will not be directed at them.

~~~
woodandsteel
I find the author's description of the E1 class persuasive. I think there is a
selection effect here. To become a member of that class it is usually
necessary to be a clever, heartless sociopath, and so most of the people who
achieve that status have such personalities.

You want us to believe that today's E1 is not in fact an evil class, but you
offer no specific arguments, instead just a vague historical one. Furthermore,
you say, "What action is to happen varies, this form of argument has been used
to justify everything from the taking of land and property to outright
genocide." But as the article explained, what happened after WWII was instead
the elite were restrained and forced to behave in a moral fashion, and the
populations benefited enormously.

I am going to assume that the reason you offer no specific arguments that
today's E1 is not evil is because you don't have any remotely persuasive ones,
and the reason you don't is because they are in fact evil.

------
vorg
Although this article mentions racism later on, it would be interesting to see
the distribution of various ethnicities among the ladders and levels mentioned
in the first part of the article -- many people outside the U.S. view it as a
4-caste society made up of Caucasian, Asian, Black, and Hispanic, with an
underclass of Muslim "untouchables".

------
woodandsteel
"The Elite is pre-Malthusian; they are obsessed with the zero-sum game of
social status and the need to keep themselves elevated and others out"

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said that when people strive for more
wealth than they need to live comfortably, it is to achieve high social
esteem.

