undefined | Better HN

0 pointspw0ncakes16y ago0 comments

No. Rich does not mean upper class, and upper class does not mean rich. The two factors are strongly correlated, but not the same thing.

The upper class is a tightly-connected group of people who work to consolidate power, social resources, and wealth within their own ranks. Most of them are parasites and a lot of them are criminals whose politics are regressive.

Most rich people are technically upper-middle class. In fact, if you weren't born upper-class, upper-middle is as high as you can go (your children and grandchildren have a shot, though).

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

petercooper16y ago· 1 in thread

No. Rich does not mean upper class, and upper class does not mean rich.

I had to ask (and semi-assume) because, generally, "upper class" is based significantly on wealth and fame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class

Your definition seems to cover a more conspiratorial and political superclass (perhaps in an old European sense of "upper class"), and while I believe an insidious old-boys network of sorts exists, it can't be confused with the typical rich "upper class" that isn't inaccessible to newcomers.

starkfist16y ago

From other posts I've surmised that pw0ncakes lives in an Edith Wharton "Age of Innocence" version of New York with the scenes and characters updated for modern readers.

wrs16y ago

> if you weren't born upper-class, upper-middle is as high as you can go (your children and grandchildren have a shot, though)

Therefore one can be born upper-class to upper-middle parents? Otherwise that doesn't make sense.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse