Lower class: must work continuously
Middle class: has leisure time available, can take breaks from work, but must work to maintain their lifestyle
Upper class: work is optional, can maintain their lifestyle indefinitely without ever 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.
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.
As an aside to this article: I have seen some people defending Blanchett’s comments, arguing that she is indeed middle class in an Australian context because of our link to the UK. They argued that in the UK, Blanchett would be considered middle class as she is neither nobility/landed gentry, nor working class, and that this same definition applies in Australia. I am curious what other Australians make of this argument.
It’s the same way the bourgeois were “middle class” before the French revolution.
They were the 1%, just not the 0.1%
Everyone else was so much poorer, that they got lumped together whether they lived on the streets or had steady work and a home and could support a family comfortably.
So in a way, yeah, she’s right.
She’s the 1%, but because wealth inequality is so out of hand again, that’s kind of middle class again.
When people hear “middle class” it’s easy to think “average” but that’s not how it’s being used.
It’s more about wealth distribution when used like she’s using it.
When you start bringing “royalty” into it, no amount of money gets you into that demographic. You could have more money than a duke, but you’re still not a duke. At least unless the king/queen starts selling titles again.
At that point it becomes less about wealth, and more about legal power.
She bougie as fuck by any definition, but there’s a way to view what she said as rational, you just got to think of it like you’re a world famous millionaire who still isn’t at the top of the food chain. Miles ahead of any random person, but she doesn’t hang out with random people, in the crowds she runs in, she’s middle of the pack.