Topic: How do YOU define the classes? (Read 1831 times)

Three classes:

1) Don't touch or use fiat currency at all (high class)

2) You use fiat but can issue yourself fiat currency with no limit  (masters - middle class)

3) Use fiat to live but can't issue it to yourself (slaves - low class)

Because most people are in the slave class listed above, it is often further subdivided into many other classes based on the amount of slavery tokens you control.    

Classes per say are history, we now have the top 1 - 10% and the rest of us who they are trying to mold into the same lower class servants 

People that can invest and people that cannot invest, thats the main difference between classes. Someone that cant invest is trapped forever into a wageslave life where the wage goes away with minimum expenses.

You're explaining the symptom of not making enough money. If someone only makes $10,000 a year, they'll be dependent on someone else because it is very difficult to live on that low amount of money (in the US at least). That's why people use numbers, because it's a way to measure how much one needs to be a certain level of dependency year over year.

By your rationale most retirees are "upper class" because they live off of their investments (i.e., 401k accounts, etc.). They could only get $35,000 a year in income from those investments but because they don't work to create that income you'd call them upper class. They have to live on a strict budget, have little extra money to have the freedom to do things, yet you'd call them upper class. On the other end of the spectrum you have the stereotypical single mother of a few kids working three jobs to make the same $35,000 a year, living a very meager life to provide for kids on this small income and you'd consider them middle class. This is where your logic doesn't pass test for me.

I think your logic is good for another assessment. Maybe it's an "independence factor" or a "contribution factor"...the less dependent you are on others the more independence you have or contribution you make. I don't think it's a measure of economic class.

Classes are irrelevant.

The classes aren't driven by income, they're driven by social etiquette, hobbies, and attitudes toward society. Those three things require more money in one class than another. I.e., the "rich" social class prefers clubs and fine food and fine material things and these things all cost more money. I don't believe that anyone who comes into money all of a sudden wants to engage in these activities...it's definitely activity and attitude driven.

Also, class status has more importance depending on the country you live in. In India class status is a very big deal. In the US class status is only a big deal for those that think they're in the "high" class or those that desire to be. Most people don't subscribe much to living by social classes. I could make $250,000 a year or $80,000 a year and I'd have a very similar lifestyle, the same hobbies, and the same group of friends.

Then who was litecoin?

However, that debt would not be held by “the poor” (keelba), for, if it were, these would not be “receiving help” (keelba) in the vein of conventional “social assistance.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this. If people lose their money to they stop being upper class? If the poor earn their wealth do they suddenly transition into the upper class? It's just another form for people to discriminate.

There is a sign I have in my cubicle at work to remind me:


     Gold is the money of Kings

     Silver is the money of Gentlemen

     Barter is the money of Peasants

     Debt is the money of Slaves


Of course, this was printed before Bitcoin existed.

The only relevant class concept of today is the political class, or those who falsely believe that they can trample on others' rights, and the rest of us.

Modern masters invented financial slavery. Now practicly there is no free folks and masters was allways rare anyway. Sad fact is now most of ppl dont even know they are slaves.

i think classes ar broken.

be getting even more debt to the rich of course.

how else is every fucking country in the world trillions in debt?

To whom do we owe this debt?

Are you serious? In early ages everyone was literally a slave, at least nowadays you can have some sort of sense of freedom if you have a deecnt wage.

There are slaves, free men and masters like allways in human history just in earlier ages there were more free folks than now.

Classes are broken.
Dumb lazy sally, who was pregnant at 16 and has 3 kids who makes 30k gets all sorts of assistance.  Hard working Jenny who didn't get knocked up carelessly, makes 30k and pays for all of dumb Sally's shit, and her children.
Who is the lower class?  The person who is being taxed for everything, or the dumb slut who is getting a free ride and gets free healthcare, food, and god knows what else.
The issue is there is no point in being middle class, which is why it is dying.

just looking with another member and googling about it
i can found the suitable classes for me

There's a study that says people stop caring that much about money past a certain point, only some people get obsessed with being super millonaires.

I'm reminded of Plato's allegory of the cave.  Even though we are more aware of the cave and what liberty may be outside of it... we are still cavemen.

There are two classes, the ones that have to re-check their wallets and accounts before the month ends and the ones that don't.

This.

It is a method of dividing people to stir up resentment in order to keep their control in place. The athoritarians like to divide and control in order to keep their wealth and power.  If you are talking about the US, look at income statistics over a decade or two.  The "rich" one year are very often not on it ten years later.  It is very fluid and that is the nature of a free country.

I don't know about class but for me credit rating is good enough. If you are earning a lot but is heavily in debt, the rating score might not be that good. So the categorization based on earning alone will not reflect the actual scenario.

There is no such thing as 'class'. Don't buy into these bullshit categorizations.

(Red colorization mine.)

How would that “help” (keelba) ultimately be funded?

Most people, if you were to ask what the difference between the classes is, would throw out some number. One person might say that anyone earning less than $20,000 / yr. is considered among the lower class and anyone over $250,000 / yr. is considered among the upper class and anyone in between is in the middle class. Others might use numbers like $10,000 and $500,000. The numbers really don't matter to me. I have a different way of considering the classes and I think it is a very important distinction people need to make.

To me, the lower class is defined by anyone who depends upon someone else for theirs or their family's survival. That may be living at home with the parents, subsisting off of unemployment or Social Security checks, welfare, food stamps, or any other aid that might help them to surivive. Now it is possible that someone may choose to be collecting Social Security because, heck, he has paid into it for the past 52 years, but he does not depend upon Social Security and it wouldn't majorly disrupt his life if he didn't get it. That is a different story. I mean if someone is dependent on others than he is among the lower class. This person or his whole family would not survive without this aid. He might have a job. He might even drive a decent car and live in a decent home. He could tell himself that he is in the upper-lower class if that makes him feel better but he is still dependent on others to live and that puts him in the lower class.

The upper class are those who make money work for them and, if necessary, could live from this income. They may choose to have a job as additional income but it wouldn't matter. They know how to make money work for them. Someone may have investments that bring in only $100,000 / yr. but this is still far more than the median income for families in the US. I would consider this person in the upper class. He does not have to worry about losing his job. He likely gets many tax advantages for those investments and pays far less tax that someone working to earn $100,000 / yr. You could say this person is in the lower-upper class if you like but the bottom line is, this person is making money from money.

Everyone else is in the middle class. Someone may be a professional like doctor or a dentist making $500,000 / yr. but if he stops working, he stops making money. When people talk about the middle class shrinking, to me this is what they really mean, whether they know it or not. Each day, more and more Americans are becoming dependent upon others to survive. When our leaders and politicians talk about "the rich" they are referring to these people, not the rich as I've described above. The upper class has all kinds of tax breaks that protects them because of the way they make their money. Our nation is becoming more and more dependent upon the middle class rich taking care of the poor and they are being taxed more and more and working harder and harder just to make ends meet. While the ones at the top just keep finding it easier and easier to make even more money.

I believe that very soon, possibly within just a few years, there will be no middle class at all by this definition. Everyone is going to be receiving help just to survive, except for the upper 1% who will be making even more money by that time.

Do you agree with this definition? Would it change things if everyone used this definition? Would we still have people clamoring for "Change you can believe in" during the next election? Would people realize that entitlement programs are hurting us more than they are helping?  What are your thoughts?