|
Why do Americans call the 'working class' the 'middle class'??? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yea we use miles but thats it. Weights have been metric for as long as I can remember (I'm 23) but some people (like butchers etc) used to use pounds but now they are illegal and if they use them and dont use metric they can go to jail :eyes: |
good job there then :D soooo now america is the only country we can bash at :p seriously, is there any other country that still uses imperical as their standard unit? |
|
|
| Lira |
I believe Canada uses them as well, but I'm not sure and I can't be arsed to check, so I'm going to wait for an angry Canadian to quote me :p
I don't understand why they don't use metrics either. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I believe Canada uses them as well, but I'm not sure and I can't be arsed to check, so I'm going to wait for an angry Canadian to quote me :p
I don't understand why they don't use metrics either. |
you ing bitch :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:
:p
no canada does not use them. :) only imperial thing they use is when they weight themself (pounds), farenheit for water temperatures i think, feet for messuring their lenght... i think its quite similar to the UK (some old ppl still uses imperial), but canada uses km/h on the roads too and have signs with meters/km etc etc...
its funny tho that they uses imperical when they messure themselves, cause many people here dont even know how much it is unless its messuring a persons leanght/weight. |
|
|
| occrider |
It's based on either the average or median incomes in the country you are in:
| quote: |
First, on the basis of annual household after-tax income, most studies agree that the "middle class" is grouped around the national average, in the range of $21,300 to $63,300 (in 1996 dollars). The lower and upper ends of this range represent the 20th and 90th percentile of the population, accounting for 70 percent of U.S. households. This definition includes all sources of income, from wages to Social Security to food stamps.
Some authors propose that 75 percent and 125 percent of the national median should be used as the extremes. In 1994, the median income in the United States was $32,264, therefore the "middle class" range would be from $24,198 to $40,330. Using the 75/125 method means almost 25 percent of the U.S. population is middle class.
Other methods for categorizing the middle class include social criteria (based on factors such as educational level and occupation) and certain income indices. One of these indices rates households on an income-to-needs basis, where a score of one signifies household income that borders on the poverty level. Using this ratio, middle class can be defined as scores ranging from 2 to 5, which was approximately 50 percent of American households in 1989.
|
Why, is it done any other way in other countries? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It's based on either the average or median incomes in the country you are in:
Why, is it done any other way in other countries? |
Oh no, its not the way its done, it just the terms used that got me thinking (I actually quite like that definition as a very simplified way of putting it)
I just couldn't get my head round the fact that you dont really use the term "working-class" in America which is the most important class as far as political ideology goes (IMO). It also skews the political ideological place of the middle class in society.
Say in the French revolution, it was the middle class (the petit bourgois as refered to in political ideology) who instigated the revolution. In America, you would maybe describe that class as upper-middle class? (See its confusing!) In Marxism (one of the three major ideologies) the working class is crucial, but if you have different terms for working class, I would imagine it would be quite confusing to read that the working class is to overthrow the middle class (petit bourgoius) when in America that would be like saying the middle class should over throw the????
Also, I wondered if the anti-communist/socialist culture in America had anything to do with not using the term working-class? Like as if it were a rejection of marxist concepts? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Oh no, its not the way its done, it just the terms used that got me thinking (I actually quite like that definition as a very simplified way of putting it)
I just couldn't get my head round the fact that you dont really use the term "working-class" in America which is the most important class as far as political ideology goes (IMO). It also skews the political ideological place of the middle class in society.
Say in the French revolution, it was the middle class (the petit bourgois as refered to in political ideology) who instigated the revolution. In America, you would maybe describe that class as upper-middle class? (See its confusing!) In Marxism (one of the three major ideologies) the working class is crucial, but if you have different terms for working class, I would imagine it would be quite confusing to read that the working class is to overthrow the middle class (petit bourgoius) when in America that would be like saying the middle class should over throw the????
Also, I wondered if the anti-communist/socialist culture in America had anything to do with not using the term working-class? Like as if it were a rejection of marxist concepts? |
I think its the society that defines its own classes. When Americans learn say about the French revolution - they call it the Merchant class, just as the French termed the petit bourgois. You had the workers, the merchants, the nobles. Its not very comprable to modern day society - so why should we try and use modern terms to describe something historic?
Just in similar ways perhaps the American / UK societies are differently define and are. In the USA there is no working class - nobody seems themselves as that - this observation is one which Marx did not forsee happening with the development of a capitalist society. He predicted that the capitalist society would create an ever greater and deprived class as the catalyst to his communist system. However, no such class ever emerged (the very opposite happened actually - the class grew smaller not bigger) hence the failure of his philosophy. |
|
|
| Dervish |
British----------|American?|Canadian?
_______________|
/////////////Royal?|
_______________|
///////Upper Class|
_______________|
///////Middle Class|
_______________|
///////Lower Class|
_______________| |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
British----------|American?|Canadian?
_______________|
/////////////Royal?|
_______________|
///////Upper Class|
_______________|
///////Middle Class|
_______________|
///////Lower Class|
_______________| |
French--Bourgeoisie(sp?), sans coulottes, etc...;) :D |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| There are no formal classes in North America. |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I believe Canada uses them as well, but I'm not sure and I can't be arsed to check, so I'm going to wait for an angry Canadian to quote me :p
I don't understand why they don't use metrics either. |
Officially, we use metric, although some people (mostly older) use imperial. When I was in London last year, I was watching some show on TV and they were using the unit of measurement called "stones". I think it's like 15 pounds or something... |
|
|
| Michael19 |
| Dont britain still use miles per hour on speed signs? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Michael19
Dont britain still use miles per hour on speed signs? |
Yep |
|
|
|
|
