Happily Residing In The Lower Economic Classes

The Lower Economic Classes

I’m fortunate in my life to have been able to experience a good mixture of all three dominant economic classes: the lower class, the middle class, and the upper class.

From youth, I was middle class. That is, until my parents lost employment, in which case we rapidly became lower class. My parents also personally both came from blue collar, lower class backgrounds. So, it was familiar.

Later in life I got to experience an incursion into the upper class through my wife’s family, who is steadfastly upper class and who have people on their side that are ridiculously wealthy. This was something growing up I never got to see, as no one in my family line is high upper class. I also had the opportunity to live in an apartment complex that was newly built right outside of a high-income neighborhood, must to the anger of the upper class residents.

Growing up somewhat poor, it was always money that dominated everything. Food, activities, friends, women, and even education constantly revolved around getting a few bucks to do something. We’d daydream about how easy and nice everything would be if you were rich – IE: If you were in this upper class.

But now that I’ve personally seen it, I’m not so sure about that any more.

I’m not so much against my middle-to-low class upbringing anymore.

Social status is about so much more than just money. It changes how the people think, act, the values they hold, the culture they align with, and more.

In many ways, I prefer residing in the lower classes. I don’t want to be in the upper class. Maybe not the lower class again either, but definitely not the upper. The middle really appears the most desirable. But even then, the lower class is at least more grounded, down-to-earth, and culturally acceptable to me. They know how to fight, survive, be criminally-minded if need be, and just be content with what they have. The upper class lacks this. They always want more. Much of their culture is just plain, boring, pedantic, and void of any real meaning.

The culture of the upper class is something I’ve grown to dislike significantly. The upper class focuses so much on “Keeping up with the Joneses” and the constant envy of others that they rarely seek meaningful pursuits. I hate the constant need for “signaling” their status and wealth. The needless consumption, lust, greed, and rent-seeking are draining. My time around many in the upper class, especially that old neighborhood that I lived near (in an apartment on the outskirts), showed me that many of them will virtue signal for days with no real virtue to be found in a 10 mile radius. I’m very happy to be back in a solid middle-class area again. I’m sure the upper class residents back there are happy I am gone, too. That’s just the way it goes.

The upper class is also needlessly formal, pedantic, and annoyingly intellectual. They are the definition of men of words instead of men of action. They constantly reminded me of the “pinky-up” champagne sippers. No upper class individuals will place themselves and their lifestyle at risk, so they will never be the forefront of any movement for change. They will always be the men of words or the individuals behind the curtain, shielding themselves while riding the wave.

It was always fun to play “guess the class” because we could nearly instantly tell someone that came from the lower classes and grew into the upper class versus someone that was born into the upper class. There is just something so different between the upbringings that the characteristics of the person change completely. You can spot it. It’s a type of softness, a lack of those backyard fist-fight brawls in place of piano lessons and tea dates.

Honesty is another big dealbreaker. It’s odd but I’d wager that honesty is situated like a bell curve or a horseshoe, with classes moving from left to right. The lower classes are generally not super honest the further they drop because of their desperation. The upper classes are less honest because of their constant drive for more and just generalized greed. Whereas the middle-class is the most honest of the bunch. They are content so don’t need to lie for more and are not in desperate need so do not need to lie to acquire base sustenance. Some of the shadiest, most dishonest people I have ever met were senior executives and made hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The class and greed corrupted them far more than anyone I’ve ever met in the lower classes.

Even the women are different. They have such high demands, high expectations, and odd desires. You can almost always spot a lower-middle class woman by her realism surrounding expectations and demands. Just like how you can spot a lower-middle class man by his hardened nature. It’s funny, but the upper class women generally like to sleep with the lower classes of men, but want an upper class man to marry later in life. They don’t want to lose that lifestyle, but they do want to sleep with more hardened men early on.

Happiness is another big one. Happiness will never come from social status or class. That will always be fake and fleeting Happiness can only be found and kept internally. It can’t be found through reliance on external things or external people.

These are just things I have noticed from the class differences while dealing with them all. I’m sure it’s different for others and what they have experienced and I know not all upper class are like this. But the culture is still pervasive.

I have nothing against the people in the upper class. I just do not like the culture of the upper class. There is something just so… fake about it all.

Perhaps it is just my upbringing. It’s not my class after all. I’d never fit in. And quite frankly, I don’t want too. I’d rather roll around in the hay, honestly. Even if that means I won’t be rich, then that’s just fine.

So, for me, I’ll stick with my middle-class approach. I don’t need millions of dollars. I don’t want yachts or to constantly be in competition with my neighbor, or to invest in immoral ventures just to try to squeeze as much as I can out of the system, to constantly worry about more.

I’d rather just be content and happy where I am while focusing on things that actually matter, like my family, community, and faith.

The Division Between City And Rural Economics

On Hating Your Own Nation

If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.

You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.

Help fight the censorship – Share this article!

I don’t like positive rights, personally. Positive rights require that someone else do something for someone else, which is unrealistic and creates problems with interfering with other people’s negative rights (to not do/provide something). If I say I have a right to food, then someone has to get me food or my “human rights” have been broken, which is silly. We shouldn’t force people to act in the interest of another and call it a “right”.

This helps explain it:

Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. As such, negative rights exist unless someone acts to negate them. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In other words, for a positive right to be exercised, someone else’s actions must be added to the equation. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder.

I think you can get the same result (good housing situation and environment, esp for the lower classes) through other methods. You don’t need it to be a right to do so.

2 Comments

Alex P Young
August 29, 2021 / 10:36 am Reply
So what’s your take on housing as a right?
- Kaisar
  August 30, 2021 / 6:22 pm Reply
  I don’t like positive rights, personally. Positive rights require that someone else do something for someone else, which is unrealistic and creates problems with interfering with other people’s negative rights (to not do/provide something). If I say I have a right to food, then someone has to get me food or my “human rights” have been broken, which is silly. We shouldn’t force people to act in the interest of another and call it a “right”.
  This helps explain it:
  Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. As such, negative rights exist unless someone acts to negate them. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In other words, for a positive right to be exercised, someone else’s actions must be added to the equation. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder.
  I think you can get the same result (good housing situation and environment, esp for the lower classes) through other methods. You don’t need it to be a right to do so.