BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Rich Kids

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
—| x |—
04:59 / 29.08.03
Depends on the particular, I suppose. Difficult to pin down an universal type here, ya?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:00 / 29.08.03
Lurid: The other striking thing about this "ludricrously broad indicator" is that being in, say, the top ten percent in terms of wealth in the wealthiest country in the world would probably be insufficient to be classed as "rich" for the purposes of this discussion.

If you mean that by introducing the Rausings I've skewed the conversation, I disagree. I just wanted to make the point that even the fantasy-wealthy are nuanced, so generalisations here are as silly as they are elsewhere. And 'rich' is a ludicrously broad term, for exactly the reason you point out. Globally, much of the UK population is rich - if not almost all of it, when you factor in things like infrastructure, social security and health, and so on. The word is entirely context-dependent. Even if we agree that we're going to talk about wealth on a scale relative to incomes in the industrialised North West of Europe, the term could embrace a huge variation of salary and lifestyle.

When I was at school, we were given an exercise - you draw a piece of paper from a hat with a salary on it, and work out where you could afford to live and so on. The top salary was £40,000 p.a. - and we all thought that was a lot. Would you still be 'rich' living in London and making £40,000? Well, yes and no. After tax you're making 30k. You pay for accomodation and it's 25k at most. If you run a car, it's 23k. You pay your bills and it's 20k. That leaves you with a healthy one and a half grand per month to play with, assuming you're not saving, which you almost certainly should be. So call it an even thousand per month.

That's a lot of money, but it isn't telephone-numbers money. You don't live in a particularly nice area, and you rent a room rather than a flat, you drive a pretty ordinary car, and you do pay attention to where the money goes. You probably don't own property, although you could get on the ladder. So you're only rich up to a point. Lose your job or retire, and you're in trouble.

So come on, what does 'rich' mean? Security? Financial defense-in-depth? A wage cheque over a certain figure? Property? Or is it silly money? Or is it just living in a country where the Sun and the rain are in rough balance and no one's actually occupied half your capital city with an armed force?

'Rich' is a moveable feast, and half the time it means 'bad person who steals' and half the time it means 'what I want to be when I grow up'.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:15 / 29.08.03
I didn't mean you in particular Sam, though I did think you were continuing the 8 footer trend. Also, I while I agree with your point that the fantastically wealthy are also human, and while it is certainly relevant in response to some of the things said here, it would also be irrelevant to a criticism of unfair wealth distribution. I realise that this discussion isn't really about that, but can't help feeling that it should be. Rather than complaining how rich kids are obnoxious, it would be much more interesting to discuss how privilege maintains itself and exerts pressure politically, in part through the attitudes of those who are wealthy.


Maybe it comes down to what "rich" means, as you say. Your 40k example is interesting since it is in (I checked on the national statistics webpage) the top ten per cent of incomes in the UK. Like I said, being in that top ten per cent in one of the richest countries in the world doesn't qualify as "rich" for this discussion.

I just wanted to raise that point and a little self awareness that the terms of this discussion are quite clearly a reflection of the socio economic backgrounds of the people here. Nothing wrong with that. Perfectly natural, in fact. Still, it doesn't hurt to point out the obvious every now and again.
 
 
illmatic
10:46 / 29.08.03
I'm surprised we've got this far in the discussion without mentioning "Young, Posh and Loaded" so I may as well drag the discussion back down (YPL is a new brit TV show for those that don't know - does what it says on the tin). I watched this for the first time last night and while I found the perople it focues on entirely objectionable this had almost nothing to do with their wealth. I found them embarassing, annoying, self-obbsesed and stupid for sure, but in this they seemed remarkable like the rest of their age group. The Young. Hate 'em. Bastards.
 
 
suds
12:02 / 29.08.03
illmatic, yeah! i saw 'young posh & loaded' for the first time last night too. i don't know how the holy fuck that girl got a single released seeing as she couldn't sing or rap to save her life! even the 500 quid/month spent on singing lessons didn't help! i laughed for ages when i saw her freestyling in a fleece. what is it with rich kids & fleeces?

but there was this thing about the show that made me kind of suspicious. like, they would edit all the rich kids guffawing & saying stupid ignorant stuff so you sitting at home with the proverbial pot noodle would be all, well, they may be rich but at least i'm a sharper tool in the box than they are. jget me?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:32 / 29.08.03
I realise that this discussion isn't really about that, but can't help feeling that it should be.

Oh, my, yes. It should. But that discussion is the one enthusiastic social reformers have when the people they believe they represent are often having this one... Bread, Peace, and Land, anyone?

Maybe it comes down to what "rich" means, as you say. Your 40k example is interesting since it is in (I checked on the national statistics webpage) the top ten per cent of incomes in the UK. Like I said, being in that top ten per cent in one of the richest countries in the world doesn't qualify as "rich" for this discussion.


I think it does come down to what 'rich' means, and that's a very fraught question. In the context of this discussion, 'rich' carries a subtext of 'undeservedly' or 'too rich'. It has a sniff of indecency about it. That's why 'the rich' are always one or more steps up the wealth ladder from the person speaking. As I said earlier, by some measures, almost everyone in the UK is rich - but there's no way we're going to engage with that in this context.

Interestingly, the subject of Young, Posh and Loaded has just come up. I think this discussion is moving towards identifying an acceptable tenuously-linked hate-object group of 'posh rich wankers'. It's something of a Barbelith blind spot - likely because we tend to left of centre - to feel that this doesn't count as unacceptable prejudice. I won't belabour the obvious historical comparisons.
 
 
illmatic
14:06 / 29.08.03
I dunno Sam, I was trying to make the point that I didn't see them as particualarly objectionable because of their wealth. They didn't strike me as that different from most teenagers/early 20s peeps. (Then again this is the only episode I've seen - perhaps I missed the one where a cackling gaggle of debutantes eat the brains of Big Issue sellers). I think Suds is kind of with me on that with her point about how it's been edited.
 
 
illmatic
14:24 / 29.08.03
Last nights episode - Girl has huge mobile bill. Dad won't bail her out. She gets Saturday job. Amazing, the difference between "them and us" eh?

And just to stop talking about the telly, to go back to Flux's point above: it just seems like they share a general naïveté - they usually know things, they have an understanding of how things work, they aren't ignorant, but they don't seem to relate to the rest of the world very well.

Surely that's just a age thing? What teenager/early 20something isn't going to come across like this? I'm sure I did, back when I was going to transform the world when I was 17/18.* (I don't think the rich - however that's defined - have a monopoly on naviete or not relating that well. A lot of this is going to depend on life experience and so on and argualby welathy young people are in a positon to have a lot more varied experiences than someone of a limited income.

*Actually, this worked, I did transform the world and you can all thank your lucky stars for it - you've no idea how bad it would've been otherwise.
 
 
Saveloy
15:00 / 29.08.03
Sam Vega:

"I think this discussion is moving towards identifying an acceptable tenuously-linked hate-object group of 'posh rich wankers'."

Hmmm, I don't get that at all from this thread. Apart from suds' first post, everyone seems to have said either: "rich people are no more prone to obnoxiousness than any other group" or "I used to hate the rich but I've come to realise that rich people are no more prone.....etc" I get the impression that you're commenting upon what you expected people to post (I know I certainly expected a lot more of the posh wanker bashing). Have I misread you (again)?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:30 / 29.08.03


Nah. I'm putting in a marker so that if the thread lasts eight pages and turns into a rant about rich bastards I can say "I told you so" and look vatic. Actually, it's pretty clean right now - although I'm a little unnerved by underlying premise. It's a little too much like something you might hear in a bar in backland Texas: "do we approve of intellectuals"?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:42 / 29.08.03
Hey Illmatic: Fair enough. I think you have a point.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply