Forgive my ramble: The article brought home one factor that I had not really considered before -- even though it is sort of obvious -- about changing status symbols. I remember when the Volkswagen first became popular in the United States. The joke used to go: you can tell the boss's car in the parking lot -- it is the Volkswagen. Even before, when I was in high school, classmates could drop out, stay with their parents, and earn enough money in the steel mill to make payments on a Cadillac. With access to credit, cars no longer became a status symbol, so the boss could become hip driving a Volkswagen.
Earlier, the elite would display their wealth to the populace, because their power depended upon personal authority. Now people can accumulate anonymous wealth without depending upon the direct acquiescence of those who created the wealth. The power of the state suffices. In addition, the physical separation between classes becomes increasingly greater. I can live in a gated community, purchased luxuries through the Internet .... I may have some immigrant help, but I would not feel much need to impress them with my wealth. What personal interactions occur may not be using the same status symbols. At my gym, I don't think you could tell the doctors and lawyers from the construction workers, except when the construction workers come directly from work. But then a truly wealthy have a personal trainer come to their home. Anyway, after this ramble, the article makes me think that people's self-definition of their class situation might be more fluid than we might imagine. Although the Right makes this work in their favor by sometimes successfully creating the illusion that everyone can be wealthy, I think the left might also have an opportunity to take advantage of the social changes. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
