> I remember being accused of using too many "five dollar words", being a nerd for spending time learning technology, being a loser for reading books!

The upper class looks down on nerds, especially technology nerds, just as much as if not more than the lower class does.

If we're stereotyping, intellectualism is largely a middle class phenomenon.

Perhaps it is now, but it was not always the case. At the dawn of age of reason you would have certainly needed to be independently wealthy (upper class) in order to pursue purely intellectual activities. For a time, anti-intellectualism was perhaps not as prevalent within the working class. Education was seen as a way to better ones self, people tended allotment gardens and took part in sports and cultural activities like workplace brass bands. Maybe they succeeded and their descendants are now middle class. The reality though, is largely defeat as was alluded to in this thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16272553

"Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class"

"There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won"

What I've seen (and mentioned in another comment) is that the upper classes view "education" to mean private liberal arts school, not math/computers/science. I think those are viewed as too hard to pursue if you don't have to and populated by non-rich people. That's definitely a generalization and not always the case but I've seen it a lot.

I notice a sort of cognitive dissonance with them though. It's undeniable that technology is powerful and many of the richest people in the world got there through tech. I don't think "old money" has quite digested what that means to them and it generally causes discomfort.

> What I've seen (and mentioned in another comment) is that the upper classes view "education" to mean private liberal arts school, not math/computers/science. I think those are viewed as too hard to pursue if you don't have to and populated by non-rich people.

I don't think that it's about the difficulty of math/computers/science; it's about the goal of the degree. A liberal arts degree is not a vocational credential: it means that one has been taught to think (literally, the 'liberal arts' are those studies useful to a free man, not an employee). If you have a math or chemistry degree, that can still be upper-class so long as you're not intending to make your money in math or chemistry; it's when you had to study a subject so that you can afford to live that you mark yourself as not upper class.

You’re correct about gaining an education that has nothing to do with employment as a signaling device. Your comment touches on my other point though. Regardless of employment options, “thinking” in the 21st century means STEM. Not knowing how to program is similar to not knowing how to read. I do think there’s a natural aptitude required to do STEM that has no relation to class. I think that’s why we see a lot of anti-tech commentary from institutions that have traditionally branded liberal arts as the only way to “think”.

As far as I understand it, the intellectuals among the upper class were always viewed as geeks/nerds. The overwhelming majority preferred to hunt, chase skirt, fight in wars or tournaments etc. It was so because the landed gentry were descendants of actual knights/warlords who, through force, amassed the land that was later passed through generations. These people were not unlike jocks of today and like them, they looked down on "nerds" who were into intelectual pursuits.

Yes written by a liberal arts guardian journo who totally ignores that fact that elements of the working class did look down on other members of the working class.

I have certainly heard that having one set of grandparents from the working class Gran started in service and Granddad was a coalminer then a buss driver.

birth limits you to upper middle class. you can be fabulously wealthy, but if you did not have the upbringing, you can not claim it.

however, if you are wealthy, you can buy an upper class lifestyle, and your children will be upper class, while you will not be.

in other words, their peers that they grew up with will accept them as upper class (meaning they had an upper-class upbringing), while their parents still consider you to be an up-and-comer, because you did not.

once you realize this, it's a much healthier situation because you stop trying to make that final jump. and once you stop trying to make that jump, both your upper middle and upper class friends will be more comfortable around you.

in other words, once you make it to upper middle, it's not worth worrying over. it's better to just focus on the money to make your family's life comfortable without worrying about social details. money defines everything under upper class; birth and upbringing defines the upper class.

by the time your children's children come around, everyone will have forgotten about you, and the new normal will have taken hold.

that last jump can only be given by birth -- which, if you stop and think about it, is exactly how it works, right?

Tom Brady owns a multi-million dollar house next to "The Country Club" (yes, that is exactly how it is referred to, anyone who has to ask which country club does not belong) and he was denied a membership until this year:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2017/07/13/the-c...

This is in line with my experiences.

>Now I find myself at the glass ceiling and this time there's very real pressure from above to stay where I'm at. Rich people may let you in the door occasionally but it will be on their terms. It's up to you as a person to decide if you're willing to contort yourself to their demands.

Can you expand on this? Interested in what examples you can provide.

Some of it is interests. As mentioned in another thread here, a lot of upper class people have no interest in skills that have vocational value. They consider programming and tech to be blue collar-ish. The amount of time you have to spend dedicated to tech to stay good at it isn't compatible with their lifestyles.

I also find that one of the doors that might be available to someone from a lower class is hedonism. There's a lot of partying going on and if you're willing, that's an avenue to access. I'm not willing.

Question -- how have your mannerisms, speech, attire, body language, etc changed as you moved up in ecocnmic class? I'm wondering how the cues for your social class have changed alongside it.

I'd say that all of the above have become more refined, but I was always different than my peers growing up so they were a bit more refined to start (in large part due to more reading and different media consumption).

My interests are very much middle/upper middle class geek though and that's definitely something that the upper classes aren't very comfortable with. I'm not interested in a lot of the thinking that comes out of high end private liberal arts schools for instance. Really a focus on math/computers/science is generally not an upper class thing. I like media but not "art".

tldr; class mobility has a muted standard deviation, likely on purpose.

There are tons of intentional and unintentional barriers for class mobility.

Here are the socially accepted ways that class mobility is rigged for developers specifically:

* A royalty-free tech culture. Since successful software is often exponential we don't get the meat of the value we create at a job. This could be compensated for with stock, but it's not because of the next point.

* Common stock/preferred stock. Employees get the worse of the two. Ask the Uber employees about this, where they had to pay income tax on an illiquid asset. Followed by a liquidation event that they could only participate in if they were accredited investor status.

* Accredited investor status. This states you must already be rich to make early stage investments. This is an important one because the best time to invest in a world-changing company is as soon as you can. As developers we've had to sit on the sidelines and watch investors get rich from obvious good ideas like github, airbnb, uber, sendgrid, facebook, etc while being told we can't put disposable income into the market because we didn't have enough of it. For instance, $1000 in facebook seed round today would be millions. Note that you can dedicate 2-4 years of your life for a very small portion of a different stock class. I fully expect the SEC to try to stop people investing in cryptocurrencies with the same scheme.

* Class-based social status. Your broke friends and family will come to you whenever there is a problem. They are more likely to be addicts and gamblers(statistically). If you help them and things go wrong and you stop helping them, they will hate you. If you refuse to help them you will feel like the worst person in the world. The 'crabs in a bucket' mentality op pointed out is real.

* Income tax. This is a hotly debated topic since often rich people are paid well. But for a poor person who is paid well one year, it's brutal. Not to mention your estimated taxes come from last years income, so if you have a bad year after a good one you will be forced to loan the government a ridiculous amount of money. Which you _might_ get back, eventually, at 0% apr. Don't try this the other way though, they can charge 5% apr a month plus fees.

* Capital gains tax. Often on assets which lack liquidity.

* Inflation. Having access to inflation is having access to variable taxes on the entire population of usd holders. The rich will have a majority of their money in assets.

* Game-able taxes. Taxes are completely context-dependent and no sane engineer would design it this way. The rich can afford people to play the games, which only makes sense at higher valuations.

* College. There are good things about going to college, but 2 years of "core curriculum", obscene costs, and unforgivable student debt are not part of them.

* Marriage. It's expensive. Having a family more so.

* Lack of identity theft protection. When this happens you get victim blamed and treated like a criminal. If you have money you can pay someone qualified to fix it, if not, good luck.

* Health insurance. If you want to start a company you better be okay with poor insurance since it's tied to your employer.

* Highly politicized culture. Society is willing to hurt people out who have controversial ideas that contradict the norm. These are often just working stiffs, not the decision makers. See James Damore.

* Fixed wages. Wages have not increased exponentially even though the power of individuals has.

Honestly I think almost all of it is intentional, like how the big tech companies colluded on engineer pay.

The system being rigged is why I believe in cryptocurrency in the long term. Sure there are scams and problems, but the alternative is to play an unfair game.

Care to elaborate on how cryptocurrency is an alternative to engaging in the present economic arrangement?

You can still invest in early stage currencies or ICOs, unlike startups.

As a creator if you have an idea for a currency you can release it without permission, and if people like it they will give you money.

The alternatives are bootstrapping, which is exhausting and what I've done. Have rich friends - you likely won't if you are poor. Or get accepted to some investment signaling filter like YC where you get to run as fast as you can for months while uprooting your life.

Edit: It won't let me reply to you, but ya I think ICOs can be legit. See ETH, WTC, SNM. There are bad actors too, but at it's best it's a way to route investment capital to creators regardless of socio-economic condition or location. You are correct that you have to tie the value of the chain back to they success of the product somehow. One way would be to share dividends.

You really think there's any sort of future in ICOs? The seem awfully faddish, and are quickly gaining the reputation for being ponzi schemes. I don't see how they can easily be connected to the value create by a company over time. If you issue more coins or engane in buybacks, then they're basically stock and I'm sure the SEC will want to ask you some questions. If you don't issue new coins over the initial set amount, then it's deflationary and lends itself to the usual pump and dump.

Moreover, I don't see how ICOs offer anything to people without a lot of disposable income. They are simply too high risk for anyone who doesn't already have quite a bit of money they can afford to lose. At best they offer a way for people who are already in the top 1/3 of income earners to speculate and find greater fools among the slightly more wealthy.

Am I missing some fundamental value of ICOs as an instrument for investment?