Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do realize that the information you are posting is all conflicting right? I don't have the time to see what they are looking at exactly, but obvious its different for each thing. You previously stated the median was $60k, yet the above distribution has a median of around $40k.
You did read that I said the numbers were from 1996 and that the most recent distribution is in a $300 resource that I would not violate by posting here. I can send you the link if you want to buy it.
$40K in 1996 is about $56,000 in 2011 adjusted for inflation. We are back close to $60,000 using the median you just provided from the distribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The only comments I've stated about money is that your average working-class family in a metro area can't afford a horse.
"in a metro area"? Now you are trying to redefine what you said by adding words. Your first comment about it was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Horses are primarily an upper-middle class/rich snob thing, it takes considerable resources to maintain the horses, have room for them, etc. Horses are just one of the many ways the wealthy display their status. In terms of function they are entirely outdated and useless.
I don't see metro area vs rural area at all in your quote. You generalized and said it is only the wealthy, nothing geographic. You need to get out of the Conejo area into other parts of Northern and Central California. Small towns and rural areas are very different than your experiences.
So maybe that is your problem.
It is like the old NY socialite quote by Pauline Kael:
"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken."
Non-wealthy horse owners are apparently outside your ken.
But there are many of them out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Additionally, the numbers are skewed by the fact that surfers live in or near coastal cities which have higher living costs and hence higher wages compared to the rest of the country. Again, apples to oranges.
But now you are arguing that surfers are wealthier with higher incomes because they live on the coast? I thought you said it was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Surfing is more or less a working-class/middle-class thing, all it takes is a surf board and some free time (similarly for skateboarding).
Oh and by the way I'm still waiting for you to post data or a source to back up your various contentions. No technical style points if you don't.
"in a metro area"? Now you are trying to redefine what you said by adding words.
No, I mentioned this many posts ago, see here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Now, some rancher out in the middle-of-no-where may derive some actual value from the horse and his cost of ownership is going to be modest as well. But the vast majority of folks in California live in or near cities and it is here that horses function as status symbols. I should have added this caveat in my original comment.
Its odd how much people object to someone correcting themselves, its "flip-flapping" or "redefining". Reminds me of George Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts
But now you are arguing that surfers are wealthier with higher incomes because they live on the coast? I thought you said it was
No, that isn't what I said. I said that incomes are higher on the coasts because the cost of living is higher. What amounts to a typical working-class income on the California coast is going to be noticeably more than a typical working-class income in Ohio. This isn't because they are "wealthier", its because the cost of living are higher, you have to adjust the income for cost of living.
My parents made more than $80k a year, yet we were solidly working-class. Their incomes would have be noticeably lower if we were in the mid-west.
Also, like I said, you are posting averages. A few very high income surfers can shift the average higher. The average of 2, 2, 2, 2, 10,000 is ~2000.
Yeah...I've heard it all before. But what one finds "more useful" is of course related to their underlying mental state and choices in live.
I hate to break it to you, but "hard knocks and life" aren't too helpful when doing anything of real importance... Perhaps its suitable for government work though.
Anyhow, I use my "academese" on a daily basis. If I relied on "hard knocks and life" I'd be broke and living like most the people I grew up with.
I think you meant "choices in liFe"
Normally I'm reluctant to enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent whose sole purpose appears to be to establish a contrarian approach and argue merely to argue. Such a sad little life. But I'll make a brief exception in your case since I still believe that ignorance can be fixed.
I was not aware that "real importance" did not encompass such government work as military combat service, sworn law enforcement and, following significant injury, culminating in a career in the arena of forensic mental health keeping such lovelies as sexually violent predators off the streets and in secure facilities, potentially for life.
But have it your way, youngster. Since you've all but admitted you don't have the stomach for combined mental and physical challenges and would be an abject failure.
You are now free to move about the cabin and twist all you like.
I was not aware that "real importance" did not encompass such government work as military combat service, sworn law enforcement and, following significant injury, culminating in a career in the arena of forensic mental health keeping such lovelies as sexually violent predators off the streets and in secure facilities, potentially for life.
Oh no, the scared cows! Get this, I don't care about your military service. And the idea that "forensic mental health" can be done without academic knowledge is crazy, but the government often does crazy things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
But have it your way, youngster. Since you've all but admitted you don't have the stomach for combined mental and physical challenges and would be an abject failure.
Great, I will be sure to let a few pennies out of my pocket so your grand-kids have some food, etc.
I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of "don't have the stomach for...". I wouldn't join the military or be part of law-enforcement, not because I can't stomach it, but because I don't respect the organizations. I remember dealing with the military recruiters when I was teen, they surround working-class high schools like flies on a turd. I'm sure I'm on some black list for my conservations with them... I could never be a politician! Oh well...
Academics requires backing up statements and conclusions with data, sources, citations, etc. Where are yours??? Failing grade until you do.
Yes, and if I was writing on article on the topic, I would certainly provide data. This area of sociology (social-class) is often ignored, the illusion of a classless society is one of America's scared cows, you can't have academics ruining the fun.
Regardless, my primary source of information is not the internet and I don't have time to find citations from articles/books for you. If I had the information readily available I would certainly provide it.
Admittedly, my original assertion as stated was not accurate. I was primarily thinking about urbanized areas, not rural communities, but the majority of people live in urbanized areas (especially in California). People in urbanized areas don't need horses, as a result they are a form of conspicuous consumption. In rural communities, they can still provide function even if outdated. Objects often play multiple roles across communities. A physicist in the city driving a huge truck is doing it for status, a farmer driving a huge truck is doing it for function.
Whew! The stench in this barn is overwhelming! ... Need to open the doors and shovel out the sh8t that's been flung around ... who would guess that just one horse's arse could be so prolific!
Regardless, my primary source of information is not the internet and I don't have time to find citations from articles/books for you. If I had the information readily available I would certainly provide it.
Nor is the internet my primary source for work. But there are limits on how I can use and post info from those high priced databases I use for work. I have to rely here on what can be shared easily and publicly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Admittedly, my original assertion as stated was not accurate. I was primarily thinking about urbanized areas, not rural communities, but the majority of people live in urbanized areas (especially in California). People in urbanized areas don't need horses, as a result they are a form of conspicuous consumption. In rural communities, they can still provide function even if outdated. Objects often play multiple roles across communities. A physicist in the city driving a huge truck is doing it for status, a farmer driving a huge truck is doing it for function.
You are forgetting that leisure interests are not about need, status or conspicuous consumption but can be simply pleasure, interest, or hobby.
Owning a classic car can be to show off or simply as a hobby, but it does not necessarily reflect a social class level. Not every classic car owner is a Jay Leno it can also be working class poor who enjoy tinkering.
Playing tennis or golf, basketball or skeet, skiing or snowboarding is not for only a certain social class although yes some may use it as a status item in the "country club" mode. But they are interests enjoyed by all socio-economic levels, I know blue-collar workers who play golf every weekend and wealthy who prefer playground basketball. It depends upon what you are exposed to and interested in.
The cost of boarding a horse in Ventura County is only a few hundred dollars a month, you do not need to own the land. To assume owning a horse is only about wealth, conspicuous consumption or status is reaching. It may be someone just likes to ride or loves the animals.
And don't forget utility/function of items changes, if gas goes over $5 a gallon in the next year it might make more sense for some people in some areas to rely more on horses rather than vehicles. Suddenly they are no longer "outdated" (which I disagree with but your opinion) but even more useful.
Nor is the internet my primary source for work. But there are limits on how I can use and post info from those high priced databases I use for work. I have to rely here on what can be shared easily and publicly.
And...why are you talking about work? I can easily share the ideas, its the citations that I can't quickly provide. Are you suggesting that one shouldn't talk about anything unless they have a list of sources on hand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts
You are forgetting that leisure interests are not about need, status or conspicuous consumption but can be simply pleasure, interest, or hobby
.
No, I'm not forgetting that, I entirely disagree with that. People's leisure activities are shaped by their socioeconomic and cultural background, different leisure activities signal different things within their social groups.
You seem to think I'm suggesting that some activities are strictly upper-class while others are strictly working-class, but that isn't what I"m saying. Its all statistics, the more details you know about the person the more accurately you can pinpoint their social-class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts
The cost of boarding a horse in Ventura County is only a few hundred dollars a month, you do not need to own the land. To assume owning a horse is only about wealth, conspicuous consumption or status is reaching. It may be someone just likes to ride or loves the animals.
People don't "just like" things, people are social creatures and their likes and dislikes are highly related to their social networks and background.
Regardless, horses in this neck of the woods (LA area) function as status symbols, they certainly may function differently in other areas, but in every case horse ownership is going to be related to the local social superstructure.
Admittedly, my original assertion as stated was not accurate. I was primarily thinking about urbanized areas, not rural communities, but the majority of people live in urbanized areas (especially in California). People in urbanized areas don't need horses, as a result they are a form of conspicuous consumption. In rural communities, they can still provide function even if outdated. Objects often play multiple roles across communities. A physicist in the city driving a huge truck is doing it for status, a farmer driving a huge truck is doing it for function.
While that would have been a accurate way to express your narrow view of horse owners on the coast, it doesn't even come close to the reality of individuals who own horses here. Sure, it can be some kind of status for some just like owning the biggest television you can afford.
But how many purchase that big flat screen to flaunt it to their neighbors? Could be that they find more enjoyment watching television on a larger screen. Who wouldn't?
In your example you state we don't need horses so it is a form of conspicuous consumption. If that is the test most of what anyone owns is also conspicuous consumption. No, you came to the conclusion of yours do to the cost. You don't subject dog owners to the same. Dogs have outlived their original purpose in modern times. Sure they can give companionship, joy and all that other fluff but you didn't state those possibilities in all your posts in regards to horse owners, so I'll assume those rationales are mute to you.
No, to you because one can afford a horse and do, they are flaunting their wealth. Couldn't have anything to with enjoyments, passion, quality of life or anything else in that realm.
Seems to me all you have done is display envy.
I'm sure all those little girls wanting ponies and all those little boys wanting to be cowboys had those desires to flaunt their wealth. While some grow out of it and some may never have the opportunity, others have a passion that grows. If they find themselves in a position to live that lifestyle who are you to cast such a broad, diverse group in such elitist terms?
In urban areas as you put it there is no essential need to have any animals.
I can walk down a short path to the beach in the Santa Barbara area.
Do I need chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, horses, goats, dogs, turkeys?
Nope, this is a urban area. I have them because I enjoy them and what they give to me. Not what they display to the world.
Conspicuous consumption is a overused term people use to make themselves feel better. Or worrying to much about the lives of others. I find myself doing it sometimes when I see a younger person driving their entire net worth down the street. Now that is the appropriate time to use those two words together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Failing grade until you do.
