Muloghonto Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, surajmal said: U suck at wikipedia trawling. Wittgenstein - 2nd wealthiest family at one time after Rothschilds in Austrio Hungary. Pastors don't classify as middle class anywhere. particularly in 19th Europe. You say Upper Middle Class, I say Rich. I may give you Hume, but his father died when he was a child. (Although he existed prior to the 200 yr time frame you gave as I look at his DOB) At one time. Not during his time. His parents were the founders and small time wool traders. priests are the definition of middle class: never goes hungry, guaranteed work, roof but never rich unless they are catholic and cardinals or higher. Poor people mean they occasionally or sometimes go hungry....which would be farm hands for eg in that era. Upper middle class are not rich or elites. Because upper middle class do not satisfy the most basic definition of being elites: working is optional. This is why Bill Gates or Trump are elites( they don't have to work) but judges, doctors etc are not elites: they die poor if they stopped working after a decade, neither can they afford whatever they wish. Lawyers , especially 100 years ago most definitely do not qualify as elites. Elites are either super rich people or people with vast hereditary powers....ie, in modern world they are millionaire++ category and premodern world they are wealthy industrialists or at the very least, Earls or above. Rest do not qualify by any benchmark. Edited January 11, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: At one time. Not during his time. His parents were the founders and small time wool traders. During his time. Quote priests are the definition of middle class: never goes hungry, guaranteed work, roof but never rich unless they are catholic and cardinals or higher. Poor people mean they occasionally or sometimes go hungry....which would be farm hands for eg in that era. lolwut. That is so poor logic. What happens if parishioners stop coming in? Priesthood is a gig. Some days are good, some are bad. In the end you are straddling lower class and middle class. Poor nonetheless. Quote Upper middle class are not rich or elites. Because upper middle class do not satisfy the most basic definition of being elites: working is optional. This is why Bill Gates or Trump are elites( they don't have to work) but judges, doctors etc are not elites: they die poor if they stopped working after a decade, neither can they afford whatever they wish. Lawyers , especially 100 years ago most definitely do not qualify as elites. Elites are either super rich people or people with vast hereditary powers....ie, in modern world they are millionaire++ category and premodern world they are wealthy industrialists or at the very least, Earls or above. Rest do not qualify by any benchmark. Upper middle class is rich because they don't owe their living to the machine anymore. They have several streams of income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 23 minutes ago, surajmal said: During his time. Nope 23 minutes ago, surajmal said: lolwut. That is so poor logic. What happens if parishioners stop coming in? Priesthood is a gig. Some days are good, some are bad. In the end you are straddling lower class and middle class. Poor nonetheless. Find me one- just one article on economics that considers priests as poor. Priests were richer than all commoners not employed by the military or businessmen in villages and cities of Europe in the last..forever. They are the definition of what middle class is. 23 minutes ago, surajmal said: Upper middle class is rich because they don't owe their living to the machine anymore. They have several streams of income. Upper middle class is not rich or elites. Again, find me a single article on economics that consider lawyers and doctors as elites. And what is their secondary source of income again .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Nope umm. Yes. Quote Find me one- just one article on economics that considers priests as poor. Priests were richer than all commoners not employed by the military or businessmen in villages and cities of Europe in the last..forever. They are the definition of what middle class is. Find me one article that considers priests from this time period as middle class. Quote Upper middle class is not rich or elites. Again, find me a single article on economics that consider lawyers and doctors as elites. And what is their secondary source of income again .. They are rich. Experienced Lawyers and Doctors may not have just one source of income. They may also be landowners, investors, farmers, other small business owners etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts