[la_mode]

I've wondered this for quite some time now. Everyone generally has different opinions on middle-class, but we'll assume it means you grew up in a stable household that was able to afford vacations every year to Florida, the occasional cruise, and being able to go out to eat to nice restaurants a few times a month. You probably had the latest nintendo system, a bike, new clothes, and grew up in a safe neighborhood. You had a decent car in high school and went to a decent or good public school. Your family was able to afford sending you to college, even if they had to take out a few loans. Most in your neighborhood were successful insurance salespeople, or worked middle management in a white collar industry with some well paid blue collar people like construction company owners nearby.

Contrast this to upper-class, which again, everyone has different definitions of. We'll assume upper-class meant country club membership, trips around the world to Europe or Australia every year, or an "old money" connection in the family with strong connections to landing you a great job after college. Your family never had to worry about money or being laid off from work. You never had to wait until Christmas to ask for new video games, they were simply given to you. You may have gone to an expensive private school, or a high-ranked public school in a rich suburb. A prestigious college was able to be afforded provided you had the grades/test scores to get into it. You had a brand new car in high school, even if it wasn't luxury. You grew up in a neighborhood where most were doctors, lawyers, or high-paid financiers.

Lower class, grew up not knowing what school district you'd be in next year. Food stamps were there sometimes. Kids knew you shopped at Goodwill or Salvation army. You had generic food at home. You didn't have the latest technology, and having a computer was a big deal at home, where the middle or upper class kids had their own separate from the family.

These are only generalizations, but I wanted to set a baseline for everything.

Conventional wisdom would say the middle-class has it the easiest after the upper-class, but I wonder if this is the truth.

The upper-class have their family wealth to fall back on. The lower class have nothing to lose if they don't succeed, it was never expected. Being the first in their family to goto college is amazing. While it's expected, the upper class don't even have to goto college if they don't want to. The middle class have to at least finish some basic 4 year degree to appease their family and not be seen as lowering their family's status. The upper class already have the status and one kid or two not having a degree really won't matter, regardless of how mad the parents get about it. The middle-class have to maintain the middle or move up.

When you look at this, it does appear like the middle-class have the most pressure. The upper-class have it made for the most part. The lower-class have very few expectations.

The upper-class can literally do whatever they want, and contrary to what most think, upper-class families usually help out their kids a lot. Middle-class do not. Lower-class probably would but they are unable to.

What I'm getting at, is that there's a pressure for middle-class to sustain middle-class, where the upper-class don't have to worry about sustaining upper-class, and the lower-class don't have to worry about it either since the only direction is up.

The guys I've personally known with the most game where either from the upper or lower classes and wondered if there was some sort of correlation.

Upper & lower class also tend to have the least rules growing up, where middle-class are typically expected to be the perfect boy scouts. Another way to look at it. Middle-class guy marries a single mother, it's typically seen as moving downward. Upper-class, they won't like it but be quick to admit sometimes that happens (upper-class are typically more open minded than middle regardless of political affiliation). Lower-class, it's basically expected.

I thought this could provide some interesting discussion.

[Switch]

I would disagree with your hypothesis that upper class kids already have it made and that there is little pressure to succeed. In fact I would say that the pressure to succeed increases as your family gains in status. I know a few upper class kids (0.1%) and you can see in their faces their pain and stress to do well, because they really want to do well and exceed expectations, and of course are very worried about failure. No parent has a kid thinking "this kid is going to end up doing less than me." All hope that their kid does better.

Rich VP at a tech company worth $30 million? Kid better start a biotech company and make 3x that.

Dad makes 300k in a corporate management gig? Kid better make VP.

Single mom makes 50k working as HR office drone? Kid better get that upper management job.

Which of these 3 is hardest to do?

For the poorest of the poor, those with only one parent and that parent is a crack addict who's on welfare, there are no expectations. But then again, why would you want no expectations?

In fact, I'd say that being middle class is the best, because your expectations are very achievable, the stress level to make it huge is not that high. But you also have some expectations so you do feel somewhat obliged to work hard and make something of yourself.

I fail to see the reasoning behind your family having high aspirations for you being a bad thing. It's only a bad thing if you yourself don't have high aspirations, which of course is not a problem for anyone on this forum

[Rawmeo]

I would say a general rule of thumb, of course there are exceptions, but the most money you have, the "easier" life becomes. If you have money, you can eat where you want, buy the technology you want, etc.

I can also add that every human has the power to push itself and find something to make money; so let's just say that if you are in the poor class and you do nothing about it, you deserve it.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

I view growing up lower class as an advantage. Because I grew up so poor, I feel like I'm already living like a king. I still strive to do better but I'm quite sated with what I have. My standard of luxury is just extremely low compared to most people.

On the other hand, my children will all grow up upper class or at least upper-middle. I worry that they'll grow up with a certain standard of luxury but without the strength to maintain that standard once they are out on their own.

[la_mode]

The kid's already got the biotech company waiting. If needed, they can put him in a stooge position and he'll still be raking in the bucks.

[Feisbook Control]

I think that the basic socio-economic divisions by the OP are flawed simply because they don't include the underclass, whom I would describe as being amoral and either chronically dependent upon welfare or involved in criminal activity. They are a distinct group from the lower class who are often quite moral and do make efforts to be in gainful employment, follow the law, keep their families together, and have faith and pride in their communities, countries and religions.

I would say that the lower class, as per my definition, have it the hardest simply because they are right up against it economically. Now obviously, some of that is their own fault, but the same could be said of many of the woes of the middle class. The middle class, for instance, are often their own worst enemies when it comes to being sheep and keeping up with the Joneses. As Robert Kiyosaki put it: the middle class buy liabilities thinking they're assets.

However, of all the classes, the lower class have been most badly affected by the postmodern, globalised world. They have also been betrayed politically more than any other class. They are also generally grimly aware of their tenuous place on the socio-economic ladder. Not only could one or two bad events cripple them, but I think they are often aware that at a structural level in society, it's almost inevitable that many of them will end up in the underclass. Frankly, being of the working poor and having the dignity not to accept welfare or get involved with the wrong crowd, whilst trying to hold it all together and maybe advancing a little is a big thing, and not an easy one at that. There is most definitely a long way for many lower class people to fall.

[Baldwin81]

Upper and lower classes have more in common with each other than with the middle class. They are polar opposites on the owner / employee mentalities, but (in general) share an awareness of what game the other side plays. Their problems are at once similar and different: Rich kid's biggest hinderence is motivation: when it's all there for you and you never had to earn it, say "Hello" to cocaine and wasted years... The poor kid has to rise up above a toxic environment in terms of building and earning wealth. Opposite sides of the spectrum, but potentially crippling obstacles for both.

Worst position (especially post 2008) is upper middle class. Unless the patriarch was an entrepreneur, they grew up with the "employee" mentality. They also live in relative luxury compared to poor kids. They are expected to be follow-the-line beta boy scouts and feel worthless without their "American dream" luxuries. Upper middle class is sheltered from both the streets and from Dad's business battles. Upper middle class are the house slaves on a downsizing plantation... they're not shrewd enough to own and not tough enough to grit it out in the fields, but have expensive tastes that will never go away... I don't have stats to back me up, but I think a lot of these SJWs are upper-middle class. It makes sense: 1. Soft 2. No real skills 3. Expensive tastes that are out of reach so they go after this bullshit "status."


In the end, class isn't even a thing if the person 1. Knows how to work 2. Finds a good mentor

[CRR]

Great posts, interesting topic

(10-30-2014 10:58 AM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

I don't have stats to back me up, but I think a lot of these SJWs are upper-middle class. It makes sense: 1. Soft 2. No real skills 3. Expensive tastes that are out of reach so they go after this bullshit "status."

In the end, class isn't even a thing if the person 1. Knows how to work 2. Finds a good mentor

I one hundred percent agree with your first point.

As a liberal, I encounter SJWs a lot, and they always fit that stereotype of privileged white girl (or "man"). I have a somewhat convoluted theory that they act this way do to guilt of how they treat people. For example, many of the biggest SJWs treat their coworkers (particularly subordinates) like complete and utter shit. They are condescending towards what they perceive as "the help" (i.e. waiters). And we all see how they act towards so-called street harassment, when really it's just people they deem beneath them making benign comments.

Of course being an asshole comes from every political background. I just think SJWs have the most guilt over it.

Your second point is bolded because it is so utterly true and doesn't get stated enough. Know how to work, and find a good mentor.

It took me several years to find that mentor. I worked for so many dipshits prior to that it was unusual to finally work for someone I actually learned positive qualities from, particularly basic business skills. It's not a coincidence that my career immediately went in a positive trajectory.

[Kabal]

(10-30-2014 03:19 AM)Switch Wrote:  

I would disagree with your hypothesis that upper class kids already have it made and that there is little pressure to succeed. In fact I would say that the pressure to succeed increases as your family gains in status. I know a few upper class kids (0.1%) and you can see in their faces their pain and stress to do well, because they really want to do well and exceed expectations, and of course are very worried about failure. No parent has a kid thinking "this kid is going to end up doing less than me." All hope that their kid does better.

Rich VP at a tech company worth $30 million? Kid better start a biotech company and make 3x that.

Dad makes 300k in a corporate management gig? Kid better make VP.

Single mom makes 50k working as HR office drone? Kid better get that upper management job.

On a slight tangent, I have always found amusing the popular American expectation that:

1. Everything will only get monotonically better over time, e.g. your kids will have better absolute living standards and/or income than you do. If one takes a quick look at estimated historic GDP per capita, caloric intake per person, or average heights, it's quite obvious that these things follow/followed sinoid waves, with waxes and wanes, and are/were not always monotonically improving. Sure, the West has had unprecedented growth in the post-industrial era--but it wasn't monotonic for every country, and it can't continue forever.

2. Your kids will have relatively better living standards and/or income than you do, e.g. your kids will be of higher SES than you. This gets more unlikely the smarter/higher-earning you are due to regression to the mean--the smarter/higher-earning you are, the more likely a greater portion of your smarts/income was due to random luck, not genes (just like height). And above all--SES is not like Lake Wobegon--for someone to rise in SES, someone has to fall.

This is likely, at least in part, motivated by the legacy of America's relatively high-IQ immigration in the decades prior to 1990 or so--where immigrants saw their children surpass them in both absolute and relative SES. However, this is/was a first generation effect, and dies/died off.

For medium (or low)-IQ immigrants, their children may experience an increase in absolute living standards, but may suffer a decline relative to them compared to their home country. The archetypal example I have in mind are white/whitish latinos, who may be ringers in their home countries for intellect and achievement--but in America they join their white gentile counterparts in the middle of the bell curve (or worse) in getting statistically outperformed by Jews and Asians.

[Dragonstone]

(10-30-2014 11:35 AM)CRR Wrote:  

Your second point is bolded because it is so utterly true and doesn't get stated enough. Know how to work, and find a good mentor.

It took me several years to find that mentor. I worked for so many dipshits prior to that it was unusual to finally work for someone I actually learned positive qualities from, particularly basic business skills. It's not a coincidence that my career immediately went in a positive trajectory.

I lost count of how many times I heard the same thing from the (self-made) higher-ups....."so and so was my mentor". In fact, I can only think of one higher-up that wouldn't say something along those lines, and well, that exception proves the rule. I also saw what happened when one's mentor lost out from in-fighting, and it wasn't pretty.

While I disagree with the OP's characterization of classes, I would suggest that adding "availability of mentors" would be a worthwhile addition.

[rudebwoy]

Isn't it official that todays generation lives worst than their parents?

[Mentavious]

What do guys here consider the amount earned per year to be middle and upper class?

[CRR]

^^^highly depends on where you live.

In and around a major city (San Fran, LA, NY, DC) cost of living is astronomically higher.

[Bad Hussar]

Great idea for a thread, and very good comments so far. Not sure I can add anything. Lets see.

Agree that the middle class is in a quandary, but don't agree that they have it worse than the poor. True material deprivation is no fun at all.

The main problem with the middle class is psychological, rather than material. Those in the middle (and I am one of them) have an almost inevitable problem with authenticity. As has been mentioned they do not have the power of the rich, or the "nothing to lose" mentality of the poor. Psychologically this means that they are much less likely than these two groups to even be able to think for themselves, let alone act on their thoughts when these run counter to some imagined standard. The result is very little originality. Even the acting out is quite sad and formulaic. About the most dramatic thing a middle class girl will do to act out is to get a tattoo. In fact a tattoo in the current climate, especially on a woman, is a near infallible signal that it's bearer is a frustrated middle class person struggling with the knowledge that they are not acting authentically in everyday life. Because the boss, the government and so on cannot be offended. Getting a tattoo is a kind of faux-rebelliousness. It's safe because so many others have them, but it's wearer can kid themselves that they are different and truly rebellious...

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-30-2014 03:01 AM)la_mode Wrote:  

Lower class, grew up not knowing what school district you'd be in next year. Food stamps were there sometimes. Kids knew you shopped at Goodwill or Salvation army. You had generic food at home. You didn't have the latest technology, and having a computer was a big deal at home, where the middle or upper class kids had their own separate from the family.

Some of the families I know don't have a household phone line or internet connection. If they have a video game console, it's an old one, like an original Xbox. They still have CRT televisions and listen to audio cassettes. If something breaks, it's patched. Your bed is a mattress on the floor. Furniture is from charity stores, and sixties in design. If a window breaks, you patch it with cardboard. Sometimes there is only 2 meals a day nearing payment day. Maybe two families in their street have a lawnmower, which everyone borrows. There's no airconditioning, so the front yard and steps become another 'room' of the house. A lot of the time, there's no car.

This is the reality of many of my friends in 2014. They could still be existing in 1976 or 1991. I vaguely remember a song I heard that said "The year 2000 will make no difference around here," and it's spot on.

Every single cause a privileged social justice warrior will champion, such as microaggressions and representation of women in gaming, will make no real-world positive difference in their lives whatsoever. The recent 'double the minimum wage' fight is most likely going to automate the service industry and leave them without jobs.

[la_mode]

I also think most middle-class grow up with a strange guilt that isn't present in the upper or lower classes.

It's very common to be made to feel guilt when you're middle-class. Over birthday presents or things as simple as food. For example, not liking a certain food can turn into huge arguments, because you're constantly told that there's people in poor countries like Ethiopia without food.

The upper-class generally doesn't do this, and the lower-class essentially gets food for free so they don't care either.

[Feisbook Control]

Anonymous Bosch: In my previous job here in Taiwan, I had a colleague who was a homeroom teacher. She used to let some of the kids take food home from lunch (there are school cooks who prepare food for each class, and then all of the students eat together in their homeroom classroom). Some students, however, didn't have a fridge, so they used to actually store it in their neighbours' fridges.

Some kids used to live in the school dorms, despite their families not living very far away. This was because of food, but also because that way, they had their own beds. That homeroom teacher told me that there were some kids who lived in one bedroom houses. Five kids would sleep in the lounge room, most of them on the uncovered, concrete floor.

In some cases, the parents of those kids had mental issues or substance abuse issues. In others, money burnt a hole in their pockets.

As for Australia, I lived in rural Victoria for a while and taught there. I went to visit a colleague once. He lived in a very small satellite village to the town in which we both taught, which was itself a very poor town (I think there had once been a lumber mill there) full of single mothers and people on welfare. The village was literally in the middle of nowhere. There was nothing there for anyone to do, and I guess almost everyone was on welfare. When I arrived, the entire place had a third world/lost in time feel similar to what you describe.

We had a book with the contact details of the kids. It was a bit like 200 kids, three surnames. Trying to figure out the family connections was really difficult. Jayden was Kaylee's half sister, who was living with her step-mother, but had her mother's surname... Other colleagues used to tell me about some of the parents of the kids at our school. There were two boys at our school who had three younger (half)siblings at the primary school. The parents had both always been on welfare, and the five kids were from their previous marriages. They were saving up so they could afford a vasectomy reversal and have a sixth together. The father supposedly wouldn't buy toothpaste for the kids because it was too expensive, but each week, he would buy the kids a slab (24-pack) of home brand soft drink. I rang him up one day to tell him that I wanted to keep his kid after school for a detention, in which case the kid would have had to be picked up (as he would have missed the school bus). The father said he wouldn't pick the kid up and if I had wanted to keep him, I'd have had to drive him (40km) home. One day, his older brother punched a locker so hard that he broke a bone in his wrist. Two teachers took him to the local hospital and called the father. Of course, the father said he wasn't driving all that way. He then told his son that if he had a cast put on his arm, he wouldn't be able to play cricket that weekend... Ah, the underclass! What joy!

(10-30-2014 04:18 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

I also think most middle-class grow up with a strange guilt that isn't present in the upper or lower classes.

It's very common to be made to feel guilt when you're middle-class. Over birthday presents or things as simple as food. For example, not liking a certain food can turn into huge arguments, because you're constantly told that there's people in poor countries like Ethiopia without food.

The upper-class generally doesn't do this, and the lower-class essentially gets food for free so they don't care either.

That's not a bad thing, in my opinion. Frugality used to be considered a virtue in Western society, including in the middle class. When I was a kid, we were made to finish what was on our plates. On one occasion, we sat at the dinner table for more than two hours because my father wouldn't let my sister leave some vegetables. To this day, it really distresses me when people throw food away, leave lights on in rooms they're not in, etc. Too many people are needlessly wasteful, and then they wonder why they don't have two red cents to rub together when they're older.

I actually don't think class is so much about income levels. I think it's more about values.

[All or Nothing]

(10-30-2014 02:52 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:01 AM)la_mode Wrote:  

Lower class, grew up not knowing what school district you'd be in next year. Food stamps were there sometimes. Kids knew you shopped at Goodwill or Salvation army. You had generic food at home. You didn't have the latest technology, and having a computer was a big deal at home, where the middle or upper class kids had their own separate from the family.

Some of the families I know don't have a household phone line or internet connection. If they have a video game console, it's an old one, like an original Xbox. They still have CRT televisions and listen to audio cassettes. If something breaks, it's patched. Your bed is a mattress on the floor. Furniture is from charity stores, and sixties in design. If a window breaks, you patch it with cardboard. Sometimes there is only 2 meals a day nearing payment day. Maybe two families in their street have a lawnmower, which everyone borrows. There's no airconditioning, so the front yard and steps become another 'room' of the house. A lot of the time, there's no car.

This is the reality of many of my friends in 2014. They could still be existing in 1976 or 1991. I vaguely remember a song I heard that said "The year 2000 will make no difference around here," and it's spot on.

Every single cause a privileged social justice warrior will champion, such as microaggressions and representation of women in gaming, will make no real-world positive difference in their lives whatsoever. The recent 'double the minimum wage' fight is most likely going to automate the service industry and leave them without jobs.

If there is a will, there is a way.

Let me repeat myself here, there is always a way. Even if it is not easy.

If we are really going to talk about cold hard reality.

It sounds to me like your friends have given up and simply accept their lives as they are.

I would rather feel the cold steely grip of death than to accept being impoverished or at the bottom rung of society.

Edit: I will say that is probably just me though. I am the kind of person who enjoys running towards personal anguish and discomfort. Some sick part of me enjoys suffering and going to bed with nightmares running through my head. Every single time I have embraced some sort of pain, I always have come out stronger.

Most people just like to give up, shake their fists at the sky, and say "if only I was lucky like that other guy".

[la_mode]

It's also forgotten, a very large percentage of true middle-class come from a "squeaky clean" background. An honest, hard-working, do as told type mentality. They're taught any kind of shortcuts are wrong, and that any type of shrewdness in the business world is frowned upon. The upper-class are very cutthroat and specialize in this at high levels while the lower-class do it all the time themselves, except in a different venue.

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-31-2014 03:34 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

If there is a will, there is a way.

Let me repeat myself here, there is always a way. Even if it is not easy.

If we are really going to talk about cold hard reality.

It sounds to me like your friends have given up and simply accept their lives as they are.

Some of us make it out, some of us don't.

A lot of them think the game is rigged to such a degree, that they just accept their fate and check out of mainstream society. They resemble the MGTOW, except with the capitalist system.

Others simply are unemployable in a Post-Industrial Thought Economy. They're disabled, or don't possess the intelligence or skillset to be of any use, and can't be trained. It can be hard to conceive of lower intelligence if you're smart, but it has realistic limits.

If there's ever a collapse, they'll be the survivors. They're resilient as hell.

[Deluge]

Most of time us big city Aussies visit the country, it's to regional cities like Newcastle, Geelong etc. or some well-off coastal beach town. Basically, if the area doesn't vote for the Nationals, it doesn't really count. You see some of the houses these people in middle of nowhere farms and towns inhabit and wonder how such a level of poverty can exist in 21st century Australia. You don't see this anymore in the cities. Back in the early 70's it wasn't till Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister that Greater Western Sydney had a sewerage system, now the gap between city and remote country is huge and only getting worse. The country cities are heading the way of remote Australia too due to de-industrialization and brain drain. All the kids who can participate in the knowledge economy move to the big cities for university and end up as hipsters (for some reason the hipster heartland neighbourhoods are dominated by young people from regional Australia), which has a huge "dysgenic" effect on their hometowns and creates a structural poverty that will likely never be fixed.

[Troll King]

I think it depends on what you mean by harder. Some of the most fucked up families I have known have been incredibly wealthy. I mean not just 1% wealthy but .01% wealthy. When I lived In the middle east I had a friend who is half Canadian and also a citizen of that country. Her dad married an American, her mother, so she had that too. While she was always bought new stuff and had a huge house and all of that, her dad was a major asshole. He would smack her and her mom around. It didn't help that, being and American/Egyptian, who wasn't in the least Muslim in a majority Muslim country he took the stereotypical view of Islam and applied it to his house by restricting different, and often odd, things between his daughter and son and what not. He owned basically the entire grain industry of the country and actually died when his private jet crashed in the desert. I have known a handful of people like this, I went to school with a number of them. I remember one kid whose dad bought him a Ferrari at 14, the driving age was 18, and he and his driver would bribe the cops to shut down a few blocks around the American school to do burn outs In it. That is nice. It blew my mind at the time considering I was a 14 yr old kid from the south.

A lot of those kids grew up in some major fucked up situations. For one, everyone secretly hates them. For two, the reason they turn out to be such entitled brats, not always but we all know the stereotype, is not just because they have never had to work but also because their parents are giant assholes. At best they get raised by a team of help while living under the social pressure of a celebrity. Just look at how all those child stars end up.

On the other hand of the spectrum I have known a number of people from very poor backgrounds. We talk about lower classes but they have their own hierarchy too. On one hand you have the kids living in subsidized houses a half mile from my parents house who always had brand new clothes and video games and nice cars in school because their parents got ebt and other forms of welfare while also often working under the table or selling drugs. Then on the other hand there was a guy named matt I knew. He was the first kid I talked to after changing schools. I still remember being grossed out that he had a half sucked on Jolley rancher and took it out of his mouth and offered it to me. He grew up in a very poor house that didn't have running water here in the south. I heard his parents got arrested for making meth or something and he got put into foster care in the 9th grade and then subsequently dropped out later that year. When me and my friends, who ranged quite a bit on the middle to upper middle class spectrum, missed too many days or skipped class the sheriffs of the small town would drive around and look for us or send our parents tickets. No one gave a shit about matt or went looking for him. He just walked off campus and never returned. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he is dead.

I don't really know what points I am making. I actually agree with most of what has been posted so far...so, I guess I will just leave it here.

[poutsara]

(10-30-2014 12:15 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

1. Everything will only get monotonically better over time, e.g. your kids will have better absolute living standards and/or income than you do. If one takes a quick look at estimated historic GDP per capita, caloric intake per person, or average heights, it's quite obvious that these things follow/followed sinoid waves, with waxes and wanes, and are/were not always monotonically improving. Sure, the West has had unprecedented growth in the post-industrial era--but it wasn't monotonic for every country, and it can't continue forever.

2. Your kids will have relatively better living standards and/or income than you do, e.g. your kids will be of higher SES than you. This gets more unlikely the smarter/higher-earning you are due to regression to the mean--the smarter/higher-earning you are, the more likely a greater portion of your smarts/income was due to random luck, not genes (just like height). And above all--SES is not like Lake Wobegon--for someone to rise in SES, someone has to fall.

In other news, 60% of all Americans think they are in the top 10% of all Americans.

[Ingocnito]

Don't fool yourself, I grew up somewhere between middle-middle class and lower-middle class in income of household.

No matter how many expectations you push on a kid, unless you keep them sheltered from reality of all the classes, they will draw their own conclusions about what's important in life whether the parents like it or not.

I would say the most consistent success, based on income, comes from families who collectively skate through life unaware of true hardships or massive success of people with that balls to take big, of the beaten path, risks.

In general, however I'd say if you're born in a wealthy family life is simply easier for obvious reasons. One of the biggest screw-ups in my H.S. took over his dad's construction company, and built it even bigger than his dad did. This guy slept through class, smoked week 24/7, and didn't even graduate. Why? Because he knew sure as shit that company was his when he got older.

Most of the very poor people I knew who were struggling made it only into the middle class, but I'm certain that must have felt at least as good as going from middle to upper class. Despite it all, the class system isn't just based on income, much of it is behavior as well. I know a few ghetto-trash-trailer-park millionaires who have over $5m in the bank and act completely ghetto in the conduct of their lives.

[dholland662]

If you're growing up, I think Middle class is best because you are not poor but money is still an issue. Teaching you to deal with scarcity, even if indirectly. Whether it is easiest or not I think is a non-starter since having it easy is not always good.

Now being middle class I would argue from the example of my parents is very hard, but to be fair I lived in California which makes it harder than most places.

The saying/joke is that being middle class means you have no money but there are no programs to support you.
And this is very much true. Even if you manage your finances well, the current political wisdom is to punish even that.
To take California for example, another tax intended to get money from the rich in fact hurts the middle class. Really sad when it's called the millionaire tax. But it looks at assets rather than revenue, meaning that if you have over a million in a variety of assets you qualify. Even if you don't make a million at all.