Cate Blanchett’s claim to be ‘middle class’ isn’t unique among the wealthy, or even the 1% she’s part of. Downplaying privilege among elites contributes to the problem of wealth inequality.
Like Nicholas Cage, made more money than most people ever see in their entire lives 40 times over, but spent more than he had. And therefore must do films. His burn rate is quite high. If you were to stop working, he could not maintain his lifestyle.
Right…
Dude can’t stop working, because he can’t stop buying literal castles.
If he stopped, his lifestyle would change greatly.
But hed still be considered upper class to 99.999% of people by modern definitions. Because to a normal person owning triple digit castles makes no sense and they’d just sell them and retire.
It’s lifestyle creep to an extreme example.
Most people, can leverage that, to make enough money to support their lifestyle, but there are ones who can’t.
I really had high hopes for that Gentleman show, but it just wasn’t that great.
Exactly what you’re talking about about though.
The way upper/middle/lower gets split up depends where you’re at on the spectrum
Pretty much everyone (even Blanchet) view themselves as “middle class” because no matter how much wealth/power they have, chances are in social situations the people they interact with are half higher and half lower.
Even world leaders spend a lot of time with other world leaders.
Most powerful person in their country, but spends time with people in the same position but for a larger/wealthier/more powerful country.
It’s just basic psychology, we evaluate if we have “enough” by what the people next to us have. Give a kid a candy bar and they’re happy till you give the next kid 10, suddenly the first stops thinking of themselves as “candy rich” and start thinking theyre “candy broke”.
We look at Blanchets haul of candy and think it’s insane amount, but we have so little shed never even think to compare herself to us. We’re outside her frame of reference for what “enough” candy is. And she assumes it’s just a little less so we’re kind of close.
I broadly agree with you. But the reason lifestyle is the metric I use, is because it transitions between economies.
Somebody living in a subsistence economy, in an undeveloped part of the world, would see the average Australian household income as an absolute positive boon that nobody could possibly attain. relative to this person, all of Australia is wealthy beyond compare.
When you factor in cost of living, maintaining that lifestyle, it tends to shuffle out in terms of how long somebody can support themselves without working.
Right…
Dude can’t stop working, because he can’t stop buying literal castles.
If he stopped, his lifestyle would change greatly.
But hed still be considered upper class to 99.999% of people by modern definitions. Because to a normal person owning triple digit castles makes no sense and they’d just sell them and retire.
It’s lifestyle creep to an extreme example.
I really had high hopes for that Gentleman show, but it just wasn’t that great.
Exactly what you’re talking about about though.
The way upper/middle/lower gets split up depends where you’re at on the spectrum
Pretty much everyone (even Blanchet) view themselves as “middle class” because no matter how much wealth/power they have, chances are in social situations the people they interact with are half higher and half lower.
Even world leaders spend a lot of time with other world leaders.
Most powerful person in their country, but spends time with people in the same position but for a larger/wealthier/more powerful country.
It’s just basic psychology, we evaluate if we have “enough” by what the people next to us have. Give a kid a candy bar and they’re happy till you give the next kid 10, suddenly the first stops thinking of themselves as “candy rich” and start thinking theyre “candy broke”.
We look at Blanchets haul of candy and think it’s insane amount, but we have so little shed never even think to compare herself to us. We’re outside her frame of reference for what “enough” candy is. And she assumes it’s just a little less so we’re kind of close.
I broadly agree with you. But the reason lifestyle is the metric I use, is because it transitions between economies.
Somebody living in a subsistence economy, in an undeveloped part of the world, would see the average Australian household income as an absolute positive boon that nobody could possibly attain. relative to this person, all of Australia is wealthy beyond compare.
When you factor in cost of living, maintaining that lifestyle, it tends to shuffle out in terms of how long somebody can support themselves without working.