My classmates terrify me

[Niemand]

I read Slarty's claim as a statement of an empirical observation rather than an reference to a standard, or supposedly so, rule.

[Slawbug]

Niemand is correct, although I probably could have made that clearer. All the examples I can think of in English use the apostrophe for a missing vowel sound:

 

AUXILIARY VERBS + NOT

can't = can n't

couldn't = could n't

won't = will n't (note that the vowel shift doesn't count, neither does the missing liquid)

wouldn't = would n't

shan't = shall n't (note that the liquid is just left off again)

shouldn't = should n't

don't = do n't

didn't = did n't

isn't = is n't

aren't = are n't

wasn't = was n't

weren't = were n't

 

COPULA

I'm = I 'm

we're = we 're

you're = you 're

he's = he 's

she's = she 's

they're = they 're

(These are interesting because the first original word always ends in a vowel sound, and when that word is spoken followed by "is" or "are" there is an inserted glide ("y" or "w" sound) ... the glide is removed when the contraction takes place along with the vowel from the second word.)

 

'tis = 't is

'twas = 't was

'twill be = 't will be

 

INFORMAL PROGRESSIVES

eatin' = eating

cookin' = cooking

 

(These are interesting. They are a much more recent development and the spelling seems to have been adopted to show in writing a significant shift in stress and pronounciation that alters the pragmatics of what is said. The "ing" sound, which if you listen closely does not rhyme with "ring" but rather with "eeng," shifts completely to instead resemble "in" and also becomes stressed. So here the apostrophe is used differently, which can probably be attributed to its recentness. But note that it is still not used lightly.)

 

---

 

In general, though, don't be too eager to go looking for rules when it comes to language. Natural language, anyway. One implementation of a computer language can have very specific definitions for what each component of the language means and how it is typed out. But natural languages evolve over time, and continue to evolve so long as they continue to be spoken. They are usually also different in different locations. So the person who attempts to prescribe rules and say "this is how it is!" is like a little dike in the face of a tsunami.

 

Many of the "rules" of English grammar that are sometimes taught in school do not even apply to formal written English as it is used today, and some of them never did. "Don't end a sentence with a preposition" is the classic example: this was thrust upon English-speakers by scholars who wanted English to be more like Latin and less like German. But in English, it sometimes forces the main verb to be very far away from an attached preposition that is actually part of the verb as well: "This is something up with which I will not put." That's something that doesn't normally happen in languages -- we just don't see it. Presumably, this is because it needlessly increases the amount of mental work that is required to figure out the basic elements of the sentence, when you're trying to understand what is said. That doesn't make it wrong, but it makes it weird; and regardless, there is no basis for asserting it is an actual rule governing how English is used.

[Soul of Wit]

With eating vs. eatin', this is just softening the G until it disappears. If I'm speaking quickly (or lazily) you won't even hear the G. Thus, you might spell it without the (now) silent letter.

 

"I'm walkin' here!" --Ratso Rizzo in MIdnight Cowboy (1969)

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

"Don't end a sentence with a preposition" is the classic example

Ah, the many delightfully idiotic excesses of prescriptivism. "No splitting infinitives" is another fun one, as well as an irrational hatred of the passive voice.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

With eating vs. eatin', this is just softening the G until it disappears. If I'm speaking quickly (or lazily) you won't even hear the G. Thus, you might spell it without the (now) silent letter.

Not quite. The noises we actually make when we saying "eating" do not include any noise that specifically goes with the "g". Rather, the presence of the "g" in writing affects the quality of the preceding vowel and especially the "n". Compare IPA for "eating" and "eatin'":

/iːtɪŋ/
/iːtən/

(The IPA here is from wiktionary. I have some doubts about the exact vowel quality they use, but this gives a basic idea, especially about the n.)

Because that's how "g" works in English spelling with "ing", we tend to HEAR it was dropping the "g"... but phonetically, i.e., in terms of the noises we make with our mouth, we're not dropping anything.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

Quote:

"Don't end a sentence with a preposition" is the classic example

Ah, the many delightfully idiotic excesses of prescriptivism. "No splitting infinitives" is another fun one, as well as an irrational hatred of the passive voice.

The passive voice sucks balls. If you read a lot of science writing (the stuff in journals) you'll know why it should be avoided if possible. Zzzzzzz


Slarty, you seem to be quite passionate about this whole language thing. What did you study in university?

[A less presumptuous name.]

Regarding the link to Jeff's blog (I'm too lazy to go back a page and grab it), I really do follow the usage of who and whom. If Jeff really hates them so much, he should switch to French, in which they are the same word with different context. Alas, French is far more strict about grammar rules. No dropping relative pronouns![1]

 

For preposition use, I tend to avoid ending sentences in prepositions, just like I avoid splitting infinitives. However, phrases such as "put up" and the like, well, I just chalk them up to idiom and let it be.

 

1. Interestingly, learning French has made my English grammar far better as far as the textbooks are concerned. However, when SAT test questions and the like omit relative pronouns (notable "that"), I get frustrated. Mixed blessing.

[VCH]

I think Jeff was making the point that if most people don't understand the difference between whom and who, than it's not worth using the two of them in his writing.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Yes, I get Jeff's point, and I find it valid, although I would not do the same thing. I do recognize errors in the speech of, well, everyone around me. In fact, I catch almost all of the errors. And yet, I manage to survive by telling myself that content and comprehensibility are more important than archaic form.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

I'm not saying that the passive voice is appropriate under all circumstances, just that the de facto ban on it in many types of formal writing is foolish. There are many situations in which it sounds much more awkward than the active voice, and leads to really circuitous constructions. On the other hand, there are cases in which it's perfectly legitimate, and leads to more natural constructions than the active voice. Your own second sentence is a good example of this (was that deliberate, by the way?): "the passive voice" from the previous sentence (referenced by "it") is a clear and appropriate subject, where a new, active voice subject (as in "one should avoid it if possible") would come across as artificial and a bit clunky.

 

In a more general sense, the passive voice is appropriate, and indeed preferable, in cases in which a single subject is of overriding importance, or in which the sentence doesn't have a clear active voice subject. I think the latter is a major reason for people's hatred of the passive voice: by avoiding an active subject, it allows for rhetorical evasion of responsibility. "Mistakes were made" as it were.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: VCH

Slarty, you seem to be quite passionate about this whole language thing. What did you study in university?

Linguistics. As you might expect based on the posts in this thread. Particularly the one where I said I was a linguistics major.

[VCH]

Oh, well I didn't actually read every post you know. Ooops

 

 

"Mistakes were made"

 

 

That's exactly the kind of writing that makes science writing boring. But you're right, the passive voice has its uses.

 

 

 

[A less presumptuous name.]

So Slarty, linguistics has always been an interest of mine, although not at the top of the list. What exactly does one do with a linguistics major?

[Dintiradan]

What *****Cola said. The passive voice is in our language toolbox for a reason. Like all tools, it isn't appropriate for most situations, but it still needs to be used occasionally.

 

Quote:

What exactly does one do with a linguistics major?

Give out grammar advice on a software company's forums?

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

Your own second sentence is a good example of this (was that deliberate, by the way?): "the passive voice" from the previous sentence (referenced by "it") is a clear and appropriate subject, where a new, active voice subject (as in "one should avoid it if possible") would come across as artificial and a bit clunky.

Not to argue against the passive voice, but there are ways you could frame the same information in active voice without sounding awkward. For instance: "If you read a lot of science writing, you'll know why you should avoid it."

Dikiyobt thinks the nice thing about English is that there are usually multiple ways to phrase something so you can obey or disobey certain rules without sounding too awkward. Or so you can sound awkward, if that is your intent.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: VCH

The passive voice sucks balls. If you read a lot of science writing (the stuff in journals) you'll know why it should be avoided if possible.

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

...leads to more natural constructions than the active voice. Your own second sentence is a good example of this (was that deliberate, by the way?): "the passive voice" from the previous sentence (referenced by "it") is a clear and appropriate subject, where a new, active voice subject (as in "one should avoid it if possible") would come across as artificial and a bit clunky.

I'm not anti-passive voice. But I'm confused. Are you saying that "it should be avoided" is somehow clearer than "you should avoid it" (or "people should avoid it")?

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Master1

So Slarty, linguistics has always been an interest of mine, although not at the top of the list. What exactly does one do with a linguistics major?

Dintiradan's answer is pretty accurate. Linguistics is among the more esoteric college degrees.

But really, bachelor's degrees aren't useful for much anymore. There are plenty of jobs that will prefer candidates with ANY bachelor's degree, but outside of technical fields and academia, specific bachelor's degrees aren't relevant. Most jobs they'd be relevant for will demand an advanced degree.

Some subjects happen to be associated with larger technical fields (i.e., most of the sciences, engineering, etc.). The only common technical job directly related to linguistics training is speech therapy. But I'm not sure the list is that much longer for most degrees in the social sciences & humanities. What does a BA in History or English qualify you for?

[A less presumptuous name.]

So is there any higher degree for linguistics? If so, what opportunities would such a degree offer?

[Slawbug]

It's pretty much the same as for most academic fields: useless BA, largely useless MA, PhD that qualifies you for serious academic work. As I understand it, there are parallel degree structures in other countries that work similarly.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

What does a BA in History or English qualify you for?

Unemployment? Teaching at elementary and high school level requires a teaching certificate and that usually means an education degree. Colleges want an advanced degree. Although some places now will accept a BA if you can show that you know more than that.

English might get you a job in journalism proof reading or some other field where all those grammar rules are needed. History could lead to museums or some other place where the information is useful.

Slarty is right that a Bachelor degree has replaced a high school education as a starting point for some jobs. Too many places just look for skills and the ability to learn new ones for the job.

[*i]

Re: Passive Voice

 

The reason to avoid passive voice is that it can lead to confusion about who or what leads to what action, and sentences can become unnecessarily long. Sometimes when you want to purposely deemphasize the subject because it is unimportant or irrelevant, this is fine. As a general rule of thumb, the active voice tends to lead to more crisp writing, which is good.

 

This comes from someone who does a decent amount of technical writing in scientific and engineering publications. I use mostly active voice except in cases where it is awkward not to do so. While I cannot objectively judge my own writing, many colleagues have told me that they find my writing style easily accessible.

[Slawbug]

While History majors may be more likely to be _interested_ in museum jobs, I doubt there are many museum jobs that require History majors, and turn away people with BAs in Anthropology or English or Philosophy.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: *i

Re: Passive Voice

The reason to avoid passive voice is that it can lead to confusion about who or what leads to what action, and sentences can become unnecessarily long. Sometimes when you want to purposely deemphasize the subject because it is unimportant or irrelevant, this is fine. As a general rule of thumb, the active voice tends to lead to more crisp writing, which is good.

Many ecology journals strongly encourage authors to use the active voice, especially in the materials and methods section of a paper. The active voice also makes your writing much more powerful and engaging.


And I agree that a BA or BSc is now essentially equivalent to a high-school degree.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: VCH

The active voice also makes your writing much more powerful and engaging.

How?

I agree that overuse of the passive voice doesn't sound good. But does active voice actually have some kind of magical charisma to it?

[Lilith]

i think it adds a bit more of a personal, conversational tone

 

if the paper's all like "12 quadrats from the survey area were sampled" then you read it and it's like okay, some dude at some point in time sampled some quadrats. whatevs

 

but if the paper's all like "we sampled 12 quadrats from the survey area" you're like wow, these same people who wrote this paper were out there in the wild sampling quadrats by their very selves, and they're not afraid to say so. look how multitalented yet approachable they are. i should totally find the lead author and ask her out

 

and that's why ecologists get more dates than linguists

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i think it adds a bit more of a personal, conversational tone

if the paper's all like "12 quadrats from the survey area were sampled" then you read it and it's like okay, some dude at some point in time sampled some quadrats. whatevs

but if the paper's all like "we sampled 12 quadrats from the survey area" you're like wow, these same people who wrote this paper were out there in the wild sampling quadrats by their very selves, and they're not afraid to say so. look how multitalented yet approachable they are. i should totally find the lead author and ask her out

and that's why ecologists get more dates than linguists

Awesome lol

But for your information, all the really hot girls do their sampling with the mark-release-recapture method. Girls that use quadrats are only interested in the small things in life.

[Slawbug]

This may also be why:

 

 

Really, if you make it to the title and the laughs that accompany it, you've seen enough

[Dintiradan]

Hey everyone.

 

The dude in Slarty's video tells you to look something up on Wikipedia.

 

Don't listen to him.

 

Seriously, don't.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: VCH

But for your information all the really hot girls do their sampling with the mark-release-recapture method. Girls that use quadrats are only interested in the small things in life.

then wouldn't you have better luck pursuing the latter

[VCH]

"12 quadrats from the survey area were sampled"

 

I lose focus when sentences are written like that. My mind tends to turn off and I don't get a clear picture of what the author is trying to communicate. Basically the passive voice makes me work harder to understand the text, which is never a good thing.

 

Of course there are other reasons science writing can be boring. This article sums them up nicely.

 

 

Abstract

 

Although scientists typically insist that their research is very exciting and adventurous when they talk to laymen and prospective students, the allure of this enthusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilted structure and language of their scientific publications. I present here, a top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications. I then discuss why we should and how we could make these contributions more accessible and exciting.

 

How to write consistently boring scientific literature

 

 

 

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: VCH

But for your information all the really hot girls do their sampling with the mark-release-recapture method. Girls that use quadrats are only interested in the small things in life.

 

then wouldn't you have better luck pursuing the latter

 

lol. You're on fire tonight.

 

and you're right, it's better being compared to a beetle than to a moose

 

A warning for everyone: don't go looking for a pic of either one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ah hell, the beetle pic is just too cool to pass up, so if you're really brave take a look here

 

WOW!

 

[Dantius]

I know several history majors. None of them actually wound up doing anything related to history- for whatever reason, most seem to just go into teaching (not history, though), the law, or an office job. I guess it could be because of the rising standards for employment here( the BA is the new high school, the MA the new BA, etc.), but it seems more and more people are going to college just to go to college and get a degree in anything because they think it will help their employment chances, and not because they actually plan to study anything related to the field they plan to eventually go into.

 

 

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Eh, it wasn't a terrific example, but I think the introduction of 'you/one/people' as a subject disrupts the flow of the sentence somewhat.

[Slawbug]

I don't think you're biased at all, Dantius. Engineering is a practical major that leads directly to well-paid jobs. Arguably, it is the most professionally-oriented undergraduate major left.

[Callie]

It seems that the best-paying undergraduate majors generally require a lot of math. I'm a chemical engineering major, and the professors like to show us those pay-scale charts a lot. Political science majors appear to have decent salaries, but if I remember correctly, they have to take quite a few statistics courses.

[madrigan]

When I was an undergrad 1000 years ago, I'm not sure stats was required for the PoliSci major. Even in grad school you could get a Ph.D. with just a year of stats. It depended A LOT on the program.

 

I tell young people not to leave college without taking stats and logic. It teaches you how to think and helps you to detect lies. I was really not good at either one but they still helped me a lot.

 

Also, for the zero of you who are interested, my other college advice is to take at least one course in something you know nothing about and which appears to be completely useless. College may be your last chance to learn something just for its own sake.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

I don't think you're biased at all, Dantius. Engineering is a practical major that leads directly to well-paid jobs. Arguably, it is the most professionally-oriented undergraduate major left.

well, there's always journalisahahahahahaha i can't finish that sentence with a straight face

[Randomizer]

University of Arizona journalism department was torn between that Geraldo Rivera attended there or relief that he never finished.

 

"Secrets of Al Capone's Vault" was an hour to find nothing.

[Synergy]

Ha, I remember watching that Geraldo special and how lame it turned out—embarrassingly live—after so much lead-in hype. That was around the same time he famously got his nose broken courtesy of a chair thrown by a neo-nazi during an on-stage brawl.

 

...

 

Has anyone pointed out the obvious—that this inflation of required professional degrees to have a shot at many jobs now is just a part of the rampant erosion of the middle class in America? Access to many decent paying jobs is becoming unaffordable for an ever greater majority of citizens. Upper education costs are ramping up, and now you can double or quadruple it with a masters or PhD requirement if you want a truly professional job. Good jobs may well become the privilege of the increasingly few wealthy before we finally throw down the stranglehold of the financial institutions and corporate megaliths, and recreate a government that serves the people of our country.

 

I wait and watch to see how much Americans as a whole are going to suck up before they start to organize-via Facebook or whatever the instrument-en masse, like Egypt did at the initial prompting of one young person. How poor must the great majority of us all become before we take our founding fathers seriously and consider that revolution truly is our right and obligation when our government has become too corrupt and bloated? I think we're still too spoiled. I know I am. Many of us still have our computers and dvds and tvs and iphones, and all the inane programming they offer. Witness the baffling success of insulting, brain-numbing Michael Bey Transformer movies to help bludgeon us into apathetic distraction. Weapons of mass-distraction are our true enemy, and they are within our borders, not without.

 

When enough of us truly can no longer even afford a computer and to pay a monthly internet bill, will we then begin to consider doing what is necessary to take back our nation from the modern day feudal barons who own it now?

 

-S-

[Nicothodes]

Synergy, you actually pretty much just described what my class is about.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Synergy

Has anyone pointed out the obvious—that this inflation of required professional degrees to have a shot at many jobs now is just a part of the rampant erosion of the middle class in America? Access to many decent paying jobs is becoming unaffordable for an ever greater majority of citizens.

_Erosion_ of the middle class? I thought it was the result of inflation of the college-going population? A dramatically higher percentage of the population goes to college now compared to a century ago, so the selectivity of the degrees has to shift up also. The fact that college tends to push a lot of fluffy enrichment rather than specific job skills also has something to do with the financial cushion -- and the reality cushion -- enjoyed by so many college students. This, in turn, reflects the prosperity of the middle classes.

I say middle classes because, while I am far from an expert in sociology, sociologists seem to mostly distinguish two groups of middle class Americans: an upper middle class with professional jobs and, often, advanced degrees, and a lower middle class with "semi-professional" jobs and typically bachelor's degrees.

Quote:

Upper education costs are ramping up, and now you can double or quadruple it with a masters or PhD requirement if you want a truly professional job. Good jobs may well become the privilege of the increasingly few wealthy before we finally throw down the stranglehold of the financial institutions and corporate megaliths, and recreate a government that serves the people of our country.

PhD's are not job-oriented degrees, they are academic degrees, and there are few fields where they are necessary (or even useful) for finding a job. Maybe they are useful in the applied sciences, in certain segments of industry? But the degrees that lead directly to jobs are for the most part, the "professional" degrees: JD, MD, MBA, PsyD, PharmD, MSW, and so on.

I think there are some counterexamples here to jobs becoming restricted to higher degrees. Psychotherapy is a great example: although you need a PhD to call yourself a psychotherapist, talk therapy is practiced legally (and effectively) not just by MD's and PhD's, but also by PsyD's, MA's, and MSW's. And the refrain I constantly hear from the people with those degrees is: "Don't get an MD unless you want to prescribe all day; don't get a PhD unless you want to do research; and don't get a PsyD at all, because it's just like a master's but it's harder to find a job, since most employers prefer and equally-qualified employee with an MSW or MA who they can therefore pay less."

Meanwhile, MD's and JD's and most of the other degrees on that list have the same utility they've had for a long time. If they are more expensive, surely it's because (1) salaries are higher, and perhaps more important (2) competition is fiercer. More people seek education, and they seek more of it.

Quote:

I wait and watch to see how much Americans as a whole are going to suck up before they start to organize-via Facebook or whatever the instrument-en masse, like Egypt did at the initial prompting of one young person. How poor must the great majority of us all become before we take our founding fathers seriously and consider that revolution truly is our right and obligation when our government has become too corrupt and bloated? I think we're still too spoiled. I know I am.

The last two sentences above are what I was thinking when I read the first part of this. There is bloat, and corruption, and inequity, and there are all kinds of problems, but a high enough percentage of the country is prospering that any comparison to Egypt, even -- which itself is relatively well-off compared to the other countries with recent unrest -- seems a little silly.

Quote:

When enough of us truly can no longer even afford a computer and to pay a monthly internet bill, will we then begin to consider doing what is necessary to take back our nation from the modern day feudal barons who own it now?

If the serfs/workers of the feudal/robber barons have food, clothing, shelter, computers, internet, and cell phones, then I have a hard time seeing how this can possibly be a feudal system at all.


I guess my main point of contention here is that you cite the gap between advanced degrees and bachelor's degrees, and the accompanying job gap, as something that is a "stranglehold" and that locks out "good jobs" from people. But I think the real gap is between bachelor's degrees and the degreeless. IMHO, most people who make it to college have things pretty rosy compared to a good chunk of the country.

[Sudanna]

You're breaking my Marxist heart, Slarty.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Slartucker

If the serfs/workers of the feudal/robber barons have food, clothing, shelter, computers, internet, and cell phones, then I have a hard time seeing how this can possibly be a feudal system at all.


I guess my main point of contention here is that you cite the gap between advanced degrees and bachelor's degrees, and the accompanying job gap, as something that is a "stranglehold" and that locks out "good jobs" from people. But I think the real gap is between bachelor's degrees and the degreeless. IMHO, most people who make it to college have things pretty rosy compared to a good chunk of the country.

I just thought that I'd point out that some of us who are degreeless can still afford all of these things and do in fact make a reasonable amount of money.

[Randomizer]

The Simpsons had Lisa Simpson taking bully Nelson to a exhibition of entrepenuers to show him the value of an education. All the billionairers were college dropouts: Bill Gates, the founder of Facebook, ,,,,, The only one with a college degree was the janitor.

 

This was an extreme example, but it illustrated that skills have more value than degrees. College is merely a place where you can gain skills instead of the old master/journeyman/apprentice systems or any of the older ways that people learned.

[Alorael at Large]

If you want to be an entrepreneur, you have no need for credentials beyond whatever is required to get financial backing, and that really might be no more than a good idea and the ability to sell it to just enough investors to get off the ground. If you're lucky, it's just a loan and you're good to go.

 

The problem is that most people aren't entrepreneurs. They don't have a billion-dollar idea, and they need job security. Dropping out because your education is wasting time you could spend developing your new product or service makes sense—if you're absolutely certain of yourself. Dropping out because of the odds doesn't; most who don't complete degrees aren't billionaires. There might be a long tail on the uneducated, but the mean income is unimpressive.

 

—Alorael, who is pretty sure that a lot of the need for college degrees has come out of the erosion of blue-collar jobs. That requires more college degrees, and in the new morass of the college educated, another degree can help you stand out. It's not a great system, and the costs have become a problem in themselves, but it's not a middle class catastrophe. It's really wage stagnation and the tax code that have accomplished that, and even so the middle class today has it good compared to most people in most places at most times.

[madrigan]

Originally Posted By: Self-Inverter

...even so the middle class today has it good compared to most people in most places at most times.

But the resources available, in the United States right now, are probably greater than those available in any other nation at any time. Relative quality of life counts. The issue isn't whether a middle class person in 2011 is better off than a really rich person in 1611. The issue is that the middle class struggles while a few people control a ridiculous amount of wealth. People can't pay their mortgage, and Ralph Lauren owns a castle. Meanwhile there are actual poor people who are much worse off.

I know much less about other countries, but relative quality of life is important to just about everyone. Absolute quality of life is interesting in terms of the ways societies have changed over time, but fairness is perceived in terms of current conditions, not historical change.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: madrigan

The issue is that the middle class struggles while a few people control a ridiculous amount of wealth.

Whatever definition of "struggle" pertains to something that the American middle class does these days, it is a very different definition of "struggle" than how I know the word!

[VCH]

University degrees are the new high-school degree because more and more people decide to go to university after high-school just for something to do, or because it's expected of them by their parents.

 

Employers then look at a pool of applicants and see that many have university degrees, so they decide that a BSc or BA should be the new minimum standard for employment.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Originally Posted By: madrigan

The issue is that the middle class struggles while a few people control a ridiculous amount of wealth.

Whatever definition of "struggle" pertains to something that the American middle class does these days, it is a very different definition of "struggle" than how I know the word!

What is middle class any way?

[madrigan]

Originally Posted By: VCH

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Originally Posted By: madrigan

The issue is that the middle class struggles while a few people control a ridiculous amount of wealth.

Whatever definition of "struggle" pertains to something that the American middle class does these days, it is a very different definition of "struggle" than how I know the word!

What is middle class any way?

I don't think that people in general have any problem understanding that the word "struggle" covers a wide range of problems. Many middle class Americans struggle financially. Is their struggle as difficult as that of, say, a homeless person with brain cancer in a third world country? No. But again, that is not the issue. People have a right to expect that they will be treated fairly. The fact of vast inequality among nations does not alter the fact of vast inequality within nations.

"Middle class" is another term that only needs to be strictly defined when you are writing a journal article or trying to change the subject.

[VCH]

I disagree, if we're going to argue about how the middle class struggles, we need to know what middle class means. Is my middle class the same as yours? I doubt it.

 

And yes, I'm reading the wiki for it. But the views are pretty varied.