Money, knowledge and power: what each social class respects

What each class respects: money, knowledge or power

What does the working class think about when looking at their bank account? According to a thesis circulating in economic circles, the aspirations of each social stratum draw a textbook hierarchy: those at the bottom are driven by money, those in the middle by knowledge, and those at the top by power. This is not just aesthetics; from it would flow behaviours, voting decisions and even each group's relationship with merit.

Some people mock the romantic version of dignified poverty and point out that in the working class money is the be-all and end-all of life, because survival leaves no room for other passions. The middle class, with food on the table, can afford the luxury of getting tangled up in ethical judgements and putting on airs; those at the top, according to this reading, are not seeking economic returns but preserving their position. Another analysis prefers to flip it around: the poor person is the most generous and humble because losing anything means losing everything, the middle class puts on a show in front of the mirror, and the truly rich respect nothing because money already protects them.

A third, sharper reading sums up the map without sarracena: the lower classes want to make ends meet, the middle classes want to get ahead through knowledge, and the upper classes want to stay where they are. With an uncomfortable nuance: that hierarchy only works in a society with a money printer, one that lives off expanding the money supply. In an economy without that valve, the aspirations of the different classes look far more alike.

The issue is left open with an uncomfortable question: how many have moved up in class through their own merit, and how many through inheritance or a stroke of luck? Meanwhile, everyone keeps respecting their own thing. Some the banknote, others the diploma, others the corner office.