To think people are respected more if they are rich?

[TheFaultInOurStars]

Ive been in email correspondence with someone over a formal matter. I haven't met the person in RL. She gave me her address for posting something and I googled it to see where she lived. (Yes, I am nosy!)
It happened to be in a mahoosive house with a stunning garden in an affluent area which she paid three quarters of a million pounds for. She's also married to a doctor.

But now my perception of her has changed. In an instant. I suddenly thought shes more educated than me, she's more clever than me, shes better than me. I feel beneath her whereas before I didn't think anything of her really.

Am I right in thinking that people give you just that little bit more respect if you're rich, you're just that little bit more important?

Ahhhh, of course!

I have never voluntarily name changed anywhere. It is not in my nature.

I didnt think apatite was referring to you, but I might be wrong. I don't know the proportion of sixth formers at private school. The eg of hills road illustrates the opposite trend though, in that a lot of kids from Cambridge public schools go to hills Rd when they get to sixth form. As for what works at hills Rd, I'm not sure it is very transferrable unfortunately - apart from public schools, it takes in huge numbers of kids from highly educated families (university and 'Cambridge phenomenon' high tech industries). That pesky cultural capital again!

I don't base my respect of people on how much money they have. I respect people who have integrity and who treat me with respect. It doesn't matter how much or how little money they have.

I'm not sure how to read your posts to be honest Zoemaguire - I am probably misreading your tone.

I absolutely recognise the gifts I was given that helped me in life - a mother who had 8 children and was tired of bringing up girls to serve men. A father who enjoyed my reading and took me to the library. But we were poor and I was poorly educated. I got a levels but could not go to university because free education doesn't give you money to give your parents at the end of the week.
I think portraying women exclusively as gifted anything they own rather patronises . I accept I had advantages of aspiration and intelligence and I never think I did well simply through hard graft - but I escaped my environment because I chose to. Most of my peers, with similar skills nd background, chose not to. Life is not entirely a lottery. If it were what is the point of teaching our children diligence and endeavour and a good work ethic.

We can divide women into two I often think. Those who think life is something done unto them over which they have no control and they might as well accept their fate and bad luck and stick in the mire as it were and those who think they have the ability to change things whether that simply be getting into work or rising to be manager of their Tesco branch or whatever.

So it is how to instil that ambition and work ethic and optimism into our children and ourselves which is the fascinating part. It may be as simple as levels of seratonin in the brain - food, diet, sunshine, exercise or it may be something else again. I doubt it is all luck as most of us find the harder we work the "luckier" we get.

I am the one person who has esacaped poverty in my family, the rest have by and large not chosen to stay where they are, they just have never been as lucky . I would certainly not say that I have worked harder. I am the one person who does not have done form of mental illness, additional learning difficulty, long term illness or addictive personality. I was so lucky to be born clever and have been in the right place at the right time.

I have lived most my life abroad and even though I'm British since moving back I see how un-British I am and the reason is that I have never been made to feel more inadequate about my position on the wealth scale than when I moved here.
This may have to do with the class system which is still alive and thriving even if people tell me it isn't. However, it may be more pronounced in the south especially in the parts I've found myself, which is a suburb of London. Here wealth is everywhere and there is a definite divide. It was a shock to behold but I see that the wealthy prefer their own company and feel guilt? Uncomfortable? Suspicious? if someone less rich wants to befriend them and the same can be said for the financially struggling and making friends with the rich they seem to feel just as wary. To be honest I've given up as I am not wealthy and have had some mothers disappear when they come for a play date and find out that I live in a small flat, but have also been treated with some suspicion by mums who are on the same scale financially but understand from the way that I speak that I was probably privately educated.

That's not to say that there are those who are happy to be your friends what ever background you come from or which ever end of the pay scale you are in just because they see beyond that superficiality and can see that there are other more important reasons to be friends with you. And luckily I have found a few like me but I must say it's been an eye opener coming back to England and finding This divide.

I am probably expressing myself badly. Ill try again and attempt not to dig my hole deeper!

My initial point about luck was actually a bristling reaction to the passive aggressive comment made to me by clara, which in essence was 'you had subsidised rent and bought a house at the right time, you were lucky, well done.' Whereas she says she had no help from anyone ever and did it 100% through hard work. Well, I worked bloody hard too, and as i have pointed out I certainly wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. It was actually Clara who effectively told me that because I had been honest enough to admit some of the advantages I'd had, that meant I was just jammy, unlike her who had done it ALL by hard work exclusively. It felt like competitive misery. And apparently, according to chandler, because I acknowledge that my parents thought education was important, and that this helped me get to where I am today, I am also terribly sheltered and must have stayed close to my parents all my life, which is both bollocks and also pretty fucking insulting.

Of course hard work and diligence and all the rest of it matter, and I don't mean to belittle them. But equally I bristle at the idea that that is all that matters, and that if you don't manage to transcend your background that is necessarily a choice you make. Poor people are not all poor because they are lazy, feckless and lacking in ambition! I know you are not saying that, but the '100% by hard work' argument comes perilously close to it. My grandparents both won scholarships to grammar school; neither were able to take them up so they both left school at 13 to go, respectively, into service and manual labour. An industrial accident left my grandfather severely disabled, and my granny working two factory jobs (one starting at 5am) to survive, while looking after three small children. They were both extremely clever and enterprising people, but I refuse to see it as purely a choice of theirs not to end up rich and professionally successful. The odds were stacked against them from the start. And when so many of the population are reliant on foodbanks to feed their kids, the idea of somebody who earns in a month what others struggle to earn in a year saying that they are not rich because they do not have a housekeeper or own a private jet - well, yes that did stick in my throat. Debating the finer terminology 'I'm not rich, I'm well off, I'm not rich because I'm not independently wealthy, work hard etc etc' - is in poor taste in my opinion. 180k a year puts you in the top 1% of UK income distribution. That means that compared to most of the population, you have a hell of a lot of money, whatever term you might choose to use to describe yourself, and it is only basic decency to acknowledge that.

Philoslothy thank you, you said what i wanted to say, only rather more elegantly and succinctly!

I doubt anyone on the thread has said women earn a lot 100% only because of hard work and second doubt anyone has said £180k net isn't well off. I think we are all pretty much in agreement.

It is certainly a fascinating topic as to why some people in a family earn a lot and others don't. My grandfather left school at 12 (but then read just about every book he could lawy his hands on, lived in a house with 26 other young men in 1901 (people were really poor in those days). Only he and his eldest brother of about 12 children did okay. The others never married and pretty much died in poverty early - 3 were alcoholics as was his father. Anyway he managed to get 3 sons to state grammar schools two of whom became doctors. That was the generational change of class - not to be particularly rich, no inheritance etc but well educated and able to get middle class jobs.

I think the zoe grandparents might find it easier these days just as my parents found it easier because they had access to state grammar schools whereas their parents did not. If you can get the best A levels in your school whatever school that might be that gives most girls a really good chance in life. I am not saying it's easy but it's a good starting point.

The situation mamaf has with mothers not mixing is absolutely appalling. I would never decide whether to mix with someone based on the value of their house or anything stupid like that. no one should want to be with people like that - I presume those other people are worried about their own status, lacking in self confidence and worried they will be regarded as working class or something.

If you earn enough to be content with your lot then why should it matter what others you meet earn? It is not a competition - who can show off having the richest friends. In fact proper English culture is you never talk about money and no one should know what you earn.If someone is flaunting it that is pretty awful, nouveau riche, showy offy, jumped up ex working class really and/or Russian oligarch footballer's house type of stuff.

I have no problem with someone calling me rich even though I've no savings as I earn more than the average woman. For me the being rich is because the children and I are healthy and happy - that is the only richness that matters and tonight we are sheltered and warm rather than outside in the cold like some are at this time of year.

I am noveaue riche, jumped up working class. That just means that we enjoy the money that we have and feel no need to comply to unwritten Middle class rules about taste.

zoemaguire And apparently, according to chandler, because I acknowledge that my parents thought education was important, and that this helped me get to where I am today, I am also terribly sheltered and must have stayed close to my parents all my life, which is both bollocks and also pretty fucking insulting.

Can I just say that I have absolutely no knowledge, even via this thread, of how you reached your current "position" (whatever that is) and that I said nothing of the kind. I can't even remember what you posted other than the utter drivel about anyone who is rewarded for working in a well paid job being given assistance to get there. Its not the kind of thing I would say, mainly because its not true.

So be insulted all you want, but you seem to be such a circular thinker that its likely you have insulted yourself.

You do not however seem to live in the real world because you seem to be unaware of the existence of a large swathe of normal people who are wealthier than their parents because of their own talent and hard work. Its very boring, its very normal, and it has fuck all to do with being given a leg up any imaginary ladder.

I didn't say anything about 'assistance' to get anywhere, but then you obviously cant be arsed to actually read what I do say, and are just enjoying being unpleasant, so let's leave it eh.

zoemagure any chance you could get over yourself? You don't get to issue commands about what people must read, how much attention they must pay to it or how they must interpret it (since its so vague and discriminatory, many interpretations are possible).

I can see from this thread alone why some posters are not earning a salary which by your estimation, would quality them as "rich". And its nothing to do with what your parents supposedly have or have not given you or done for you, and everything about what individuals achieve, individually, by themselves, doing individual things, like passing exams, being reliable in a job that they're good at, having attention to detail, not being obsessed by small details that have absolutely no bearing on what is relevant and important, and so on. No-one is really that interested in who your parents are, once you get beyond a certain age.

No, it is just nice if you are arguing with somebody if they bother to engage with what you actually say, rather than a caricature of it. Also, I'm all for robust disagreement, but like I say, you are getting a kick out of being unpleasant and making personal digs at me when I've been nothing but polite to you. You sound lovely, I must say.

Agree with the posters who say that people are either good/nice or they are bad, regardless of their wealth.

But from what I've seen, the friendships between the rich and the poor are more the exception than the norm. One poster saying her wealthy dc have friends who live in a tiny council flat - how does that work? wouldn't you feel obliged/wanting to to keep helping them out 'cause you easily could? when they go out together, it's awkward again, as the poor ones can't afford eating out/sports clubs etc and would have to rely on generosity but may feel like they have to be extra nice, or may just feel inferior if they accept.

Mostly, jealousy plays a big role. I noticed that wealthy nice people tend to mention various problems more so that others are not so jealous, poor ones want to put a brave face on, etc etc. I just really haven't seem long lasting close friendships in these circs (especially between women?), with maybe some exceptions (childhood friends - but then the rich one tends to help out).

lightgreen depends where they live, e.g. in London and some surrounds, rich means getting millions a year, there are lots of 'mere' single digit millionaires around who can buy a two bed flat in a good area. 180-300K pa is definitely very comfortable but not 'rich' in comparison.

cross posted with mamafridi quite a bit, exactly that - there is suspicion on both sides, as well as sometimes jealousy/prejudice.

I think respect is the wrong word. Are they treated better? Yes. Are they respected more, not necessarily.

I have a few very wealthy friends. I do not respect them more than my other friends.

Anyone with household income of over £60k is in the richest 10% of the UK population. However within this band of the 10% richest households there are huge variations and it seems to me that mumsnetters seem to lump them all together.

first off you can have the family that are comfortable in that they can afford nice but not extravagant treats (including Christmas presents) without going into debt. Kids might be in state school but if they go private then money is tight. income here might be between 60k and 150k and puts them in the richest 10% of households.

next up are those families that one might call affluent who can afford private school without the struggle. For a family with 2 kids this might be income of between 150k and 500k. These are all in the richest 1% of households. The interesting thing is that if 7% of the population go to private school, it tells you that a lot of people get help or really struggle with their finances and really can't afford private school fees.

next up are the wealthy families who are about the 0.5% of the uk with annual household income of between 500k and 2m. I would say these folks have great lifestyles and high proportion of savings so will be leaving money to the next generation without impacting current lifestyle.

Over £2m of annual income are the true rich families as opposed to everyone else i have just described who are relatively rich. I think even then the rich can be divided into the rich (about 0.1% of households, 30,000 people) and the super rich (3,000 people in 0.01% of households living the Beckham lifestyle).

research shows that those who are comfortable, affluent or wealthy tend to have lifestyles funded mostly by earned income. If the main earner lost their income they would be stuffed. its only as you trend between the wealthy and the rich that capital as a source of income starts to make a difference and loss of earned income wouldn't be detrimental.

I think that if you're on household income of 30k then you imagine that someone of income 10 times that on 300k (ie 180k net) feels like they must have a life of unimaginable luxury. whereas the person on income of 300k is thinking well I am affluent but by no means rich as they're thinking of the family with 3m a year. It's all relative.

phew long post! All thr angst was clearly bothering me as I read the thread

But from what I've seen, the friendships between the rich and the poor are more the exception than the norm. One poster saying her wealthy dc have friends who live in a tiny council flat - how does that work? wouldn't you feel obliged/wanting to to keep helping them out 'cause you easily could? when they go out together, it's awkward again, as the poor ones can't afford eating out/sports clubs etc and would have to rely on generosity but may feel like they have to be extra nice, or may just feel inferior if they accept.

I don't think it's quite as complicated as that. DS(12) has school friends who do tend to be quite well off and local friends. He does get a bit of good natured slagging off from his local friends because he goes to private school and his accent has changed and he is teased a bit for being "rich", but I don't think any of them, including DS, have any real concept of the financial differences between them. We don't live a lifestyle which would indicate that we have money. If we do activities with DS' friends we do tend to pay for them, but it's never anything extravagant- just mini golf or a movie, that sort of thing.

I don't say anything to make us stick out either. I'm frequently asked how we can afford private school and I'll mumble something about being left money from my mother which was specifically earmarked for education. What I don't do is say, "Oh, I used some dividend payments to pay this year's fees".

We're a bit weird though. DH is a bit embarrassed by the money, to the point of not wanting to know what we have and where I have it invested. I'm an odd mix of wanting normalcy for DC while getting them actively involved in the stock market at a very young age as my father did with me so he will be well prepared for his eventual responsibilities.

That's the perception, but I know some shockingly intelligent working class people. DD's dad's probably GAT, that must be where she gets it from. And I don't mean shocking because they're working class, just that I've never met anybody so intelligent. Intelligence is something you're born with, it doesn't make any difference which school you go to.

novice I found your post interesting about the various divides of 'rich'.

Certainly I have considered myself rich since I began earning a decent salary. Whereas DH would never ever describe us thus, even though we are now in your 0.5 percent bracket.

What he describes as rich, is what I would describe as super-rich.