How can you tell if Americans are "poor"?

[flavourable]

Like most of us I watch quite a bit of US drama and box sets but remain baffled about the characters based on things like the house they live in etc...

Can American audiences tell that someone is poor or rich (or in between) based on things such as house size, style of house and other things that are part of TV series?

I know (well think I do so not assuming - please correct if wrong!) that middle and working class may mean different things to UK - but can US viewers pick up more based on cultural norms and things that may need explaining to non-American audiences?

An example is I watched some episodes of True Detective and thought the house was lovely and spacious but everything else in the plot pointed to the fact that this was a "poor rundown neighbourhood with substance issues etc..."

Are there any rules of thumb? Do American audiences get confused my things like this when watching UK or European dramas?

Lots of poor Americans live in mobile homes/trailers or are homeless

Some Americans think British culture is all Cambridge, Sherlock Holmes & afternoon tea.

Roseanne was about WC Americans. So is The Simpsons.

Yes, it’s incredibly easy to tell.

For those unfamiliar with the country, space generally isn’t an issue outside of major city centers (where it’s a major issue). For example, a secondary school teacher in, say, the outskirts of Phoenix AZ married to a (say) hospital administrator on a 5-figure salary, could have a house of maybe 3000 sq ft (around 300sq m), 4/5 bedrooms and 3.5/4 bathrooms, an enormous garden, two cars, peace and quiet. Maybe even an in-ground pool. They’d be absolutely appalled at the housing conditions of a couple doing the same jobs in, say, the outskirts of Birmingham.

But land is cheap in AZ (mostly). Houses are thrown up cheaply. Doors are hollow. Gardens have shallow turf. Trees aren’t mature. Plumbing is new but basic. The community is spread out and I’ll thought through. Car lease costs for two cars probably costs as much as or more than the mortgage. They’ll shop and Costco and the equivalent of Lidl. There’s lots of space in the house but the countertops will be laminate; the windows will be small and spread far apart; there will be volume with double height ceiling in the entrance hall, but this will be because it was cheaper to build this way (and cooler in summer) than to put in flooring upstairs. There will be cheap carpet rather than hardwood floors. Kitchen cabinets will be pine. Faucets will be cheap. Appliances will be American brands (not the best quality).

It’s all about what you’re familiar with. In the same way that you can develop a radar to place a Brit pretty quickly and reliably after hearing them speak for 3 minutes, so you can most Americans by other pointers.

The size of the house or plot of land isn't a good indicator as land is/was very cheap in rural areas in particular. You would need to judge by other indicators.

Age and type of furniture, cleanliness, dress of the character. Often poor characters are shown as less kempt so not clean shaven and scraggly hair.

Old rusty vehicles in the garden, long unmown grass. Do they drink cheap booze in the middle of the day, canned beer rather then bottled beer or wine etc. do they live in a trailer? Often a house that looks old would be considered a poverty indicator where as to us it would be 'characterful'.

Obviously this really depends on the production and how important that detail is to the plot of the story and how much effort they are putting into pressing that point. Just like us they utilise plenty of stereotypes as shortcuts in stories to avoid wasting screen time on explaining that THIS redneck in a dirty wifebeater on his trailer porch is different from the other rednecks etc.

I don't think that the places ordinary people live often feature on TV. (Not in American but also not in the UK)

The news footage of hurricane preparations and aftermath was an eye-opener to me. (I imagined American life as based in apartments and houses featured in films and shows until then. )

'My name is Earl' was my first sight of comedy set in another sort of America.

There can be large houses in places that were nice but in now run down neighbourhoods (overgrown lawns, cars parked on the lawn, blocked up windows, children out late without parents, people looking sketchy hanging out on the corner). A bit like Marianne's house in Sligo in Normal People?

You can tell from how people speak as well - grammatically correct as well as the topics of conversation. E.g. do they talk about world or cultural events, traveling, etc. or do they speak poorly about insular topics?

Are they wearing new clothes and have their teeth been cared for and probably whitened?

Like here, there are certain subsets of wealth that have different identifying features - like old money vs new money.

It's the same here. If you think about a BBC crime drama or an ITV series, very rarely do they live in a 2 bed semi in a town centre. It's normal a big house, open plan kitchen and all glass patio doors onto a huge garden so the murderer can spy on them.

Teeth and hair.

TV shows are filmed in studios on sound stages and for practical reasons obviously all the houses look big in the interiors. The house in Roseanne is same as the one in Frasier near enough size wise, it's just so they can film the scenes easily. They might use older more crap looking furniture or fake grime and dirt to make it look dilapidated? But it's not real!

You can't tell much from TV dramas from anywhere, they are all sanitised.

The writers/producers of My Name is Earl also had another comedy show called Raising Hope where all the main characters were poor.

Multi Generational living, teen parenthood, insecure part time employment.

The main character, Jimmy, who's parents had him when they were very young had a fling with a woman who turned out to be a serial killer.

He raised their child who was born in prison while living with his parents and great grandmother who they all cared for. It's a great show and is probably still around on one of the streaming platforms.

Loved that show! The one where Burt scares Jimmy so he can get a decent hug has me in stitches every time.

Breaking Bad has characters from all social classes. So does Better Call Saul.

Bad teeth is a big indicator of poverty in the USA as they don't have subsidised dentistry like we do in the U.K. Unfortunately we are going the same way with limited access to NHS dentists.

Mare Of Easttown portrayed a very different way of life to many US shows - gritty, small homes with various generations living together and some real financial difficulties

Washing hanging outside is code for poor.

Accent is not a predictor of class in the US as it is in the UK, though there are some distinctions that an American might notice (but probably wouldn't be apparent to anyone else). Although class distinctions absolutely exist in the US, they are less prominent than in the UK. Almost everyone in the US identifies as "middle class," which doesn't mean what it does in the UK. The self-identified middle class in the US includes people barely making ends meet as well as professionals living an extremely comfortable lifestyle.

Everyone on TV and in films has a much nicer house/apartment than an equivalent person IRL would likely have. It does sometimes seem as though many MNers have drawn very odd conclusions about life in the US based on the TV/movies they watch! But even when US producers are making a TV program for a US audience, they do odd things in order to signify social class. For instance, working class characters used to invariably wear plaid flannel shirts. I haven't noticed this as much lately, but in the past it was always intended (bizarrely) as a class signifier.

Reading with interest. I’ve been listening to the I will teach you to be rich podcasts / YouTube with Ramit Sehti. I’m amazed at the high salaries and massive houses. Even the people who have what I would think average type jobs seem to earn truck loads. It’s made me think how hard it is to understand cultural differences as I’m looking through UK glasses.

Errr...really? Since when has this been a thing?!

I wouldn't say so. Hanging clothes out is quite popular, especially among environmentally conscious Americans. Though it is true that nearly all Americans have a tumble dryer at home, even people who have a very low income.

Many housing areas don't allow people to hang washing out. It is seen as a sign of poverty and a bit like having a broken down car on the drive. A few more people/places do it now but a lot of homes don't have a laundry room that's easy to get outside from, and washing lines didn't really exist. Line dried laundry is seen as not as good because it can be stiff and have more creases. And large areas of the US are to could in winter anyway.

People would have had a blue fit if I'd hung laundry where it could be seen at my last house. Where I am now is more relaxed but I don't have a space for it.

I’m from a generation where hanging clothes out to dry was very much a poverty indicator unless you were older like my granny and that’s just how it was then. I can see it gaining popularity again for environmental reasons.

The easiest way to tell if an American is likely to be poor in real life is by grammar. You really can't tell by clothes.Teeth can be a giveaway but not always. If you see their living situation that can be a tell. Accent doesn't help. I've lived in Appalachia and many other places, and really unless they tell you it is often not apparent.

This is an interesting thread. I'd imagine
cars are signifiers (brand, size, age) too?

A big key for me is whether they are worrying about simple medical bills.

Even quite affluent Americans I know have worry or stress about money if they have a serious illness requiring lengthy treatment, but people who aren't wealthy worry about more straightforward illnesses too

And holidays are another marker, people don't get much paid leave so those without healthy finances can't really take holidays