I find extremely wealthy people (top 1 percent) far more human, down-to-earth, and friendly.

I also prefer working-class, blue-collar people since they know their place.

But upper-middle class working professionals always think they're above everyone... but they themselves aren't shit because the true wealthy and business owners OWN them. And they are fooled into maintaining this lifestyle of "keeping up with the Joneses" because they drank the kool-aid given to them by their masters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32542442)

I used to bill over 3k hrs / year, all legit. Still recovering from burn out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32547183)

JFC dude. I know so many shrews who are like this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32543082)

Their status anxiety/cognitive dissonance about their place in the world/workplace only worsens their psychosis. Unless they have above-average social skills, they may well overtly either kiss up to or talk down to everyone they interact with.

This is why Trump won.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32542820)

I hate being mistaken for these types, like guys who I see doing blue collar shit always hate me/think that I suck probably. We have no sense of identity, our great depression is are lives, no great war, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32542877)

Our current world can be encapsulated by Spicer's disgusting prole gap.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32587082)

not sure about this. for every affable scion with a beat-up truck and zero pretensions there are several bizarre eyes wide shut fags and overly intense HF jews

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32543178)

Most of my family have trust funds. They are less status/prestige obsessed and they just spend their entire lives traveling or exercising or whatever...they don't really think about others.

UMC on the other hand seem to care a lot about pedigree and what others think about them. I think the latter is the main difference - UMC are very insecure about their place in the world and need others' approval constantly whereas rich don't really GAF about others' opinions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32559182)

The family owners of the firm came to visit him and he was acting in the most servile manner possible, they OWN him lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32543217)

The worst are the people who grew up LMC but grinded it out and are now UMC. They covet covet covet and want little to do with the members of their family who went to community colleges or stayed close to home. They only want anything to do with you if you can boost their status. I don't know if they are capable of enjoying something or someone for that thing's/person's own sake.

Not everyone is like this, and we all have class anxiety or anxiety about how we're perceived generally. But some people in this bracket just have this near pathological need to move up the perceived social ladder and they get it so wrong sometimes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32543780)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32548396)

This is a solid point. A lot of people get pissed off by strivers and may find certain striver behaviors off-putting, but a lot of the LMC is straight outta Shameless. Kids out of wedlock, rampant drug/alcohol abuse as a normal thing, lowered expectations.

This doesn't describe everyone in that demographic - lots of immigrants come here and take shitty jobs and berate their kid for getting a B+ - but for each of these bootstrappers there are heaps of whiskey tango kids who work at the Hooters to get by.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32558268)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32558307)

law is literally nothing but sells

"oh but i sell RE"

bullshit 1% of what you sell is the construction materials and 99% is labor (like lawyers) and an image (the thing you rail against)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32558917)

But the middle class is pretty yuuuuuuge.

You're an idiot if you think there's little to no difference between Sally Biglaw who went to Middlebury and Georgetown Law and did study abroad and chess camp and minored in Mandarin, and Vanessa Whiskeytango who grew up in some logging community in NorCal and works at Hooters to pay for the associates' degree in fashion marketing that she's desperately striving for and just lurrrrrrves to party at Vegas.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32558514)

UMC and working class need to band together to destroy the elites.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32558642)

Why? The UMC runs everything in modern life. Whoever wins the revolution will need them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32559271)

Of course, certain members of the UMC are pitted against other members of the UMC in all revolutions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32559758)

So the UMC can be replaced by the children of the UMC?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32560162)

Working class and UMC may have the whole wage-slave thing in common, but the working class is afraid of the mail and ONE WRONG MOVE away from being legit homeless. Alcoholism, gang violence, poor infrastructure plague these communities.

Even middle-middle class people are somewhat distanced from the UMC unless they have honor student/striver tendencies.

You may think that the UMC should be "the first to go", but they're the biggest sellouts to the elites, probably because they see themselves as a few lucky breaks away from becoming elite themselves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32558786)

But it's a double-edged sword: you may find certain aspects of strivery distasteful, but these people pay their taxes (and are in a high tax bracket), keep neighborhoods safe (who causes gentrification? UMCs), donate to charities, promote education and the arts, start small businesses, etc. LMCs are hooligans that are ONE WRONG MOVE away from being wards of the state, and middle class people don't really add much one way or the other.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32558871)

1) A communicable STD

2) A drug problem (including alcohol or cigarettes)

3) An illegitimate child, or at least a sibling with one (either way, having kids out of wedlock isn't abnormal to her)

4) A criminal record

5) Anger management or other poor impulse control issues

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32558922)

Most of my family have trust funds and are legit rich. They are less status/prestige obsessed and they just spend their entire lives traveling or exercising or whatever...they don't really think about others.

UMC on the other hand seem to care a lot about pedigree and what others think about them. I think the latter is the main difference - UMC are very insecure about their place in the world and need others' approval constantly whereas rich don't really GAF about others' opinions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32559191)

I think the key is to learn from others' achievement and view others' achievement in an "if s/he can do that, so can I" sense. See what others did to make them great and adopt their tactics. I don't have to like or celebrate those people to learn from them and use their success to jump-start my own. On the flipside, it's toxic to hate them. Successful strivers aren't haters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32559739)

You have to channel that anger and hate and jealousy and insecurity. These emotions can be very effective in fueling someone's success story.

I don't think any champions are gracious losers on the inside. Some hide it better than others, but do you really think Federer is as chill with losing as he seems?

All champions are sore losers. But it's the champions who channel it, use losing as motivation, study those success stories so they can emulate them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32560036)

https://www.ft.com/content/5d5e93be-e8a3-11e6-967b-c88452263daf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32560074)

I know a grown man with not one but two framed images of Roger Federer in his house, the larger of which shows the sweatless Swiss revving up for a cross-court forehand that makes you all but duck in the hallway. Another Federista is so loyal that, if I wobble home at 5am to find his hero shredding some poor chump in the televised Shanghai Masters, I know my friend is awake in his flat and available to text.

A decade has passed since David Foster Wallace took a break from fiction to describe the “mystery and metaphysics” of Federer’s tennis. Another writer, William Skidelsky, devoted a book to the same obsession.

Lionel Messi has achieved equal greatness in a much bigger sport. Usain Bolt is more charismatic. So if Federer has a special hold over middle-class men, something beyond his talent and stardom must do it for them: a sense that he is somehow good at life. Urbane, uxorious, multilingual, emotionally expressive, faintly androgynous, Federer offered a different model of maleness to a generation reared after the eclipse of heavy industry and its associated virtues. He became, like Mary Tyler Moore during the rise of working women and birth control, a reference point for changing sensibilities.

The mistake is to sanctify him. Federer is credited with impeccable personal class, as if this matters tremendously. Tennis, like rugby, can be insufferable in its chivalric pretensions. When he beat Rafael Nadal for his 18th grand slam last weekend, pundits were as rapt by the magnanimity of these rivals as by their play. The mawkishness got in the way of the truth: that Federer is spikier than his reputation allows, and it makes him more, not less, of a model to emulate.

Go over the evidence. The young Federer bloomed a season or two late due, in part, to a volcanic McEnroe-grade temperament. He grew out of it but retained a flair for a barb (“To lose against someone like that,” he once huffed about Novak Djokovic, “it’s very disappointing”) and a boast. His bodily grace can look, to some eyes, like hauteur. A man who spent his best years in a monogrammed cream-and-gold blazer has no issues of self-worth. Even his 18th title came with criticism of the prolonged (some say strategic) medical break he took after losing a set.

This is not the rap sheet of a chainsaw murderer but nor is Federer a monk. He would be no use as a role model if he were. To prosper in life, or just to withstand its vicissitudes, a person has to possess some dark traits in controlled doses: aggression, swagger, ruthlessness verging on chicanery, an ability to block out other people and their judgments. Much more than a trace of this stuff and you are on to the first rungs of sociopathy. Much less and the world sniffs a soft touch. There is such a thing as the optimal amount of devil in a person, and it is not zero. Call it the Federer Quotient.

Everyone knows what zero looks like: the academic wizard who amounted to little in the world of work, the overnice friend who plays the doormat in a marriage, the old schoolmate who should have outdone you in life but lacked the vanity to even think in such terms. We flatter their goodness almost by way of consolation.

The problem is not that we overrate Federer’s niceness — although we do — but that we overrate niceness itself. To put so much store in outward manners suggests a superficiality on our part, not moral depth. To instruct children in decency above all else, when life will demand rather more than that, is to underprepare them. Attempts to draw human lessons from sport tend to exaggerate the real-world application of teamwork, grace in defeat and other Corinthian pleasantries. More transferable are mental toughness, the projection of confidence even when it is insincere and the extraction of marginal gains through cunning.

“Nice guy” and “role model” have become synonyms in sport but a role model is someone who shows you how to move through the world as it is. The confusion of the two concepts has given us the fashionable disdain for Cristiano Ronaldo, who overcame childhood hardship, parental bereavement and the culture shock of northern England to become Messi’s only peer at the summit of football. He goes at life in a way everyone should admire but something in the strut and the gamesmanship has made him the opposite of a role model in some eyes — a kind of anti-Federer.

In truth, they are similar. Federer has a controlled dose of the dark stuff. To get the most out of him as a template for living, do not look the other way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32560088)

I've always believed to get to the top you need to have a fairly healthy dose of dark shit inside you.

When I've been closest to greatness, I've also been closest to darkness.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32560198)

You're the one with the insecurities. You don't fit in with your UMC peers at school or in the workplace so you take shots at them (some deserved, most exaggerated).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32560192)

There's a lot of romanticizing aspects of the blue collar lifestyle: the prole-hot waitress, the Coors-drinking good ol' boy who makes shit with his hands.

If we have the time to sit around on a chatblog to discuss this shit, we aren't blue collar, nor would anyone blue collar have much to say to any of us.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32560262)

Time was, in America, you didn't need obscene amounts of money to be from an old family with influence, with noble achievements and a cultural legacy to live up to.

In our current absolute shit tier society, where only material wealth or some form of moronic social exposure matters, and "culture" or high art and erudition counts for nothing at all, there is great confusion about who is in a position of authority about things that matter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32587261)

I didn't mean to conjure some defined golden age, but rather observe that wealth, as a pure signifier of worth or influence or power, was a foreign concept for many of the greatest families in American history, who were, as it happens, more well-read and educated in a classical sense by leaps and bounds, than those who are perceived (among our supposedly upper middle class) as "high class" these days.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3515194&forum_id=2#32587728)