Wealth and Attitude

[dragon wench]

We have recently moved to a different area of Vancouver (actually, in technical terms, a separate municipality entirely.)
This area, generally known as 'the North Shore,' comprises North Vancouver and West Vancouver.
North Vancouver is for the most part, the more relaxed of the two, and we live in a location that still shows its artsy/hippy origins.

Now... West Vancouver is quite another matter. We frequently head over that way because the amenities are a bit better... The place has the well-deserved reputation for being both wealthy and pretentious. Owing to recent exposure, I have had quite a lot of opportunity to observe the various denisons of West Vancouver.. and I have to say that I have never encountered so many people in serious need of a colonic concentrated in one place. At the very least, most require a generous serving of Exlax...

So all of this has reminded me of something I've often pondered. Why is it that, all too often, when people acquire wealth they feel the need to exhibit obnoxious behaviour and an overbearing, pretentious attitude?

My own feeling is that there are various causes at work. In the case of the nouveau riche it is because they are struggling to disguise a humble background. Also, perhaps because our society still has a deeply embedded view (at least psychologically) that 'old money' is superior to 'new money' these twits feel the need to prove something...

Still, I find it somewhat baffling. I'm not saying that everyone who falls into the category of newly wealthy is obnoxious toe jam, but many are. I mean, if somebody is lucky enough to strike it rich, why not just enjoy it?

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=dragon wench]I mean, if somebody is lucky enough to strike it rich, why not just enjoy it?[/QUOTE]

I think that's exactly what they do. Buying expensive items and showing them off is probably enjoyable for some noveaux riche people. There are several factors to take into account; first, people who are not rich to start with must have a desire to work for getting rich. Having that priority and value is in itself a specific priority. Not everyone think it is important to get rich. Second, many people who wants to get rich have perhaps longed for and dreamed of owning a lot of expensive items - otherwise, what's the point of putting a lot of time and energy into getting rich? There is of course some people who don't spend the money but instead save it for the future, for their children or just for getting a feeling of security, but I believe a majority of people who really wants to get rich actually means to spend their money on various things they experience as pleasurable. And why not? To each their own, it doesn't hurt anybody else, and for me personally, I am generally uninterested in people who view lots of money and material wealth as very important so I don't socialise a lot with people who have these values.

PS. Why do you mean these people are in need of laxatives? I assume it's an idiomatic expression, but I haven't heard it before, so I don't know what it means.

[fable]

[QUOTE=dragon wench]Still, I find it somewhat baffling. I'm not saying that everyone who falls into the category of newly wealthy is obnoxious toe jam, but many are. I mean, if somebody is lucky enough to strike it rich, why not just enjoy it?[/QUOTE]

Because money is nothing in itself. It is a medium of exchange; so it is a symbol. The people who work for it aren't really going after money--they're going after security; or power over others; or fame, etc.

Consider, for example, ny wife's grandfather: a fairly well-off man by most standards, probably worth close to $2 million. But to his dying day last year at 93, he cut out coupons, and when we took him dining once to a Chinese restaurant, he wouldn't order shrimp. Why? Because it was expensive. He ate at some horrible national buffet chain once a week, because it was incredibly cheap and they had a special for senior citizens on that day (nevermind that the stuff was cooked in grease and bad for anyone).

Cleveland Amoury once wrote a book about the wealthy about 40 years ago, in which he hypothesized that the first generation knows only how to work, not to enjoy. It's the second generation that lives off the wealth, but keeps some controls in place based on their parents' example. The third generation often squanders everything, lacking discpline and a visible standard at home. Within the limitations of any theory, I think it has some general merit.

[dragon wench]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I think that's exactly what they do. Buying expensive items and showing them off is probably enjoyable for some noveaux riche people. There are several factors to take into account; first, people who are not rich to start with must have a desire to work for getting rich. Having that priority and value is in itself a specific priority. Not everyone think it is important to get rich. Second, many people who wants to get rich have perhaps longed for and dreamed of owning a lot of expensive items - otherwise, what's the point of putting a lot of time and energy into getting rich? There is of course some people who don't spend the money but instead save it for the future, for their children or just for getting a feeling of security, but I believe a majority of people who really wants to get rich actually means to spend their money on various things they experience as pleasurable. And why not? To each their own, it doesn't hurt anybody else, and for me personally, I am generally uninterested in people who view lots of money and material wealth as very important so I don't socialise a lot with people who have these values.

PS. Why do you mean these people are in need of laxatives? I assume it's an idiomatic expression, but I haven't heard it before, so I don't know what it means.[/QUOTE]


It's not so much that these people own a lot of expensive items. It is more the fact that they feel the need to exhibit the kind of attitude that states "I'm superior because I can affford these things." I have met wealthy people (generally those who come from 'old money') who are incredibly low key, down-to-earth, individuals. They spend their money on travel, good food etc. and they never strut around public areas like male peac0cks during breeding season.
I can certainly see why some people who have spent years struggling towards such a goal would indeed enjoy their newly acquired purchasing power, if that is their particular definition of a 'good life.' But, I don't quite understand why they need to be obnoxious about it. I figure... just do it.. go buy your $400 designer jeans, the latest in plasma screen TVs, the 40 foot yaught, etc. etc... But don't act as though you're infinitely superior to everyone else around you.

lol! Yes, my comment about laxatives is quite idiomatic, sorry about that. We describe people as being full of er... "manure." And we also, refer to people who are uptight as "in dire need of a good bowel movement."
A bit vulgar, yes I know, but I don't have any compunctions about showing my working class roots

@Fable,
I suspect you may be very right re: the power over others. It seems some people possess a deep need to be able to control those around them, and of course wealth greatly facilitates that ability.

[fable]

[QUOTE=dragon wench]@Fable,
I suspect you may be very right re: the power over others. It seems some people possess a deep need to be able to control those around them, and of course wealth greatly facilitates that ability. [/QUOTE]

There was a study done several years ago that revealed, based on income tax returns, more than 92% of the members of US Congress were considerably more than millionaires. In their cases, I would suggest money was a springboard to political power. But of course, it can be power in many ways, too. It can be power over whether a new real estate development gets put into your community instead of keeping wetlands. It can be power over the vote of someone in Congress. It can be power over the local educational board, or what books get published and which don't. Money gives the lie to the French-American myth of the so-called classless society.

PS: I like using the phrase, "so-and-so needs a high colonic." GMTA.

[CopperWater]

Personaly I think its sick how actors get paid 3 million dollars just to act in some lame movie while people in the same country go without food for weeks at a time. Sure, they donate some money, but they still have millions left. I dont get why some people choose to live a super wealthly life style than to just be an average person and realy make a difference for hundreds of others. (of course I am saying that from living in a house with money problems all my life, i am sure that if I was rich my opinion would be opposite to what I said)

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=dragon wench]But, I don't quite understand why they need to be obnoxious about it. I figure... just do it.. go buy your $400 designer jeans, the latest in plasma screen TVs, the 40 foot yaught, etc. etc... But don't act as though you're infinitely superior to everyone else around you.
[/QUOTE]

This I don't quite understand, there may be cultural differences here in noveau riche cultures. In Europe, the stereotype noveau riche behaviour can be described just as showing off, not in an intrusive but often extremly blatant way. Of course not all noveau riche people do this, but those who do usually follow a certain pattern. A typical situation would be buying a very expensive prestige brand car, and then stand at red light or outside the office or a downtown restaurant and pumping the gas pedal to create some extra noise. Another typical behaviour pattern is buying brands of clothes and etc that are known to be very expensive because they are expensive, without considering if the clothes fit together or fit the person. For instance, you buy Armani, Prada and Versace because they are known to be expensive, even though many people who really like Italian clothes would say that Moschino make better women's clothes and Cerruti makes the most elegant suits for men.

Personally, I was quite interested in class issues when I was a student, simply because I swiftly noticed that it was something a taboo in the perfect classless Sweden to attribute differences in behaviour to differences in social class, although both Swedish and international studies clearly demonstrate that class in the most determining factor of influence on people's behaviour save gender. Social class has a larger influence at people's life choices and behaviour patterns than religion, nationality and ethnicity. This may sound like a truism to you, but in Sweden it is still somewhat taboo to acknowledge this, and this lack of acknowledgement also make the social political strategies miss out on some basic possible methods for change. For instance, it's not enough to make higher education tax funded and thus financially accessible for all, still in the 1990's only 10% of university students had "working class" background, which is unproportially low. Anyway, trying not to get too much off topic here, what I found during the period I studied this topic more in detail, was that "working class" in Europe, and especially not in Scandinavia, is not any longer related to money, but to educational level. Financially, there is no difference between "middle class" and "working class" in Sweden, on the contrary, the middle class is more or less the working class. The differences lie in behaviour patterns that are related to values and worldview, not to income.

During the yuppie-era in the 1980's, noveau riche became a well defined stereotype, with the features I tried to describe above. When I travelled a lot in Europe, as I did during the 80's, it was a very clear polarisation between noveau riche and "old" money and class. The latter group characterised the former group as having "no true class", bad taste, bad education, no real understanding of lasting quality in life or in other areas, etc. I think the difference between "old" and "new" money is viewed as more important in Europe than for instance in the US (Canada I don't know) - my impression is that in the US, all money is good money, whereas in Europe, the old noble families and old business families look down on the noveau riche.

Then came the global recession and nobody was noveau riche anymore, and then again during the 1990's IT-boom, many people got rich again. However, this time people were more afraid of spending and didn't change their lifestyle as much as the noveau riche in the 1980's did. The cities didn't overflow with Porsches and Italian designer clothes as in the 1980's, instead, if you look at consumption patterns, people started travelling more and buying expensive house- and home related products such as designer furniture and antiquites. That trend is still lingering in Europe, especially the increased travelling, but we may see new patterns if a new economic high emerges.

So, in summary, from sociological studies I've read and from personal experience, I have not encountered a higher degree or higher frequency of disregard for other people among noveaux riche people than any other group of people. High consumption and show off yes, values focused around material wealth yes, but not narcissism in the sense that you believe you have the right to treat other people badly because you are an inferior person. The acceptance for such behaviour would be very low here I think, especially in the mediterranian countries like Italy and France, not to mention the Balkan area. So, may there be cultural differences? In what way do the noveau riche people you have encountered behave badly towards others? And how do other people react to this?

Re: laxatives, thanks for the explanation, I guessed it was something similar but I wasn't sure.

[Chanak]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]...I think the difference between "old" and "new" money is viewed as more important in Europe than for instance in the US (Canada I don't know) - my impression is that in the US, all money is good money, whereas in Europe, the old noble families and old business families look down on the noveau riche...[/QUOTE]

There's a measure of that here in the US. This is particularly noticable in the South, where "old money" views the nouveau rich as silly, frivolous, wasteful, and too excessive. I'm thinking particularly of my time spent living in Atlanta, Georgia. Atlanta proper was an old city (by US standards, mind you), and within Atlanta proper you will find the "old money" areas, such as Dunwoody, Buckhead, and Vinings. Certain families had roots in these communities dating back at least 4 or 5 generations; and a handful of families living in Vinings and off of Mt. Vernon Rd. (which ran along prime real estate) were practically responsible for building up the city after the Civil War.

One such family in had a road named after them, and represented several generations of successively wealthier business people. I would see them quite often as they were my clients at the time, and to say that they lived frugally is an understatement. The elder couple of the family still canned their own food, drove old cars, yet were quite rich and the heads of a successful business empire. They were very friendly and open folks, as well - the elder gentleman would always hand me a jar of his best habanero peppers twice a year, and would slip in a sizable check along with it. When I noticed that, he simply shrugged and said I had earned it for exceptional service.

On the other hand, contrast this with the northern area outside of the city, in an area called Alpharetta. There you will find new developments of homes ranging from the low $500K to over $1 million apiece, and it is there that many sports stars (Steve Avery of baseball fame is one) and corporate executives have residences. This is the nouveau rich zone, where Atlanta's highly profitable economic boom finds its residential expression. The contempt that "old money" feels towards these people is pretty palpable, and it is quite obvious that both lead entirely different lifestyles, with money being the only thing they share in common.

[Lestat]

I think that the rich people who act so snooty and obnoxious to other less wealthy people, tend to see money as some kind of brownie points. So they think they can look down on other people because they didn't put in as much effort or aren't as brilliant, or whatever. They measure success & worth in terms of wealth and as such: less wealthy = less worthy.

The more normal acting wealthy people (like the old gentleman in Chanak's story) might see money more as a means to an end, and judge the worth of other people by other means than money.

This behaviour might be more prevalent in the States than in Europe, since there is less prudishness about income in the US. In most of Europe it is considered rude to either bragg about your income or ask someone you do not know really well about their income, which is AFAIK not always the case in the US (but correct me if I'm wrong).

[Chimaera182]

When I took Introduction to Sociology a few years ago, we were taught about "new money" people and "old money" people, and what I learned was pretty much Chanak's description of both. Frankly, I always felt that if I came into money I'd behave more like "old money;" I knew what it was like to grow up not-so-rich (my parents were rather poor when we moved to Florida, and then worked their way up to upper-middle class). I always thought it was wiser to save the money for a rainy day, or in case something bad happens and it's necessary to use. I used to get in debates with people all the time who would argue that if you have money, you should spend it. Sure, I'd spend it on the occasional something, but the majority of it would be saved up (I don't think I'd use coupons, though).

Frankly, whenever I think of "new money" now, I think of big-hit rappers. They're always spending money like water, buying fancy cars, big houses, and gaudy, ugly, awful jewelry. I think maybe part of it is that "new money" likes to have fun and spend their money before they die (and screw whatever descendants they might have, they can have whatever's left), while "old money" enjoys maintaining the security of having money in the bank in case it's ever needed. Noveau money people can't understand clinging to money and probably think "old money" people are just old coots, and "old money" people think noveau money people are dumb for not holding on to their money in case it becomes badly needed.

Chanak: you earned the sizable check or the habaneros? 'Cuz if you earnd the habaneros, are you sure he wasn't trying to kill you?

[Lestat]

With big-hit rappers and actors and such there is also the fame-factor to be considered in their behaviour. And as The Smiths already sung in the mid 1980's:
"Fame, Fame, fatal Fame,
It can play hideous tricks on the brain"

(and it continues:
"But still I'd rather be famous
than righteous or holy
any day, any day, any day")

[Cuchulain82]

I also think that the general consummerism of the US (and, by extension, canada/Vancouver) cannot be overlooked. Today people are defined by how much money they make/spend. Ostentacious displays of wealth are what make someone important, and in some ways are what validate people's percieved existance. The example of this that I always think of is Paris Hilton.

[ch85us2001]

I think that some are giving others a baad name. The people who really worked to get rich arent that way so much. My stepfather is that way. He parks his car over a block away from the job site because his constructioon workers wont be able to afford a knew car. Thats taking it to far to the other extreme. Its not a uber nice car. If it was like a ferrarri ok. Thats why I hate the Us tax system. Every body says "the rich dont need that money take it from them" and everybody thinks the upper class is evil. But they worked just as hard as the lower classes (most of the time harder). Thats why the Us should abbandon the graduated tax system and make it uniform

[Obsidian]

My opinion on you can tell where people stand socio/economically?

I'm talking old money vs new money.

See what they drink. Now hear me out.

Generally, new money came through university from the ground up. They drink what they could afford then. Molson, Canadian, maybe Keiths when being fancy. Jack Daniels, Crown Royal, Johnny Walker for class. They se pheasant as scotch.

People who grew up in wealthy families, Old Money, drink finer things more often. They have a "house" wine, which they distinguish from "plonk", and the nicer stuff they have when entertaining. Their more likely to have a wider selection of beers, Honey Browns, Guinness (outside the UK ) and Kilkennen, cream ales etc. Drink more expensive liquers like Glenfiddich etc

I've only met these people in passing, so I don't know really, but so it appears to me. But I'll tell you, I've grown to enjoy a good glass of alcohol vs the cheap stuff.