Our latest Quackcast is based on the plutocratic class system in the USA where social status is determined by the image of wealth and exemplified by the new political regime of Donald Trump and people like Elon Musk…

But it's always been very visible in pop-culture from the USA. Being homeless is seen as the lowest of the low and being a billionaire is the top of society. Having a high paying job like a doctor or a lawyer is a sign you're upper middle class etc…

The structure probably came to be after the revolution where ties to aristocracy were now meaningless and yet people were used to the class structure they knew so ownership of land and resources replaced it. …and lots and lots and LOTS of other history there (slavery, “old money”, New Money“, ”White trash" etc.).


——–

In Britain they have the remnants of the aristocratic class system that still manifests. White collar city jobs are still associated with a higher class, blue collar and sales are lower, regional accents are used to informally determine class, family names, where you went to school, ethnicity, university, education level etc…

Wealth is is not traditionally a determining factor, it's just a side effect.
(that's changing and mutating, it'd help to have some native input!)

In Australia we're a lot more egalitarian (almost the same as New Zealand). If you try and obviously assign yourself to a class above everyone else you'll be socially cut down.

Under the surface class distinction still exists because people always naturally like to confirm to “classes”. It's based on where you live, education, accent, and maybe other factors I'm not aware off.
There are very few benefits to it though because if people are ever open about it they also become open to attack and there are no social barriers about where you can go or who you can associate with anyway.
-People ARE cliquey and often prefer to hang out with those they feel they have a common bond with.
-The only place it really shoes up is when people criticise those who aren't in their group. For those lower it might be “bogan”, yobbo“, ”county bumpkin“ Westie” (only in Sydney). For those higher it might be “wankers”, “yuppy”…

In my city it's based on where you're from in relation to the city centre and the Swan River which runs diagonally though the city to the coast.
-“The Western Suburbs” is a small area between sea coast and river where some very rich people live. None of the other suburbs west of the city centre count as “western Suburbs”, only those ones. Generally the top of the “class” structure.
-“North of the river” are generally considered low on the class structure. Aka “the northern suburbs”
-“South of the river” are generally considered middle class. The further south you go though that changes to low.
-People from the city centre or older suburbs around of close to the city centre can be mid to upper mid.

Of course it's ALL absolute and completely meaningless nonsense but people implicitly believe those stuff and confirm to it.
It's even weirder since the river is goes on diagonal through the city so people will say “That person is from the north and I'm from the south, we just don't get on”, when in reality those positions are completely reversed! XD
They're only “north” and “South” in relation the city centre and the river going through it. XD

-In my case I live in the Western suburbs and generally have a more “upper” accent, but I'm actually just a poor artist and always mix with all groups equally regardless.
If I ever think of myself as superior to anyone, it's never based on “class”, rather it's based on my own narcissistic fantasy XP

What's the weird class system where you live"
-If you're aware of it.

In the U.S., money seems to have fully replaced aristocracy, while in the U.K., old class markers still hold weight. The whole “new money vs. old money” thing is still a big deal too. Even billionaires like Musk or Bezos get judged on whether they “fit” the upper-class mold.

One interesting objective measure in the US is that the IRS (taxation department) gives people precise labels based on income level. At my income level/ tax bracket, I fall into the category of “extreme poverty.”

All the old labels are increasingly meaningless. I'm afraid we're in the midst of a paradigm shift. The American middle class is quickly disappearing, blue collar versus white collar means nothing. Unskilled labor seems to increasingly be what management has become and constantly in Flux and at the whim of the affluent. Actual cash on hand is so much paper and all real value are numbers on ledgers and computer screens. Wealth is created out of nothing through investment and numbers juggling and goods and services are of decreasing value and will probably all become some much AI if the wealthy have their way.

Took awhile but the megacorporation dystopia of cyberpunk is finally at hand. It doesn't exactly look like the movies but squint a little and the resemblance is frightening.

So, when I studied sociology 101 at uni (I have a degree in media studies, not sociology) I studied the distinction between “classe” (based on income or wealth) and “ceto' (based on cultural markers).
For example an aristocrat whose family lost all the money and properties would be ”working classe“ while still being ”aristocrat ceto“ in terms of habits, some expectations etc.
For some reason, in the english-speaking world this distinction is never used, so often statistics say X% of the ”working class“ voted for Trump, and then read the details and ”working class“ means without a degree, that would be ”ceto“ not ”classe“ in my book.
Also the question in this thread IMHO is about ”ceto“, not ”classe".
I have problems saying how things are in Italy because I do not have a comparison, however I'd say that boasting about money is considered quite rude, I have a gym friend who owns a business of 100 employees but usually moves around in the same cheam car I use
That said, I think that in the USA boasting about one's accomplishments is more common than in the rest of the world, I think many people in the USA have a very competitive mindset, and it shows everywhere, and boasting comes from there.

Speaking of “classe”and “ceto”, I have read two similar explanations for modern day politics (Trump in the USA but also Berlusconi in Italy some decades ago and many similar right wing governmets):

The first from the economist Adam Tooze, there are actually three classes: the super rich on the top, the Professional Managerial Class (hencefore PMC) in the middle, and the working class at the bottom.
Since the working class is directly in contact with the PMC and not with the super rich, they are pissed at the PMC and the super rich can do anti-PMC politics and coopt the working class with them, while the PMC generally are in conflict with the super rich for power.
The anti-intellectualism of the right is explained this way.

The other similar explanation comes from the french economist Thomas Picketty, and is in some sense just a more detailed variant of the first (it is also grounded in a lot of data).
This theory works on two dimensions that roughly correspond to my “classe” and “ceto” distinction:
The first axis is wealth, more than income; when controlled for other factors people with high wealth vote for the right.
The second factor is instruction, when controlled for other factors people with high instruction tend to vote for the left.
But of course people with higer instruction tend to have more wealth, and the reverse, so the final voting dynamics are quite confused, however we have these four quadrants:
High wealth, low instruction: vote right;
High wealth, high instruction: ambiguous;
Low wealth, high instruction: vote left;
Low wealth, low instructio: ambiguous.

This scheme works better than the one with three classes because it doesn't imply that anyone with high instruction is a manager or a rich professional, but in the end it seems to me the result is not much different than the three classes scheme of Tooze.

Correction, Adam Tooze is an historian, not an economist

In English it's economic versus social class.

Been meaning to read some of Tooze's work because he has books on the social and economic side of the World Wars.