So this post is a little personal to me. I always thought I grew up poor. My friends had two parents, I had one and two grandparents for a short while until one died when I was ten. No cousins and the rest of the family are the unspeakables. But that is OK. The sentence that is not OK was me who thought I grew up poor.
In a sense, yes I was poor. No college fund. No alimony for my mother and no child support. Not a drop. Since my mom lived with my grandma, she was too rich to collect assistance and would have to pay to go back to school. My grandparents were not poor but they had to make their money last just in case they made it past eighty. My grandfather died a few months before all of the benefits kicked into the 100% category for retirees which screwed my grandmother.
But on life went. I had food on the table which was never a question and a roof over my head that kept me dry at night. I was in an OK school district. (I hated relying on my mom for having to drive me everywhere. I wanted my independence and missed my NJ, across the GW bridge lifestyle where I modeled in NYC from age 1 – 7 when I moved to Florida.)
Was I poor? To some people yes. I had no idea what college was. I thought it was collage and who needed extra school for that I could do all the time by myself? I did not know people who went to college. Teachers? They never talked about it until 8th grade. College fund? What you donate to colleges? But only vets (for animals) and lawyers went to those. Teachers just graduated high school and then knew everything to teach you. Yes, that was me. I was good in school too, always top 5% of the class. I never had tutors. I always thought that was for the slow kids and asking for help was out of the question for me. It hurt my ego if I admitted I needed help so I spent hours figuring out problems by myself until they were solved.
Oh, and I remember the arguments I had with my friend who had brothers in high school and college already about the words: freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior. None of those made any sense to me. I thought a freshman was a 12th grade because it was a fresh new person full of education waiting to use those ideas in the workforce. What the beep did I know? Here is the irony, I bought Apple stock when it IPO’ed and knew all about how the stock market worked when I was 7 years old. Yes, I have my shares today. My mom gave me money for that. She likes slot machines and why not teach your child how to gamble? We were miles away from Atlantic City so the stock market was the next best thing.
Then compare me to the kids I went to high school with in south side St. Petersburg, FL. Kids who had to work and contribute to the family’s income (AND NO, they were not teen parents either!!!!) Kids who walked and took the bus because cars were too expensive. Kids where the military was their only way out of skid row. They mostly had food to eat all the time although a few did not (and I often shared my lunch with them) and I did not know of anyone who lived on the street but I bet a few did. These kids were poor, especially by first world standards.
So OK, there are two definitions of poor. But then I met and taught the real poor in Bombay. The ones that lived in slums and studied under street lights because to buy electric light from the lighting company cost a few days’ wages. This is in 2014, almost 2015 now.
I guess in defense, Bombay is rather brand new again, sort of like NYC in the 1800s where electric was questioned as to whether or not it was a fad. You can still see houses in Brooklyn with both systems.
Or so I thought I met the real poor of Bombay. I remember writing in a blog that I have and that poor dressed beautifully too. But no, those people are not the true poor of Bombay. The truly poor folk are the ones with sacks made of tattered cloth who just spent their last rupee commuting to Bombay from the feudal villages they live in. Feudal meaning middle ages feudal by all sense of the word. They escaped. They are the lucky ones. They wish that they were part of the groups that sleep underneath the overpasses at night but they are steps below that class. You hardly see these people, or at least if you are me, you hardly see them. But I was told that is how you spot them. They have no English, but that describes most of the people in the slums. They are completely illiterate (maybe a few can read in one of the many Indian languages out there.) But somehow they knew that where they lived was not right and so they came to Bombay for a better life. I must talk of these people in my paper and presentation but will be unable to say much more because most of Bombay is not exposed to them. I would love to know how they claw their way up. I know that some do but how?
The rich are the rich. They don’t have to think about spending money on things and do not have to budget. They don’t have to millions or billions of dollars in the bank either. They are rich. Simple as that.
So where am I going with this? I defined a few groups of people. Well, there was an article I saw on Facebook today talking about how the elite in UK are the only ones getting conservatory style music education: https://news.tes.co.uk/b/opinion/2014/11/14/39-an-education-in-the-arts-is-limited-to-those-already-economically-privileged-it-is-an-unjust-waste-of-national-talent.aspx
I would tend to agree with that but I think the author is missing something: the middle class.
When I think of middle class, I think of Leave it to Beaver. Classical definition. What couldn’t be better?
This is a different time and people often talk about the disappearance of the middle class. When they talk about it they mean the Leave it to Beaver definition I will agree with that. OR I can do one step better. (Please note that I am just throwing money figures out. Don’t take them seriously. Take the scenarios seriously.)
Those people now work in middle management at financial firms making 300K per year. They are comfortable in that the family can live on the income, even in Manhattan, of one spouse (give that they don’t blow their money and know how to save.) Even if they have to financially support elderly parents too. They can do this. They go on vacations once every 2-3 years, do not own a car, take public transit, eat out twice per week, etc. These people are comfortable. If a job is lost, they can live a year or two off of savings, get a job, and rebuild them again. They can give their kids music lessons (within reason) without batting an eye. If the local school loses their music program, or the program stinks, they just turn to the private sector. They are few and far between. They make too much money to take any of the government housing tax breaks and other breaks though. They are equated to 750K and millionaires. They are on the lowest end of the highest tax bracket. They are the new Leave it to Beaver middle class, like it or not. (Make your adjustments for other areas of the United States. This is Manhattan only I am talking about.)
Then, there are the people underneath them. They make, oh about 75K – 100K per year, combined income. However, when it comes to providing lessons for their kids, they question it. These people would become devastated if the bread winner(s) lost their income. The savings would dry up, if they had savings to begin with. Music lessons are a luxury and they try to give it to their kids on a constant basis if possible. Thankfully there is You Tube and the Internet now. If the school music program goes belly up, it becomes a big problem to the parents. Now they have to pay for a private youth orchestra too on top of private lessons? ****!!!! Ulcer, ulcer, ulcer, stress, stress, stress. I want my kids to have it, I want MY KIDS TO HAVE IT, I NEED MY KIDS TO HAVE THE DAMNED MUSIC LESSONS! Hello Wal-mart? I studied Spanish in high school, do you need a bilingual, grave yard shift cashier so that I can pay for my kids’ music lessons? Sure, that will be 8 bucks an hour on top of your full time job. Shoo. My kids have lessons! (That is best case scenario.) Let’s call this class and the one below: Squeaking by.
Then there are the people in the above category who do not get the second job and just say: Kid , keep practicing on your own. Music becomes a memory.
One class below that are the people that work 3 jobs for their kids to put food on the table and may pay for a lesson here are there but are too rich to qualify for needs-based anything and too poor to do much else for their kids. Let’s call this class: No Man’s Land. The parents don’t have time to fight for the child’s terminated music program but he is sad just the same.
For both classes that I defined, transportation is another serious issue too and it is much worse for the people in No Man’s Land. No driver’s license, no public transit. The screw you of suburban and rural societies (and some cities that do not know how to do public transit.) No freedom for the kids to work and go to activities on their own and have to wait for their overworked parents. (That was the personal hell I grew up in.)
Squeaking by and No Man’s Land. The two classes that get ignored by 95% of research, philanthropists, and educators (many educators fit in these two categories to and may not realize it.) These are the kids that need music too. Everyone needs it. I flitted between the classes of Squeaking by and No Man’s Land. I finally realized what I was growing up. I was lucky. I had the consistency of music lessons to the growing debt that I found out later in life to my mother and grandmother. (I now financially support them.) Had I known they went into debt like that, I would have quit and got a job. Everything was a secret.
What does this have to with Mumbai? I was not introduced to anyone in the Squeaking by or No Man’s Land classes and nor were in the hundreds of hours of conversations and interviews were these people mentioned. I did meet a few people from this class outside my research though so I know they exist.
I will have to go back and dig but right now, I have my operational definitions for middle class and I have finally defined myself.