Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

merrily

(45,251 posts)
22. Come on now.
Sun Jul 26, 2015, 12:04 PM
Jul 2015

I said replace "patrimonial wealth" with "inherited family wealth." I did not say replace an entire section of Picketty's book with the term "inherited family wealth."


It has created what we call the "middle class" -- Tom Picketty's phrase "patrimonial middle class" is more precise, since we mean working people and small businessmen who have enough wealth to retire on and assist the kids.


By your own words, "patrimonial middle class" was not a widely-used and recognized term, like "middle class" alone. Rather, "patrimonial middle class" was a totally arbitrary term coined by Picketty, which he (or you?) defined to mean "working people and small businessmen who have enough wealth to retire on and assist the kids."

His arbitrary neologism and the definition of it are both male-centered, which does not reflect the reality of modern society. If anyone is going to choose a term arbitrarily and then define it, choosing a term and a definition that are not sexist is not that hard.

And, wtf, don't any small business people work? Why distinguish "working people" from small business people? And where does someone with a medical or legal practice fall? Are they covered by "patrimonial middle class" or not?

Moreover, does the term he coined include people who have enough to pass down to the kids after retirement because they themselves inherited family money, though not necessarily big bucks? Does his term really mean only anyone who has enough money to pass down to the kids after a comfortable retirement, regardless of how they acquired it? You've given me no way to know that. If that is all it means, the definition is off the mark.

If I know the answers to the questions I asked above, I can probably come up with a less sexist term and maybe a clearer definition, too.


There does seem to be a trade-off between gender-neutral language and clear writing,


Disagree. As I said, women own more than half the wealth in the US. They also own lots of small businesses and hold down a lot of jobs. Sometimes they are the only earners or owners of wealth in the nuclear family. Why should a term like "patrimonial middle class," which evokes wealth earned by and belonging to men, be considered more clear than a term that is more inclusive of female earners and female owners of wealth?

And, as my questions above indicate, I am not sure the term that you borrowed from Picketty is all that clear to someone who has not read the book.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't speak for DSUSA, but rogerashton Jul 2015 #1
Thank you for that thoughtful post. Right now, the crushing of the middle class and the ignoring of merrily Jul 2015 #2
Raising the floor -- I understand rogerashton Jul 2015 #7
You don't often raise the floor without lowering the ceiling. It's a matter of speed and degree. merrily Jul 2015 #8
We agree. rogerashton Jul 2015 #17
Patrimonial means wealth inherited from a father or other male family member. merrily Jul 2015 #18
More than three words! rogerashton Jul 2015 #21
Come on now. merrily Jul 2015 #22
This sort of "gotcha" quibbling rogerashton Jul 2015 #23
Enemies? That's a surprise. Thanks for letting me know, though. merrily Jul 2015 #24
I happily claim to be a populist/progressive daybranch Jul 2015 #13
Agree: People of all ages and of all kinds can and should unite for their shared vision. merrily Jul 2015 #15
I want to thank the alerter for bringing your OP to my attention, so I could req it. magical thyme Jul 2015 #3
Yet, the OP itself said that the DSAUSA is not a political party. In italics even. merrily Jul 2015 #4
and juror #2 took the time to research and confirm that the OP was correct magical thyme Jul 2015 #5
In my mind, the burden of proof is on the alerter. merrily Jul 2015 #6
on the bright side, the alerter introduced 7 people to the DSAUSA magical thyme Jul 2015 #9
So, in addition to thanking the 7 jurors, I should have thanked the alerter? merrily Jul 2015 #10
you don't have to do anything of the sort, nor did I suggest it. magical thyme Jul 2015 #11
You did indeed. No need for excessive repetition. merrily Jul 2015 #12
Bookmarked for later - thanks! LiberalElite Jul 2015 #14
My pleasure! merrily Jul 2015 #20
Calling out DINOs daybranch Jul 2015 #16
Like you, the DSAUSA believes in working within the existing Democratic Party structure. merrily Jul 2015 #19
Interesting, don't much about them either, but if they work within sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #25
Very true. Kath1 Jul 2015 #26
That seems to be their objective. merrily Jul 2015 #27
Lol, 'all my base' belong to him too. But the idea of the Left infiltrating its own supposed sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #28
We were not pushed out, only pushed resolutely to the side. Third Wayers sure wanted our votes. merrily Aug 2015 #29
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Populist Reform of the Democratic Party»Populists: support the De...»Reply #22