Shameless (US version on showtime) is the best depiction of working-poor contrasted with middle class on TV today.
TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
31–40 of 138 posts
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is true - blue collar is a type of job, while excellence is a measure of job performance. Perhaps parent just meant to say that the characters mostly work white collar jobs, and accidentally conflated the two. An interesting counter-example would be Friends, where one of the characters worked a blue-collar job, and none were explicitly "excellent".
I don't see that implication in OP's post..?
You are right, the implication is actually that "blue-collardness" cannot be extraordinary, but that flies in the face of common sense, considering all the stories about courageous and heroic policemen, firefighters, and so on.
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#33“Cheers,” which ran for 11 seasons on NBC, starting in 1982, was the first great hangout show: neutralizing the depiction of class and removing the pressures of work. Life is hard enough, “Cheers” said; let’s just make TV. Ever since, television started taking it easier on us. Bill Clinton was in the White House, and the economy had improved. On “Seinfeld,” “Living Single,” “Friends,” “Ellen,” “It’s Like, You Know,” “Sex and the City,” “Girlfriends” and, much later, “Happy Endings” and “New Girl,” the commingling, childless men and women might have had jobs, but almost none had consequential careers. How many jobs did Elaine and George have on “Seinfeld”? And in how many fields? And Kramer — how was he paying to live across the hall from Jerry? Hangout shows placed friendship above family, obviating the typical economic ecosystem. Belonging to a family of friends probably means you only have to support yourself.
TV became — and still is — a medium struggling to understand “average,” “ordinary,” “normal.”
Why would you go into any of these shows expecting anything resembling reality. They are all clearly entertainment in the form of light drama and inconsequential, whitewashed sexual tension. To expect anything else is to set yourself up for failure.
Deeper shows exist - The Wire, Breaking Bad, House of Cards - but headlining TV shows are not created to address issues anymore. The shows reflect the main demographics of TV watchers, because that's what keeps them watching, and that's what generates ad revenue. So I'm not too concerned with the state of TV - it's an echo chamber for older, more conservative folk.
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#34I think television just reflects the career-obsessed nature with society today. Characters are not just competent employees, they tend to be excellent at their jobs (top of their field, seemingly) while spending very little time doing their job. I don't know if blue-collaredness is looked down upon, but it feels like writers go out of their way to let it be known that the characters we are supposed to like, are extra…
Not trying to be too snarky here, but blue-collaredness and excelling at one's job are quite orthogonal in my head.
Could you give some examples? I've seen blue collar workers who excel, and I've seen white collar workers who don't. I haven't noticed any correlation either way.
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#35I think television just reflects the career-obsessed nature with society today. Characters are not just competent employees, they tend to be excellent at their jobs (top of their field, seemingly) while spending very little time doing their job. I don't know if blue-collaredness is looked down upon, but it feels like writers go out of their way to let it be known that the characters we are supposed to like, are extra…
Not trying to be too snarky here, but blue-collaredness and excelling at one's job are quite orthogonal in my head.
How would you classify a tool-and-die maker?
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a difference between British and American English. In the UK, "middle class" basically means rich. In the US, it means that maybe you own a house.
In the US middle class has always meant middle - not at top in income/wealth (mostly income) but not at the bottom. How they obtain the money (education, job) or how they spend it (house, holiday) is not important by definition - however there is some social expectations of the American middle class. Many Americans don't have the time off work for two holidays a year, even if they have plenty of money, which is anoth…
So you'd day you were "upper class"?
What I don't understand is why you'd turn class into a proxy for personal wealth, there are already lots of ways to refer to that - wages, household income, net worth - whereas class [in the UK] is a far more nuanced measure of ancestry, culture, occupation and attitudes to all of those things.
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a difference between British and American English. In the UK, "middle class" basically means rich. In the US, it means that maybe you own a house.
In the US middle class has always meant middle - not at top in income/wealth (mostly income) but not at the bottom. How they obtain the money (education, job) or how they spend it (house, holiday) is not important by definition - however there is some social expectations of the American middle class. Many Americans don't have the time off work for two holidays a year, even if they have plenty of money, which is anoth…
"middle class is a useless term because almost everyone describes themselves as middle class"
It might actually be simpler in the UK - nobody describes themselves as working class anymore and there are very real upper class people so everyone from the PM down is middle class.
http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/08/10/how-middle-class-...
NB I like that quiz - if you enjoy drinking to excess and fighting you are working class or upper class but definitely not middle class (by UK standards).
Edit: I guess another way of defining "middle class" by UK standards is "someone worried about social status" - traditionally neither the upper classes or the working classes cared about social status.
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#38I grew up upper-lower-middle class in a dying manufacturing town near Chicago so the The Simpsons, Married with Children, Roseanne always felt like home. I can't agree with the article tho. I still see that same grasping in current shows like Better Call Saul, Shameless (which, aside from Season 2, is fantastic), and, in a different way, The Big Bang Theory and Silicon Valley. Most comedies are just joke delivery med…
Better Call Saul is about a family of lawyers, the Big Bang Theory is about academics, and Silicon Valley is about tech millionaires. I'm not sure what you're seeing there.
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it simple ? most working class jobs are boring. But law, police, medicine, a tv show(rock 30), or just changing jobs and random situation puts you in a lot of variety and that makes comedy easier. And the expectations of comedy today are far bigger than the 80's. So something had to give.
But that wouldn't seem to explain the many years of success Roseanne had. Also, as to the comedy, viewed in its time-period, it was a very funny show.
Do you consider it(Roseanne) a classic ? would you rewatch it today, like i watched blackadder(just an old example) ? or like i rewatched 30 rock ?
Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class
#40I remember growing up as a lower-middle class midwestern kid, Roseanne was a show I loved, because I identified with it so much. Dan and Roseanne were my parents, and my friends were just like Darlene and Becky. Another similar show from that era is "Grace Under Fire". As a 35-yo upper-middle class guy still in the midwest, I look at what's on TV (both broadcast and Netflix/Amazon/etc.) and see none of that represent…
Having lived thru that era, and having been a poor starving student around the time of Married with Children, my experience was they bolted on the poverty but never internalized it to the show. The characters clothing budget exceeded mine by a factor of perhaps 100, their house and possessions were fancier than my parents by a large factor (and my parents were pretty well off, wealthier than I'll ever be) and when th…
Why would your parents be wealthier than you'll ever be (unless of course they're extremely wealthy)? That seems like a very pessimistic attitude to have towards money and income.
I grew up in a lower middle class family and I'm wealthier than my parents ever were, just because I worked hard and improved myself, and went into technology where I could make an upper middle class salary.
Why would you want to resign yourself to being poor your whole life?