Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#71

Post by untog »

roymurdock wrote: post #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,”…

Funny you should mention demographics and House of Cards - it was literally created because Netflix's data suggested that many subscribers enjoyed the Social Network (Fincher), Kevin Spacey movies and the British version of House of Cards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/business/media/for-house-o...

It's not demographics in the traditional sense, but make no mistake - Netflix and the like do not create unique pieces of art just because they feel like it. They are also making a show to fit a market, just with better data.

> it's an echo chamber for older, more conservative folk.

I'm not so sure about that. One of the best shows I saw last year, Mr. Robot, was made by the USA Network, of all people.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#72

Post by nommm-nommm »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #36
nommm-nommm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably because our history and collective cultural values are very different in that regard. And we don't have, like, actual royality.

The US has a very "anyone can get rich" kind of cultural ethos so it makes sense our definitions would be very different.

There's also a distinction between upper class and the "frigging filthy rich" (salary in the millions) in the US. Lately they've been called "the 1%."

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#74

Post by Pxtl »

wccrawford wrote: post #44
pessimizer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've only watched the first ep of Silicon Valley and a few eps of Big Bang Theory, but... Better Call Saul is about a poor lawyer who works out of the back of a nail salon. Not exactly rich. Yes, his brother is, but the show is about Saul. Big Bang Theory is about guys that live in apartments, and they don't seem very rich to me. Maybe they're headed there, but they aren't there yet. I'll admit they don't lack for te…

Not only that, but one of the main characters in BBT, the token non-nerd, works as a waitress and her lack of funds are a continuing plot-point of the show.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#75

Post by staticint »

herbet_gayson wrote: post #3
pionar wrote: post #2

I 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…

Huh? There wasn't anything remotely middle class about Dan and Roseanne in my memory. They were proudly working class. To me middle class means university educated, professional, two foreign holidays a year.

Class represents how income is accrued.

The working class, as the name implies, earn their money by working. The upper class make their money through investments. The middle class fall in between. They make part of their income by working and part of their income through investments.

The practical implications are that if the working class stop working, they can no longer make ends meet. The middle class have the opportunity to stop working for periods of time, but not indefinitely. The upper class can survive without ever lifting a finger.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#76

Post by petra »

FussyZeus wrote: post #58
petra wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Roseanne was fantastic. No it didn't have a brand new comedy line for every episode, in fact it was largely the same problems over and over again (money, relationship, bitchy daughters, etc.) but I still love it and watch what little I can on Netflix because while the problems weren't always shiny and new, they were identifiable and made the characters more real. I can't stand most sitcoms because their problems have…

Maybe it's growing up in that area. I'm from Israel, so i wouldn't know.

Personally i don't find any strong relation between identifying with characters and laughing from their jokes. It may add another dimension to the experience in comic dramas, but if i'm watching a pure comedy/sitcom, i don't think it's a big deal.

But i guess people are different.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#77

Post by caseysoftware »

untog wrote: post #71
roymurdock wrote: post #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,”…

Funny you should mention demographics and House of Cards - it was literally created because Netflix's data suggested that many subscribers enjoyed the Social Network (Fincher), Kevin Spacey movies and the British version of House of Cards. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/business/media/for-house-o... It's not demographics in the traditional sense, but make no mistake - Netflix and the like do not create unique piec…

USA Network has had a refreshing run of great series - Monk, Psych, White Collar, Suits, Mr Robot, Burn Notice - that don't quite fit the "older, more conservative folk" mold described.

And this is what they've done without much budget, credibility, or star power. I'm pleasantly surprised and sincerely impressed.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#78

Post by bobbyi_settv »

roymurdock wrote: post #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,”…

The claim of the article is that we never see regular people with ordinary jobs except for "police precincts, crime-and-forensics teams and legal-medical-Beltway dramas".

The counterexamples you came up with are shows where the characters are police, politicians and drug dealers, and you had to reach back to a show that has been off the air for 8 years to even find those. Doesn't that kind of demonstrate the article's point?

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#79

Post by caseysoftware »

brightball wrote: post #23
pionar wrote: post #2

I 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…

King of Queens is another

That one never made sense to me.. she was way too hot for him.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#80

Post by nommm-nommm »

herbet_gayson wrote: post #41
nommm-nommm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You'd describe a nurse, a teacher, and yourself as upper class? You'd put them in the same social strata as the Queen of the UK or the Prince of Monaco? That's absolutely crazy. To me upper class means the literally Queen, or at least something like her cousin's son's uncle or something like that. If you don't own a country estate or have any staff then you aren't upper class.

Reread what I said, I was talking about the American definition "middle class," and the bastardisation of the word, not the British definition. I also said a nurse and teacher couple (household), not each of them individually.

As an American I wouldn't call the queen upper class, I'd call her nobility or royality, a different class altogether and not really compatible to the American "class system" (so to speak).

American super rich have their own category too, I should have mentioned. Don't think there's a real concrete word for them but they are called stuff like "trust fund baby"(if they are rich because their parents are and don't have to work), the 1%, millionaires, and the super rich. There is a growing divide between the rich and the super rich in the US in the last several decades, which plays into it.

Post reply on HN