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

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#81

Post by staticint »

illumin8 wrote: post #60
madgar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and went into technology where I could make an upper middle class salary. Not everybody can do that, in fact, most of America can't.

Bullshit - technology skills can be learned like any trade. Writing code does not require a 4 year CS degree.

But we are still bound to supply and demand. If everyone was a coder, price would plummet. Programmers are only currently able to do reasonably well because they are relatively limited in numbers compared to the demand for them.

It is very much impossible for most Americans to be coders while maintaining high incomes. The industry isn't anywhere near that big, currently employing less than 1% of the population. Even if it could grow by an order of magnitude, it still wouldn't absorb any meaningful portion of the population.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#82

Post by atspruce »

binarymax wrote: post #12

Unfortunately, no mention of "Malcolm in the Middle" or "The Simpsons" (which admittedly I havent watched in about 10 years). Both of which continued the class contrasts of yesteryears' sitcoms. Overall though, I do agree with the article. It does seem like everyone has it really easy on American TV.

Perhaps a mention of Malcolm in the Middle would be part of a more complete history. But the author uses 2007 as the tipping-point between "yesteryear" and the modern sitcom; a show like Malcolm, which ended in 2006, would fall in place quite nicely in the author's argument and not prove an exception to the rule.

I haven't seen The Simpsons in about 15 years, so I won't comment on it—except to note that it debuted only a year after Roseanne, and the two overlapped for about eight years.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#83

Post by panzagl »

pessimizer wrote: post #38
miiiiiike wrote: post #25

I 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.

I use Big Bang Theory to try to convince my daughters that, despite what their schools are telling them, society values science so little that they can look forward to being in their 40's and still having to share an apartment with a roommate unlike the irregularly employed actress across the hall.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#84

Post by FussyZeus »

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…

Mr. Robot was so damn good, I was amazed USA could hit like that. I don't think I've met a single person whose seen it and didn't like it.

It doesn't surprise me that Netflix is already crushing it in terms of creating their own series; the data that the big studios operate on is collected via ancient means and there's only a market for it because they agree to all pretend it's still relevant.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#85

Post by thkim »

petra wrote: post #15
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…

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.

I think The Office was a huge success without any the characteristics you point out. I don't think it's about the setting per se, but whether the material connects with the viewer in a particular way.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#86

Post by wj »

caseysoftware wrote: post #77
untog wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've referred to the USA lineup as popcorn TV. They are kind of fun shows with a little bit of comedy and a little bit of drama and suspense that don't force you to think too hard after a long day. Sometimes I am in the mood for something deep and dripping with intrigue (House of Cards) and sometimes I just want to lay in bed and watch something where it doesn't matter if I miss some small part of plot that becomes something big later (the shows you list).

I would add Royal Pains to that list. Cover Affairs was another one I enjoyed (I love spy shows and books) but is now off the air.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#87

Post by atspruce »

dominotw wrote: post #63
saturdaysaint wrote: post #59

There are lots of prominent counterexamples. The Office was a pretty direct attempt at making a modern middle class show. Breaking Bad at least started with one man's middle class problems. I think the main artistic factor here is that the sitcom, an awfully convenient medium for telling middle class stories, is dead. A 30 minute comedy where every episode was basically an island could be an oddly touching medium to…

>consumers don't have that much interest in slices of everyday life Last weekend I watched amazon original 'catastrophe' and 'lilyhammer' a netflix original. Both of these revolved around ordinary people doing everyday stuff.

Lilyhammer? The mafia and the Witness Protection Program have thankfully not become "ordinary" and "everyday." Certainly the main character tries to play the part of an everyday ex-pat in Norway convincingly, but the sustaining premise of the show is that he fails to do so.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#88

Post by CocaKoala »

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #78
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'…

An obvious counterexample is the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother", which featured an environmental lawyer, an architect (turned college professor in later seasons), a teacher, and a news reporter.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#90

Post by logfromblammo »

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.

That time when the Conners started a sandwich business was sort of middle class. Even though it failed, entrepreneurship is mostly out of reach for working class. They might get one chance to try it, from an inheritance, insurance, personal injury settlement, or lottery windfall.

Middle class Americans don't get two foreign holidays a year. They get two foreign holidays per lifetime. One if they also decide to visit Hawaii. I consider myself lucky if I can spend an entire 40 hours of PTO at once on one 9-day vacation at a U.S. beach town or national park. It isn't just the money. The U.S. is huge, and much of it is undeveloped land. Getting anywhere more interesting than where you already are takes an inconveniently large investment in time and travel aggravation, and that time could have been spent relaxing instead.

And remember, the U.S. median only gets about $54k in gross household [edit] income. If two working parents have 2 kids, they are likely taking one week every year, to somewhere cheap and close, and maybe visiting a theme park cluster city such as Orlando, Florida, only once per decade. If you are upper-middle class, you also get to visit Europe once, and Hawaii once. Anybody who needs their passport more often than that is likely going to countries having less infrastructure with their religious group, to proselytize by example.

Post reply on HN