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

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#111

Post by nommm-nommm »

StevePerkins wrote: post #108
nommm-nommm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%."

The "1%" starts at $193K, which would easily include a household with two 30-year old software developers (or similar professionals). http://whatsmypercent.com/

That is for individual income, not household income - household income the 1% seems to start at $450,000 a year.

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#113

Post by jonnathanson »

untog wrote: post #66
Touche wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't basically every character on The Office become the manager at some point? It felt like it. Jim left the company for a while to start a sports agency or something? The Office definitely fell into the modern trap of every character needing to be upwardly mobile.

I think it fell into the TV show trap of being successful and having your actors be in demand, and taking time off from the show or leaving it altogether. They likely should have ended it when Steve Carrell left.

This.

The Office went through all of its kooky manager plotlines because Steve Carell's career trajectory outpaced the show's initial popularity. The second he got too big for the show, everyone knew it, and much ink was spilled in the writers' room trying to anticipate and/or compensate for his eventual departure.

Jim was given some upward mobility because he's the protagonist, and the audience was rooting for him (and Pam) in a personal way. Nine seasons of Jim's being stuck in a dead-end paper sales job, with no hope of escape, would have been extremely depressing. I realize that's how the UK version chose to play things, but it would have been too bleak by half for the US market.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#114

Post by wj »

zepto wrote: post #97
wj wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Would you describe Mr Robot as "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"?

That one was probably a bit of an outlier from the others on that user's list.

I would say that I do take it a bit less seriously than other conspiracy shows such as Rubicon.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#115

Post by logfromblammo »

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…

The problem scale of Roseanne is within a believable distance from my own. I have had to dismantle washing machines and clothes dryers to repair them. A show like Seinfeld would make the appliance repairman a character and the repair would be the secondary theme of the episode. A show like Friends would either not acknowledge the existence of laundry machines, or pretend they do not ever break. The only show currently on broadcast television in which I would believe a broken washing machine as a plot element is The Middle.

Here's a potential middle-class The Middle plot line for you: the Glaussners wash the mud off of their off-road 4-wheelers in the street using the Heck household's hose. They do not turn the water off. It runs all week, straight into the gutter, before someone notices and turns it off. The Hecks get an unexpected $300 water bill, which passes unnoticed in their huge monthly stack of bills, as they pay the usual, average monthly amount. Then one day, their water is shut off, and they can't get it turned back on until after Mike's next paycheck.

That's a believable middle class problem. Can you guess why it's believable? Because it's based on a true story.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#116

Post by nommm-nommm »

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.

One of my favorite quotes from Roseanne (paraphrasing):

"We'll send the electric bill to the water company, and the water bill to the electric company. Then forget to sign the check for the phone bill."

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#117

Post by thedaemon »

harryh wrote: post #7
tosseraccount wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The working man used to be middle class in America.

That's mostly because expectations for what it takes to be middle class have gone up. Houses are bigger (much bigger). People have more cars. People expect to eat out more and have more entertainment options.

It's also because the job market has changed. I can no longer get a job for life like my grandfather did and have a fully paid off house and car in my 20s.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#118

Post by nommm-nommm »

Pxtl wrote: post #74
wccrawford wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is her lack of funds seems really fake though. She doesn't really seem to go through the type of real financial hardship I can identify with, it just seems haphazardly thrown in once in a while for laughs.

Re: TV’s Dwindling Middle Class

#119

Post by harryh »

thedaemon wrote: post #117
harryh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's mostly because expectations for what it takes to be middle class have gone up. Houses are bigger (much bigger). People have more cars. People expect to eat out more and have more entertainment options.

It's also because the job market has changed. I can no longer get a job for life like my grandfather did and have a fully paid off house and car in my 20s.

The permanence of employment has changed yes. But not, in general, the amount of money you can make. If you feel like you can't buy things your grandfather could it's probably because they aren't the same things and because you're spending money on things he never did.

See what I said about houses being much bigger today than they used to be.

Post reply on HN