[pw0ncakes]

No. Rich does not mean upper class, and upper class does not mean rich. The two factors are strongly correlated, but not the same thing.

The upper class is a tightly-connected group of people who work to consolidate power, social resources, and wealth within their own ranks. Most of them are parasites and a lot of them are criminals whose politics are regressive.

Most rich people are technically upper-middle class. In fact, if you weren't born upper-class, upper-middle is as high as you can go (your children and grandchildren have a shot, though).

[petercooper]

No. Rich does not mean upper class, and upper class does not mean rich.

I had to ask (and semi-assume) because, generally, "upper class" is based significantly on wealth and fame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class

Your definition seems to cover a more conspiratorial and political superclass (perhaps in an old European sense of "upper class"), and while I believe an insidious old-boys network of sorts exists, it can't be confused with the typical rich "upper class" that isn't inaccessible to newcomers.

[starkfist]

From other posts I've surmised that pw0ncakes lives in an Edith Wharton "Age of Innocence" version of New York with the scenes and characters updated for modern readers.

[wrs]

> if you weren't born upper-class, upper-middle is as high as you can go (your children and grandchildren have a shot, though)

Therefore one can be born upper-class to upper-middle parents? Otherwise that doesn't make sense.