The fact that starting this detour into Blogland by stating that it reflects intense frustration as to being subject to unreasonable treatment merely for being a "have" immediately will offend many readers proves the thesis of this article. I can meet all my "needs" and enjoy small "wants."
Going on to criticize Millennials will cause further ill will. Criticizing the Postal Service should win back a few hearts and minds.
Providing some context sets the stage for showing how the original run of "Roseanne" is responsible for much of this class war in our supposedly classless society.
A sincere disclaimer is that I sympathize with many "Have Nots" lacking my luxury of being able to work from home and not having to deal with the general public. I have stated many times that I would consider working at Wal-Mart to be Hell on Earth.
I also realize that many not-so-nice jobs require being outside in "mad scientist" weather and/or standing for several hours at a time. I further know that capitalism advocates paying the lowest feasible wage. Additionally, no reasonable person can deny that many "friends with money" have a sense of entitlement that warrants some ill will.
On the other hand, merely being the homeowner or the guy on the other side of the counter does not automatically make you the enemy or warrant punishing you for the misdeeds of others. There have been countless occasions on which I just have shown up or politely raised a small routine matter only to have a Starbucks barista splash a drink on me, a Target manager yell at me in front of a store full of people, a handyman tell me that his immigrant grandparents would have loved to have owned a house as nice as my mid-range one, etc.
The most recent example of this is asking my postal carrier, whom I have given a holiday gift every year and offer water on hot days, to please make a small (but very helpful) accommodation that other carriers have automatically made and to which he has agreed many times. I incorrectly thought that his boss accompanying on his route when I made that request would have brought me success.
Copious efforts to resolve the matter failed; the primary USPS response was that the carrier was not required to make the accommodation; the insult that was added to the injury was demanding that I (rather than the carrier) make the accommodation. That is what triggered thoughts of "Roseanne."
The bigger picture here is that postal carriers have some of the strongest job security and related union protection on the planet; the vast majority are very nice, but the rotten apples who do not want to exert an iota of extra effort (or even follow the social norms of saying please and thank you) are largely insulated from any form of reprisal.
Although many experts and laypersons blame Bart Simpson for the insolent and lazy attitude of Millennials, this fault lies with "Roseanne." The added insult to that injury is the aforementioned attitude is that the folks who keep you in business are the enemy that are fair gain for frustration related to your rotten day.
The alleged groundbreaking nature of the blue-collar tell-it-like-it-is "Roseanne," which premiered a year after "Married With Children," was intriguing. "Roseanne" lost me at the pilot.
One troubling aspect as to the initial outing was a caring and nice teacher, who hardly raked in the big bucks, calling in Roseanne out of concern as younger Darlene barking in class. Rather than thank the teacher or discuss a remedy, Roseanne yelled at the woman and told her that she did not want to be called out of work unless Darlene was seriously physically injured.
A later scene had one of the kids come to Roseanne for advice only to have her respond that she did not care. This set the stage for the parenting in the show.
On top of this, the periodic viewing of episodes before fully giving up on the series showed a constant hostile attitude toward anyone who was even barely doing better than living paycheck-to-paycheck. Such alleged "haves" were fools and/or snobs who lacked lacked any compassion for folks who often struggled to meet their "needs" and who rarely got a "want." Of course, America regaled in this attitude.
Of course, much of the joke is that Roseanne and at least the rest of the adult cast (if not the kids) had salaries that far outpaced even the current annual income of your not-so-humble reviewer more than 30 years later.
The bigger picture is that the same BROAD GENERAL principles that apply to discrimination based on VALIDLY protected characteristics should apply to bias based on income level. Your bank balance is not a valid basis for how others treat you. Having a cashier yell at you or a server ignore you for no good reason is far less harmful than being denied a home or a job but is an unnecessary evil.