Green Web Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Crazy question maybe your first impression especially if your a Guardianst and worships everything BME, but generation after generation of WWC's are also being brought up in 'normalised' workless 2nd / 3rd generation sink estates with a 'normalised' huge dependency on benefits. Despite intrusive intervention by the previous government, the majority of children born on such turf are simply not breaking this trend later in life, therfore creating a much larger 'underclass' population, and more dependent on welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve70 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 I think there is a sub culture with in the working class or white working class which could be describede as a Lower working Class or even lower scrounging class !! And these are bringing up 2nd / 3rd generation children to be dependent on benifits . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 We could reduce unemployment to 0% quite easily. But it would not be allowed. The state would not allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowersfade Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 We could reduce unemployment to 0% quite easily. But it would not be allowed. The state would not allow it. Do share......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Crazy question maybe your first impression especially if your a Guardianst and worships everything BME, but generation after generation of WWC's are also being brought up in 'normalised' workless 2nd / 3rd generation sink estates with a 'normalised' huge dependency on benefits. Despite intrusive intervention by the previous government, the majority of children born on such turf are simply not breaking this trend later in life, therfore creating a much larger 'underclass' population, and more dependent on welfare. What a great way to start a thread talking about the normalisation of the benefit culture, with a quick dig at Guardian readers and a bit of gentle racism. I don't think that long term benefit claimants of whatever generation can be called Working Class. The clue is in the name, you'd have to work to be working class. I don't think the colour of the people involved is relevant at all, why should this be an issue for the White Working Class and not just the Working Class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Do share......... I remember this from University. If unemployment was 0% nobody would be able to expand because there would be nobody to fill vacancies, also wages would go through the roof because people would be able to name their price when going for a job which would in turn cause inflation, stifle business and hurt the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Crazy question maybe your first impression especially if your a Guardianst and worships everything BME, but generation after generation of WWC's are also being brought up in 'normalised' workless 2nd / 3rd generation sink estates with a 'normalised' huge dependency on benefits. Despite intrusive intervention by the previous government, the majority of children born on such turf are simply not breaking this trend later in life, therfore creating a much larger 'underclass' population, and more dependent on welfare. Not so much a crazy question as a non question with a few lazy stereotypes thrown in for good measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Crazy question maybe your first impression especially if your a Guardianst and worships everything BME, but generation after generation of WWC's are also being brought up in 'normalised' workless 2nd / 3rd generation sink estates with a 'normalised' huge dependency on benefits. Despite intrusive intervention by the previous government, the majority of children born on such turf are simply not breaking this trend later in life, therfore creating a much larger 'underclass' population, and more dependent on welfare. I think that it's more a case of Western Civilisation loosing it's work ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Well you learn you values in life from your parents/guardians. So if children see that it is easy to claim benefits and not work, they are likely to follow this path too. Children from poorer backgrounds may lack the necessary resources and experiences to help them succeed at school. Maybe the government should be doing more to help such children, if they have the talent and drive to do well. Intelligence is not limited to only people with money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 What a great way to start a thread talking about the normalisation of the benefit culture, with a quick dig at Guardian readers and a bit of gentle racism. I don't think that long term benefit claimants of whatever generation can be called Working Class. The clue is in the name, you'd have to work to be working class. I don't think the colour of the people involved is relevant at all, why should this be an issue for the White Working Class and not just the Working Class? I think academically whether you are a Marxist or not the conception of working class is largely one that comes out of Marxist theory. The concepts were there before, but with Marx they became defined in a way that academics and sociologists could apply with some consistency. Marx would have put todays unemployed in the category of Lumpenproletariat, the underclass of beggars and brothel keepers that were in his opinion beyond achieving any class consciousness (Bakunin notably disagreed at Marx's pessimism). They are however normally considered to be a part of the working class\Proletariat even though they may be state dependent... just the same as someone in a workhouse would have been at the time Marx was writing. As for your other points in total agreement. The OP doesn't include a question just a statement loaded with a hint of racism and a snipe at Guardian readers. A classic troll for someone on a day they are finding boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.