Cyclone Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 The middle class is splitting apart, according to a report. On the winning side are doctors, lawyers and bankers, all of whom are able to earn £100,000+ with comparative ease. Everyone else; architects, engineers, teachers, small business people and other graduate professions etc are going in the opposite direction with little chance of catching them up. Soon they will become the new working class, unable to afford much more than the basic standard of living, and not much better off than the people on a lower wage but supplemented by benefits. An accurate prediction? What do you think? Anna B hasn't been back to actually offer any factual support for the assertions here, which most people (particularly those in a position to know) seem to disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 'An accurate prediction? What do you think?'... is a question. 'Utter rubbish' is an answer. And I wrote why I thought it was. - 'You just can't see it every time you post. You sound like Douglas Alexander on Question Time the other night. You compare business and public sector work as if they are comparable. '... So I accused Anna of sounding like a well-respected politician? How grunting of me I also explained why they aren't comparable. What is your issue with discussing things on a discussion forum? You seem to have missed the point that the introductory post made by Anna B to get the discussion going was simply that, not necessarily the expression of her own views or stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 You seem to have missed the point that the introductory post made by Anna B to get the discussion going was simply that, not the expression of her own views or stance. You know the forum rules. You're supposed to state your own thoughts and opinions on a subject. Otherwise we might think you started it just to troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Really? I feel I must ask because, if that is the case, why would you take exception to me calling young tracksuited and hoodied males (of indeterminate extraction, but quasi-certain white English) up to no good (lighting wild fires on somebody else's land, with no apparent means of control, on a Sunday at 09:45 and then on a Monday at 12:45-ish) "scroates"? Do you want some gravy on your double-standards? I think it's spelled 'scrotes', actually. From 'scrotum'? Which begs the question of whether it is offensive to use body parts as insults. Interestingly, far more male body parts form the basis of insults in English than female ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Anna B hasn't been back to actually offer any factual support for the assertions here, which most people (particularly those in a position to know) seem to disagree with. Anna B was taken to task, quite extensively, over her prejudices and bias against the legal profession some weeks ago, IIRC. Where at least that professional category is concerned, this thread is just a repeat. Bare assertions based on even less than red top populist headlines, educated rebuttals provided, no notice taken, repeat in a few weeks'time. I think it's spelled 'scrotes', actually. From 'scrotum'?Uncharacteristically, but perhaps unsurprisingly, I am not proposing to waste any time whatsoever investigating the etymology of the term, aliceBB EDIT - That said, Interestingly, far more male body parts form the basis of insults in English than female ones.Interestingly also, I understand that English insults that are based on female body parts are hierarchically superior to (are deemed "worse"/"more offensive" than) those based on male body parts, e.g. the C word is rather nasty (...and yet, paradoxically, it's direct equivalent in French is as common-or-garden (in offensive terms) as 'muppet'). But we digress...lots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 You know the forum rules. You're supposed to state your own thoughts and opinions on a subject. Otherwise we might think you started it just to troll. You are also supposed to read the thread properly before contributing.. Had you done so you would realise (a) that I didn't start it (it was Anna B), and (b) I have offered my opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 Anna B hasn't been back to actually offer any factual support for the assertions here, which most people (particularly those in a position to know) seem to disagree with. There are no 'facts' as such, merely points for discussion. In the original article, (sorry I can't supply links, it was a mag in the doctors waiting room,) I think the definition of middle class was more about what the middle class aspired to, compared with what different middle class professional incomes could afford. In this instance, the middle class were said to probably aspire to a nice house in a nice area, top of the range car, private education for their children, and University fees, private health care, foreign holidays every year, (possibly a second holiday home) also enough disposable income for leisure pursuits - theatre trips, restaurants, golf, etc. and a decent pension fund. Law, medicine and banking were seen as the professions which were most likely to afford these things, whereas other professions were graded as less likely to be able to afford them. They also compared over time, looking at with how different professions had fared over the years, doctors for example rising towards the top, teachers falling lower towards the bottom. Interesting I thought, and worthwhile of a forum discussion, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 When I was at school, and we see this kind of bickering, we used to think that these people fancy one another. ---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 14:23 ---------- ... In this instance, the middle class were said to probably aspire to a nice house in a nice area, top of the range car, private education for their children, and University fees, private health care, foreign holidays every year, (possibly a second holiday home) also enough disposable income for leisure pursuits - theatre trips, restaurants, golf, etc. and a decent pension fund. Law, medicine and banking were seen as the professions which were most likely to afford these things, whereas other professions were graded as less likely to be able to afford them. ... To be honest, I never thought that this was out of reach of anybody. I always thought that this is applicable and open to all, in all kind of industries. Gosh, how wrong am I, eh ? No wonder we have idiots in the upper class, as well as idiots in the lower class too. They behave the same way, but then their earnings are different. I just used to think that it is different people's personalities that differentiate them, rather than money, and "class". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maz3 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Really? I feel I must ask because, if that is the case, why would you take exception to me calling young tracksuited and hoodied males (of indeterminate extraction, but quasi-certain white English) up to no good (lighting wild fires on somebody else's land, with no apparent means of control, on a Sunday at 09:45 and then on a Monday at 12:45-ish) "scroates"? Do you want some gravy on your double-standards? You frogs can be a tediously pedantic lot. I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. Remind me not to attempt humour with you again. ---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 14:32 ---------- Should we be offended by being called 'middle class' as well? Why not? No, it's just a neutral name for a socio-economic grouping, although famously vague and imprecise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Well, I don't. I do use it to refer to a social group distinct from the middle class (see above). Not sure that 'upper class' has any meaning any longer, though? How do you define 'upper class'? I'd define upper class as the aristocracy, or those without that title as say in the top 5% of earning power (e.g. see here : http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/17/oxfam-report-scale-britain-growing-financial-inequality 'Chav' is not a racial identifier and cannot therefore have racist undertones. No offence was intended by it. It's an objective descriptor, as the dictionary definiton suggests, although it isn't simply about clothing or loutish behaviour, although they are a lifestyle choice for many in this group. It is more an identifier of the new social underclass which has emerged in the UK last twenty or so years. They are characterised not by the work they do, (as one of the things which separate them from the traditional working class is that they lack a work ethic) but by their attitude to work and especially to education/training. They are not middle class since they lack educational aspiration. Once they develop it, and start aspiring to learn for its own sake, or in order to fit themselves for work,whether vocational or professional, they enter the ranks of the working or professional classes. it is true that some university students are labelled 'Chavs' by their feloow students, but that is about clothing, on the whole. ---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 14:31 ---------- So what would you like us to call this clearly identifiable social group? The 'new, non-working underclass' best describes them, I suppose, but no doubt some people would find that offensive too. Marx said called them the lumpenproleariat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.