Breaking the class ceiling

[Tashyboy]

I worked in the pits all me life ( plus a few extra jobs when money was rubbish). I was labelled working class. Yet i classed myself a a mineworker when filling in forms etc.
As a kid you were always taught to work hard to better yourself. Am not to sure that meant going from “ working class” to “middle class”. After all Middle is not a job is it.
whatever class you/ we fit in, for me manners is more important and unfortunately for some, they are lacking.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

No idea ?‍

Dad was in the military , I went to a good school on a sports scholarship, then joined the military ( nope not an officer) , left and worked for a media company ?‍ I work so I guess that’s working class

 

[KenL]

what if i have it on a weekday... along with Oyster Wednesday .... but just to fit in, I have a Taco Tuesdays

Apparently oysters used to be eaten only by the poor. No wonder. ?

 

[Mudball]

Apparently oysters used to be eaten only by the poor. No wonder. ?

I thought it was Lobsters not oysters for poor people. Hence I do Lobster sundays...

 

[Voyager EMH]

Haven't seen the TV prog yet, but will do so.

I remember some famous people being asked this question. Both Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John stated that they were working class.
They had worked in order to achieve wealth. The wealth had not changed their view of themselves.
Miranda Hart (birthday today) replied that she was upper class, not middle class.

I believe that if you are financially dependent on working, then you are working class.

 

[IanM]

Social mobility is hindered by the attitudes of folk at both ends of the spectrum! It isn't political in the same way.

I grew up on a council estate. My dad worked in a factory, my mum was a nurse. My dad drummed "education and graft" into me from an early age, he even took me round his factory aged 9 or 10 to see how horrible it was. I worked hard at school and passed exams to get a scholarship to a local private school. From there I did pretty well. I sat next to a bloke whose dad was the CEO of a retail chain, on the other side was someone with a title!

• Many of the lads I grew up with said I was a traitor to my class. (what does that even mean?) They had the same start, but had different influences, and made different choices.
• The really posh folk in school were generally super, the prats were usually the kids of the "wannabees!"
• I never found my roots a barrier, or maybe it might have been, I just wasn't aware of it!

I don't identify with any class. There's no point.

But if Rye want me for dress for lunch. that's fine by me! (oh no, don't start all that!! )

 

[Neilds]

I

The bit I did not agree with the documentary was bringing a law in to stop discrimination against your socio-economic background. Unlike the law to protect against other discriminations e.g. age, gender, colour etc; the whole socio-economic discrimination is so open ended and up for debate.

Not sure how they will do this, they can't even come up with a definition of what a man or woman is, never mind a definition of class that would stand up in a court of law!

 

[Swinglowandslow]

The best input I heard, relevant to this question, was some years ago.
Apparently, Barbara Cartland, author, with aristocratic connections, was being interviewed on radio by some presenter or other.
He asked her if she thought the class system had broken down.
It is reported that she replied,
“ Well, of course it has, otherwise I wouldn’t be talking to you.”

Ahem!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I believe that if you are financially dependent on working, then you are working class.

If you have to pay the mortgage on a £4m house, the lease costs on a Bentley, the private flights to Mauritius etc then you may be financially dependent on working, probably in banking , but I doubt you could be in the working class bracket. That is too literal a translation.

 

[TheDiablo]

In the documentary, they spoke to the HR fellow at KPMG who hvae declared they want to hire x% from working class. Acc to him, the best indicator of you being from any class is 'what does your higher earning parent do/earn, when you were 14'. Apparently that is the best indicator in terms of social mobility. And they had 3 classes (and I paraphrase)... first was professionls >> Accountant, Doctor, Dentist, In the middle was > Nurses, train drivers? etc; in the bottom layer was > manual labour, van drivers etc. Thats how it is seen.
As a teachers son, I felt i was in the middle of that sandwich. Maybe according to that definition, my son is the upper end of that sandwich.

The bit I did not agree with the documentary was bringing a law in to stop discrimination against your socio-economic background. Unlike the law to protect against other discriminations e.g. age, gender, colour etc; the whole socio-economic discrimination is so open ended and up for debate.

Not wanting to make this political, there is a clip where the Nadhim Zahawi is asked the question. His facial expression is worth the comedy gold. I have no idea of his response, because i was ROFL-ing

This is the industry standard way of measuring social mobility, at least in professional services. (With a focus on occupation moreso than earnings)

Interestingly, social mobility has become the main focus of a number of firms recruitment processes, as opposed to focussing on race/gender/ethnicity/religion in isolation. That is because if you tackle social mobility correctly, you naturally improve other areas to as by-product, as many of these minority groups fall within the lower quartile of social groups/class

 

[Voyager EMH]

If you have to pay the mortgage on a £4m house, the lease costs on a Bentley, the private flights to Mauritius etc then you may be financially dependent on working, probably in banking , but I doubt you could be in the working class bracket. That is too literal a translation.

Purely my own definition from decades of reading, no requirement to agree with me.

Upper class = royalty, nobility, aristocracy
Middle class = landed gentry, property owning, wealth sufficient to generate an income - may or may not also earn money from work by choice.
Working class = totally (or almost totally) financially dependent on money obtained from work

For me, this has not changed very much in over 100 years.

There seems to be a modern perception that the high-waged are not working class. That does not comply with my definition, if they are financially dependent on that high wage, as in the example you describe. If such a person was to rein-in their personal material possessions and invest their money to generate sufficient income to live comfortably, then they might be able to be classified as middle class. But the need to work to sustain that lifestyle as you describe defines them as working class - but only according to me.

 

[Pants]

Well. Someone had to post it.

 

[PJ87]

Purely my own definition from decades of reading, no requirement to agree with me.

Upper class = royalty, nobility, aristocracy
Middle class = landed gentry, property owning, wealth sufficient to generate an income - may or may not also earn money from work by choice.
Working class = totally (or almost totally) financially dependent on money obtained from work

For me, this has not changed very much in over 100 years.

There seems to be a modern perception that the high-waged are not working class. That does not comply with my definition, if they are financially dependent on that high wage, as in the example you describe. If such a person was to rein-in their personal material possessions and invest their money to generate sufficient income to live comfortably, then they might be able to be classified as middle class. But the need to work to sustain that lifestyle as you describe defines them as working class - but only according to me.

So as a question, do you automatically become middle class when you retire?

 

[Voyager EMH]

So as a question, do you automatically become middle class when you retire?

No.
Retiring from a life of work does not confer a class change by definition unless you have no need for the state pension to live very comfortably, then possibly.
Not working and being independently wealthy can classify you as middle class.
To me it is purely a matter of what function is being done by the person in the economy.
The high-waged person as described in post #29 performs the same function as 20 lower waged people. Money is earned from work and spent in the economy.
Not working, but obtaining a very comfortable life-sustaining income from the economy, is a very different function in the economy.
That for me is a very clear distinction in the two places in the economy and society.

 

[PJ87]

No.
Retiring from a life of work does not confer a class change by definition unless you have no need for the state pension to live very comfortably, then possibly.
Not working and being independently wealthy can classify you as middle class.
To me it is purely a matter of what function is being done by the person in the economy.
The high-waged person as described in post #29 performs the same function as 20 lower waged people. Money is earned from work and spent in the economy.
Not working, but obtaining a very comfortable life-sustaining income from the economy, is a very different function in the economy.
That for me is a very clear distinction in the two places in the economy and society.

So if when I retire (providing My pension isn't ruined by then) I could retire from working class into middle class because I wouldn't rely on the state pension (would hope to be gone 58-60 so wouldn't get it for years)

 

[Voyager EMH]

So if when I retire (providing My pension isn't ruined by then) I could retire from working class into middle class because I wouldn't rely on the state pension (would hope to be gone 58-60 so wouldn't get it for years)

Take a look at what size of pension fund you need to derive an income of £70,000 (and rising with RPI) at age 58 today.
Then work out what those two figures (pension pot and desired income) will have to be when you plan to retire.

Depends on what is considered "very comfortable life-sustaining income", I suppose.
For me that would not include a severely diminishing capital in order to fund that income. So in your case, I would say no.
You will still be completely dependent on a purchased annuity bought with money earned from work.
You realistically need some £millions of investments in property and shares to obtain a very comfortable life-sustaining income without diminishing capital. Said capital should be able to continue doing what it does for your beneficiaries after you are gone. That for me is middle class.

 

[Mudball]

My friend says he would have been middle class had he not divorced twice and will now work all the way to the grave ..

 

[Mudball]

Take a look at what size of pension fund you need to derive an income of £70,000 (and rising with RPI) at age 58 today.
Then work out what those two figures (pension pot and desired income) will have to be when you plan to retire.

Depends on what is considered "very comfortable life-sustaining income", I suppose.
For me that would not include a severely diminishing capital in order to fund that income. So in your case, I would say no.
You will still be completely dependent on a purchased annuity bought with money earned from work.
You realistically need some £millions of investments in property and shares to obtain a very comfortable life-sustaining income without diminishing capital. Said capital should be able to continue doing what it does for your beneficiaries after you are gone. That for me is middle class.

Simply not possible. If you assume that you draw 4% annually, you will need a 1.75m pot. With the constant raid on pensions and lack of will to raise it in line with Inflation..: you are unlikely to have such a pot (unlike you are in the top 2% of the population)

 

[Hobbit]

If you have to pay the mortgage on a £4m house, the lease costs on a Bentley, the private flights to Mauritius etc then you may be financially dependent on working, probably in banking , but I doubt you could be in the working class bracket. That is too literal a translation.

Saw something many years ago on the lines of your post.

If you live off accumulated wealth acquired by previous generations, you’re upper class.

If you work but generate a disposable income that allows you to buy luxuries, you’re middle class.

If you work to buy the necessities and nothing more, you’re working class.

Far too simplistic, and doesn’t recognise those that live off the state, sometimes derogatorily called the under class. Nor does it recognise social mobility and the ability to transition between classes, both up and down. Where someone is isn’t necessarily an issue but the snobbish, or inverted snobbery, that is aimed at those who look to better themselves, or fall from grace, is still there.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

So if when I retire (providing My pension isn't ruined by then) I could retire from working class into middle class because I wouldn't rely on the state pension (would hope to be gone 58-60 so wouldn't get it for years)

No, if you worked and income from that work contributed, indeed was necessarily used to procure that pension, then you come within Voyagers definition of working class,imo