Breaking the class ceiling

[sunshine]

People's definitions are clearly very different, that's fine. The idea that having a mortgage makes you working class just doesn't add up to me, it just catches way too many people.

I also think that the qualifications become blurred. David Beckham may have come from a working class background, I don't know, but with his wealth and lifestyle now totally take him out of that category. Where he fits ??‍, but the boy isn't struggling now, he has no need to work for starters ?.

Anyway, as previously mentioned, I think these definitions are now outdated and irrelevant. Who uses these phrases? I think if I asked my kids about the class system they would look blankly at me.

If a working class person wins the lottery they don’t suddenly stop being working class. The same goes for footballers and pop stars.

The people who created the wealth may have humble beginnings, but passing down the wealth and privilege they generated means their descendants become middle class and even upper class eventually.

The class system is blurred today, but go back hundreds of years and nearly everyone was working class, there was no middle class, and the tiny minority upper class owned the country. In many respects that is still accurate.

 

[Voyager EMH]

No, they are doing okay. They just don't see the world based on those parameters. They don't view people that way, don't have those hang ups.

You may believe class divisions are still a major issue. I don't, they certainly don't.

There are different classes in this country. It is not an issue for me - it is a fact.

My view of people is that they are all equal. I hope you and your kids do the same.

But the role you have in the economy is a fact, not a view or a hang-up.

Someone who has a significant income from property and shares is in a different category from someone dependent on working.
This is an inescapable truth.

I have no hang-ups regarding the class system. I believe I have a grip on the facts. I view the world based on facts.
But the modern world does seem to place opinions above facts at times. This is an excuse for ignorance and denial.

Very little good comes from ignorance of facts while holding a strong opinion.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Some people hate the rich,
Blame them for everything,dont they?

I don't know.

 

[Mudball]

Some people hate the rich,
Blame them for everything,dont they?

.

I used to have a colleague/friend .. born and raised somewhere up north. Working class background. All his siblings live around where they were born. He got his education and joined the army as a ticket out. Travelled the world and Served a few operations before leaving and becoming an expert in cyber defence in the city. Has done very well for himself. House in leafy Surrey.

During the big B event of 2016, he said he could not speak to his family. They would say things like ‘why should you southern t*ffs have everything!!’ Even though he was family.

I guess money does decide some opinions and class lines

 

[Fade and Die]

I used to have a colleague/friend .. born and raised somewhere up north. Working class background. All his siblings live around where they were born. He got his education and joined the army as a ticket out. Travelled the world and Served a few operations before leaving and becoming an expert in cyber defence in the city. Has done very well for himself. House in leafy Surrey.

During the big B event of 2016, he said he could not speak to his family. They would say things like ‘why should you southern t*ffs have everything!!’ Even though he was family.

I guess money does decide some opinions and class lines

There is such a thing as social mobility, take one of my least favourite politicians Angela Rayner, she’s turned her life around.
She wanted to prove the people wrong who had written her off as another statistic – teen mum, no qualifications, council estate.

She broke that cycle. If only other young people born and growing up in similar circumstances had the same drive.

I have genuine admiration for her.

 

[Voyager EMH]

In the 1913 UK Registrar-General's report, the statistician T.H.C. Stevenson identified the middle class as those falling between the upper class and the working class. The chief defining characteristic of membership in the middle class is control of significant capital while still being under the dominion of the elite upper class.

It is my view that this definition holds true today.

Others seem to choose whatever definition that suits their agenda or to support their ill-informed, yet strongly held, opinion.

 

[PNWokingham]

In the 1913 UK Registrar-General's report, the statistician T.H.C. Stevenson identified the middle class as those falling between the upper class and the working class. The chief defining characteristic of membership in the middle class is control of significant capital while still being under the dominion of the elite upper class.

It is my view that this definition holds true today.

Others seem to choose whatever definition that suits their agenda or to support their ill-informed, yet strongly held, opinion.

good job you are here to correct all these ill-informed people!

These are socialogical terms and about as relevant and useful nowadays as a chocolate tea pot and don't really have any function or use in modern society where there are myriads of different layers to society compared to victorian Britain when it was quite easy to band people in 3 categories - a la The Two Ronnies sketch

 

[theoneandonly]

In the 1913 UK Registrar-General's report, the statistician T.H.C. Stevenson identified the middle class as those falling between the upper class and the working class. The chief defining characteristic of membership in the middle class is control of significant capital while still being under the dominion of the elite upper class.

It is my view that this definition holds true today.

Others seem to choose whatever definition that suits their agenda or to support their ill-informed, yet strongly held, opinion.

Phew I'm glad youre here to keep us all in our correct place ?

 

[Voyager EMH]

good job you are here to correct all these ill-informed people!

These are socialogical terms and about as relevant and useful nowadays as a chocolate tea pot and don't really have any function or use in modern society where there are myriads of different layers to society compared to victorian Britain when it was quite easy to band people in 3 categories - a la The Two Ronnies sketch

I find the very to-the-point definition of the middle class to be very relevant today.
Far more relevant than some wishy-washy and fanciful defintions that some people have that do not stand up to scrutuiny.
The defintion does not perform a "function" other than to describe what something is in fact.
You can breakdown the 3 classes into "myriad layers" if you so choose, but this does not negate or wipe out the 3 main classes that are very distinct.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Phew I'm glad youre here to keep us all in our correct place ?

You're welcome.
You're welcome to give us your defintion of middle class, if you believe it is more accurate, factual and truthful than the one I have given.

 

[Hobbit]

You're welcome.
You're welcome to give us your defintion of middle class, if you believe it is more accurate, factual and truthful than the one I have given.

To quote your earlier post, “it is my view that this definition holds true today.” So not a fact, just your view of someone else’s definition that was made over 100 years ago… but if we’re to take on that definition, what defines significant capital?

”Significant” is arbitrary depending on each individual’s benchmark.

As others have said, the classes still exist today but there isn’t a clear line between them. AND your’s isn’t the right answer, nor mine. They’re both just opinions based on a loose set of facts that fit into a moveable framework of our own individual reasoning.

 

[Voyager EMH]

To quote your earlier post, “it is my view that this definition holds true today.” So not a fact, just your view of someone else’s definition that was made over 100 years ago… but if we’re to take on that definition, what defines significant capital?

”Significant” is arbitrary depending on each individual’s benchmark.

As others have said, the classes still exist today but there isn’t a clear line between them. AND your’s isn’t the right answer, nor mine. They’re both just opinions based on a loose set of facts that fit into a moveable framework of our own individual reasoning.

Are you able to go a little further and give us your view of what defines middle class?

I am finding this exchange of views very interesting.

I understand why I have the view I have.
I am finding it hard to understand why others have little regard for my explanation of why I hold the view that I do, and that it is based on a staticiian's concept, when they will not explain why they have the view that they do.
If my description or definition of middle class is wrong in fact, I am willing to be corrected.

I accept that "significant" is arbitrary, that is why I have stated "sufficient to provide a life-sustaining income" in previous posts. I am sure this is along the lines of the original author's meaning of "significant", but I can not be certian of that.

I doubt very much that in 1913 there were clear lines of distinction between the classes (there were surely many overlaps) and this will remain true today.
That is why I believe very little has changed with regard to working class, middle class and upper class and the very different econmic roles that these 3 groups perform in our society.

 

[theoneandonly]

You're welcome.
You're welcome to give us your defintion of middle class, if you believe it is more accurate, factual and truthful than the one I have given.

Lives in the home counties and drives the kids to school in a range rover ?

 

[Hobbit]

Are you able to go a little further and give us your view of what defines middle class?

I am finding this exchange of views very interesting.

I understand why I have the view I have.
I am finding it hard to understand why others have little regard for my explanation of why I hold the view that I do, and that it is based on a staticiian's concept, when they will not explain why they have the view that they do.
If my desription or definition of middle class is wrong in fact, I am willing to be corrected.

I accept that "significant" is arbitrary, that is why I have stated "sufficient to provide a life-sustaining income" in previous posts. I am sure this is along the lines of the original author's meaning of "significant", but I can not be certian of that.

I doubt very much that in 1913 there were clear lines of distinction between the classes (there were surely many overlaps) and this will remain true today.
That is why I believe very little has changed with regard to working class, middle class and upper class and the very different econmic roles that these 3 groups perform in our society.

I don’t have a regard for your explanation either way, just a little disappointed that you used the term “ill informed“ to describe other people’s views. As for the “statistician’s concept…” it’s not a fact, just a ”concept” drawn from a arbitrary view of “significant.” Statistics are factual but the interpretations drawn can be arbitrary.

Do I believe in the 3 classes, or more classes? I shared a definition early in the thread, though not one I particularly subscribe to either way, probably more from a view of I don’t care.

However, what is the difference between taking up a trade or a profession? Arbitrary labels that are almost class like in their status perceived by some people. Is a solicitor more important than a bricklayer? They are, after all, both just jobs. Are those that work in the House of Lords working class because they work? Are those that have been elevated to the HoL through “significant” financial achievement, middle class or upper class? Or alternatively, should we laud(lord) nurses because of their vital importance?

I guess if I were to subscribe to a view, there’s those that need to work and those that don’t. One is working class, if it needs a label.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I don’t have a regard for your explanation either way, just a little disappointed that you used the term “ill informed“ to describe other people’s views. As for the “statistician’s concept…” it’s not a fact, just a ”concept” drawn from a arbitrary view of “significant.” Statistics are factual but the interpretations drawn can be arbitrary.

Do I believe in the 3 classes, or more classes? I shared a definition early in the thread, though not one I particularly subscribe to either way, probably more from a view of I don’t care.

However, what is the difference between taking up a trade or a profession? Arbitrary labels that are almost class like in their status perceived by some people. Is a solicitor more important than a bricklayer? They are, after all, both just jobs. Are those that work in the House of Lords working class because they work? Are those that have been elevated to the HoL through “significant” financial achievement, middle class or upper class? Or alternatively, should we laud(lord) nurses because of their vital importance?

I guess if I were to subscribe to a view, there’s those that need to work and those that don’t. One is working class, if it needs a label.

True that I did use the term "ill-informed", but I did not direct that to anyone specific to this forum.
I intended to apply it to the public in general where there does seem to be a perception that certain job-types and higher wages confer a certain class type in their own right.
I do not hold that view, and like you appear to be saying, I view all work done by people who need to work to be of equal "status" in that respect.
But those who have capital that can provide an income are clearly doing something in the economy that is distinctly different from those who need to work.
That for me is a sufficient and justifiable reason for them to be categorised in distinctly different socio-economic terms. ie middle class.
This is not, and never will be, a perfect description that will work perfectly to describe every memeber of society with no exceptions.
But it is a good enough definition for me, as I have not yet discovered a better one.
I am ready and willing to be shown a better categorisation for me to change my view.
Middle class for me has a clear meaning. I can not see that accepting a very unclear meaning will be the way I should go.

 

[IanM]

I think your reaction to the dress code at New Zealand or Rye defines your class!

If you object, you're working class

If you comply, you're middle class.

If you just arrive properly dressed, without any need to check it, you're upper class!

Thread closed!

 

[SocketRocket]

Are you able to go a little further and give us your view of what defines middle class?

I am finding this exchange of views very interesting.

I understand why I have the view I have.
I am finding it hard to understand why others have little regard for my explanation of why I hold the view that I do, and that it is based on a staticiian's concept, when they will not explain why they have the view that they do.
If my desription or definition of middle class is wrong in fact, I am willing to be corrected.

I accept that "significant" is arbitrary, that is why I have stated "sufficient to provide a life-sustaining income" in previous posts. I am sure this is along the lines of the original author's meaning of "significant", but I can not be certian of that.

I doubt very much that in 1913 there were clear lines of distinction between the classes (there were surely many overlaps) and this will remain true today.
That is why I believe very little has changed with regard to working class, middle class and upper class and the very different econmic roles that these 3 groups perform in our society.

Your definition of Middle Class is fixated on significant capital. As others have pointed out you are using subjective terms to define what you consider to be a finite matter.

Would you consider a Doctor, a Bank Manager, a Military Officer, a Police Superintendent as working class if they didn't own a significant amount of property or shares that allowed them to live off their assets. I suggest your view is very outdated, even Victorian and completely out of tune with modern living.

The class system is no longer relevant or serving any useful purpose, it mainly exists in the minds of people who like to measure themselves against others by using their own prejudiced guidelines. I once read that if you do this you will become vain and disappointed as there will always be greater or lesser person's than yourself

One thing I liked in countries like the USA and Australia was that you could have a drink in a bar with a group of people and have no inclination of class or wealth.

You are entitled to your opinion on class but they appear to be founded on anything but facts.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Your definition of Middle Class is fixated on significant capital. As others have pointed out you are using subjective terms to define what you consider to be a finite matter.

Would you consider a Doctor, a Bank Manager, a Military Officer, a Police Superintendent as working class if they didn't own a significant amount of property or shares that allowed them to live off their assets. I suggest your view is very outdated, even Victorian and completely out of tune with modern living.

The class system is no longer relevant or serving any useful purpose, it mainly exists in the minds of people who like to measure themselves against others by using their own prejudiced guidelines. I once read that if you do this you will become vain and disappointed as there will always be greater or lesser person's than yourself

One thing I liked in countries like the USA and Australia was that you could have a drink in a bar with a group of people and have no inclination of class or wealth.

You are entitled to your opinion on class but they appear to be founded on anything but facts.

Yes.
I am like you, I have no inclination of people of with regard to class or wealth. People are people regardless of class or wealth. I do not regard any person as better or worse than me based on their class or wealth.
There are upper class people and there are working class people. To me this is a fact.
In between we have middle class people. Again, to me this is a fact.
The defining characteristic of middle class people is that they have capital that can provide an income. Many of these will choose to work as well.
I refuse to accept that these notions are not based on facts.
My ideas are not outdated, they are based on a contemporary view of life today.
The occupations you mention may be high-earning people, but they are clearly working class and nothing else, if they do not own sufficient capital to put them in the middle class bracket.

There could possibly be an upper class person in one of those occupations, such as the fictional Inspector Lynley.

My view of the 3 classes is based entirely on what is playing out in the economy and is is no way a judgement on the people themselves.

A modern view that does make a judgement by job description, manner of conversing, clothing, choice of holiday destination etc is one I will never hold.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Your definition of Middle Class is fixated on significant capital. As others have pointed out you are using subjective terms to define what you consider to be a finite matter.

Would you consider a Doctor, a Bank Manager, a Military Officer, a Police Superintendent as working class if they didn't own a significant amount of property or shares that allowed them to live off their assets. I suggest your view is very outdated, even Victorian and completely out of tune with modern living.

The class system is no longer relevant or serving any useful purpose, it mainly exists in the minds of people who like to measure themselves against others by using their own prejudiced guidelines. I once read that if you do this you will become vain and disappointed as there will always be greater or lesser person's than yourself

One thing I liked in countries like the USA and Australia was that you could have a drink in a bar with a group of people and have no inclination of class or wealth.

You are entitled to your opinion on class but they appear to be founded on anything but facts.

I think there appears to be a misunderstanding here about what Voyager is saying.
Unless there are posts which I have missed, I understand he is merely defining terms. He is not classifying merit.
Insisting that there is a definable term for “class(es)” does not mean that he supports their function or status,as some do in Society.
He is not talking of “class” in the vernacular , as in ..”I like that bloke, he’s got class”

Some posts here seem to think that he does consider “middle class” status should be either maintained or held in some sort of esteem. That is not what he is saying. He has specifically said that he considers people to be “equal “ (see post 62).

As for me, I treat people as equal to me in rights and entitlement but not in achievement nor merit nor ability. Birth circumstances confers none of those things.
What you do with your life does.

And as is said above, The class system is no longer relevant or serving any useful purpose, However it does exist but it is to be ignored as a measure of determining a person’s worth or character.
If a “Lord” Bloggs insisted on me addressing him as Lord…, then I would insist on being Mr Jones. If he referred to me as Jones, then he would be Bloggs.

I happen to be a fan of the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams, one of the World’s greatest classical music composers.
He was a man of private means of some significance who need never to have worked to sustain his life, his very comfortable life. He was thus middle class. Just a definition.

However, what he did gives immense joy to millions and will for many years. And how he regarded and behaved towards the Establishment and ordinary people…now that was “class”?

 

[SocketRocket]

I think there appears to be a misunderstanding here about what Voyager is saying.
Unless there are posts which I have missed, I understand he is merely defining terms. He is not classifying merit.
Insisting that there is a definable term for “class(es)” does not mean that he supports their function or status,as some do in Society.
He is not talking of “class” in the vernacular , as in ..”I like that bloke, he’s got class”

Some posts here seem to think that he does consider “middle class” status should be either maintained or held in some sort of esteem. That is not what he is saying. He has specifically said that he considers people to be “equal “ (see post 62).

As for me, I treat people as equal to me in rights and entitlement but not in achievement nor merit nor ability. Birth circumstances confers none of those things.
What you do with your life does.

And as is said above, The class system is no longer relevant or serving any useful purpose, However it does exist but it is to be ignored as a measure of determining a person’s worth or character.
If a “Lord” Bloggs insisted on me addressing him as Lord…, then I would insist on being Mr Jones. If he referred to me as Jones, then he would be Bloggs.

I happen to be a fan of the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams, one of the World’s greatest classical music composers.
He was a man of private means of some significance who need never to have worked to sustain his life, his very comfortable life. He was thus middle class. Just a definition.

However, what he did gives immense joy to millions and will for many years. And how he regarded and behaved towards the Establishment and ordinary people…now that was “class”?

I disagree with these guidelines that are being used to define class. IMO they were once relevant but are now so blurred they are meaningless.

I understand what he's saying but just disagree with it. If we wish to take a literal view of what middle class means then the Cambridge Dictionary is as good as any:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/middle-class