Breaking the class ceiling

[Voyager EMH]

But where is the boundary? What is significant?

Both are at the exact point that you would find gives you a satisfactory answer.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Funny you should invent this criteria. So when I watch Mary Poppins this Christmas. Both the bloke with the cool accent who sweeps the chimney and the guy that works in the bank (hilariously called Mr Banks) with the huge house and nanny are working class?

Depends on how much capital each one owns. That is not made clear in the story.
As we are in the realm of fiction...
The chimney sweep might be very wealthy middle class, but enjoys sweeping chimneys for some exercise and doing a good turn for others.
Mr Banks may have inherited the house or married someone who owned it, but needs to earn a wage as his capital alone will not sustain the desired lifestyle. He could be working class or a middle class person who chooses to work as well. There are bound to be people who are on the cusp of working class and middle class.

 

[WGCRider]

I think what is clear is the these definitions are nonsense. Even when it's people putting a label on themselves.
Around 50% of Britain consider themselves working class, 36% middle class and 1% upper class. (I assume the others are as confused as I am).
Do you think there is any danger that, pensioners excluded, 36% of British people don't work by choice and are able to live on their capital alone?
It's worthless, but my distinction would be - mostly work sitting down = middle class, mostly work standing up = working class.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I think what is clear is the these definitions are nonsense. Even when it's people putting a label on themselves.
Around 50% of Britain consider themselves working class, 36% middle class and 1% upper class. (I assume the others are as confused as I am).
Do you think there is any danger that, pensioners excluded, 36% of British people don't work by choice and are able to live on their capital alone?
It's worthless, but my distinction would be - mostly work sitting down = middle class, mostly work standing up = working class.

No, they are merely considering that a new meaning of middle class is "middle incomes" and that they are a cut above lower-waged people.
This is the most popular way of thinking, but it is not my view.

My view is that upper class, middle class and working class definitions are quite clearly defined and very far from nonsense. They are 3 distinct roles in our economy and society.
It is fairly easy to find a few people that are not so easy to categorise in this way, but on the whole it is a very good description of how our economy and society functions.

 

[SocketRocket]

Offhand no, Not that bothered to look?, though from my observation of history , and portrayals of Victorian society, there are numerous residences in London ( streets of them) and the Shires where “ gentlemen of leisure” lived tended by domestic servants.
They didn’t work, they weren’t aristocracy, but they had a very comfortable position.
Other examples depicted in fiction were Sherlock Holmes etc,
You would have to be somewhat ignorant of history not to have noticed what I am talking about.
If you are still not sure, watch various (old) films this Xmas on TV. Plenty on there portraying Old England?

This discussion wasn't about Victorian society, were considering how class is defined in the modern day.

Surely Sherlock worked and was paid for his expertise, this must make him Working Class along with the Prime Minister of the day, Field Marshals, Admirals of the Fleet etc as they all were paid employees.

Come on now, you must be avin a larf me old cock sparra ?

 

[Voyager EMH]

This discussion wasn't about Victorian society, were considering how class is defined in the modern day.

Surely Sherlock worked and was paid for his expertise, this must make him Working Class along with the Prime Minister of the day, Field Marshals, Admirals of the Fleet etc as they all were paid employees.

Come on now, you must be avin a larf me old cock sparra ?

If we are talking about the Sherlock Holmes era to be 1880s to early 1890s, then there were two Prime Ministers.
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was quite definitely very wealthy upper class.
William Ewart Galdstone was the son of a 1st Baronet who was a very wealthy merchant who owned plantations and slaves. There is case for him to be wealthy middleclass or upper class.
Despite their class, both chose to work in government. They did not achieve working class status by doing so.

Mr Sunak earned a very good wage when he worked in banking. I'm sure he has been sensible with his money. Mrs Sunak has a share dividend income of several £million a year.
Mr and Mrs Sunak are middle class.

 

[Hobbit]

For want of a better way of putting it, the nitpicking about the boundaries between the classes isn’t really defining anything.

BUT…….. the title for the thread is Breaking the class ceiling. Although the original post was more about where we fit into the classes, and the debate has followed that, there’s been very little debate about the class ceiling. Does it exist? If it does, who perpetuates it?

Two things to contemplate. Get a list of Cabinet Ministers, and shadow ministers, and then research where they went to school/university.

Secondly, a brief story of one of my experiences. Someone with 9 A* and a A at GCSE had predicted A-Level grades of 4 A’s and a B, and not in fluffy subjects. They are invited to Oxford for interview, and share a floor with 3 other candidates. Those 3 are from public school, don’t have as good grades at GCSE and their predicted A-Level grades weren’t as good. The individual also had an excellent, extra-curricula activities, including a Saturday job.

They felt the interviews went really well. Great exchange of ideas and challenging questions going both ways. They weren’t offered a place but the 3 from public schools were.

Thankfully, after becoming top student out of 240 students at a red brick university they got onto the ladder in their chosen career but then there’s the ‘old boy’ network to negotiate. Disillusioned, after several years, with seeing others coming in with poorer degrees who then spent little time on the bottom rung before promotion the individual left the profession.

Very working class, northern upbringing with an accent that could cut glass. But a demeanour and manners that are excellent. Did the class ceiling get in the way?

BTW, the individual is now recognised as one of the leading figures in their profession and has passed many of those that passed them in the early days.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

For want of a better way of putting it, the nitpicking about the boundaries between the classes isn’t really defining anything.

BUT…….. the title for the thread is Breaking the class ceiling. Although the original post was more about where we fit into the classes, and the debate has followed that, there’s been very little debate about the class ceiling. Does it exist? If it does, who perpetuates it?

Two things to contemplate. Get a list of Cabinet Ministers, and shadow ministers, and then research where they went to school/university.

Secondly, a brief story of one of my experiences. Someone with 9 A* and a A at GCSE had predicted A-Level grades of 4 A’s and a B, and not in fluffy subjects. They are invited to Oxford for interview, and share a floor with 3 other candidates. Those 3 are from public school, don’t have as good grades at GCSE and their predicted A-Level grades weren’t as good. The individual also had an excellent, extra-curricula activities, including a Saturday job.

They felt the interviews went really well. Great exchange of ideas and challenging questions going both ways. They weren’t offered a place but the 3 from public schools were.

Thankfully, after becoming top student out of 240 students at a red brick university they got onto the ladder in their chosen career but then there’s the ‘old boy’ network to negotiate. Disillusioned, after several years, with seeing others coming in with poorer degrees who then spent little time on the bottom rung before promotion the individual left the profession.

Very working class, northern upbringing with an accent that could cut glass. But a demeanour and manners that are excellent. Did the class ceiling get in the way?

BTW, the individual is now recognised as one of the leading figures in their profession and has passed many of those that passed them in the early days.

Well, obvious from that, its not what you know but who you know.
Instances like that are still, unfortunately, far too common.
I did say that we were becoming a meritocracy, which was true around 50s and 60s, but not fast enough, nor completely.
The snobbery is still there, and the meritocracy is becoming a “connocracy”
So, what a wonderful country.! Snobs and Conn artists.

 

[chrisd]

This is the true explanation of class

 

[Pants]

This is the true explanation of class

Thanks for reposting Chris. Says it all really

 

[SocketRocket]

If we are talking about the Sherlock Holmes era to be 1880s to early 1890s, then there were two Prime Ministers.
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was quite definitely very wealthy upper class.
William Ewart Galdstone was the son of a 1st Baronet who was a very wealthy merchant who owned plantations and slaves. There is case for him to be wealthy middleclass or upper class.
Despite their class, both chose to work in government. They did not achieve working class status by doing so.

Mr Sunak earned a very good wage when he worked in banking. I'm sure he has been sensible with his money. Mrs Sunak has a share dividend income of several £million a year.
Mr and Mrs Sunak are middle class.

I'm not sure where your trying to take this now you are being very selective with your choices. How about John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson, Gordon Brown, Theresa May and so on.

You are using Victorian Society to describe modern day Middle Class and as such you are wrong. I know you won't accept this so it's pretty pointless discussing it with you further. In my opinion of course

 

[Voyager EMH]

I'm not sure where your trying to take this now you are being very selective with your choices. How about John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson, Gordon Brown, Theresa May and so on.

You are using Victorian Society to describe modern day Middle Class and as such you are wrong. I know you won't accept this so it's pretty pointless discussing it with you further. In my opinion of course

I am not using Victorian Society as a model of today.
I was unsure where you were taking it with your reference to Sherlock Holmes and the Prime Minister of the day.
I tried to give your post some relevance with some facts about the Prime Ministers of the day in the 1880s and 1890s as you had introduced this, not me.
I then tried to show how times have changed by giving some brief details about the current Prime Minister.
I will not act on your suggestion to give more facts about your list of Prime Ministers. I dot not understand why I should or the point you are trying to make.
I suppose a lot of people find facts rather boring.

Modern thinking does appear to be that class distinction is based on a perceived level of "poshness", or the lack of any poshness, hence the Cleese, Barker, Corbett satire.
To me that view is totally ridiculous. I simply cannot believe it has any point or relevance.

But the role played in the economy today by those with capital that can provide an income is a very different role from those dependent on income from work alone.
This is a factual and quantifiable distinction and does not need to be related to any perceived level of "poshness" which is not factual or sensibly quantifiable.
It is much better definition of class distinction than all others I have read on this thread so far.

I have found the views expressed on this thread very interesting on the whole.
I know that I have a view that is not in tune with "class distinction = level of poshness" that most people have.
No one has yet convinced me to change my view, however.

 

[Mudball]

Looking at the ‘cost of living’ crisis. Beeb’s uses “middle-income earners” when it refers to those earning £50-60k needing to use food banks while others refer to it as ‘middle-class need food banks’.

 

[IanM]

Looking at the ‘cost of living’ crisis. Beeb’s uses “middle-income earners” when it refers to those earning £50-60k needing to use food banks while others refer to it as ‘middle-class need food banks’.

Yes, poor luvvies are having to buy dried pasta rather than hand made!

 

[patricks148]

Looking at the ‘cost of living’ crisis. Beeb’s uses “middle-income earners” when it refers to those earning £50-60k needing to use food banks while others refer to it as ‘middle-class need food banks’.

Cost a small fortune to run those Aga's

 

[Fade and Die]

Looking at the ‘cost of living’ crisis. Beeb’s uses “middle-income earners” when it refers to those earning £50-60k needing to use food banks while others refer to it as ‘middle-class need food banks’.

Maybe it’s an extreme example of what is called ‘Secondary Poverty’?

It’s essentially where the fat, the feckless and the long term useless have just enough hard earned benefits to live above the poverty line but instead choose to spend their cash on non necessities such as Chav Stamps, Mobile phone top up’s, Fags, Lambrini and Multipacks of Black Leggings from Pri-mani resulting in living under the poverty line.

The term was first coined by a member of the Rowntree family in the early 1900’s so as we can see the long term useless really have learnt nothing.

 

[sunshine]

hard earned benefits

That’s a great line ?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Maybe it’s an extreme example of what is called ‘Secondary Poverty’?

It’s essentially where the fat, the feckless and the long term useless have just enough hard earned benefits to live above the poverty line but instead choose to spend their cash on non necessities such as Chav Stamps, Mobile phone top up’s, Fags, Lambrini and Multipacks of Black Leggings from Pri-mani resulting in living under the poverty line.

The term was first coined by a member of the Rowntree family in the early 1900’s so as we can see the long term useless really have learnt nothing.

Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree.
Very interesting academic work done by him over a long period of time.
Way ahead of his time in his ideas and conclusions.
I think he would disagree with your last 8 words.

 

[WGCRider]

I have found the views expressed on this thread very interesting on the whole.
I know that I have a view that is not in tune with "class distinction = level of poshness" that most people have.
No one has yet convinced me to change my view, however.

Your view seems more akin to the Indian caste system. Where if you are born in one class you are that forever and there is nothing you can do to change it.

I'm not from round these parts so all this seems really pointless to me but I give you an observation. It's interesting to me that many British people are desperate to describe themselves as working class, but America's are more about the "American dream" and more desperate to be rich!

 

[Voyager EMH]

Your view seems more akin to the Indian caste system. Where if you are born in one class you are that forever and there is nothing you can do to change it.

I'm not from round these parts so all this seems really pointless to me but I give you an observation. It's interesting to me that many British people are desperate to describe themselves as working class, but America's are more about the "American dream" and more desperate to be rich!

I find that in the UK many working class people are desperate to call themselves something other than working class.
Quite easy to move from working class to middle class - all you need is money.
In my view you are defined by the role you are playing out in the economy.
This may or may not have something to do with your parents at the time of your birth, but it can easily change upon and during adulthood. Just depends on how things work out.

By the way - many Hindus in my town.