Class society

How do you define classes ?

I see and hear people referring to class all the time 'Working class' ' middle class' 'underclass' 'upperclass'. Whats it all about ?

Is it about wealth, social standing, morals ???

Can you jump classes if they exist ?

And if they exist surely it contravenes equality ??

It's an old segmentation model. It is still around to a certain extent, however there is a huge amount of people who while they were born in 'working class' are now not. Yet, they still class themselves that way.

I think I have gone down a class lol.

I really don't like the idea of class, but don't see it going away any time soon. I also think class is now more definded by your accent or how much money you have or the size of your house etc.

A lot of it is based on our perceptions of people, and more often then not I think a lot of us are the same 'class'.

spoilt_little_brat wrote:

I also think class is now more definded by your accent or how much money you have or the size of your house etc.

Thats what it has always been based on though. That is why more people are actually classed as middle class - home ownership.

I thought it had always been that ABC1 type model - and role of the head of household - but of course that being a simple model, is inherently flawed.

spoilt_little_brat wrote:

A lot of it is based on our perceptions of people, and more often then not I think a lot of us are the same 'class'.

Agree with that statement.

Some of the so-called underclasses are more intelligent and generally nicer people than the so-called upperclasses.

At the end of the day were all the same.

I don't think it measures those criteria..!

Class can be measured in different ways, level of education, type of work etc.

Money doesn't really come into it. Money can be a privilige of the upper classes, they can have lots without doing anything fo it but it doesn't define the class you are. For instance you could be a plumber and have a very good business and earn lots of money but still be working class, while you could be a epniless Lord living in a crumbling pile in the country and still be upper class.

It's a funny thing that while class is difficult to define most of us can make a simple judgement on what class we or others are.

You can move from one class to another, for most working class kids going to University meant they were then Middle class, I'm not sure this still is the case.

The easiest way to move up a class is through education and profession not through earning lots of money. paradoxically to move down a class can be more difficult...

Education and the willingess to move away from the other lot. Working class people are on the bus, middle class people are not.

Ziggy! wrote:

Education and the willingess to move away from the other lot. Working class people are on the bus, middle class people are not.

Reminds me of Mrs Thatcher, didn't she once say that if an adult needed to use the bus then they were a failure in life or something similar...

Becks and Posh don't use the bus but they're as working class as they come!

I consider myself middle class and I get the bus.

I love getting the bus - the only undisturbed time I get to read

I think people are obsessed with class I really do - I still havn't got the foggiest what it is and how it's defined. It really isn't important. It's more important living your life and being happy.

WormThatTurned wrote:

I think people are obsessed with class I really do - I still havn't got the foggiest what it is and how it's defined. It really isn't important. It's more important living your life and being happy.

It shouldn't be important but I think there is still class prejudice. Of course living under the monarchy the class privilege is enshrined in the country. I still think for certain jobs and professions it is easier to be accepted if you have a 'certain' background. The 'old school tie' network still exists.

Mauri wrote:

[
It shouldn't be important but I think there is still class prejudice. Of course living under the monarchy the class privilege is enshrined in the country. I still think for certain jobs and professions it is easier to be accepted if you have a 'certain' background. The 'old school tie' network still exists.

Hit the nail on the head !!

WormThatTurned wrote:

I think people are obsessed with class I really do - I still havn't got the foggiest what it is and how it's defined. It really isn't important. It's more important living your life and being happy.

Funny - I don't think people give a damn about class any more. The boundaries are all so blurred and we're heading more towards a US system based on how much money you have got rather than who or where you come from.

In the old days there were strict rules and indicators - posh people said lavatory, napkin and pudding, middle class said toilet, serviette and dessert (which in itself was a good big of French bashing).

These days I don't think people care anything like as much as they used to - and hoorah for that.

koshkha wrote:

WormThatTurned wrote:

I think people are obsessed with class I really do - I still havn't got the foggiest what it is and how it's defined. It really isn't important. It's more important living your life and being happy.

Funny - I don't think people give a damn about class any more. The boundaries are all so blurred and we're heading more towards a US system based on how much money you have got rather than who or where you come from.

In the old days there were strict rules and indicators - posh people said lavatory, napkin and pudding, middle class said toilet, serviette and dessert (which in itself was a good big of French bashing).

These days I don't think people care anything like as much as they used to - and hoorah for that.

Things have got better although I don't think the US system of judging someone 'worth' by how much money they have is an ideal!

While many people might care less about it I still think institutions do operate class distinctions and this is not helped by the presence of a priviliged class, the Royal family constitutionally ruling the country.

Let me just say that I wasn't intending to give the impression that I thought that the US system was any better than the old UK system.

If money were all that counted, Roman Abramovich would be king.

Education breeds success and social class movement. Those who have access to it want to keep it, hence the end of grammars and the introduction of student fees.

Ziggy! wrote:

Education breeds success and social class movement. Those who have access to it want to keep it, hence the end of grammars and the introduction of student fees.

Wow you have a distorted view of the world!

So you are saying that the upper classes want to end grammar schools and university expansion so has not to let the 'plebs' in. Another idea form the 'Handbook of Conspiracy theories' (if this book doesn't exist you should write it Phil!)

Alternatively you could also argue that grammar schools were elitist and ran on a unfair selection process and perpetuated the rule of the upper classes by allowing some of the middle classes in to their club and that student fees are a stealth income tax on the 'high' earners that eventually make money with their degrees!

Yeah, it can hardly be argued that student fees are to keep the educated elite in uni. If this was the case, why on earth would there be income-assessed loans and grants?

Sam_Garland wrote:

Yeah, it can hardly be argued that student fees are to keep the educated elite in uni. If this was the case, why on earth would there be income-assessed loans and grants?

The funding of degrees was a disaster in presentation by having loans even if the payments are income dependent it still puts people off since starting your working life with a massive debt is not appealing.

However if higher education is to be expanded which totally in favour of then it needs to be paid for.

Option one is to fund it directly by all tax payers, many would complain since they don't feel they should have to pay for students having fun and getting a degree that will then leads them to earning more money than many of those who paid for the degree via taxes...

The second option is to get those directly benefiting from the degrees to pay for it i.e. the students. BUT rather than a loan you could have a 'graduate tax'. So has not to burden those that do a degree but end up not earning very much like nurses and other vocational occupations the tax should only be collected from those who pass a certain threshold of earnings say in line with the top rate of income tax... these people would pay a rate that roughly speaking would fund their degree costs over the whole of their working life effectively for most people they would pay off the equivalent of a student loan (interest free) over 40 years or a proportion of it if they hit the threshold late in their careers. It wouldn't come to very much in relation to the salaries they would be earning.

The initial cost of the students would be met by government in the form of a grant as used to be the case in the good old days.

This effectively if targeted correctly would provide FREE education for the poor and low earners and get the rich or moderate to high earners to pay for it. I don't see this as being unfair considering that some degrees medicine, law etc can lead to massive earnings.

Class society just creates divisions at the end of the day - you only have to look at history.

I dont think the upper class come into the equation. Most of their wealth is heridatory, and so not earnt, education perfunctory and irrelevant. A thick posh kid can go to the best university through nepotism but a smart poor kid cant...

Ziggy! wrote:

I dont think the upper class come into the equation. Most of their wealth is heridatory, and so not earnt, education perfunctory and irrelevant. A thick posh kid can go to the best university through nepotism but a smart poor kid cant...

Rubbish! I was a smart poor kid and I got into the best universities through the state school system on full grants without knowing anyone.

And these days it's even easier to do with the universities having quotas to take the poorer kids. The money is still a problem and I'd be in favour of charging higher fees to kids from public schools (whose parents think it's a laugh that they paid 20k a year to the schools and are getting away with a tiny fraction of that for uni fees).

fizzywizzy wrote:

I consider myself middle class and I get the bus.

I love getting the bus - the only undisturbed time I get to read

I think the most common definition is based on the role of the "Head of the household" etc, isn't it?

I love getting the bus too...! (Shame there isn't one from my village to my work..!)