Re: How snobbish are you?
 

Obviously SOR Murray is better than NOR Murray :thumbup: :D

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

I know all sorts of people - those with money and those without but I don't know anyone who would say such a thing (even if they thought it!) I am guessing that these people are friends of yours? If they are then they would know your financial position and if not then why would they be saying something so personal to you when they don't know you. Money can't buy class.

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

If your snobbish and live in Perth then you dont live NOR or SOR you live in the western suburbs

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

probably came from some council estate in the UK and now think they are lord of the manor, tell em to **** off.

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

Exactly. Hence the ignominy of nouveau riche.

A lot of people seem to have fallen into this silly idea that "class" is determined by income. This is not true, and never has been. Class was always - and still is - determined by birthright.

Lord Lichfield was a member of the aristocracy; he was "upper class". That was his birthright; he didn't buy it or earn it. He inherited it. If someone had taken away his photography business and forced him to live on £19,000 a year for the rest of his life, he would still be Lord Lichfield, he would still be a member of the aristocracy, and he would still be upper class.

Australia has no such distinction; all it has is a range of people with different incomes and different jobs. Some earn more than others; some are white colour workers; some are blue collar workers; some don't work at all. This has nothing to do with "class"; it is simply a matter of socio-economics.

A businessman in Toorak is not considered to be of a higher social status than a panel beater in Elizabeth Vale; he simply earns more and has access to a greater range of luxuries. In terms of "class", there is nothing to distinguish him from the panel beater; he has no unique title, and he has no legal, moral or civil privileges that the panel beater does not already enjoy. But if they were living in the UK and the businessman was a peer, the situation would be entirely different. He would be entitled to certain legal and civil privileges purely by virtue of his upper class birthright; privileges automatically denied to the panel beater by virtue of his working class birthright.

Some people (yes, even in Australia) believe that having more money and possessions somehow makes them more important than others. This is makes them snobs, but it does not prove the existence of a class system; nor is it inherently related to the issue of class.

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

When it comes to the UK you are incorrect - Class is largely determined by personal or household per capita income or wealth / net worth, including the ownership of land, property, means of production, etc.
occupation
education and qualifications
family background

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

Wealth has nothing to do with it. I can't become a member of the upper class simply by accumulating vast amounts of money; I would have to marry into the aristocracy or receive a title. In the UK, class is determined by birthright, which in turn is determined by family background. That birthright will largely determine income, occupation, education and qualifications.

Simply being rich doesn't make you upper class. It merely makes you rich. Equally, simply being poor doesn't make you working class. It merely makes you poor.

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

Never looked at it like that before. No wonder other nations are always whinging about our class system, thats because they have no chance of ever getting to the top of it but then why would anyone want to?

Too many people are snobby these days, like their shit doesnt stink and most of them are up to their eyeballs in debt trying to impress everyone else.

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

People say that about Uggs but I am bloody cold!!!! Bogan or no Bogan I plan to be wearing them outside....IN SYDNEY....

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

correct class has nothing to do with money, there has been many poor aristrocrats.

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

:thumbup: id go along with that! :D

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

Cheers! :)

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

We get the same about the suburb we live in and the school we choose to send our children to. The difference is that we aren't mortgaged up to our eyeballs and pay higher council rates so we can say we live in "XYZ" suburb. All those snobs across Marmion Ave in the next suburb have no problem coming across to use the shopping centre or train station but think those of us who live here are lower than dog shit they stepped in.

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

Ye wid if ah slept in it.;):wub:

Re: How snobbish are you?
 

An interesting commentary from an Australian - and that is not supposed to be patronising, Vash. You can say things as a sort of outsider which would embarass a Brit. Remember that the aristocracy or peerage etc is a different matter to the upper class, or, perhaps the highest ranks of the professionals, or establishment, or intelligentsia, or business. The establishment is an interesting one as many of these most privileged people will not have a title - but may end up earning one.

I reckon you both are right. The means of production, as Hebe says, is a Marxian wet dream.:thumbup: In my opinion, Hebel is right in that he talks about factors which indicate, broadly, socio-economic factors, or demographics, which may or may not have any thing to do with net worth.

If you use some sort of 'ad' man's criteria then income (worth) + education, equals a demographic, yes, and it is fairly arbitrary- and aligned to the means of production (not necessarily physical - noone ever pretends that this is completely equitable). You hear the sociologists talk about A, B, C1, C2, D and E, where the middle class at C1 and C2 is split into non-manual/manual. This is basically a stratification system. A University Professor is always going to be higher than a plumber who is earning more than he is. And in any case, if you are a senior academic at Oxbridge, your actual earning capacity is by the by. This is not just the UK, it works like this in most countries. The notion of the aristocracy is not just a UK thing either. Even in countries without a peerage, they will have an elite.

People also talk in terms of Working class, Middle Class (clerical), Middle class (semi-professional), Upper Class etc, from a traditional viewpoint, and literal sense. You name it.

In another sense, class as a socio-economic measure is the leverage or the clout - influence - you bring to society. Obviously a media magnate is higher up the pecking order than a binman even if the binman outearns a bank clerk. Other people talk about status or prestige - where membership of a society bring rewards out of all proportion to the position. If you are a Premiership soccer player then you have hit the jackpot.

Vash is right in that money doesn't buy you class, (although a grammar school boy who hits the big time in the city might see some doors open). Education, plus upbringing does. And this does not have to be expensive, or exclusive, although it helps. There are still institutions in Australia and the UK where a sign of some sort of pedigree (unfortunate word), or fit, gets you somewhere.. I find that Australia is the same as the UK, but it is not so entrenched. A mate of mine is rough as guts, but he was educated at King's in Sydney. Didn't seem to have got him anywhere, save a good bank job to help pay the interest on the farm.

We find that the person is important. If someone is an arse they're an arse whatever they do. Obviously there are generalisations etc. You get on with people with similar interests, for us this is not necessarily connected with materialism or money, but certainly attitude to life. If you've having fun, and am happy spirutually (I'm no Buddhist monk) and physically, and life is rewarding, then you've got it wrapped. If someone is as dull as ditchwater then they are just dull.

Reverse snobbery is the worst.