Originally Posted by fletcher m (Post 10037671)

How about the guy, 27, done his degree and masters, working on a Phd, wants a job, can't get one and will live in poverty for the rest of his life, but he knows all about CAMRA and real ales, his he middle class? i just don't get it.

Originally Posted by fletcher m (Post 10037671)

So what constitutes who is in what class? Is one middle class because of private education, professional qualifications, accent, home owner, cocaine habit, social standing and the circle of friends that you have, how much money you earn, how you hold your fork, or how you tip the soup bowl when finishing off. Perhaps if you have stout shoes and a tweed suit. Maybe it is what the old man had, before he left it all to his thai bride second wife? Anyone care to explain middle class criteria. Because if a bright kid from a council estate can get to uni and graduate as a doctor, I might consider him to be middle class. How about the guy, 27, done his degree and masters, working on a Phd, wants a job, can't get one and will live in poverty for the rest of his life, but he knows all about CAMRA and real ales, his he middle class? i just don't get it.

Canada roll on!

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 10038298)

The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification

1. Higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations
1.1 Large employers and higher managerial and administrative occupations
1.2 Higher professional occupations

2. Lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations
3. Intermediate occupations
4. Small employers and own account workers
5. Lower supervisory and technical occupations
6. Semi-routine occupations
7. Routine occupations

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 10037813)

What exactly is the point of this thread? What are we supposed to be wondering? What's this Lowri turner got to do with it?

Originally Posted by FirstRatofftheShipUK (Post 10039013)

Re: Lowri Turner - Titantic 2012

Ok. A less abstract scenario then for Jings & Co to consider as requested:

Titantic 2012. Maiden voyage to Canada. You run the ship for this historical re-make and have 9x tickets of equal value and price. 3 x each ticket, for each of the original 3 x 'class' compartments from 1912:

1) 1st
2) 2nd
3) 3rd/Steerage

It is your job to place 9 x people living in The UK (as known to the public) into those compartments.

The participants have all agreed that there is no monetary difference between the tickets and have agreed that you have use your absolute discretion when determining their 'class'.

Who goes where, justifying each choice.

FROTSUK

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 10039293)

If the participants in this silly scenario agree that there is no difference in price between a first class cabin and a steerage bunk, then I'd stick them all in steerage and advise them to wisen up PDQ.

Originally Posted by FirstRatofftheShipUK (Post 10041035)

Blending two related threads here.
Ok, I take responsibility for this misunderstanding; I had forgotten that there are some on BE who prefer the 'paint by numbers' approach to abstract problems.

Therefore I have asked my 3 year old to assist, and, using the keypad she has helped produce the pretty picture below which should help. It is printable so after joining up the dots and dsahes, put it on the fridge:

Class Dynamics in Canada

/\ /\ /\
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |

Class Dynamics in The UK

/\
| |
| |
| | /\ /\
| | / \ /
| | / \ /
| | / \/
--------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| \/
--------------------------------------
|
<---------------------------------------------------------------->

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 10041243)

Well, that was random.

Originally Posted by FirstRatofftheShipUK (Post 10041035)

It is printable so after joining up the dots and dsahes, put it on the fridge:

Originally Posted by christmasoompa (Post 10036841)

Yes, I've read that thread.



I would disagree with that, but then I didn't agree with your 'Person A v Person B' analogies in the thread either.

As an example, my father, who would have been very much a 'Person B' in your analogy i.e. had a working class father who couldn't afford to pay for education, attended Rugby school. One of the highest regarded and most expensive private schools in the country, and he got in with a scholarship so his background and lack of family money made bugger all difference.



If I knew who on earth she was I would do. Never heard of her before though.

:)

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10041279)

I think the idea (of the diagram) is to show that, in Canada, everyone is equally upwardly mobile whereas, in the UK, some put their left leg in, some put their left leg out, some do the oaky cokey and turn about.

The trouble is that a rising tide raising all ships equally doesn't mean too much, the Titanic's still stuck at the bottom with the pyjama clad smokers outside the mall.

KnowwotImean?

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 10042002)

It doesn't seem to matter whether they're super rich or desperately poor how come does everybody in Canada or the US seems to profess they're middle class? The middle class is just a sycophantic grubby and grasping scourge of society. Why would anyone want to be one of them?