[Drapetomanic]

What I really take issue with is the notion that those who have money earned it through hard graft; whereas those who haven’t could have earned it if they had tried hard enough.

Your ability to earn money is dependent on a mixture of your genetic endowments, upbringing and the effects of your immediate environment I.E. luck. It’s no secret that if your from a rich family who send you to private school surrounded by motivated teachers and peers your more likely to go on to university and a well paid job. Alternatively, if your from a working class background but have a helpful family that teach you the value of hard work and persistence your more likely to succeed in comparison to someone from an abusive home. In both cases the prospects of an individual aren’t dependent on the individual themselves.

So when I see the top 1% with a large chunk of the UK’s wealth I get annoyed, because for the majority of those people, their upbringing has massively increased their chances of being in the 1%. This is unfair, and as long as we have a social system in which certain people have a significantly greater quality of life in comparison to others based on ‘luck’ I’ll stay annoyed.

That isn’t to say I’m prejudiced against the rich, essentially it’s not their fault they’ve received their endowments. It’s the system in place which should take the brunt of the criticism. I'd also like to say that the relative quality of life of the working classes in the UK in comparison to other countries has no bearing on whether or not people are justified in calling our current methods of wealth distribution unfair.

[Arteta]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
What I really take issue with is the notion that those who have money earned it through hard graft; whereas those who haven’t could have earned it if they had tried hard enough.

Your ability to earn money is dependent on a mixture of your genetic endowments, upbringing and the effects of your immediate environment I.E. luck. It’s no secret that if your from a rich family who send you to private school surrounded by motivated teachers and peers your more likely to go on to university and a well paid job. Alternatively, if your from a working class background but have a helpful family that teach you the value of hard work and persistence your more likely to succeed in comparison to someone from an abusive home. In both cases the prospects of an individual aren’t dependent on the individual themselves.

So when I see the top 1% with a large chunk of the UK’s wealth I get annoyed, because for the majority of those people, their upbringing has massively increased their chances of being in the 1%. This is unfair, and as long as we have a social system in which certain people have a significantly greater quality of life in comparison to others based on ‘luck’ I’ll stay annoyed.

That isn’t to say I’m prejudiced against the rich, essentially it’s not their fault they’ve received their endowments. It’s the system in place which should take the brunt of the criticism. I'd also like to say that the relative quality of life of the working classes in the UK in comparison to other countries has no bearing on whether or not people are justified in calling our current methods of wealth distribution unfair.

But why should things be fair? I do understand your concerns and some people clearly have better start in life than others, but that's just nature. I mean if you look at all animals, their mothers usually teach them about life and try to give them their best start. It may not be 'fair', but it's kind of how life works. If a rich person has the means to provide their child with things that others don't have access to, then it's not cheating in any way. I think the big problem in history and certainly now in countries like China, Russia and Brazil is that the top 10 or 20% have almost everything and they're not letting the rest in, which means poverty. This doesn't happen in the UK. The top 1% might hold a lot of money, but it's not stopping the rest from earning.

What would you think about the likes of Mark Zuckerberg? Now i'm not an expert on him, but i'm sure he had a normal-ish American middle class upbringing, he's snobby and obviously had privileges, but he wasn't part of the elites. He thought of a truly genius idea and did it before the rest could. Now he might be worth 100 billion and i'm sure many of people who have grafted hard for 50 years down a mine truly hate him. He earned it though. He may not have literally worked hard, but he did make himself valuable and thus in a way deserves the lifestyle he chooses.

Also, as I said before, working hard doesn't equal success, but it does go a long way and in most cases (with at least reasonable intelligence) it secures a comfy lifestyle where you don't worry too much about money. There will be some people out there who are just stupid but work very hard and don't get anywhere and I do feel bad or them. My only major rage factor about wealthy people is when they manage to produce the Paris Hilton's of the world. I wouldn't say that this is common.

[PendulumBoB]

(Original post by srascal8)
Yeah, well they're a business so of course they're gonna pay bloody tax! More to the point, these casino bankers have caused an inconvenience for 85% of society, that's why they need to be divided into retail and investment banking divisions. They can only play with the money they make, not the money ordinary citizens depend on, then, when they fail, they'll end up like Lehmann Brothers; they won't be bailed out.

So the government have still made a profit on them in spite of the bailout?

The problems started in the retail sector, so really ordinary people are at least as much to blame as the bankers are.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Arteta)
But why should things be fair?

And I could ask you why shouldn't things be fair?

(Original post by Arteta)
There will be some people out there who are just stupid but work very hard and don't get anywhere and I do feel bad or them.

And there are also quite a lot of normal people out there, not geniuses but certainly not stupid, who do not earn that much either.

(Original post by Arteta)
My brother's finished his masters and has been unemployed for a while now and he's applied for like 200 jobs with no real luck.

So surely then you should be able to understand why people like myself get annoyed when people try to claim the poor are only poor because they choose to be or that they are lazy. If your brother managed a masters, and has applied for over 200 jobs, then he clearly is not lazy. Yet because of circumstances outside of his control, he is getting no where.

[infernalcradle]

(Original post by philistine)
I've already expressed my views on the whole 'despising the rich for no apparent reason' mindset that seems to plague the majority of persons in other threads on similar topics, and I agree with a lot of what you say.

My parents are those kind of 'blah blah bankers, so-and-so got a golden handshake' etc, and it makes me facepalm every time.

haha, mine are the complete opposite....

they admire them for getting to such a position and actively encourage my brother (who wants to go into IB) to go for it

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Arteta)
Most people have a stable-ish home that they can live in until 18

And quite a lot do not.

(Original post by Arteta)
even if you become homeless before 18 you'll be assigned a home with priority

If the waiting list is not too long.

(Original post by Arteta)
Even if you decide not to go to college, you can get full-time work at somewhere like Asda which should see you getting at least £800 per month, which isn't bad for a 16 year old.

Not likely. There is huge competition, even for supermarket jobs. You would probably end up looking for such a job for quite a long time.

(Original post by Arteta)
I think we have a fairly stable education system for those who want to stay on it

It depends which school you go to.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Arteta)
It's interesting that in the UK we get to sort of late secondary school/college and then think "Shall I go to university?" (obviously some families are different, some will never think of university and other expect it) but in America you're brought up sort of expected to go to university. It may be because of the high fees, causing parents to save from a child's birth, it's just my guess though.

I disagree. I think in todays society most people are expected to go to university. Or at least, if you have half a brain and do decent at school you are.

(Original post by Arteta)
I really do feel bad for people born into hopeless families, especially in countries like Brazil where a single mother may have several children and no income, so the children leave school at like 13 (or younger) to help out by working, but of course are ****ed because they have no education, but it's probably almost unheard of in the UK.

Certainly the children leaving school isn't really happening. But children being born into hopeless families, where the mother may be a single mother with multiple kids and no income - that certainly does happen.

(Original post by Arteta)
I've never known anything about EMA because i've never been on it, but i'm sure it was too little to live on anyway? I think most people sort of stay living at home until the end of college, like they did for school, so it's not a massive problem

EMA was never enough to support yourself. That wasn't the point. The point was to help people from low income families continue in education. Sixth form / college usually requires a little more money than going to school does. You often find that transport costs increase (some sixth forms / colleges are further away than the school was, and the person now has to pay adult prices). Etc etc. EMA was supposed to help with those costs.

(Original post by Arteta)
You can't blame the industries that practice it though.

Of course you can. They are the ones who are practising it! Who else would you blame but the people pushing it? Even more so the case with companies who use endless supplies of interns rather than actually employing somebody.

[Arteta]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
1. And quite a lot do not.
2.If the waiting list is not too long.
3.Not likely. There is huge competition, even for supermarket jobs. You would probably end up looking for such a job for quite a long time.
4. It depends which school you go to.

1. It's a better situation than those in the rest of the world.
2. Homeless people under 18 are given priority. In the event that there is a list (I don't know what the reality is) then the government has done what it can with its resources. It's still more than any other country.
3. It doesn't seem hard to me, but even if you're right then why does that excuse the bashing of 'rich' people?
4. The level of education in the UK is superior to the majority of the world.

I may sound repetitive, but it's because I think you've missed the point a little. People in the UK seem to expect that everything should be given to them. The government is doing the best it can to ensure that people live as well as they can. Current society is more privileged than almost anywhere else in the world for as long as humans have existed; i'd say that's pretty good going and you're expecting more? It's nice to advance, but you're taking basic things for granted.

Yes, there are poor people in the world, but why is it the rich peoples fault? 100 years ago you'd have a valid point; most people were oppressed, but they're not any longer. Although it's nice to help people that aren't so fortunate, they're not the responsibility of the rich.

The fact is, our generosity isn't replicated in quite the same way with almost all other life on this planet. Just because you've been born into the world doesn't mean that you deserve certain things. Now that humans have advanced to the stage that we're at it's a good idea to help others to attempt to eradicate poverty, but it's certainly not owed to them. People have hard lives, it's a fact and it happens with all species, so why is it that people EXPECT services such as the NHS or JSA as though they're basic human requirements; they're not.

Rich people can't control supply and demand either. If there are few jobs available and too many people, then it's going to be hard for some to get jobs at all. That's not the fault of the rich. Ironically the only thing that the rich could do to ensure that more households get income would be to hire them, which means either owning a business or hiring maid staff, which makes them more hated by the poor.
As we've established that competition is high for simple jobs, then perhaps you could argue that the minimum wage is a bad idea. I assume you'll be disgusted by this, but if there was no minimum wage (or it was very low) then more people would have jobs, rather than some having income and others having none.

[Arteta]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
1. I disagree. I think in todays society most people are expected to go to university. Or at least, if you have half a brain and do decent at school you are.


2. Certainly the children leaving school isn't really happening. But children being born into hopeless families, where the mother may be a single mother with multiple kids and no income - that certainly does happen.


3. EMA was never enough to support yourself. That wasn't the point. The point was to help people from low income families continue in education. Sixth form / college usually requires a little more money than going to school does. You often find that transport costs increase (some sixth forms / colleges are further away than the school was, and the person now has to pay adult prices). Etc etc. EMA was supposed to help with those costs.



4. Of course you can. They are the ones who are practising it! Who else would you blame but the people pushing it? Even more so the case with companies who use endless supplies of interns rather than actually employing somebody.

1. I already said that I don't think everybody should go to university because it makes it redundant, but if most people of all social classes are encouraged to go to university then that's a good thing, right? The rich certainly aren't suffocating the poor if the poor are encouraged to go to university.

2. See my post before this.

3. Nothing to argue about.

4. Well let's see the industries side for a second. You own a company and you need some people to do a good job. You've had some bad experiences with hiring staff that weren't good enough and they weren't value for money. There are many people trying for the positions that you advertise, surely the only way to be sure that they'll fill the role is by their previous experience. The people desperate for a job offer their services for free as the company has little to lose, the company tries the person, gives them experience and will possibly hire them. The concept isn't too evil, but it's being misused grossly. Even if you subtract morality from the equation then it's still not the industry's fault. If 10 people with the same skills apply for a job, you go for the cheapest, if some offer to do it for free for a period of time then it's only logical. It's business. The government should be the ones restricting this.

[WelshBluebird]

Your argument seems to fall down to the line that we have it better than some other countries. While that may be correct, that does not mean we cannot do things better. For example, we have less crime than many other parts of the world, that does not mean we should stop trying to eradicate the crime we do have.

(Original post by Arteta)
As we've established that competition is high for simple jobs, then perhaps you could argue that the minimum wage is a bad idea. I assume you'll be disgusted by this, but if there was no minimum wage (or it was very low) then more people would have jobs, rather than some having income and others having none.

I fail to see how someone working and still living in poverty (which is what would happen if we had no minimum wage) is any better than someone not working and just about getting buy (which is what we have now thanks to our welfare system).

[Arteta]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Your argument seems to fall down to the line that we have it better than some other countries. While that may be correct, that does not mean we cannot do things better. For example, we have less crime than many other parts of the world, that does not mean we should stop trying to eradicate the crime we do have.


I fail to see how someone working and still living in poverty (which is what would happen if we had no minimum wage) is any better than someone not working and just about getting buy (which is what we have now thanks to our welfare system).

Of course we could always do better, but this isn't what the argument is originally about. I'm saying that people shouldn't hate the rich like they seem to. The rich aren't really holding them back and the quality of life is very high in the UK. It's not perfect, but it's very good, which is an indicator that the rich aren't just keeping all of the wealth. This seems to matter little in the eyes of a lot of working class people, who seem content in criticising people who are better off than themselves. I also wanted to establish that there's a lot of help for people to better themselves. Realistically many working class people can become rich themselves; obviously it's not easy because the nature of being 'rich' is that it's relative to what's around, because it's not possible to have too many rich people. It doesn't matter if we educate every single person to a higher standard and reduce poverty to 0% and create a Utopian equal opportunities, there will still be a minority that can be considered rich and can afford a lot more that others. There is no need to hate people for having better circumstances (unless they really didn't deserve it like Paris Hilton).

On the minimum wage argument, many supposedly poor working class people still buy TV's and holidays and others get none at all. If minimum wage was lower then they'd all afford a roof over their head and food. This isn't possible nowadays though because you can't really go backwards, but if minimum wage wasn't introduced then things like food wouldn't cost as much as it does now. The general cost of food items are really set for those on a wage, including those on minimum wage, but it doesn't cater for those on JSA (although they can literally survive on the real ****ty foods). If all wages were lower then all food should in theory be lower, allowing everybody to afford the same basic diet. I mean it is really conjecture, but the argument is very valid. This may be a pointless argument if we're not going to see eye to eye.

[Karlito1978]

(Original post by Arteta)
I just felt like having a little rant. As a little disclaimer i'll just say that we all know that you can't generalise with absolute precision, but that doesn't mean that grouping people together is an act of futility.

Anyways, I'm sick of all this reverse snobbery bull****. British people feel that they are owed certain things for nothing. A lot of people who end up successful work HARD for that money, then most people feel they should be punished for their success with higher taxes and pay cuts.

In some ways I feel that Victorian values are still the greatest. Obviously people deserve to have their vote and it shouldn't be any other way, but the people don't know what's good for them. It's like letting a child into a sweet shop. I don't want to turn this into a political bashing, but Labour in particular seem to throw out all of these 'fair' sounding ideals that the people eat up right away, but little do they know that it's not actually a good thing. Every time I see one of these newspaper reports about top management being punished or executives receiving pay cuts it makes me rage a little. The fact is, people love to hear that their bosses are being called out for whatever reason.
Now I come from a fairly working class background and I detest nothing more than hearing of this whole 'local lad' propaganda that accompany's the whole 'hate the rich person' attitude. I think people in England are spoiled and they're acting up over nothing much. I love that our government has an NHS and I greatly appreciate it, but everybody else seems to think that they deserve it. Nobody seems grateful. The way I see it, at this point in life I have contributed nothing to my country, yet I'm allowed free healthcare and education, not to mention countless opportunities that could see me working almost anywhere I want. How? Because the government gave me education and even a student loan to ensure that I study what I want. So the government decides to make some national cuts in order to save money and people go nuts and start protesting? Are we forgetting that our government has done this in the best interests of our nation? Now I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but we appear to have one of the least corrupt governments in the world, yet people bang on about how the 'rich bastards' are suffocating them. The whole expenses scandal is pathetic when you consider the reality of corrupt governments.

In World War II Winston Churchill spent a lot of public tax money taking holidays with Roosevelt. These expensive holidays cemented a tight relationship between the leaders and America worked with us to win the war. If that happened these days people would be in uproar that they have to pay 2p towards other people having fun, regardless of how important it really is.
Also, people are quite happy to blame the recession on the 'greedy bankers' but have failed to mention that buying TV's and phones with credit cards could have had some effect. People now have to pay for the reckless lifestyles they've had, but they can't seem to admit that they haven't helped the situation.

Not everybody has an easy situation, but there have been opportunities for British people for quite some time. If they really wanted to make something of themselves then they could have simply achieved in school and gone on to higher education (though not necessary for some), there haven't been any massive barriers for success, but now those people who didn't take the opportunities are getting mad at the people who have been successful and they call for pay cuts etc. If people don't think that they have opportunities available to them then they should compare the UK to the rest of the world. Even Americans have doors closed because if you don't have money you can't get so far. In England, university is affordable and as we have (up until now) been paying ridiculously low fees and our universities have consequently struggled to compete with the likes of American institutions who have seemingly unlimited funds; not that money is everything, but it helps. Now we have raised fees and yet again people are going nuts, despite the fact that almost anybody can get a student loan.

I just don't get it. It's like everybody grows up and just expects handouts. It's a hard world yet you don't even have to fight for survival anymore, but those who fight hard can reap bigger rewards. Those who don't fight at all receive very little and then complain about the one's who did make something of themselves. I think the typical 'rich bastard' argument is outdated; sure, a long time ago people were trapped and couldn't better themselves, whilst the rich stayed rich, but those days are gone. The upper class don't have money anymore, the working class don't have money either and the 'middle class' do (though class isn't defined by money). Why? Because opportunities aren't just limited to a handful of families, the rich have worked hard to make sure that they are valuable, and they earn a lot of money as a consequence. Those who haven't worked hard may have come up with a truly genius idea that substitutes hard work. It's always the cool kids at the back of class playing with their iPod that missed the boat and are now teaching their children to hate 'rich scum'.

This probably won't account for the majority of the TSR population, but i'm sure some people may understand what I mean. I'm expecting that i'll get some hate in this thread. Anyway, i'm off to the gym!

Can't be bothered reading all of that half gestated gibberish but i did read the bit about Roosevelt helping us in the war because of Chruchill's expensive holidays which did make LOL.

Roosevelt helped us out because of the land lease agreement which wsa extremely beneficial to his country, he also wanted the first computer (invented by A Turing) and wanted Britain to disband its empire to elevate his country to super power status.

Please, please stop posting as you highlighting your extreme ignorance.

[Karlito1978]

(Original post by Arteta)
Of course we could always do better, but this isn't what the argument is originally about. I'm saying that people shouldn't hate the rich like they seem to. The rich aren't really holding them back and the quality of life is very high in the UK. It's not perfect, but it's very good, which is an indicator that the rich aren't just keeping all of the wealth. This seems to matter little in the eyes of a lot of working class people, who seem content in criticising people who are better off than themselves. I also wanted to establish that there's a lot of help for people to better themselves. Realistically many working class people can become rich themselves; obviously it's not easy because the nature of being 'rich' is that it's relative to what's around, because it's not possible to have too many rich people. It doesn't matter if we educate every single person to a higher standard and reduce poverty to 0% and create a Utopian equal opportunities, there will still be a minority that can be considered rich and can afford a lot more that others. There is no need to hate people for having better circumstances (unless they really didn't deserve it like Paris Hilton).

On the minimum wage argument, many supposedly poor working class people still buy TV's and holidays and others get none at all. If minimum wage was lower then they'd all afford a roof over their head and food. This isn't possible nowadays though because you can't really go backwards, but if minimum wage wasn't introduced then things like food wouldn't cost as much as it does now. The general cost of food items are really set for those on a wage, including those on minimum wage, but it doesn't cater for those on JSA (although they can literally survive on the real ****ty foods). If all wages were lower then all food should in theory be lower, allowing everybody to afford the same basic diet. I mean it is really conjecture, but the argument is very valid. This may be a pointless argument if we're not going to see eye to eye.

Oh god.

[screenager2004]

A lot of what you say is very true, but I have to disagree with a few points:

You seem to have a bit of an inaccurate picture of what the 'working class' is, in the working class culture, education is demonised, status is only gained from employment. The parents won't have gone to further education, and they perceive their child's aspiration too further education as an insult, as if the child is looking down on them by wanting to 'do better'. As a child I was told to get a job, not go to college/uni. I was taught this over and over again, the only reason I went to Uni was because I got several A grades, if I had been an average student I wouldn't have gone. I was frequently ridiculed and shouted at for continuing my education because it was seen to be an extension of childhood, and not joining 'the real world'.

These cultural values are a MASSIVE barrier to meritocracy. Many parents from working class backgrounds demand rent from their children as soon as they reach 16 (or sometimes younger), meaning the child has to work to stay in the house, and the time spent working detracts from their studies massively (another way the scrapping of the EMA will disadvantage poor kids). Many working class parents refuse to sign the documents for Student Loans declaring the household income out of 'integrity' so the child cannot claim the means-tested maintenance grants they are legally entitled to.

It's a massive cultural gap that is ignored by the politicians and the well-off students, as someone professing themselves to be 'working class' I thought you'd be aware of that, OP.

[Clumsy_Chemist]

(Original post by screenager2004)
A lot of what you say is very true, but I have to disagree with a few points:

You seem to have a bit of an inaccurate picture of what the 'working class' is, in the working class culture, education is demonised, status is only gained from employment. The parents won't have gone to further education, and they perceive their child's aspiration too further education as an insult, as if the child is looking down on them by wanting to 'do better'. As a child I was told to get a job, not go to college/uni. I was taught this over and over again, the only reason I went to Uni was because I got several A grades, if I had been an average student I wouldn't have gone. I was frequently ridiculed and shouted at for continuing my education because it was seen to be an extension of childhood, and not joining 'the real world'.

These cultural values are a MASSIVE barrier to meritocracy. Many parents from working class backgrounds demand rent from their children as soon as they reach 16 (or sometimes younger), meaning the child has to work to stay in the house, and the time spent working detracts from their studies massively (another way the scrapping of the EMA will disadvantage poor kids). Many working class parents refuse to sign the documents for Student Loans declaring the household income out of 'integrity' so the child cannot claim the means-tested maintenance grants they are legally entitled to.

It's a massive cultural gap that is ignored by the politicians and the well-off students, as someone professing themselves to be 'working class' I thought you'd be aware of that, OP.

I disagree, I don't think all working class parents are like that. My nan was definately working class, and my mum and her sister were brought up by working class parents in a working class area. Yet my mum and aunt both have university degrees and my nan, after sending them to uni, got herself a degree as a mature student herself.

[Queen Ducky]

I agree that we shouldn't expect hand outs just because! This is very much the American dream thing

[Arteta]

(Original post by Karlito1978)
Can't be bothered reading all of that half gestated gibberish but i did read the bit about Roosevelt helping us in the war because of Chruchill's expensive holidays which did make LOL.

Roosevelt helped us out because of the land lease agreement which wsa extremely beneficial to his country, he also wanted the first computer (invented by A Turing) and wanted Britain to disband its empire to elevate his country to super power status.

Please, please stop posting as you highlighting your extreme ignorance.

Did I say that the whole involvement of the USA in WWII was purely based on a friendship? My point is that it's very logical that they establish a strong relationship at the expense of the tax money, which wouldn't go down well today.

(Original post by Karlito1978)
Oh god.

You haven't really offered any arguments as to why I'm so stupid or ignorant, other than the point above, which was clearly unnecessary. As though I'd really think that the whole of the USA changed their country and lost lives, money and resources on the basis of friendship.

[Arteta]

(Original post by screenager2004)
A lot of what you say is very true, but I have to disagree with a few points:

You seem to have a bit of an inaccurate picture of what the 'working class' is, in the working class culture, education is demonised, status is only gained from employment. The parents won't have gone to further education, and they perceive their child's aspiration too further education as an insult, as if the child is looking down on them by wanting to 'do better'. As a child I was told to get a job, not go to college/uni. I was taught this over and over again, the only reason I went to Uni was because I got several A grades, if I had been an average student I wouldn't have gone. I was frequently ridiculed and shouted at for continuing my education because it was seen to be an extension of childhood, and not joining 'the real world'.

These cultural values are a MASSIVE barrier to meritocracy. Many parents from working class backgrounds demand rent from their children as soon as they reach 16 (or sometimes younger), meaning the child has to work to stay in the house, and the time spent working detracts from their studies massively (another way the scrapping of the EMA will disadvantage poor kids). Many working class parents refuse to sign the documents for Student Loans declaring the household income out of 'integrity' so the child cannot claim the means-tested maintenance grants they are legally entitled to.

It's a massive cultural gap that is ignored by the politicians and the well-off students, as someone professing themselves to be 'working class' I thought you'd be aware of that, OP.

Although I see your point and find it very logical, it's simply not the case for everybody. My parents are definitely working class; it's in their values, their hobbies and their careers, but they have still encouraged me to do well and have always sacrificed their lives to make sure that I have what I need and have joined various sports clubs etc. My Dad doesn't want me to work shifts in a factory like he does. As for the 'joining the real world' argument, I do find that to be spot on. They do sometimes like to dampen my dreams and aspirations by telling me to join the real world. When I went travelling for a while they were so against it because I should have been working instead, or I should have done it later in life, when in reality it would never happen. They're very much of the opinion that I need to get into work ASAP (when not studying) as though i'll miss the boat. In my experience many university students seem to mess around for a while before settling down, and these days it's much more possible, but they feel that not getting serious about a career immediately after university will trap me for life.

In my old student house we had a cleaner and she had a very working class attitude like you mentioned. She often criticised us for being lazy because we wake up at 10am instead of grafting hard, or if we didn't always have a part time job. She acted like mummy and daddy paid for everything (certainly not true for me, I was independent) and liked to go on about how we should join reality.

[NW86]

(Original post by Arteta)
I just felt like having a little rant. As a little disclaimer i'll just say that we all know that you can't generalise with absolute precision, but that doesn't mean that grouping people together is an act of futility.

Anyways, I'm sick of all this reverse snobbery bull****. British people feel that they are owed certain things for nothing. A lot of people who end up successful work HARD for that money, then most people feel they should be punished for their success with higher taxes and pay cuts.

In some ways I feel that Victorian values are still the greatest. Obviously people deserve to have their vote and it shouldn't be any other way, but the people don't know what's good for them. It's like letting a child into a sweet shop. I don't want to turn this into a political bashing, but Labour in particular seem to throw out all of these 'fair' sounding ideals that the people eat up right away, but little do they know that it's not actually a good thing. Every time I see one of these newspaper reports about top management being punished or executives receiving pay cuts it makes me rage a little. The fact is, people love to hear that their bosses are being called out for whatever reason.
Now I come from a fairly working class background and I detest nothing more than hearing of this whole 'local lad' propaganda that accompany's the whole 'hate the rich person' attitude. I think people in England are spoiled and they're acting up over nothing much. I love that our government has an NHS and I greatly appreciate it, but everybody else seems to think that they deserve it. Nobody seems grateful. The way I see it, at this point in life I have contributed nothing to my country, yet I'm allowed free healthcare and education, not to mention countless opportunities that could see me working almost anywhere I want. How? Because the government gave me education and even a student loan to ensure that I study what I want. So the government decides to make some national cuts in order to save money and people go nuts and start protesting? Are we forgetting that our government has done this in the best interests of our nation? Now I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but we appear to have one of the least corrupt governments in the world, yet people bang on about how the 'rich bastards' are suffocating them. The whole expenses scandal is pathetic when you consider the reality of corrupt governments.

In World War II Winston Churchill spent a lot of public tax money taking holidays with Roosevelt. These expensive holidays cemented a tight relationship between the leaders and America worked with us to win the war. If that happened these days people would be in uproar that they have to pay 2p towards other people having fun, regardless of how important it really is.
Also, people are quite happy to blame the recession on the 'greedy bankers' but have failed to mention that buying TV's and phones with credit cards could have had some effect. People now have to pay for the reckless lifestyles they've had, but they can't seem to admit that they haven't helped the situation.

Not everybody has an easy situation, but there have been opportunities for British people for quite some time. If they really wanted to make something of themselves then they could have simply achieved in school and gone on to higher education (though not necessary for some), there haven't been any massive barriers for success, but now those people who didn't take the opportunities are getting mad at the people who have been successful and they call for pay cuts etc. If people don't think that they have opportunities available to them then they should compare the UK to the rest of the world. Even Americans have doors closed because if you don't have money you can't get so far. In England, university is affordable and as we have (up until now) been paying ridiculously low fees and our universities have consequently struggled to compete with the likes of American institutions who have seemingly unlimited funds; not that money is everything, but it helps. Now we have raised fees and yet again people are going nuts, despite the fact that almost anybody can get a student loan.

I just don't get it. It's like everybody grows up and just expects handouts. It's a hard world yet you don't even have to fight for survival anymore, but those who fight hard can reap bigger rewards. Those who don't fight at all receive very little and then complain about the one's who did make something of themselves. I think the typical 'rich bastard' argument is outdated; sure, a long time ago people were trapped and couldn't better themselves, whilst the rich stayed rich, but those days are gone. The upper class don't have money anymore, the working class don't have money either and the 'middle class' do (though class isn't defined by money). Why? Because opportunities aren't just limited to a handful of families, the rich have worked hard to make sure that they are valuable, and they earn a lot of money as a consequence. Those who haven't worked hard may have come up with a truly genius idea that substitutes hard work. It's always the cool kids at the back of class playing with their iPod that missed the boat and are now teaching their children to hate 'rich scum'.

This probably won't account for the majority of the TSR population, but i'm sure some people may understand what I mean. I'm expecting that i'll get some hate in this thread. Anyway, i'm off to the gym!

To be honest, that was really long, and it seemed like a whingey rant from what I read. I was gonna neg you, just because y'no. Then I saw 48 people had pos'ed and 18 neg'ed... At that point I was definetly going to neg you.

Then I saw "Anyway, I'm off to the gym"

Boom! And now for some deadlifts.

What a way to end a rant, pos rep sir.

[Fallen]

(Original post by falseprofit)
Us average folk like to believe that the majority of the wealthy are the undeserving. They either inherited it or lied and cheated to acquire it. We then have to believe that the ones who actually achieved wealth by their own merit are the exceptions. Without this belief social policies would be undeniably detestable. I tend to believe the opposite. I truly think that most of the wealthy are the small business men who have taken considerable chances in their lives and worked hard. The corrupt bankers and trust fund billionaires are a much noticed minority. My judgement may be wrong, but at least my mistake would be based in a misconception, and not a desire to improve my own lot in life.

I agree most rich people got there through merit and hard work.
My dad, as a banker and executive, is hated by most of the country it seems (not personally, just what he does for a living). Yet nobody seems to remember that he came to this country from Africa with £200 in his pocket and one month's rent pre-paid. From that day he has contributed to the economy more than 99% of the population, and took nothing out as a child (as he was not raised or educated here).
Definitely deserving of the public's hate.