The Student Room Group

What does "working class" mean?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Bill_Gates
you have to work for a living

middle class you live in constant anxiety and need to follow the rich even at the cost of high debts

rich you don't need to do anything

Damn Bill... Da*** my man? I'm tryna rep you but I did it too much recently so I can't. Stop coming up with good posts.
Reply 41
Which means that fat women not only have only themselves to blame for being obese, but also for being poor? It's an interesting idea, but I don't think I'll venture that opinion in public!
PC term for poor people.
Original post by T.L
I generally agree, but they're not "obstacles" that other people don't face. Everyone has to start off motivating themself. If working class families don't have aspirational children, then that is directly and only the fault of their parents.
In the last few years, this country has filled up with people striving to succeed who were brought up in countries where aspiration, ambition and enterprise was actually illegal. The only excuse for the disgraceful lassitude of a lot of these people is the shower of half-brained left-wing sociologists, unionised teachers, and socialist public sector workers who seek to make victims of them in order to create a dependent client constituency for themselves.


Of course many people who we would surely think of as working class, did defer their ' pleasures'. They did long apprenticeships on poverty pay until they were 20 or so and were still at the mercy of factory closures etc. often affecting whole towns.

I worked for a while in an inner city Secondary School and was appalled by the way the parents of many of the children looked ; as if the cares of the world were on their shoulders: old before their time. They looked after their children however, There were no ragged children and they were all turned out well if with poorer quality clothes than richer children.

Families such as these are living on the edge all the time. They know that their jobs could end from one day to the next. They have little or no savings. They have, therefore no security when it comes to housing, children being moved from school to school as their tenancies come to an end. These children are anxious, fearful, maybe the principal carers for their mother/father with no help from anyone. Any request for money from the school or from an unexpected bill is a disaster. They possess very little. Maybe only one set of clothes for school and certainly no toys, books or expensive junk such as clutters every richer child's bedroom. Sports/ PE wear/ equipment are out of the question.

The 'unionised' teachers at the school were devoted to the school; giving up weekends, holidays,( unpaid of course) to take children out into the countryside, to theatres , clubs etc. buying enormous amount of books, equipment etc. out of their own pocket.

My mother came from such a background but being next to the youngest had financial help from her older sisters and went on to higher education. The older sisters had to take full time jobs at the first opportunity.

How lucky are those who are ignorant of such lives and can sleep sound at night.


Considering the huge problems they faced on a daily basis I am amazed at how well many of them have done but equally sad and angry that so many children could not break out of the nightmare which was their life.
Original post by pickup
Of course many people who we would surely think of as working class, did defer their ' pleasures'. They did long apprenticeships on poverty pay until they were 20 or so and were still at the mercy of factory closures etc. often affecting whole towns.

I worked for a while in an inner city Secondary School and was appalled by the way the parents of many of the children looked ; as if the cares of the world were on their shoulders: old before their time. They looked after their children however, There were no ragged children and they were all turned out well if with poorer quality clothes than richer children.

Families such as these are living on the edge all the time. They know that their jobs could end from one day to the next. They have little or no savings. They have, therefore no security when it comes to housing, children being moved from school to school as their tenancies come to an end. These children are anxious, fearful, maybe the principal carers for their mother/father with no help from anyone. Any request for money from the school or from an unexpected bill is a disaster. They possess very little. Maybe only one set of clothes for school and certainly no toys, books or expensive junk such as clutters every richer child's bedroom. Sports/ PE wear/ equipment are out of the question.

The 'unionised' teachers at the school were devoted to the school; giving up weekends, holidays,( unpaid of course) to take children out into the countryside, to theatres , clubs etc. buying enormous amount of books, equipment etc. out of their own pocket.

My mother came from such a background but being next to the youngest had financial help from her older sisters and went on to higher education. The older sisters had to take full time jobs at the first opportunity.

How lucky are those who are ignorant of such lives and can sleep sound at night.


Considering the huge problems they faced on a daily basis I am amazed at how well many of them have done but equally sad and angry that so many children could not break out of the nightmare which was their life.


It's similar in the Welsh valleys - people are just trapped with no way out. Sure they own their own homes, but there's absoluteley no stable employment for them.
Original post by T.L
OK. Well those are the correct statistics. And I used them in context to attack the idle. The data is incontrovertible. The location is irrelevant, you've obviously never hear of labour mobility. These people may not have been bothered to move to get a job, but twice as many other people moved much further for those opportunities. Now do you seriously want to read through four million job descriptions? Every one of those unemployed people was given at least 11 years of publicly funded education, and the free opportunity to access university education. Recent data shows that at a quarter of UK jobs can be done successfully by someone with a mental age of 12.


I suggest you stop discussing this. You are clearly ignorant and unaware of the world around you. You are making yourself look silly right now fam.
Reply 46
Original post by redferry
It's similar in the Welsh valleys - people are just trapped with no way out. Sure they own their own homes, but there's absoluteley no stable employment for them.


What do you mean trapped? They are less than £50 and half a day's travel away from the one of the most dynamic and prosperous economic zones in the world.

The population of the Welsh Valleys spend £2billion per year on cosmetics and personal vanity. They're not trapped. They're unmotivated. Stateless nomads in the Sahel are trapped. Privileged people given free education, healthcare and housing are not trapped. They're pampered.
I suppose the term no longer has a definite meaning.
Reply 48
Original post by ElephantMemory
I suggest you stop discussing this. You are clearly ignorant and unaware of the world around you. You are making yourself look silly right now fam.


My sources were the BBC, the ONS, and the Guardian. Your sources appear to be only blind prejudice. Undoubtedly, you must be correct - the BBC, Guardian, ONS, consensus economic and political opinion and everyone else are ignorant and wrong.
Original post by T.L
My sources were the BBC, the ONS, and the Guardian. Your sources appear to be only blind prejudice. Undoubtedly, you must be correct - the BBC, Guardian, ONS, consensus economic and political opinion and everyone else are ignorant and wrong.


The statistics are not the issue here. The issue is that fact you are taking them out of context. The locations of these jobs is absolutely relevant, and to shrug that off is insane.

You are also pretending we are on a level playing field and environmental factors do not disrupt the education of a child growing up.

Try to understand different groups of people instead of judging them fam.
These days its just a fashionable label to allow people to claim they are part of struggling herd before they head out to buy their exclusive shampoo from Lush and upgrade to the next Iphone. A bit like how half of the Occupy activists are champagne socialists who'd cry if they ever achieved their goal, they just like protesting.

For me I put aside job roles and have a simple model..

Underclass - Unemployed
Working class - Renter and below average wage.
Middle Class - Home owner and above average wage
Upper class - Ruling occupation (CEO, politician) or primary income from capital
Original post by Bill_Gates


middle class you live in constant anxiety and need to follow the rich even at the cost of high debts


Lol you just described Hyacinth Bucket
Reply 52
It is outdated, back from when we were a country that actually made stuff, but it's still used in many situations for lack of a better term...
Original post by hannah097
Lol you just described Hyacinth Bucket


Sick reference
Reply 54
Original post by ElephantMemory
The statistics are not the issue here. The issue is that fact you are taking them out of context. The locations of these jobs is absolutely relevant, and to shrug that off is insane.

You are also pretending we are on a level playing field and environmental factors do not disrupt the education of a child growing up.

Try to understand different groups of people instead of judging them fam.


Sorry. Did you say the statistics (ie. the facts) are not the issue here?
The locations of the jobs is entirely irrelevant. Everyone else moves around for work. There is absolutely no defensible reason why the state should guarantee the livelihood of people who think they shouldn't have to travel or move for work.

I'm not pretending we're on a level playing field. I am pretending that the world's best health system, world's best police and first class education (in all cases according to the unions representing those professions) give everybody (able-bodied) enough of a chance and a good enough education to at least secure a job as complex as being a road sweeper. It's deliberate dishonesty to suggest otherwise.
Original post by T.L
Sorry. Did you say the statistics (ie. the facts) are not the issue here?
The locations of the jobs is entirely irrelevant. Everyone else moves around for work. There is absolutely no defensible reason why the state should guarantee the livelihood of people who think they shouldn't have to travel or move for work.

I'm not pretending we're on a level playing field. I am pretending that the world's best health system, world's best police and first class education (in all cases according to the unions representing those professions) give everybody (able-bodied) enough of a chance and a good enough education to at least secure a job as complex as being a road sweeper. It's deliberate dishonesty to suggest otherwise.


Moving around for a 50k job is absolutely fine. Moving around for a 12k job is absolutely an issue. And actually moving house is not an option for people who live in council housing. Your ignorance on this subject is astounding.

I can't really comment on how good the services in the country are, but the underclass are not given a chance. Don't judge something you do not understand. The community and how they are treated destroys the soul and makes it almost impossible to become something. The country is running a campaign against the underclass.
(edited 8 years ago)
I believe that "working class" is a phrase used to describe those who are unworthy of my acquaintance.
Original post by Rakas21
These days its just a fashionable label to allow people to claim they are part of struggling herd before they head out to buy their exclusive shampoo from Lush and upgrade to the next Iphone. A bit like how half of the Occupy activists are champagne socialists who'd cry if they ever achieved their goal, they just like protesting.

For me I put aside job roles and have a simple model..

Underclass - Unemployed
Working class - Renter and below average wage.
Middle Class - Home owner and above average wage
Upper class - Ruling occupation (CEO, politician) or primary income from capital


Underclass - long term unemployed you mean.

Also, your description while quite good economically, does little to explain the difference in the cultural mindset and behaviours of the so called "classes".
Original post by T.L
I generally agree, but they're not "obstacles" that other people don't face. Everyone has to start off motivating themself. If working class families don't have aspirational children, then that is directly and only the fault of their parents.
In the last few years, this country has filled up with people striving to succeed who were brought up in countries where aspiration, ambition and enterprise was actually illegal. The only excuse for the disgraceful lassitude of a lot of these people is the shower of half-brained left-wing sociologists, unionised teachers, and socialist public sector workers who seek to make victims of them in order to create a dependent client constituency for themselves.


The underclass and the working class don't face the same obstacles as other classes. It's not merely a matter of not being motivated, it's about working against the lack of opportunity, the people who look down on you, the unemployability that comes from your backround. It's like comparing a man in a car racing another who is on foot, and him winding down the window and saying "Hey, it's just as hard for me, you know."
Nobody is making victims of people of lower classes. Doesn't it make more sense to understand the mechanism that leads to this kind of mindset and stop it?
Oh I hate this class system nonsense

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending