Be Excellent To Each Other

Seriously?

Graphic design is hardly the coal face.

I've had this discussion with my parents before - Dad thinks he's working class, despite being an accountant, whereas mum (who grew up on a subsistence farm in ireland) is insistent they're middle class.

Middle class used to be defined as the professions (so really just lawyers, accountants, doctors and call girls), but then the artisans got in on it, and now fuck knows what it means. And by extension, what "working class" means. These days it seems to be mostly used when referring to those who don't, in fact, work, when they're not being called chavs.

Good points Kissyfur.

But I maintain that I Work for a living, and I have Class.

Tell that to my canary, the poor thing couldn't get out in time before I collapsed my window.

Frankly I think perpetuating any sort of "class system" and categorising yourself as higher up than others by anyone who isn't royalty or aristocracy is lame anyway. Let those people worry about being "better" than everyone else. The rest of us are in it together - whether you weld pipes all day or fanny about in an office.

No, I'm definitely, empirically better than you, and I agree with the maintenance of a system that recognises that.

Alternatively we can just make you wear a "belmer" badge.

Why don't you fuck off to Laos where your sort are tolerated?

I was not being flipant. A lot of us here are degree educated or have jobs that are quite high up. It is not a slight on anyone.

I was working class, single parent, small northern town etc.

I can agree you work but...

Pfft. Colouring in.

Pfft, hitting one of a few keys on a pre-laid-out board repeatedly

Should have tried to stay in the lines then eh?

The notion of "class" is a strange one, is it not? I consider myself unashamedly working class; I left school/home at 16 and worked in a factory for £35/week. Even now, here I sit unshaven (apart from my shaved head of course), in my steel-capped boots, cliched black Harley Davidson T-shirt and ripped jeans. Class is where the heart is.

Yet, I'll bet the farm that plenty would scoff at this notion just because latterly I've accumulated a few quid and have bought a nice house and car etc. But these are material, often transient things; does winning the Lottery change one's class? I'm still the same coarse bastard I ever was; I still find beer farts immensely amusing and indeed, am a frequent practitioner on that front, much to the chagrin of my hapless peers.

Mind you, I only have a 42" TV (a 3-year old Panasonic plasma that's been pretty good thus far and was only a £500 cheapie even then) and my bookshelves are collectively much larger.

Do you have to work to pay the bills? If yes, you are working class.

What does that make middle class?

Better.

It it very, very easy.

"My preferred Crisps are made by Walkers" - Working Class
"I prefer Kettle Chips" - Middle Class
"The only crisps I eat are made by the potatoes that daddys man harvests on his estate" - Upper Class.

Working class.

Made 'from' the potatoes.

Is it better to be a working class success or a middle class failure?

Uh-huh. That's how fucking posh they are, their produce is sentient and can cook itself.

Disagree to be honest; I think there's a definite distinction to be made between working and middle class. A lawyer and a Kwik Fit technician may well have to work for a living in both cases, but that's where the similarities end. Of course, 'class' isn't only defined by career (standard of education and cultural/family background are both more important); plenty of middle class people have never worked a day in their lives; they just married well. Plenty of examples of that around this neck of the woods, I can tell you.

Is it even better to be middle class under any circumstances? I don't think better (or worse) comes into it really - just 'different'.

I think it depends on what you're talking about really. Clearly class can be used to describe someone's working life and economic circumstances, in which case I'd say that anyone working a shitty job that requires either no skills or nothing that you can't learn on the job and they probably get paid by the hour is working class. So most people would agree that it is better to earn more money. But it can also be used to describe tastes and attitudes but then it's even harder to define and it's less clear that everything associated with a higher class is in fact better.

If my reading of the statement is "Working class and created opportunities to succeed" vs "Middle class and threw all your 'advantages' away" then I'm not sure that there is much debate to be had. Unless the success is gained by shafting people over and the 'failure' is from applying yourself to more philanthropic ends.

That the class system has been bastardised over the centuries, doesn't mean we should let it falter and not stem back the tide!

Do you own any land? No? Working class.
Do you own land and employ staff? Yes? Middle class Gentleman.
Are you aristocracy? Yes? Upper class.

That's how it was in the 1700s, I don't see why it needs to be any different now...

Sorry, I think you misunderstand my point? I was questioning the whole premise behind the question, ergo that middle class > working class except in special circumstances?

In terms of a straight answer to the actual (surely rhetorical) question, I'd agree with you entirely, but the class references are irrelevant to my way of thinking - it simply becomes 'is it better to be a success or a failure'

A good plumber should earn more money than a secretary, but I would never consider a plumber to be middle class or a secretary working class.

I don't think I'd fuck a plumber.

According to that definition, I am a "Middle class Gentleman". But believe you me, if you knew me in person, you would not form this opinion.

(More seriously, I think the loose definitions of class are bound to change and evolve over time. Most would agree that GPs, lawyers, accountants, architects etc. - the professions - are Middle Class, but few of them own land lol)

That's not even correct, of course. Working/middle class was based around occupation. but yes, it's been soldily bastardised over teh years.

"Class" is a weird thing these days, as none of it seems to have a real meaning. The only cast iron delinetion is "upper class", as that's the aristocracy, but these days even that is used as a negative epithet for anyone a bit posh.

"Middle class" is usually used as a rather sneery insult to conjure up the Guardian reading, Merlot swilling, send-your-kids-to-private-school, Islingtonite stereotype. "Working class" is used either as an insult or as a very deliberate self-identification of not being a middle class ponce.

Basically it's all a bit meaningless now, as you won't find two people who agree on what any of it means.

I'm a freeholder! Granted I own about a 1/4 acre, but still. Alright, granted granted, I own about a half of it and HSBC owns the other half.

How very dare you! Are you insinuating I just made it up?



You think?

Put simply, there are those that are beneath me.

Strangely, my reply disappeared. I don't misunderstand you, because I completely agree. There is no 'better' between the classes, and the answer to 'is success better than failure' is rhetorical, unless there are some specific parameters of said success and failure which could change the answer.

A different question would be "Is working class failure better than middle class failure" and similarly with success.

That's true for everyone, except one poor soul at the bottom.

... Myp.

Ah, now that's interesting.

At the risk of contradicting myself, as a broad generalisation, I'd be inclined to think that working class failure IS better than middle class failure. Why? Because the middle classes very often have access to much higher standards of education and other life resources, so given the much better hand they're typically dealt right from the offset, this makes failure all the more unfortunate?

Wouldn't success and failure for each be measured relative to the life resources that they started off with though?

Very unlikely to be I'd say, in my experience. Besides, quantifying 'life resources' in a robust, repeatable, meaningful and objective manner would likely be a very tricky business.

I'd think they might well be. After all, look at the Olympics. Much was made of the likes of Jessica Ennis doing amazingly well 'despite' her working class upbringing. It is often said that the British like an underdog, so I can see that a working class person and a middle class person (assuming such distinctions exist) achieving the same goal would be seen as more of an achievement for a working class person. And probably understandably so, given that more effort may be needed to get access to the likes of training facilities. I've forgotten what my point is.

Maybe your Mum can shed some light on this matter then.

The entire concept of socioeconomic class means wildly different things to different people, different societies, and (more formally) different academic disciplines. There's no unifying definition we can hope to arrive at. And self-perception is only part of the problem; as others have said, some people are strongly motivated to perceive themselves as outside a given class even when they possess all the characteristics you might think were required.

One I read once (but cannot now locate) that I like defines the classes in terms of how they interact with the "system" i.e. the raw mechanics of society (justice, education, etc):

• the underclass exist outside the system [1]
• the lower class toils to maintain the system, and are exploited by it
• the middle class administrate and manage the system
• the upper class exist outside the system

I like the symmetry there.

Another one I like is the NRS social grade, which is a blunt instrument but I believe is widely used in advertising demographics. It is at least reasonably unambiguous in its definitions. My father moved from D to C1/B in his career, and I've gone from C1 to B or perhaps A in mine.

[1] a "category of social agents who are economically oppressed but not consistently exploited within a given class system." Erik Olin Wright via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underclass

Also, previously, on Beex:

viewtopic.php?style=19&f=3&t=1959

viewtopic.php?style=19&f=3&t=5061

Not unexpectedly, that puts the vast majority of Beexers into B/C1. Although you've linked the mobile version which doesn't show the poll. And the poll suggests that three of us are myoptika.

Ironically, none of us are currently Myoptika.

My Company is Belgium they have a sort of employee class system.

Blue Collar- People who are part of a union and don’t get any objectives or a formal bonus. The Union as a pose to the company will set their pay scales etc. They also strike a lot as the unions are very big, so if say train drivers strike they will be asked to. They may also be hourly paid, but I’m not sure.

White Collar – People aren’t in a Union and they get a salary that’s dictated by the company and individual performance. Pay is not usually hourly although some of my guys get overtime.

I have a nice house and do OK for money and my wife works, it would soon all fall down if I didn't work though.

Wow, that's a big company!

Nice of Gaywood to make my point for me in a much more long winded way.

I don't like the A/B/C system, as it puts barristers above solicitors, which is clearly wrong, as they're twats.