Mick Mac

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Additionally, I spent much of my youth working > with arty liberals doing up property in France for > witless yuppies - we were all self employed > builders, but I don't think anyone on here would > suggest I was 'working class'? > Why of course not Hugs - who would dare insult you in this way...

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do you think that, Parkdrive? Do you really > think there is no social mobility in the UK? Acknowledging that 1) class groupings exist and 2) saying there are boundaries to social mobility would be different things. Over time, even when we had landed gentry, middle class, working class, families would have moved between these classes over time, or generations, as a gradual process, just not overnight. People can move more quickly between modern day socio economic groupings, based upon education and income. I guess that's progress.

Was not meant to be aimed at your opinion, it was just your post that made me think about it Otta. I think its fair to say that, yes its all moved on from middle class, but the socio economic distinctions of low "middle" and upper do exist and often when people are referring to class now they possibly mean the current day understanding of what that is. When people say middle class these days they seem to mean middle income and people on middle income would mostly fall into the middle socio economic grouping, by income, education etc. But not always.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's true Mick Mac, but when most people talk > about class in Britain they are explicitly > referring to the Victorian landed gentry (the > toffs / the aristocracy), the white collar middle > classes and the blue collar working classes that > are established by birthright and genetic > heritage. > What I thought I had demonstrated above is that class is a means of dividing people into groups, as proven by its original use and definition. The OP was a bit of a rhetorical question. For anyone to say that class does not exist anymore is a bit like saying statistical analysis is not allowed to exist. As regards what people determine to be the basis of the division, be it land owning gentry in the 18th century or any other basis, this does not take away from the fact that the divisions continue to exit, whether more or less marked and whether the basis of catagorisation has moved with the times, as it no doubt has. As regards your other point that these gentry/white collar/blue collar levels of status are obtained by birtright and genetic heritage to some extent is true, but I said above that at the end of the day it all comes back to income. For any family to be wealthy enough to own land there has had to be at some stage a person who generated income.

Got my ticket for Celtic Barcelona. We will show messi's mob how to play football.

"The term "class" is etymologically derived from the Latin classis, which was used by census takers to categorize citizens by wealth, in order to determine military service obligations.[3] In the late 18th century, the term "class" began to replace classifications such as estates, rank, and orders as the primary means of organizing society into hierarchical divisions. This corresponded to a general decrease in significance ascribed to hereditary characteristics, and increase in the significance of wealth and income as indicators of position in the social hierarchy" So, as I said, class has always been interlinked with income, or wealth. Now as regards wealth I have not figured out how anyone could have wealth whilst never having had any income, either generated themselves or generations before them. And the original Roman census did not I assume discriminate between old and new money. As it says above class exists (and will always exist imo) as a "means of organizing society into hierarchical divisions" and even if we see this as only a sociological tool, that is in fact what it has always been. It's just measured differently. We may be more "modern" in our thinking in that we try not to discriminate on the basis of class and we provide assistance to those less well off, but there will always be people trying to divide society into groups, whether the normal distribution of income/wealth is wide or narrow. How do we get there? There is the cycle: Good education = more income = even better education = even more income.....leads to many generations of wealth if pattern uninteruppted by waster offspring. :)

Whilst "Class" seems to be an outdated (or at least less used) concept, socioeconomic status seems to be the modern equivalent and is consistent with what a few of you have said here, including LondonMix. It includes groupings of high, middle and low... Socioeconomic status (SES) is an economic and sociological combined total measure of a person's work experience and of an individual's or family?s economic and social position in relation to others, based on income, education, and occupation. When analyzing a family?s SES, the household income, earners' education, and occupation are examined, as well as combined income, versus with an individual, when their own attributes are assessed.[1] Socioeconomic status is typically broken into three categories, high SES, middle SES, and low SES to describe the three areas a family or an individual may fall into. When placing a family or individual into one of these categories any or all of the three variables (income, education, and occupation) can be assessed. A 4th variable, wealth, may also be examined when determining socioeconomic status.

Just watching the BBC highlights. Brilliantly understated. Love the beeb (hate sky) with Peter Allis and Ken Brown. The beeb are a class act. Please buy the Ryder Cup back.

Don't know. Honestly never considered a bet on the Ryder Cup. Too much fun.

I thought we would lose. But Poulter last night gave Europeans hope. Brilliant.

Ooops S A, Ooops S A ......

2 world wars and 1 world cup..... Oops wrong thread.

Kaymer superhero. Bunkerhero.

Furyk was hilarious on 16 when he thought the put was in. That will stay with him if they lose.

Up there with the greatest of sporting theatre. Amazing viewing. Olazabal certainly got the order right winning the first 5 games. Lower order please step up.

C'mon Quids, stick by your posts! Europe putting up a fight but need a big shift of momentum in the middle matches to have any hope

Its looking blue. Quite interesting. Hmmmm.

Yeah. He was on Caroline time most likely.

He has only just arrived. Idiot.

Eek. Radio5 report that Rory is possibly not going to make his tee time. If he does not he will be crucified. Has he been seen on sky tv yet ?

History suggests it will be over early Declan.

Otta Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------> Once and for all, middle class and working class > DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE!!!!! > > And if they do, it's about your world view, not > your income. Surely wealth created the original class system and income and class remain interlinked today. "The precise characteristics of the classes in terms of occupations, educational experiences and work life experiences has shifted with the social changes of the late 20th century," Dr Atkinson will say. "But the fact that some are better educated, with more choice in their lives and with more money still persists, and this maintains class differences that are as wide as they were in the 1970s."

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once and for all, middle class and working class > DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE!!!!! > > And if they do, it's about your world view, not > your income. Surely wealth created the original class system and income and class remain interlinked today.

Pick more than 4 European losers and we will all have an early night.

Bubba v Luke Webb v Poulter Keegan v Rory Phil v Rose Snedeker v Lawrie D Johnson v Colsaerts Zach Johnson v GMac Furyk v Sergio Signer v Hanson Kuchar v Westwood Stricker v Kaymer Tiger v Molinari