[Finance] What is 'rich' in 2023?

[beorhthelm]

i read Road to Wigan Pier many years ago, very engaging and insightful read, though i forget specifics. i do recall a notion the working class wont give up their meagre luxuries such as sugar, and the man is master of the working class house. oh and references to Brighton ladies looking down on the northerners.

 

[Beach Hut]

We will have to agree to disagree. My values, beliefs and traditions are working class. Having a manbag and enjoying a nice meal does not change this. As Nicky Wire said, being working class is not about eating sausage and chips every day.

When did you stop being a Champagne Socialist?

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Why don’t you go read the book yourself and report back? We can reconvene this discussion then.

Which reminds me, I never did read Down and Out in Paris and London.

I've actually been to Wigan Pier, does that qualify me for working class status?

 

[Nitram]

I’m guessing HT is more Ronnie Barker than Ronnie Corbett and does not aspire to be John Cleese.

Being rich would be buying what you want without looking at your bank balance.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I’m guessing HT is more Ronnie Barker than Ronnie Corbett and does not aspire to be John Cleese.

Being rich would be buying what you want without looking at your bank balance.

I can see what you’ve done there. I look up to them both.

 

[Triggaaar]

When did you stop being a Champagne Socialist?

He didn't. He just wants to be called something else.

 

[Machiavelli]

You've explained yourself fine, I think I've understood.

So in 'Road to Wigan Pier' does George describe the working class as:
a) People who are short of money, with little control over their lives due to financial restraints
or
b) Fairly well off people who have a very good quality of life, but who do have left wing values?

I'm quite surprised if it's b). And if it is, he's wrong.

I think you'll find that you've just constructed your own definition of working class there, which isn't adopted elsewhere.
The most widely adopted sociological division around work is done by occupation leading to ABC1C2DE categories. That was devised in a different age, and doesn't effectively account for shifts in forms of labour.
Arguably still the best and the simplest is Marx's, which defines working class aka proletariat as those that only have their labour to sell, in contrast to the bourgeoisie who own the means of production -- but that is replete with problems too.
Orwell went to Eton and was a socialist but also only had his labour to sell and, as far as I know, didn't have a vast inheritance to rely on.
HT can speak for himself but pretty sure he works and didn't go to Eton but, for the reasons elaborated, I don't think either HT or Orwell are wrong.

 

[Sheebo]

I think you'll find that you've just constructed your own definition of working class there, which isn't adopted elsewhere.
The most widely adopted sociological division around work is done by occupation leading to ABC1C2DE categories. That was devised in a different age, and doesn't effectively account for shifts in forms of labour.
Arguably still the best and the simplest is Marx's, which defines working class aka proletariat as those that only have their labour to sell, in contrast to the bourgeoisie who own the means of production -- but that is replete with problems too.
Orwell went to Eton and was a socialist but also only had his labour to sell and, as far as I know, didn't have a vast inheritance to rely on.
HT can speak for himself but pretty sure he works and didn't go to Eton but, for the reasons elaborated, I don't think either HT or Orwell are wrong.

You’ve a very authoritative personality - using as many big words to hide your classism and that’s why you believe this drivel

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I've actually been to Wigan Pier, does that qualify me for working class status?

Depends on what capacity you were there I guess.

If for example you were formally opening it to the public, I’d say no but then if you had woken up underneath it, I reckon you’re good

 

[beorhthelm]

I think you'll find that you've just constructed your own definition of working class there, which isn't adopted elsewhere.
The most widely adopted sociological division around work is done by occupation leading to ABC1C2DE categories. That was devised in a different age, and doesn't effectively account for shifts in forms of labour.
Arguably still the best and the simplest is Marx's, which defines working class aka proletariat as those that only have their labour to sell, in contrast to the bourgeoisie who own the means of production -- but that is replete with problems too.
Orwell went to Eton and was a socialist but also only had his labour to sell and, as far as I know, didn't have a vast inheritance to rely on.
HT can speak for himself but pretty sure he works and didn't go to Eton but, for the reasons elaborated, I don't think either HT or Orwell are wrong.

Orwell was middle class, pretty sure said so himself.

we have adopted the ABCD catagorisation to be more granular for economic and especially marketing, because the old classifications were so blurred and irrelevant. those with property, a profession are and always were middle class, its not based off personal beliefs.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Depends on what capacity you were there I guess.

If for example you were formally opening it to the public, I’d say no but then if you had woken up underneath it, I reckon you’re good

With my income I can afford to wake up under a much better class of industrial heritage.

 

[BN9 BHA]

I wonder what class some on here would describe the late Fred Dibnah, very working class background but went on to be a very skilled man and made many television programmes.

 

[Weststander]

I wonder what class some on here would describe the late Fred Dibnah, very working class background but went on to be a very skilled man and made many television programmes.

A social climber.

 

[Nitram]

I can see what you’ve done there. I look up to them both.

Craft beer….looking at the stars….

 

[Official Old Man]

What is rich?
When you wake up and see you've just signed an extension to your contract meaning you can keep your house in Hurstpierpoint.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think you'll find that you've just constructed your own definition of working class there, which isn't adopted elsewhere.

No, I have given two different examples of a persons situation. The former person would be classed as working class, the latter would not. Those two examples are obviously not all encompassing.

The most widely adopted sociological division around work is done by occupation leading to ABC1C2DE categories. That was devised in a different age, and doesn't effectively account for shifts in forms of labour.
Arguably still the best and the simplest is Marx's, which defines working class aka proletariat as those that only have their labour to sell, in contrast to the bourgeoisie who own the means of production -- but that is replete with problems too.

In Marx's time we didn't have the middle classes. He defined the working class as exploited people who received minimal wages and did not property etc. He classed wealthy (the question of this thread) bosses and managers as the bourgeoisie. If he had to categorising our Herr Tubb into his out-of-date two class system, I imagine he'd class him as a member of the bourgeoisie. He's certainly not struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage.

Time have changed since the 19th century though, and there more groups are used to categorise us all. These are based on wealth, earnings and job type, and none of them would class Herr Tubb as working class. Feel free to look up some popular definitions, and let me know if you find one that says you're working class if you have working class values and traditions.

 

[Bakero]

No, I have given two different examples of a persons situation. The former person would be classed as working class, the latter would not. Those two examples are obviously not all encompassing.




In Marx's time we didn't have the middle classes. He defined the working class as exploited people who received minimal wages and did not property etc. He classed wealthy (the question of this thread) bosses and managers as the bourgeoisie. If he had to categorising our Herr Tubb into his out-of-date two class system, I imagine he'd class him as a member of the bourgeoisie. He's certainly not struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage.

Time have changed since the 19th century though, and there more groups are used to categorise us all. These are based on wealth, earnings and job type, and none of them would class Herr Tubb as working class. Feel free to look up some popular definitions, and let me know if you find one that says you're working class if you have working class values and traditions.

It's hard to come up with an objective definition. As @Machiavelli suggested, many would say anyone dependent on selling their labour is working class. Others would argue it's tied to education.

Some academics would argue it's up to the individual to self-define: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X14528373

 

[Bakero]

You’ve a very authoritative personality - using as many big words to hide your classism and that’s why you believe this drivel

That's a little harsh, don't you think? I'm not sure where you detected classism or what you think is drivel.

 

[Sheebo]

That's a little harsh, don't you think? I'm not sure where you detected classism or what you think is drivel.

It was a direct quote back to him from him being a bellend to me on another thread - just a joke!

 

[Bakero]

It was a direct quote back to him from him being a bellend to me on another thread - just a joke!

Ah, ok, sorry. Thought it was a bit random