The destruction of the Middle Classes commences

Rochdale_Pioneers

Oh no! Theyre coming for the middle class!

Except that there is no such thing. If you have to work for a living you are working class. You could be on minimum wage, you coild be on £150k it doesn't matter. Most people on top salaries work their way up, and as we've seen in America having a good salary, house and car doesn't make you middle class and therefore different or better than those below. It just means you have further to fall when your job goes.

So I don't get this obsession some have with defining themselves middle class. It must be snobbery. Or delusion that they are better. The markets think not.

A._Badger

chucky wrote: »

really?? the republicans were in power from 2001-2009... they're more right wing... are we blaming the democrats who were in power before then now but you can't blame the tories who in power before Labour? that's a bit inconsistent isn't it...

Much as I dislke quoting from Wikipedia (the original is bhind a NYT paywall) :

" In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae, the nation's largest home mortgage underwriter, relaxed credit requirements on the loans it would purchase from other banks and lenders, hoping that easing these restrictions would result in increased loan availability for minority and low-income buyers. Putting pressure on the GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprise) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration looked to increase their sub-prime portfolios, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development expressing its interest in the GSE's maintaining a 50% portion of their portfolios in loans to low and moderate-income borrowers.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_lending

chucky wrote: »

but anyway the point is that it has nothing to do with political ideology - Labour, Conservative or even Lib Dem viewpoints. it has nothing to do with the political views of Democrats or Republicans either.

it's irrelevant and brings up unnecessary partisan arguments that have very little to do with it.

The thread is partisan. Do try to control your milk monitor tendencies.

chucky

A._Badger wrote: »

Much as I dislke quoting from Wikipedia (the original is bhind a NYT paywall) :

" In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration

by taking your approach of blaming the previous democrat administration 11 years ago - the tories are to blame for the banks eagerness to lend more as they removed the regulation as they started the "ball rolling" and they were the previous administration.

or do we change this to suit your agenda or shall we blame Gordon Brown as that's what you like to do for everything?

kabayiri

The consumers and hence the populace at large still have power and influence, we have to hope.

We could all select a high street bank; boycott that bank within a few months; withdraw all savings and accounts from that bank; and reduce it's share value to alarming levels. Then watch how much press and media coverage it gets.

It doesn't matter which bank. It doesn't matter that it's a bank even. All we need is a vehicle to demonstrate the power of mass mobilisation via the internet; an angry disquiet. Protest is something the French do much better than us though.

Exocet

kabayiri wrote: »

The consumers and hence the populace at large still have power and influence, we have to hope.

We could all select a high street bank; boycott that bank within a few months; withdraw all savings and accounts from that bank; and reduce it's share value to alarming levels.

I've missed something here? Why do we want to do this?

wageslave

I suspect the class system will survive.

Although TBH I never quite saw the point in the middle class anyway.

What use are they and who would miss then if they disappeared?

Exocet

wageslave wrote: »

I suspect the class system will survive.

Although TBH I never quite saw the point in the middle class anyway.

What use are they and who would miss then if they disappeared?

I would miss them. I have worked hard to become one. You don't think I listen to Radio 4 because I enjoy it do you?

artha

amcluesent wrote: »

Back in the day, Thatcher responded to the demands of the Tory's paymasters by smashing the blue-collar worker and trades unions, destroying the miners pour encourager les autres.

Since that time, boardroom pay and bonuses have sky-rocketed as corporates chase ever-lower wage economies for manufacturing. The never to be repeated low cost of oil allowed millions of containers of cheap plastic items to come from China, all paid for on the never-never.

Now corporate executives have a new target, and the Tory's are eager-beavers to smash this group too.

I mean of course, professional, salaried employees in finance, HR, IT, R&D, marketing etc. Their annoyingly high salaries, generous T&C and pension liabilities are preventing the top-team getting a further 25% on their 'performance bonus'. So they must and will be smashed, like the miners.

Anyone who thinks that studying, getting a 'good' job and a career is available to them in the UK is sadly an idiot.

Temping, zero-hours contracts, right-sizing, off-shoring, the interweb etc. etc. will see to that.

FACT - everyone who uses a computer for their work is now scuppered. There's millions who are younger, faster, cheaper in Lithuania/India/China/Chile who will be doing your job within 5 years. Even a 2:1 or 1st will mean little when equivalent skills are available on a reverse-auction web-site and half the world is undercutting each other to get the work.

England is finished. By 2050, the living will envy the dead.

It just means that it's time to adapt to a new set of circumstances and look for the opportunities. Other threads on this forum have bemoaned the passing of pensions as if they were a god given right and many of (presumed) younger posters have basically said tough to us oldies who are having the rug pulled. So I'm afraid it's the same story for jobs for the younger ones.

If India is where it's at then invest in India

wageslave

Exocet wrote: »

I've missed something here? Why do we want to do this?

Because, if we set out minds to it, we could.

As to why we would we want to, lets start with the benefits system and work our way back...........

nearlynew

Forget about "middle class" and all that stuff. The class thing is a different arguement.
What we are talking about are middle income people.

And a lot of people who thought they were well-off are now going to find out that they aren't and will have to shape their consumption in line with their income.

Like an obese person going on a healthy diet. They think they're starving but really doing what they should be doing anyway.


The tragedy is that people can't see that the problem lies with our debt-based money system.


Debt is not wealth.