Social mobility

BobQ

olly300 wrote: »

They pay for their children to be educated privately to ensure they can marry into and mix into those circles with ease.

Did I say otherwise? Their children may well be accepted through the access to good education, not necessarily privately but probably. This does not mean that their parents will ever be accepted as anything but new money, and some will not even want to be.

Oh but they are.

Well yes some people will always judge others based on perceptions of class but I contend that in a working environment things have changed for the better.

I wouldn't have got some of the jobs I've done if it wasn't due to discussing some of my diverse hobbies at interview.

I wouldn't have got the diverse hobbies if I hadn't been to university and mixed with people from all types of backgrounds.

How do you know? I think to assume that you have to go to university to meet people from diverse backgrounds is rather presumptuous. I do not know what era you are talking about, but these days you can get a fair range of backgrounds at university. It was somewhat different when only 5% went to university.

Wrong.

There are universities which are not Russell Group universities and have never been polytechnics which were around when the 11+ was still in full force.

Strictly you are right, but my point is that in the days when it was the exception to go to university most of them went to the established universities the vast majority of which today are in the Russell Group.

There are former-polytechnics which are a lot older than some of these universities and as about as old as some of the Russell Group universities.

Polytechnics and Universities had different educational aims - one was suppose to educate people who did things and the other was suppose to educate people who were more likely to administrate, manage and research things.

I'm related to someone who is now retired but was extremely successful and went to a polytechnic but then again it was in a field you couldn't study at a university.

I am not sure of the point you are making, but polytechnics that became universities and some of the other universities have always been the second tier institutions. The expansion in attendance has enabled these other institutions to grow.

It is true they that polytechnics had different aims (although I do not recognise your analysis of them), most were focussed on technical qualifications in applied science and engineering (HND level), architecture, languages, and were more vocational than universities often combining qualifications with industrial experience. They only awarded degrees that were externally validated and typically the entrance qualifications were lower.

I never mentioned polytechnics, nor did I say that anyone could not have a very successful career by being educated in one. In fact I think it would have been better had the polytechnics remained as institutions that produced professionals that industry/business needed.

PaulF81

BobQ wrote: »

What has this got to do with despising socialism? Being hard working is nothing to do with socialism. I can think of people who are bone idle and refuse to work, one sponges off the taxpayer the other off their Dad. I can also think of people who would call themselves socialists who work very hard.

Might want to see who the majority of JSA and disability allowance claimants are by local constituency. The majority of to claiming constituencies are socialist.

It is deeply socialist to not work and expect the state to pay. Not so when an individual who has their parents fund an education, parents who probably made better life choices and sacrifices early in their careers to ensure they could provide an education for their children. Non socialists are more likely to assess whether they can afford children instead of just popping them out and expecting the state to pay.

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

Might want to see who the majority of JSA and disability allowance claimants are by local constituency. The majority of to claiming constituencies are socialist.

It is deeply socialist to not work and expect the state to pay. Not so when an individual who has their parents fund an education, parents who probably made better life choices and sacrifices early in their careers to ensure they could provide an education for their children. Non socialists are more likely to assess whether they can afford children instead of just popping them out and expecting the state to pay.

What a load of rubbish.

lobbyludd

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

8. Celebrity. A definite "Newbie" - but look how many multi-million pound careers are being forged by talent show contestant's, reality TV boys and girls, and former glamour models!


D_S

celebrity might be a newbie in terms of access to the masses to generating their own wealth, but the "cult" of celebrity is not new. It used to be largely the preserve of aristicracy/royalty/upper middle classes, and their exploits, dinner engagements, views etc filled the media (and entirely without any merit beyond their birth)- I think that is why people are so sniffy about it , because it IS now more open to the masses to be able to generate money and fill media inches simply because they are a celebrity. and people seem particularly sniffy about young women who do this.

marriage is still quite a big one.

old money and new money have always married, most often because old money often isn't particularly good at keeping hold of it and needs the results of entrepreneurial gains of "the lower orders" to prop the family pile up. And new money wanted to cement the social position of their offspring in a very class-concious society.

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

Might want to see who the majority of JSA and disability allowance claimants are by local constituency. The majority of to claiming constituencies are socialist.
.

I can accept that if you are unemployed or are regularly in and out of low skilled work on the NMW you are more likely to vote Labour than Conservative, largely because you understand that Labour is more likely to care about your plight than the Tories (as your sympathetic attitude to so many issues demonstrates). But to say that unemployed people are socialists is absurd.

It is deeply socialist to not work and expect the state to pay. Not so when an individual who has their parents fund an education, parents who probably made better life choices and sacrifices early in their careers to ensure they could provide an education for their children. Non socialists are more likely to assess whether they can afford children instead of just popping them out and expecting the state to pay.

This is stereotyping of the worst kind.

For a start demonising the disabled is shameful. In any case you can be on disability benefits and still work.

What do make of the political affiliations of tax avoiders?
What about those who sign on as unemployed and then earn money in the black economy?

How would you categorise those who are content to sign on because they find it difficult to get jobs but who regularly do work cash in hand in the black economy?

How would you categorise those who underestimate their income and avoid contributing their fare share? You know those entrepreneurial souls who claim they are scraping a living and then fail to pay any income tax while doing lots of cash in hand work? Obviously they are not socialists?

PasturesNew

Being pretty and marrying money.

olly300

BobQ wrote: »

Well yes some people will always judge others based on perceptions of class but I contend that in a working environment things have changed for the better.

Really? Then you obviously haven't worked for a wide variety of companies in different sectors.

BobQ wrote: »

How do you know? I think to assume that you have to go to university to meet people from diverse backgrounds is rather presumptuous.

How many farmers' and gamekeepers' children are you going to meet in the middle of London at age 18/19? How many people are you going to meet who actually took part in hunts?

BobQ wrote: »

I do not know what era you are talking about, but these days you can get a fair range of backgrounds at university. It was somewhat different when only 5% went to university.

What sort of company do you work in?

I've worked in many different companies and it's very interesting who I start working with and how the company looks when I finish working with them.

The majority of people I start working with are very similar to each other particularly in smaller to medium sized companies.

A few months on they the company management gets enlightened and realises a diverse team is actually beneficial.

By similar I mean generally male with similar backgrounds and ages. They blame it on not being enough of x and y in the field, but oddly after 3-5 months they don't have difficulty finding and hiring whatever x and y they couldn't find.

BobQ wrote: »

Strictly you are right, but my point is that in the days when it was the exception to go to university most of them went to the established universities the vast majority of which today are in the Russell Group.

Have a look at the list of Russell Group and 1994 Group Universities. The lists change regularly and some of the institutions were never universities in their own right until recently but are definitely established.

olly300

PasturesNew wrote: »

Being pretty and marrying money.

You can be pretty but if you don't have the right connections, whether you create them all yourself or your parents create most of them for you, it will be difficult to marry money.