The changing face of the middle class

CLAPTON

Prudent wrote: »

That would be lovely, however the age at which I can take my pension has moved from 60 to state pension age, so maybe that will be a loss too.

of course that might be so

but presumably the maths needed is pre GCSE level so you could apply it to your particular circumstances and see how awful/good things are

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

I can remember watching a few TV programs back in 70s or 80s telling us how much leisure time we were going to have as everything would be automated but it's not changed that much.

I'm still waiting for hoverboards but that doesn't mean there haven't been big changes.

The first MRI scanner in my city was installed (from memory) in the early eighties and paid for by public donation. Someone who managed to pick up cancer at an earlier stage as a result probably gained significant leisure time. The same could be said for seatbelt technology and aircraft safety.

There's more opportunity for productive leisure time too. Ready meals made by machines for when I'm short of time, cars that are significantly more reliable, I can download books instead of going to the library, the 'big shop' gets done online. Sky+ means I don't even need to waste valuable time watching adverts.

My daughter is revising. We can share a laptop screen on the TV via google chromecast, the past papers were downloaded from a server, there are teachers that run through model answers on youtube.

Even the guys doing Tomorrow's World would be amazed.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm still waiting for hoverboards but that doesn't mean there haven't been big changes.

The first MRI scanner in my city was installed (from memory) in the early eighties and paid for by public donation. Someone who managed to pick up cancer at an earlier stage as a result probably gained significant leisure time. The same could be said for seatbelt technology and aircraft safety.

There's more opportunity for productive leisure time too. Ready meals made by machines for when I'm short of time, cars that are significantly more reliable, I can download books instead of going to the library, the 'big shop' gets done online. Sky+ means I don't even need to waste valuable time watching adverts.

My daughter is revising. We can share a laptop screen on the TV via google chromecast, the past papers were downloaded from a server, there are teachers that run through model answers on youtube.

Even the guys doing Tomorrow's World would be amazed.

I'm not saying there haven't been big changes I worked in telecoms so have seen many. But employment is up and working hours have only fallen slightly.

vivatifosi

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm still waiting for hoverboards but that doesn't mean there haven't been big changes.

The first MRI scanner in my city was installed (from memory) in the early eighties and paid for by public donation. Someone who managed to pick up cancer at an earlier stage as a result probably gained significant leisure time. The same could be said for seatbelt technology and aircraft safety.

Very true. I worked on the cashpoint rollout of a major bank. I think that was 1980 or 81. Before that, if you wanted cash, you either got it in your wage packet or went into a bank and cashed a cheque:eek:.

wotsthat wrote: »

I can download books instead of going to the library,

It's an interesting one this. We now spend time showing people how to use their tablets as well as helping them with choosing books. A lot of people are going back to reading paper copies because they don't like reading on a tablet. However online magazine lending is really popular. I wonder if that is because people like dipping in and out of magazines in the same way as they would a website or online news, but prefer to sit down and concentrate more on books. People are strangely attached to paper. Same goes for paper in offices too. We were promised the paperless office 40 years ago, that hasn't happened yet either.

Gangaweed

Generali wrote: »

I thought I was working class until I met Australians.

Nothing like a cashed up bogan!

thequant

ukcarper wrote: »

I can remember watching a few TV programs back in 70s or 80s telling us how much leisure time we were going to have as everything would be automated but it's not changed that much.

It's because the productivity gains havn't been shared out, hence the rise of the mega rich and the systemic unemployment which was unheard of until generation ago.


There's some good analysis I have seen that argues that with the rise of the dual income household we are now worse off as we are working double the hours for the same standard of living.

Road_Hog

Generali wrote: »

It's all about income. Nothing more, nothing less.

Absolute rubbish. It is a cultural and social thing. You could come from a very good background, have a degree and work in a library, earning very little money. But that wouldn't make you working class.


You could also be a very successful second-hand car salesman earning a shedload of money, but that wouldn't make you middle class.

purch

wotsthat wrote: »

There's more opportunity for productive leisure time too. Ready meals made by machines for when I'm short of time,

That might be giving you more leisure time, but eating Microwaved ready meals is probably knocking years off your life expectancy :eek:

jamesmorgan

ukcarper wrote: »

I can remember watching a few TV programs back in 70s or 80s telling us how much leisure time we were going to have as everything would be automated but it's not changed that much.

That is because statements like this tend to made by technologists rather than economists. There is always productive work that can be done by people - as technology changes, the activities that people do also changes. The technologist believes that if an activity is automated, people could simply do less work and the same overall work would be achieved. The economist, however, understands that people work in order to obtain money to exchange for goods/services. Due to market forces, the prices for these goods/services are determined by competition with everyone else who wants to buy them. If I work 25 hours/wk, but everyone else works 40 hrs/wk, I will have less money than anyone else so will struggle to fund an average lifestyle. If I could encourage everyone else to work 25 hrs/wk this wouldn't be an issue, but it only needs one person to break ranks and a cascade effect occurs. The hours people are required to work becomes a consensus decision from society. based on a balance between lifestyle and income.

Another classic example is house prices. The norm now is for house purchases to be funded by 2 incomes - this then determines the value of a house (based roughly on a 1/3 of income paying for a mortgage). If an individual (or family with one income) wants to buy a house they will find themselves priced out of houses that a similar person could have afforded 20-30 years ago. It is no use such people complaining about this situation - society has decided that this now is the norm. There is very little that governments can do to override the wishes of society (largely as they are elected to represent these wishes).

Generali

Road_Hog wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. It is a cultural and social thing. You could come from a very good background, have a degree and work in a library, earning very little money. But that wouldn't make you working class.


You could also be a very successful second-hand car salesman earning a shedload of money, but that wouldn't make you middle class.

That's a very British way of looking at the world. In most places if you make a good income then you're middle class.