Class and class relations in the modern UK

[Bird on a Fire]

Mod note: Posts split from "BBC dishonestly covering up Johnson gaffe" thread

It isn't a generational thing: it's a class thing and a political thing.

Yes, I think the spectre of good old-fashioned British class struggle it's what's looming behind a lot of this.

Of course, older people are more likely to be wealthier for a variety of reasons. They've had more time to accumulate wealth. Property was cheaper relative to salaries. Changes to job security and working conditions seem (though I'm open to evidence) to be particularly disfavourable to people entering the job market a the moment, largely because unions haven't recovered from the hammering they took under Thatcher, and the welfare state is crippled after a decade of austerity.

There's also the fact that poor people die younger, so the boomers and generations above them that are still around are more likely to have come from better-off backgrounds in the first place.

As far as I see it, the only sustainable solution will be to reinstate serious redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality, while simultaneously ensuring a sufficient social safety net such that one's exact relative position in society doesn't determine access to food, shelter and medical care.

It's perfectly possible, as shown by a lot of other countries in Europe. But the impoverished working-class majority of the UK needs to stop being so fragmented into young and old, town and country, leave and remain, Anglo-Saxon versus Celtic, immigrant versus 'native' and so on and so on. The fundamental division is between workers and rent-seekers, but only Labour seems to be making that explicit and they don't seem to have found the right messaging to convince the unconvinced.

[username]

Boaf, you refer to 'the impoverished working class majority of the UK', I'm pretty sure that quite a few economists and sociologists might take issue with that classification; for example.

[Bird on a Fire]

Boaf, you refer to 'the impoverished working class majority of the UK', I'm pretty sure that quite a few economists and sociologists might take issue with that classification; for example.

That's talking more about social class than economic class, though.

The basic division is between people who have to work for their money, and people whose income is mainly from owning things (properties, businesses, investments). Obviously there is some overlap between the groups.

But most people have to "sell their labour" to pay their rent/mortgage (are you really a "homeowner" if the bank can take it off you for non-payment, or do you really just have a more secure tenancy arrangement until it's paid off).

The country, however, is run by people who own enough stuff that they need never do a day's work again.

[username]

Boaf, you refer to 'the impoverished working class majority of the UK', I'm pretty sure that quite a few economists and sociologists might take issue with that classification; for example.

That's talking more about social class than economic class, though.

The basic division is between people who have to work for their money, and people whose income is mainly from owning things (properties, businesses, investments). Obviously there is some overlap between the groups.

But most people have to "sell their labour" to pay their rent/mortgage (are you really a "homeowner" if the bank can take it off you for non-payment, or do you really just have a more secure tenancy arrangement until it's paid off).

The country, however, is run by people who own enough stuff that they need never do a day's work again.

I think the economic middle class has been larger than the working class in the UK for some time; for example.

I guess what puzzles me is what you mean by working class; 'has to work for a living' is a very broad version of a thing that has fairly well established social and economic (separately and together) meanings.

[Bird on a Fire]

I think the economic middle class has been larger than the working class in the UK for some time; for example.

I guess what puzzles me is what you mean by working class; 'has to work for a living' is a very broad version of a thing that has fairly well established social and economic (separately and together) meanings.

I'm just kicking it old-school by using Marx's definition of class - you can't get much more well-established than that

To quote from teh wikis

I. Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others

II. Workers, or proletariat, do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power.

Class is thus determined by property relations, not by income or status. These factors are determined by distribution and consumption, which mirror the production and power relations of classes.

The "middle class" is a big scam. Those are just workers who can afford Waitrose and who have been encouraged to think highly of themselves because they listen to Radio 4 and their kid plays the flute.

It's just another way of dividing the working class, which is really what's expanded. The true bourgeoisie are increasingly few, faceless and remote, so the word "bourgeois" gets bandied around to describe things like eating quinoa rather than things like owning Uber.

I'm aware that this is a massive derail btw, so I'll split the thread in a sec.

[Gfamily]

The "middle class" is a big scam. Those are just workers who can afford Waitrose and who have been encouraged to think highly of themselves because they listen to Radio 4 and their kid plays the flute.

It's just another way of dividing the working class, which is really what's expanded. The true bourgeoisie are increasingly few, faceless and remote, so the word "bourgeois" gets bandied around to describe things like eating quinoa rather than things like owning Uber.

I'm aware that this is a massive derail btw, so I'll split the thread in a sec.

But the middle class do own much of the means of production, as they have accumulated pension contributions and ISAs and the like. They may not draw down income from their invested capital until much later in life, but it's incorrect to say they're not part of the bourgeoisie.

And that's the most simplistic view.

[Bird on a Fire]

The "middle class" is a big scam. Those are just workers who can afford Waitrose and who have been encouraged to think highly of themselves because they listen to Radio 4 and their kid plays the flute.

It's just another way of dividing the working class, which is really what's expanded. The true bourgeoisie are increasingly few, faceless and remote, so the word "bourgeois" gets bandied around to describe things like eating quinoa rather than things like owning Uber.

I'm aware that this is a massive derail btw, so I'll split the thread in a sec.

But the middle class do own much of the means of production, as they have accumulated pension contributions and ISAs and the like. They may not draw down income from their invested capital until much later in life, but it's incorrect to say they're not part of the bourgeoisie.

And that's the most simplistic view.

I don't think that's "ownership" in any particularly important sense, in that it doesn't give much power or control. Joining my employer's pension scheme wouldn't give me any further influence over hiring and firing or setting wages or anything.

But yes, by the time wealthier people have been around long enough for their investments to mature to a liveable income they can probably be considered bourgeoisie. I don't think that applies to all that many people, though - for example, a lot of people who are homeowners and have private pensions are still dependent on the state pension to top-up their income.

[P.J. Denyer]

One definition I saw suggested (I can't recall where I read it) was down to autonomy in the workplace, 'middle class' workers have autonomy as to how they do their jobs (and possibly when & where) while 'working class' workers are told where to go & what to do. Obvioiusly though that still leaves a lot of grey area.

There's a tendency to get very hung up on things like whether the job is in an office or a if you wear a suit to work, but the idea that someone in a call centre is less working class than someone in a factory or loading bay strikes me as silly.

[Lew Dolby]

but another definition would be - if you have to work to put food on the table, clothes on your back, a roof over your head, you're working class. Any other definitions are just divide-and-conquer tactics by the richest minority so they can still get their representatives to form the government.

[bolo]

So a person who has been working class for his/her entire career ceases to be working class upon retirement? And a working class person's dependent children and nonworking spouse are not working class? This doesn't strike me as a useful definition.

[discovolante]

So a person who has been working class for his/her entire career ceases to be working class upon retirement? And a working class person's dependent children and nonworking spouse are not working class? This doesn't strike me as a useful definition.

If you consider 40-50 years of working to be little more than a run up to retirement rather than the majority of your adult life, and your children and non-working spouse's dependence on you maintaining employment to be irrelevant.

[Woodchopper]

Class is very difficult to pin down.

The Marxist division between owners and workers made sense 150 years ago, but things are much more complicated now.

As has been mentioned, a clear majority of the UK population have some ownership, either through a private or occupational pension, or through owning property (which is an asset that can be used to generate income).

A good definition of the middle classes are people who have some ownership, but still need to hold down a job (in order to pay for the house and pension).

Ownership changes over time. Again, a majority of the population accrue assets throughout their working lives. Someone in their 30s might be heavily in debt, but if it works out they might retire at 67 owning a house and enough assets to give them a comfortable retirement.

I don't think that's "ownership" in any particularly important sense, in that it doesn't give much power or control. Joining my employer's pension scheme wouldn't give me any further influence over hiring and firing or setting wages or anything.

I don't think that works very well as a definition. Second, the largest UK companies (eg Vodafone, GlaxoSmithKline, BP) are publicly traded on the stock market. Which means that no one individual or institution owns them.

Second, small businesses are usually privately owned. But the owners of those businesses usually aren't very rich.

It seems a bit ridiculous if, say, someone who owned 0.1% of BP (worth circa $ 100 million) were somehow less of a capitalist than someone who owned 100% of a plumbing business with a turnover of £20 000 per year.

But yes, by the time wealthier people have been around long enough for their investments to mature to a liveable income they can probably be considered bourgeoisie. I don't think that applies to all that many people, though - for example, a lot of people who are homeowners and have private pensions are still dependent on the state pension to top-up their income.

It depends what you mean by dependent. The proportion of the state pension of people's income changes over time. But among recent retirees, for an average pensioner, the state pension made up 35% of their income; the figure is 47% for others (source linked above). I'm not sure whether that's dependent. Its a large proportion of income, but they'd be able to live without it in the sense that others live on the state pension alone.

[username]

I think the economic middle class has been larger than the working class in the UK for some time; for example.

I guess what puzzles me is what you mean by working class; 'has to work for a living' is a very broad version of a thing that has fairly well established social and economic (separately and together) meanings.

I'm just kicking it old-school by using Marx's definition of class - you can't get much more well-established than that

Well you could, you could use Adam Smith's definitions, for example, which Marx built on (and no doubt other older works if one so desired).

To quote from teh wikis

I. Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others

II. Workers, or proletariat, do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power.

Class is thus determined by property relations, not by income or status. These factors are determined by distribution and consumption, which mirror the production and power relations of classes.

The "middle class" is a big scam. Those are just workers who can afford Waitrose and who have been encouraged to think highly of themselves because they listen to Radio 4 and their kid plays the flute.

It's just another way of dividing the working class, which is really what's expanded. The true bourgeoisie are increasingly few, faceless and remote, so the word "bourgeois" gets bandied around to describe things like eating quinoa rather than things like owning Uber.

I'm aware that this is a massive derail btw, so I'll split the thread in a sec.

As noted above, Marxist definitions are somewhat of their time, and as we know Marx was writing at a time of great upheaval and making, some argue, a fairly concerted effort to foment revolt.

How does Marx define impoverished in your opinion? I'm really unsure how you can get to an impoverished working class majority in the context of contemporary UK demographics

[GeenDienst]

Hhhhaaalllltergethernoowwww, to the Tune of The Red Flag...

The working clarse can kiss my arse
I've got the foreman's job at larst.

[Bird on a Fire]

So a person who has been working class for his/her entire career ceases to be working class upon retirement?

Well, that would explain voting patterns amongst retired people.

It makes intuitive sense that people become more socially conservative as they age. The progressive policies of their youth become the status quo and are accepted, whereas new ideas look scarily like social degeneration.

But people also become more fiscally conservative, seeking to protect their own investments at the expense of working class people's conditions. Obviously it's not an overnight transition.

And a working class person's dependent children and nonworking spouse are not working class?

Obviously, dependents' class interests are the same as the person(s) on whom they depend. It's amazing what people can misunderstand when they really put their mind to it.

This doesn't strike me as a useful definition.

When talking about class, I think it is in fact far more useful to focus on tangible quantities, such as flows of money and power dynamics, rather than nebulous social signifiers like how you drink tea or pronounce the letter H.

Not least because the economy is now globalised whereas such social markers remain highly culturally-specific.

[Bird on a Fire]

Well you could, you could use Adam Smith's definitions, for example, which Marx built on (and no doubt other older works if one so desired).

I've not read much Smith. What are his well-established definitions of classes, and what useful distinctions would they introduce to the discussion?

How does Marx define impoverished in your opinion? I'm really unsure how you can get to an impoverished working class majority in the context of contemporary UK demographics

To be fair, I should probably have said 'relatively impoverished', which I don't think is a particularly controversial point.

The tax burden has been shifted further from corporations, high-earners and the wealthy onto poorer people. Wealth and income inequality are growing. Artificial scarcity of housing secures above-inflation return on investment for wealthier people, while costing the poorer more. Austerity has made accessing public services harder or impossible for those that depend on them, and I'd argue strongly that public services are part of the material conditions of the public. The recent upturn in violent crime also has an economic and quality-of-life cost.

[Tessa K]

And a working class person's dependent children and nonworking spouse are not working class?

Obviously, dependents' class interests are the same as the person(s) on whom they depend. It's amazing what people can misunderstand when they really put their mind to it.

If you're a boomer born at the most recent end of that generation there's a good chance you went to college fully funded and got a better job than your parents. So you may have retained a working class sensibility but you wouldn't be WC any more. Your political interests may well have been changed from your parents' by contact with a wider range of people and ideas too.

I know you specifically said 'dependent children' but class interests are not always passed between generations, even when the children are still at home. Television and public libraries gave teenagers a chance to be exposed to other ideas, for example, as did pop and teenage culture in the 50s and 60s.

Some WC people were determined that their children should 'better' themselves too even if that meant abandoning WC values.

[username]

Well you could, you could use Adam Smith's definitions, for example, which Marx built on (and no doubt other older works if one so desired).

I've not read much Smith. What are his well-established definitions of classes, and what useful distinctions would they introduce to the discussion?

Not the point I was making; Marx didn't invent the concept of class, there's much more old school available

How does Marx define impoverished in your opinion? I'm really unsure how you can get to an impoverished working class majority in the context of contemporary UK demographics

To be fair, I should probably have said 'relatively impoverished', which I don't think is a particularly controversial point.

The tax burden has been shifted further from corporations, high-earners and the wealthy onto poorer people. Wealth and income inequality are growing. Artificial scarcity of housing secures above-inflation return on investment for wealthier people, while costing the poorer more. Austerity has made accessing public services harder or impossible for those that depend on them, and I'd argue strongly that public services are part of the material conditions of the public. The recent upturn in violent crime also has an economic and quality-of-life cost.

TBH I think even relatively impoverished is problematic. Wealth inequality, at least, is apparently not growing much according to this. This is not to say the problems you mention are all non-existent, of course, but I was prodding at the 'impoverished working class majority' notion as it appeared inaccurate and,well, to not match reality very closely. Obviously having this bit right is kind of important when it comes to mustering armies to overthrow the oppressors. Or even vote them out. Anyway,carry on

[P.J. Denyer]

Well you could, you could use Adam Smith's definitions, for example, which Marx built on (and no doubt other older works if one so desired).

I've not read much Smith. What are his well-established definitions of classes, and what useful distinctions would they introduce to the discussion?

Not the point I was making; Marx didn't invent the concept of class, there's much more old school available

How does Marx define impoverished in your opinion? I'm really unsure how you can get to an impoverished working class majority in the context of contemporary UK demographics

To be fair, I should probably have said 'relatively impoverished', which I don't think is a particularly controversial point.

The tax burden has been shifted further from corporations, high-earners and the wealthy onto poorer people. Wealth and income inequality are growing. Artificial scarcity of housing secures above-inflation return on investment for wealthier people, while costing the poorer more. Austerity has made accessing public services harder or impossible for those that depend on them, and I'd argue strongly that public services are part of the material conditions of the public. The recent upturn in violent crime also has an economic and quality-of-life cost.

TBH I think even relatively impoverished is problematic. Wealth inequality, at least, is apparently not growing much according to this. This is not to say the problems you mention are all non-existent, of course, but I was prodding at the 'impoverished working class majority' notion as it appeared inaccurate and,well, to not match reality very closely. Obviously having this bit right is kind of important when it comes to mustering armies to overthrow the oppressors. Or even vote them out. Anyway,carry on

The inequality graph ends around 2007/2008 and hence doesn't include the effect of the banking crisis, austerity, ten years of Tory/Tory led governments, wage freezes, Brexit and record breaking income rises at board level. The trend has been upward since the end of the 1970's, an important question is whether the trend is accelerating.

[username]

Yarp there is a moderate up tick; I wouldn't like to speculate too much about the years with no data; the people mostly affected by austerity were the lower decile, who didn't have much wealth at the outset. There's probably data kicking around showing how much wealth was lost and by whom in the financial crisis.

[P.J. Denyer]

Yarp there is a moderate up tick; I wouldn't like to speculate too much about the years with no data; the people mostly affected by austerity were the lower decile, who didn't have much wealth at the outset. There's probably data kicking around showing how much wealth was lost and by whom in the financial crisis.

Those at the bottom and middle lost wealth, but there were record pay rises at board level post 2010 and unprecedented increases in the values reported for the Sunday Times rich list. Another big change since then is a massive increase in people working 'self employed' or on zero hour contracts.

[Woodchopper]

If you're interested, statistics on UK household income inequality from 1977 to 2018 can be found here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ending2018

[Bird on a Fire]

If you're interested, statistics on UK household income inequality from 1977 to 2018 can be found here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ending2018

It is good - the one on the effects of taxes and benefits on income inequality is even more interesting from a policy perspective IMHO https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ending2015

Worth noting that it's mainly the top 1% that have seen gains in their share of income, rather than the top 10-20%.

Wealth inequality is also a big part of the story, however, as is the quality of public services.

[Woodchopper]

If you're interested, statistics on UK household income inequality from 1977 to 2018 can be found here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ending2018

It is good - the one on the effects of taxes and benefits on income inequality is even more interesting from a policy perspective IMHO https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ending2015

Worth noting that it's mainly the top 1% that have seen gains in their share of income, rather than the top 10-20%.

Wealth inequality is also a big part of the story, however, as is the quality of public services.

Yes, its striking how the graphs show the positive effect on inequality of direct taxes and benefits as the coefficient is cut from 50.3 to 32.4, and the negative effect of indirect taxes which increase the coefficient back up to 36.2 (all from 2013/4).

[greyspoke]

It can't really be called "class" unless the inequalities are inherited (which they are). It is also worth noting that the direction of movement that is problematical is the downward side of the mobility equation.