It's a fact - class does not exist as it once did. Please explain : What/Who exactly is a lower class ? and where in life do "they" not get equal opportunities ? I think you are talking about certain social groups perhaps tied to location, wealth or work prospects - not the same thing as "class" at all.
Originally Posted by Dreary ScatheI said "lowest paid jobs" - minimum wage is there to keep people OFF of the poverty line. I don't imagine living in poverty is a good life, but thats your words, not mine.A good life? Your having a laugh if you think living on the poverty line is a 'good life'.
Families who live on sink estates and/or who have attended sink schools.
Disabled parents who tend to be long term claimants.
Families on benefits. The benefits are below the poverty line, otherwise why would the government say millions of children are living in poverty?
Refugees who've had to flee from their country.
Claimants who have their benefits stopped if they do not go on "back to work" schemes where companies have working for free. The worker gets an extra £10 on top of benefits for a 40 hour week on a building site.
People in depressed areas where there is no work.
16 to 18 years olds - no benefit
18 - 25 year olds - less benefit than 25 years plus.
pensioners on a state pension
the homeless. Council housing waiting lists have doubled.So why do unions campaign for a Living Wage?
I said "lowest paid jobs" - minimum wage is there to keep people OFF of the poverty line. I don't imagine living in poverty is a good life, but thats your words, not mine.
We still have a class system in this country, IMHO.
It's just that a) it's not the same class system we had before WWII, and b) it's like soap, the harder you try to grasp the subject the more slipper it becomes.
A child born to a 'working class' family can go to university and become a surgeon, thus transforming himself pretty much to what is probably now 'upper class'. Similar things can happen in reverse.
It's money that determines your class. We really have four classes now: those on benefits; those who have no surplus income; those who have surplus income; and those who are independently wealthy. Each 'class' have pretty much different lifestyles and that's what class is all about.
An 18C landowner could live all winter in the country, spend the season in London and Bath, and never give a blind thought to where his money was coming from. But even he wasn't 'upper class', because for that you needed a title. Lord this, Sir that, Baron the other.
But there are still contradictions. David Beckham is independently wealthy; unless they've been very daft he and Victoria have no need to work any more. Can't call them 'upper class' though, can you? The Marquis of Bath, on the other hand, works quite hard to ensure his Longleat estate produces enough income for him and his family - can't call him 'working class', either.
Its not a distinct class system the lines are very blurred indeed.
Money used to have little to do with class, but I see what you mean. However I'm not sure i could call those catagories a class, they are too vague. One could change class very quickly based on that criteria. And the lifestyles are not fixed for that class, you'd have a hard job identifying who is a member of what. Surely they are transient labels rather than a "class".It's money that determines your class. We really have four classes now: those on benefits; those who have no surplus income; those who have surplus income; and those who are independently wealthy. Each 'class' have pretty much different lifestyles and that's what class is all about.
He would probably see himself that way. I remember reading about Beatrix Potters parents, landowners who disapproved of their daughters marriage to a publisher, when she should marry within her own class. That sort of class system no longer exists.An 18C landowner could live all winter in the country, spend the season in London and Bath, and never give a blind thought to where his money was coming from. But even he wasn't 'upper class', because for that you needed a title. Lord this, Sir that, Baron the other.
Back on topic ... which was, I believe, the notion that:
some long term unemployed
sometimes resort to having children,
sometimes not because they want, or even care about children, but sometimes in order to claim more benefits.
Although I personally disagree with this Tory Councillor's idea, I certainly can see where he is coming from.
I do believe that our society has become (and is likely getting more) soft on people. Some Human rights stuff simply goes too far. We hera so much about Human Rights, and so little about Human Privileges or Human Responsibilities or ..... simply said .... simple, old fashioned respect.
Point in case .... having kids for money, simply implies warped values. I consider having children both a privilege, and a responsibility .... certainly not a Human Right. It would be lovely to have a child .... and if I don't ... or can't, for whatever reason, that, then is my path.
I have no time for people who complain about the Health Service, because they have failed to help them have a baby. Sorry mate ... life is tough .... accept it!
Sadly, I believe that the Social Welfare scheme tries to eliminate pain and discomfort from existence .... quite frankly a fruitless not to mention counter productive exercise. The more that we learn that life is difficult; that pain and discomfort (like joy and pleasure) is an intrinsic part, the simpler it gets.
[end of rant]
Is that just a random idea IF there were families with three generations of abusers or do you have some evidence of such?
I completely disagree with you (but could you get my husband done instead because it's all his fault that we have four and I'm sure you wouldn't like him... )
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks