Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
"I make £120,000 but I can’t recall the last time we went out for dinner."
"Claims last week that children from poorer backgrounds are to be given priority at a great many grammars comes as yet another setback."
The middle class just can't catch a break
He can't remember the last time* he installed a high-class luxury fitting.
especially this sentence:
"Claims last week that children from poorer backgrounds are to be given priority at a great many grammars comes as yet another setback. But it is one the Squeezed Middle will, as is their wont, find a way to cope with."
AS IS THEIR WONT. THOSE BRAVE FEW.
But in reverse land?
and how they fuck is 120k the middle? that's about 4 or 5 times more than the middle.
Is this the same for people on minimum wage who want to live in zone 2?
and who can't afford to travel to work and who the economy needs to function?
No, it's not.
his meagre £120K isn't enough to put him in the top decile for a two adult + two children family.
But it does put him very firmly in the top 20% of similar households. If the middle is everything from (presumably) the second lowest 10% of incomes up to the second highest 10% then perhaps it needs a bit more squeezing.
"I earn more than most and feel like I'm struggling, the housing association family three doors down have a better quality of life than me, which i'm paying for."
and crucify the whole fucking lot of em
broke my own rule there
see, even the dog is a moaning dick
"But the trickle-down economics central to wealth creation is only effective if benefits accrue to every stratum of society."
sowing confusion and doubt. It's genius.
It's okay, you're allowed to say that the family in the article are entitled, divorced-from-reality jerks.
and he's gone!
I don't think you've read the article, have you?
It's referring to benefits in the broad term, not as a welfare payment.
Need you ask?
Don't think everyone NEEDS private schooling, etc
you want enough of it to trickle onto the heads of those below you. Simply not enough of his piss is getting in everyone's mouths
is what he's saying. He probably thinks loads of his piss is getting into mouths below him.
I need a piss now.
These threads are much more fun when you don't
So we're both commenting on an article we haven't read.
Weird how the 'trickle down' concept has stuck around when society is obviously built on a trickle up model
I do like the way they use the term 'basic salary' which means that we're led to believe that he doesn't get a bonus, and the fact that the possibility that his wife might earn is hilariously dismissed, but I mean, his take home pay would be c.£73K after tax. Imagine spending over 60% of your take home wage on your two sons private education.
£2300 a month. After tax.
What a thunderscrote.
i'm guessing he's got quite a big mortgage and stuff, so probably not a huge amount of disposable income. Obviously most of the problem is the ridiculous amount he's spending on schooling, but still.
The middle class are known for their financial nous, but are also identifiable by their unwavering determination to buy things they don't have the money for?
I always assumed the 'squeezed middle' consisted primarily of people on average and slightly above average wages who were finding that wasn't enough for average comfort any more, not John D. Rockefellers who have to limit themselves to three broken monocles a week.
Show some fucking sympathy.
is fucking with GDP, which in term is fucking with me. I'm PAYING for them to sack off their Ocado deliveries.
Once the reservoirs of the PPI claimants have run dry we're all absolutely FUCKED.
but I agree with the concept.
Myself and my thinly veiled are both from working class families. We both earn ok these days. Still can't afford to buy a house and don't qualify for help-to-buy as earn "too much".
Not crying into my craft beer, but there is a concept of a squeezed middle.
I also used to moan about this when I was much poorer too. When I was a single man in London, the price hikes on public transport screwed me. But families got a break as they're children got to travel for free.
So there is a squeezed / forgotten middle.
Still haven't read the article.
JESUS FUCKING DICKING CHRIST, MOKES, WAKE THE FUCK UP!
I suspect the gripe is with who is being portrayed as the squeezed middle. Dunno though as I, also, definitely haven't read the article
Think it's significant that all families (even very wealthy ones) seemingly have less disposable income these days which makes the future (and their children's future) look a lot bleaker.
To frame it in terms of `the squeezed middle` though is pretty offensive in my view. For reasons DK nails more entertainingly above.
Also there's a debate as to whether or not there's a squeezed middle at all, but don't want to get into that.
*I'm* middle class. Teacher parents, comprehensive school, camping holidays in France, hummous etc. All these posh people are desperate to get in on the middle class action for some reason. They need a different name.
"thunderscrote class" will do nicely.
I'd say that £120k for a family income for two adults and two children is definitely middle class (in terms of financial wealth at least). It's hardly the upper echelons.
I guess the directors at my work probably earn £60,000 and are still pretty middle class, but that guy earns £120,000 on his own! I reckon we need some extra stratas (is that the right word?) of middle classness.
Would be a nice fit
It's true that this chap might earn £120k on his own, but if no one else in his family works it's not that much for an entire family.
A family where the mother and father both work and earn £60k each isn't that out of the ordinary.
is £60,500 per year according to the treasury. Which makes it absolutely, and inherently, `out of the ordinary`.
they have got fucking loads of money.
The median for the ninth decile is £91,100 (source HM Treasury - Busdget 2014).
Plus of course as the article states that's his income before bonuses and we don't know if his wife earns anything.
Median pay in the UK is about £23,000, so if you earn more than £50k you are in the top 95% of the working population and in the top 1% of the global one. If you earn more than £100k, you are in the top 1% of the UK population and literally almost off the scale in the global context.
It's simply the gross inequality in this country that means the super rich dwarf this family in turn.
I'd say I'm middle class, decent education, went to university but only my dad worked, general office job, salary firmly in the national average (somewhere in the £20ks?) which meant we were certainly never rich or went on foreign holidays etc.
I'd say this lot are upper middle class at the very least and a world away from most peoples 'middle class' upbringing.
We had money for everything we wanted to do. And I feel well-off now! (earn £30k, my partner earns slightly more). That's why I find people like this to be so far from my idea of a middle class lifestyle.
Though my parents struggled at times (dad's a shipbuilder, my mum worked in factories but then had office jobs and stuff), but the time we were about 8 we had enough money to do everything we wanted, really.
Now my boyfriend and I have a joint income of far more than what my parents did but my life as a kid didn't feel working class in any way.
I've kind of lost the point of what I'm saying here.
SAY HIS NAME DAMMIT
ain't callin' him baby
then you are well off. Somewhere around the top 10% of two-person households by income.
And what specifically are they asking for/think should be different?
are going hatstand at the moment *WHAT WERE YOU THINKING YOU MORON?*
Oh and just to upset you lot a little more this appears at the end of the article:
*For ideas on paying less tax, saving money and growing your wealth, receive our weekly money newsletter. Click here and enter your email*
I already subscribe.
However, while they are clearly not a good example of the 'middle' as most of us know it, and their expenditure seems frothy and alien to most sensible people, they quite clearly do feel that they are being affected by the economic situation. The amount they spend on school fees etc might seem ludicrous, but to them, the aalternativce would be to disrupt their children's academic lives, and having it made it a priority not to do that, they have decided instead to cut down on fripperies like eating out. It's not an unreasonable observatoin for them to make, based on their family life and their family's priorities. What on earth possessed them to talk to newspaper about it, however, is anybody's guess.
I for one have not read the article, obviously.
I can sympathise, on a human level, with the issues they outline. The seeming rising cost of living affects everyone and, when it comes at the expense of the dreams you have for your family, that can be draining and upsetting.
Their lack of self-awareness in spilling their supposed predicament across a national paper, which will doubtless be read by hundreds of thousands of people in worse positions than they are, is absolutely galling however.
'I can’t afford to keep on supporting them,’ says Guy
also like this:
'Jobless Fella, from Callington, Cornwall'
Family wealth means you can buy a house or a half decent house, without years of saving for a 2 bed flat.
Family wealth means you can drive a car when you're 17 or 18 as you have a car bought for you and lessons paid for.
Family wealth means going to uni is an (easier) option.
Family wealth means you've been abroad on holidays, or - you've gone to a fee paying school so got a better education.
Family wealth means you can work in a shitty intern job in a good industry as you're parents subsidise you, rather than just taking the first job with an ok wage.
Family wealth means everything. If this guy earns £120k, good for him. But if he has a wife and two or three kids that don't work at all, he certainly starts to become a squeezed middle.
I know people who earn fuck all, but have a lifestyle and material goods (cars, houses, holidays) as if they earned 5 times what I earn. It's inherentence and family help. It counts for everything - and it also stops social mobility.
SO FUCK YOU ALL.
"Family wealth means everything. If this guy earns £120k, good for him. But if he has a wife and two or three kids that don't work at all, he certainly starts to become a squeezed middle."
Nope. Even if this is true they are still part of the top 20%.
And he has two kids.
Totally. But the squeezed middle isn't about people being poor - It's about a group of people paying over the odds or getting taxed more in proportion to others.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing necessarily, I'm just saying £120k can mean you're in that bracket. Depends.
and to top it all is called Guy and has a wood-burner in his kitchen.
Nobody's squeezing him, and he's not in the middle of anything except a social demographic named "entitled dickead".
who works for a better bank, and has managed to funnel his earnings offshore, and that's all that matters to Guy right now.
so in 2010 his £120 k job gets him = private school education and ocado and some meals out
in 2014 his £120k job gets him = private school education and tescos and no meals out.
so yeha, he's squeezed in that respect - god knows why we need an article about it tho
JUST NOT IN CONTEXT TO THE ARTICLE.
PROBABLY. I DUNNO. AS I HAVEN'T READ IT. AS I'VE MENTIONED AT LEAST THREE TIMES.
doesn't take into account where you livein the country and therefore your cost of living. I earned more than 120k when i worked in London but I would have struggled to afford to support a spouse and private school kids.
It isn't a right (as you know with all your hotshot lawyer experience).
Anyone on £120K could afford to bring up two children comfortably within the outer London boundary, without having to sacrifice anything of significance.
with all your hotshot lawyer experien ce" makes you sound like a rather pathetic and chippy little man. Embarrasssing. Stop it.
Of course private school isn't a right. I don't think they say it is? (sorry i haven't read the article). I think what they mean is that they are finding it a struggle now to do what they could do compfortably a few years ago. Is that what they mean? sorry i haven't read the article).
Regardless of whether that expenditure involves endless gak and whores (I for one would struggle to keep up my London levels of gak and whoring these days), a wardrobe full of red trousers, school fees, extravagant cars, or three holidays a year. They are feeling squeezed as compared to a standard of life that they once led comfortably. It's not that hard to understand, although of course, it's not exactly a tear jerker. (or is it? sorry i haven't read the article).
The article, and the interview that it's based around, are claiming that people in this 'squeezed middle' are suffering more than those at the bottom, and are fighting against a tide of unfair barriers.
Now, ignoring the fact that 'earning' £120Kp.a. (not including bonuses and not including his wife's wage, if she has one), pretty obviously does not make you part of the 'middle', it's the complete lack of self-awareness and empathy that really stands out in the article. The article seriously complains that grammar school entrance is going to be made less discriminatory, and that those on lower incomes are better able to cope with their change in circumstances because they're used to struggling.
`The article, and the interview that it's based around, are claiming that people in this 'squeezed middle' are suffering more than those at the bottom`
Where does the article claim that then?
marckee is doubtless referring to.
But if you haven't read the article, it's here: "the poorest are used to working to a budget. It is those in the middle that have seen the most painful drop in disposable income over the past five years."
how can you write an article, or even think that, and not be an utter raging thundercunt?
Will follow her on twitter for larks.
`The poorest are used to working to a budget` is offensive.
in which case maybe Guy is feeling the squeeze more than his Housing Associatoin neighbours. The fact that Guy's idea of a 'squeeze' is so far off the 'breadline' that poorer people are up against is of course what people are getting annoyed about and rightly so. But that doesn't take away from the fact that he feels a squeeze and he feels it acutely.
it wasn't said by £120k Guy. She's making a wider point rather than focussing on Guy. Might be true in his instance, who knows, but I doubt it's true as a whole.
It's nowhere in the article.
And I'm sorry, but what your saying is rubbish and, frankly, a bit offensive. The group least negatively affected by the changes to the economy since 2008, and in particular since 2010 are those in his income bracket - seeing the smallest rises in tax as a percentage of income, experiencing a rate of inflation below that of those on lower income groups, and a rate of increase in income above that experienced by those lower down.
(obvs) so I thought Guy had said this and was wonderiong whether he maybe genuinely believed taht he was feeling it more because he will see the, perhapd hundreds of pounds, that 'poor' people are worse off as nothign compared to thousands that he is worse off. What he won't realise ios that teh comparison is not linear and a hundred pound loss to one person can ahve a far more prfound and tragic effect than a ten thousand to another. It's about his percption of where they are being hit. I'm not going to read the article now though.
Sorry, the hotshot lawyer comment was just a light-hearted joke. Didn't mean to cause offence. Apologies for the tone.
It did come across a bit wrong to me, but I am right touchy today and have been a bit of a dick as this thread has gone on. (you still can't make me read the article.)
I'm a left wing, libertarian, working class hero who believes elites, that exist everywhere, ruin the world.
But whateves. Up the Farage.
but when someone compares you to Ayn Rand you get shirty and start implying they're calling you a racist opportunist?
i always thought Ayn Rand was like libertarian number 1
or doesn't know who Ayn Rand is
No seriously, I can see the confusion in "libertarian". You can be left and a libertarian. I've had arguments like this before. If you really care, here goes: Basically, I believe in complete person freedom that seems to be missing from most politics. Right wing dicks will say that gay marriage is wrong as it undermines the church and hetro marriage. I say, for example, it doesn't and religion should not constrain anyone's life.
However left wing constraints also exist, economically, in terms of state intervention for health or how you should live. But I err more to this side in terms of taxation of the more wealthy to fund the vulnerable. Fucking hell, pretty difficult to explain this in a soundbite. Can't really explain properly. Perhaps I'm thick.
Well, think what you want, everyone does anyway baby. *plays slap bass*
and people won't ask you any more questions about it.
I mean libertarian. As in, opposite of authoritarian. As in different to left and right.
thus avoiding having to think awkward thoughts about what his beliefs really are
but we know he thinks them really in those dark nights of the soul
You're like a dog with two dicks when I post.
his wife's called Shazza
Also we'd have to mark him down a social class or two if they have another kid and call it Dick to go with Tom and Harry.
masquerading as snobbery is worse than anything else on this thread on in that article that I haven't read.
oh I forgot what I was about to say. oh yeah, straight up snobbery is fine. that was it. :) x
Especially if they actually named Dick Dick and not Richard.
But there's nothing snobbish about laughing at people who bankrupt themselves sending their kids to private school. That's just straight up funny.
What with this and that Mirror bollocks in the footy thread it looks like people are trying to make up ground on the Mail.
not having a comments section
i hope his kids decide to become noise musicians or something
and we go out for meals all the time.
Also it's so weird, like obviously I come from a family of below average earners, but I've always considered myself (lower) middle class- I had working class grandparents who certainly lived in different circumstances to me. It's just so strange that one person can earn literally three times what both my parents earn, and still supposedly be from the same class background as me!
Before anyone say "class is irrelevant wah wah"- it's massively relevant, just the old ways of defining certain class backgrounds isn't. That BBC class survey thing from last year was very interesting in that respect.
i'm not convinced it is really
in any meaningful way
in what way is class irrelevant? In a society where people accumulate cultural capital depending on where they shop, what food they eat, where their kids go to school, where they went to uni, what sort of hobbies and pastimes they have; where the vast majority of those wielding the power in politics and the media are privately or grammar school educated, despite only 7% of the population attending such schools; where people with jobs and interests deemed inferior are constantly patronised and demonised by both sides of the political spectrum; where families are forced out of the areas that they've lived for their entire lives because young, wealthy white people have opened some cool bars and cafes and shops for other young wealthy white people etc etc etc- how is class irrelevant in any of these situations?
There is not, and will never be, such a thing as a classless society.
but i'd argue that wealth is the overriding factor in most of those issues - not class
They're practically indivisible, even if they're not completely the same.
i'm not having that
I'd argue that class is the sum total of various amounts of capital- economic, social, cultural and political.
what you're left with isn't really THAT useful, so the idea of class isn't all that relevant imo
Check your privilege.
Don't assume that something isn't important or relevant just because you've not personally noticed it having an effect on you.
don't think i'm actually doing that, but thanks anyway for the tip
Or at least appear to be of a different class to other people of the same income?
or aristocracy, as that's what they are by definition, are quite hard up. Sounds ludicrous but they're left with massive manors and 30 bedroom houses to maintain that's been in the family for generations and have to work out how to maintain them no no-one works on the land and they've lost their general purpose.
Then again, a lot own great wacks of land so get rent and crops and alike from that, so it all works out nicely. But aristocracy doesn't mean cash rich necessarily.
Not sure who I'm talking to here.
It's a play about precisely this.
i think they are of the opinion that class and money are more closely linked than i think.
We're saying that class is still important and that someone's wealth or income isn't the only factor that determines their lifestyle or existence.
but just to summarise without reading the article. Squeezed? Perhaps. Middle? Most certainly not.
What else would they be? Can't be upper. That's aristocracy.
Even Kate Middleton's family is middle class. Technically. (She's not herself now though).
not middle class?
If so, please disregard almost everything I've said in this thread.
Or perhaps everything ever, up to this post.
I had never considered that before. Always assumed that it meant middle class. Obviously 'middle earners' is a much narrower bracket (and one which the family in the article don't fit in to).
and it looks like it's a pretty ambiguous term really, being employed in both uses.
Mentions it multiple times in the article.
Admittedly they're not London restaurants...but they're not chippies or McD's either.
from middle-class to upper-middle class, in my opinion.
I've always considered myself middle-class. My parents earn £25,000 between them, and I have quite a comfortable life in their detached house in the countryside. I think me being their only child and us living in near-isolation is one of the reasons why we cope better financially and live in a nicer house and than other families earning a similar amount. :/
I don't really believe the class system exists, tbh, or at least think the boundaries have been blurred so much between working and middle class that they're one big lump...but i know of 18-year-olds who work in sales jobs and pull £25k. Not doubting your story or owt, i'm sure lot of people live comfortably in the nicer parts of Britain not needing huge amounts of money to get by, but i do wonder how they paid their houses off.
I don't think the social classes are as distinctive as they were decades ago, but there are still some people who reek of them. But yeah, I think most people now are just upper-lower-middle class.
It just means we haven't got Sky, or ever buy that nice brand of toilet paper.
£25,000 between them would be like, 12k each which is way below average (which is 26k supposedly), I don't think anyone could get a detached house in the country earning that.. unless by 'countryside' you mean abandoned wasteland near Middlesborough.
I live in a 3-bedroom detached house which in a relatively remote village with a small population. The house itself isn't THAT nice or huge or anything but it's quite good for 3 people, a bit nicer than what you'd find in suburbia under our budget. And my granddad was a banker so a bit of pre-existing wealth is involved. We moved there quite a while a go, mind. Not sure whether or not that makes much of a difference, probably does.
plus, if you go to uni you'll get a huge grant! I already get quite a bit of grant money, and my parents earn about 15k more than yours I think, so you should be sorted (unless they take the savings into account).
I also get a bursary of £2k, but that might change next year.
Although my mum might be getting a proper job soon, so I might get less next year :/