Social mobility
18/11/10 21:46![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIt has emerged that the young lady who Prince William has proposed to is a 'commoner' - but then , this is being marketed as a plus by Buckingham Palace and the Government.
Interestingly enough, her grandmother was a shop assistant, but her great grandfather was a coal miner from the north of England - ironically, he worked in one of the mines that the princes forebears used to own. Thus, in 5 generations, Catherine Middleton's family have gone from working down the coal mines to putting their daughter into Buckingham Palace and entered the Royal Family of Great Britain.
"How's that for social mobility?", some may say. Well, good for Kate and all that, but a closer look reveals that the biggest jumps in social movement occured when a daughter in the family married someone of higher social status. Also, the State Sponsored education system that produced the Grammar School has to be included in the assessment.
See, grammar schools in England worked like this - a really bright kid from a poor background, if he (and it was usually he )did really well in school, was sent to finish his education , not in a normal school, but a top noch establishment where the standard of teaching and expectations were much higher.
To be selected for grammar school was an acknowledgement that you were brighter than the rest and expected to go to uni.And, rather than being ' elitist' , they actually gave hundreds , if not thousands of poor kids a leg up into better paid jobs than what their fathers did.
But what about the girls? there were some places for them , but not so many. however, many an attractive and intelligent young woman of low social status managed to 'marry above herself' it seems.
Even so, as our correspondent in the Times observes, social mobility in England , over the last few hundred yrs has not resulted in many people going down, but plenty going up.
This is because a rather dim child of middle/ upper class background will be assisted by uncles and others, whereas a bright working class kid has to make it all on their own.
Middle England has thus become a kind of 'social car park' where many arrive and either go up or stay put.
the shifts in the economy have led to the creation of middle class jobs, but a decline in unskilled manual work - thus we now have a bloated middle class and few jobs for unskilled workers to fill.
it will be interesting what happens in coming decades, but the past real movers seem to be bright boys and pretty girls. Maybe with equal opportunities, we shall see girls becoming doctors, instead of marrying them, but the point is that if you have got the looks, or the natural raw talent toecell in sports or singing, then you have a chance to get out of the ghetto. Too bad if you don't.
I used to be anti any sort of 'privilege', but I guess that some people will always have something they themselves never had to work to get. me, , I'm a fighter- had to overcome dyslexia, shyness and a bad homelife to get where I am today. I have seen several other people go under and commit suicide, O.D on drugs and booze - and I wonder why it should be me that was blessed with the mental constitution that allowed me to go on where others gave up.
maybe we cannot legislate our way to Utopia. there will always be people who give a damn about their kids- give them the money to started, buy them their first car, or music lessons; and there will be parents who don't and can't.
Perhaps we can eliminate poverty, but not privilege.
yes, it is good that we can put a man on the moon, and a shop assistant can dream that one day, one of her great grandchildren will sit upon the Throne of England. Yet, for most people in life, this just isn't going to happen, nor will they even see their kids grow up- maybe they won't even grow up themselves, but die of a preventable disease.
Somehow, that seems like an awful waste of human potential, and for that reason , maybe social justice should be sought, and social mobility should be encouraged.
Interestingly enough, her grandmother was a shop assistant, but her great grandfather was a coal miner from the north of England - ironically, he worked in one of the mines that the princes forebears used to own. Thus, in 5 generations, Catherine Middleton's family have gone from working down the coal mines to putting their daughter into Buckingham Palace and entered the Royal Family of Great Britain.
"How's that for social mobility?", some may say. Well, good for Kate and all that, but a closer look reveals that the biggest jumps in social movement occured when a daughter in the family married someone of higher social status. Also, the State Sponsored education system that produced the Grammar School has to be included in the assessment.
See, grammar schools in England worked like this - a really bright kid from a poor background, if he (and it was usually he )did really well in school, was sent to finish his education , not in a normal school, but a top noch establishment where the standard of teaching and expectations were much higher.
To be selected for grammar school was an acknowledgement that you were brighter than the rest and expected to go to uni.And, rather than being ' elitist' , they actually gave hundreds , if not thousands of poor kids a leg up into better paid jobs than what their fathers did.
But what about the girls? there were some places for them , but not so many. however, many an attractive and intelligent young woman of low social status managed to 'marry above herself' it seems.
Even so, as our correspondent in the Times observes, social mobility in England , over the last few hundred yrs has not resulted in many people going down, but plenty going up.
This is because a rather dim child of middle/ upper class background will be assisted by uncles and others, whereas a bright working class kid has to make it all on their own.
Middle England has thus become a kind of 'social car park' where many arrive and either go up or stay put.
the shifts in the economy have led to the creation of middle class jobs, but a decline in unskilled manual work - thus we now have a bloated middle class and few jobs for unskilled workers to fill.
it will be interesting what happens in coming decades, but the past real movers seem to be bright boys and pretty girls. Maybe with equal opportunities, we shall see girls becoming doctors, instead of marrying them, but the point is that if you have got the looks, or the natural raw talent toecell in sports or singing, then you have a chance to get out of the ghetto. Too bad if you don't.
I used to be anti any sort of 'privilege', but I guess that some people will always have something they themselves never had to work to get. me, , I'm a fighter- had to overcome dyslexia, shyness and a bad homelife to get where I am today. I have seen several other people go under and commit suicide, O.D on drugs and booze - and I wonder why it should be me that was blessed with the mental constitution that allowed me to go on where others gave up.
maybe we cannot legislate our way to Utopia. there will always be people who give a damn about their kids- give them the money to started, buy them their first car, or music lessons; and there will be parents who don't and can't.
Perhaps we can eliminate poverty, but not privilege.
yes, it is good that we can put a man on the moon, and a shop assistant can dream that one day, one of her great grandchildren will sit upon the Throne of England. Yet, for most people in life, this just isn't going to happen, nor will they even see their kids grow up- maybe they won't even grow up themselves, but die of a preventable disease.
Somehow, that seems like an awful waste of human potential, and for that reason , maybe social justice should be sought, and social mobility should be encouraged.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 21:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 21:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 22:56 (UTC)Unlike institutions of monarchy that end up receiving public funding. I know they're part of quaint traditions but like civil war re-enactors, etc. there's no sense the public paying for it.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:37 (UTC)we do not have the unseemly spectacle of the political leader declaring himself the winner of an election because the Crown will declare the winner by inviting someone to form a government on their behalf.
even if it is a closely run race, there is precedent and protocol to cover this.
the Queen has been politically astute in handling her affairs - she now pays income tax like the rest of us, and the Civil List ( what the Queen gets from public funds0 has been amended considerably - the monarchy is more self supporting than it was, and it's public functions are more in line with national interest - nobody really minds her having a big house in London if she uses it to meet US presidents and other world leaders.
And the fact is that a good monarch is above politics.
they can be our First Family, regardless of ones own political alleigences, for they have no political alleigence .
Of course, if a bad monarch ascends to the throne, the institution itself gets called into question.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:48 (UTC)In general, I figure if the public isn't revolting, then they don't mind the upkeep. I get a little fixated on class issues at times.
I did think it was odd in my British Columbia days that she was referred to as the Queen of Canada and that her visits were entirely taxpayer-funded, along with snowboarding trips for the royal brats, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 00:02 (UTC)i mean , the US fleet likes to go putting itself about in the world, not just to show it's guns to would be agressors, but to ' show the flag' in freindly ports. the queen does that same sort of thing, but does not need any ammo :)
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 00:13 (UTC)me, i don't think charles will be as popular as his mum , or his ex wife.
i think that he may well step down in favour of William if the constuttion allows him too.
Diana had her detractors, as does Charles, but william is not Diana to people who did not like his mum , but he is her son to those who who did.
hence he can get the best of both worlds.
I think thee is a value for a monarchy in a place like Britain, and I feel that William , if he takes up the role, would be rather good at being Head of State.
I feel that Charles would handle foreign Heads of State rather well, but not have the same public popularity as his mother had (and still has) in some places. He could become a good king, but not a great one.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 08:04 (UTC)http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201011198079/Oman-Politics/oman-40-years-of-glory-and-prosperity.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90856/7189101.html
The first one explains how Qaboos, the ruler of Oman for the last 40 years, has brought unprecedented prosperity to a country which used to be at the ass of the queue of development.
The second one lists the fastest progressing countries in the world, in terms of quality of life. Oman is first.
I chose Oman because i'm kinda personally familiar with it. Of course thats just one example that monarchy =/= not always automatically some evil anr/or useless figurehead doing nothing but waving with a hand to the low masses.
And i'm not even a monarchist.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 18:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 18:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/11/10 17:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 21:16 (UTC)But the BIG news from today is that Tsvetan Vassilev, the biggest banker in the country, owner of the most successful bank and a number of financial and sports newspapers and one of the main cable networks, has now agreed with the fans' union to buy the team and invest very heavily, so that Botev could return to 1st division in no time and get back to its deserved place: the zone of the medals.
And here comes the interesting part.
Two years ago, in 2008, Vassilev sold 30% of his Corporate Trade Bank to his good friend, sultan Qaboos of Oman! The amount is estimated to being well above 100 million Euros, and this guaranteed the prosperity of Vassilev's business in the most turbulent times of the crisis (the rest of his excellent job during the crisis was done thanks to his outstanding financial skills). And he's now stepping into football, and putting my beloved team Botev right into the fast track on the highway back to glory! And His Majesty Qaboos has an indirect contribution for this success!
Crossing fingers for my dear Canaries...
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 00:01 (UTC)Thus if you were to say to them "sorry don't need you anymore" they could reasonably say, well fine, but give us our shit back seeing as we're no longer inclined to loan it to you.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 00:06 (UTC)The Australians once had a problem and could not resolve it in Parliament.
they therefore asked the Soveriegn to be their arbiter- she was non political, and gave a response that was in the best interests of *all* her Australian subjects.
It worked out for them. i fergit which year it happened and what the issue was, but know it happened in the life of our present Queen .
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 00:07 (UTC)It's always about class with you Dennis
Date: 19/11/10 00:12 (UTC)Re: It's always about class with you Dennis
Date: 19/11/10 00:22 (UTC)Give it back ? who to?
anyone who can prove they have saxon ancestry?
The trouble is that succeeding Norman kings went in for marrying the Saxon hieresses in order to cement the claims to being rightful heirs to the land and all that. Saxon nobility also decided that this was the way back into high society, and for them , it was.
So, the Queen can claim descent from William the 1st *and* from Alfred the Great as well. They didn't leave much to chance back then . :)
Re: It's always about class with you Dennis
Date: 19/11/10 00:54 (UTC)Property law just ignores that and assumes whoever happens to hold official title is legitimate until proven otherwise.
Re: It's always about class with you Dennis
Date: 19/11/10 13:49 (UTC)(In my case, however that's not true: I inherited, and my old man earned it as he inherited nothing as his father died abroad, leaving debts. Them's the breaks.)
Re: It's always about class with you Dennis
Date: 19/11/10 22:07 (UTC)Your father may have earned it, but who did he pay for it? Where did they get it? If they got it legitimately, where did the person they got it from get it? Eventually you are going to run into some general, governor, warlord, prince or king who took it by force from someone else.
I'm not suggesting your father and you didn't and don't legitimately own it, at least insofar as your ownership is entirely within the rules of property laws that ignore the original theft of the land. Not your fault or problem, you have to work within the bounds of the existing system. And historically its a moot point as the original owners and their descendants were almost certainly killed and no longer have a claim, but it doesn't change that at some point ownership of the land you are on changed hands in a less than legitimate manner.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 22:09 (UTC)I wonder if oor willies parentage will be questionned when/if he gets a shot at the throne, He's looking more and more like Andrew the older he gets :S
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 22:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:22 (UTC)She had no title then , but her father was a Major in the army ( and army officers tend to be wealthy men )
In Britain, we have a curious custom called 'primogeniture' - this means that thenobility 9 who once held all the land, and therefore the main source of wealth) left the title to the eldest son.
now, this meant that the younger sons of the duke/ earl/ baron of whatever had to make their own way in the world. being as they had some money from dad to help out, they usually went into things like law, the army, or some other profession.
this meant that the aristocracy, if they needed a doctor, solicitor or whatever could call upon an uncle to help out - hence, we find that Camilla was not *born 8 into the aristocracy, but is a decendant of that class, and soon made her own way back into the same class by marrying the Prince of Wales.
Basically, the Upper Class of England owned the country, the Upper Middle class ran it, and were usually the younger relatives and descendants of the younger relatives of the Dukes and Earls.
Your lower middle class types could be anyone from rising working class lads to younger sons of dukes who hit on hard times.
But the people who got turfed out of their farming hovels made straight for the factories of the Industrial Revolution. Still, it is possible, if you are bright enough to go from the pits to the palace in 5 generations, it seems. camilla got back where she belongs, and everyone loves a happy ending- except the SWP who hate the system that keeps them in cushy jobs !
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 22:17 (UTC)How is this possible? When someone moves from the bottom of the pack to the top, everyone else's rank decreasese by one. If we're talking about absolute wealth, i suppose the "it's not a zero sum game" argument would apply, but social class is only really discernible relative to everyone else, making it a zero-sum game by definition.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 22:55 (UTC)I think it's just that the material cost of support starts to go up exponentially.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:05 (UTC)Now look at the number of typists on about 15-20k, then, compared to now.
maybe the serfs have not all become typists, but serfs and cottars have dissappeared, and typists, milliners and other trades have flourished.
Also, look at he number of unemployed ( we had beggars and such, even before the industrial revolution. more people have got into ' middle class occupations and managed to stay there than ever before, that's the simple answer.
Wether we can stay this way after the bankers made such a mess of things , I dunno.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:16 (UTC)Sure, the bottom always exists, but there's a difference between being on a ladder that's under 5 feet of water and being on the ladder 5 feet above.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:21 (UTC)That's all subjective, no?
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:42 (UTC)once upon a time, the poor wore no shoes. Nowadays , some kids sneer at other kids whose parents cannot afford the latest Nike trainers.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 03:50 (UTC)The speaker was was going on about how "kids now a days are so un healthy compared to earlier generations" and someone in the crowd made a comment to the effect of "earlier generations used to die of small pox".
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 22:23 (UTC)Pissboy!
Date: 18/11/10 23:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 22:52 (UTC)We'd be better in a pure meritocracy. Let the dumb be poor (except my kid, I need to help him out) etc etc.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:28 (UTC)You got it in one. And the more I look at 'privilege' the more I see it panning out in different ways.
My mother took me to church, and that gained me social advantage over kids that did not get taken.Only one parent was an alcoholic, and not both - some poor kids had no positive influences atall in their early life.
I had an IQ of 110 or so. Again , I did nothing to get it. there are all sorts of things that people have tha they find helpful , or a real hindrance, and nothing can be done about that.
And we pass on what we get to our kids. we help *them8, more so than other people's. If the working class want to be liberated, it seems that ' getting on ' is the way to go, not going out and building a marxist style workers state.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:40 (UTC)What happened was that the Old Order married the New Money - and both sides were happy with this arrangement.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 00:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 00:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 01:45 (UTC)In which case, I say "pfffft."
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 07:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 15:12 (UTC)