What is middle class

[monotonousmum]

Of the back of a childcare thread, where a lot of the feeling seemed to be that middle class people want free childcare paid by taxpayer so they can have nice holidays...

What is middle class??

Is it someone who doesn't have to claim benefits? Works but doesn't really need to? One working parent family and still doing OK? Can afford nice holidays? Could afford nice holidays if it wasn't for the childcare bill?

I'm genuinely confused as to what it is nowadays. I'd consider myself working class, as I have to work to survive. I have a decently paid job though and we have never had to claim any benefits - although it would only take a few months out of work to change this.
But this decently paid job isn't crazy money. We still have to budget, don't have fancy holidays, save a modest amount each month (which usually gets spent on Christmas etc). We have some luxuries that we could live without (takeaways, sky sports).

But the childcare thread has left me genuinely confused. I don't really care what I am either way, life is what it is. But have the way we use these terms changed?

haba Never for working or upper, it’s not needed but middle need that framework to move away from working

@haba I have no idea how to define it, because the more you think about it the less sense it makes.

It's like these categories still exist, but no one really fits in them anymore. Can you be middle class and poor? Is 'class' something you're born with, or can it change? What's it even used for anyway.

I find it both fascinating and ridiculous.

Of course one can be middle class and poor! Just as one can be working class and wealthy.

I read that the class categories we still use were formulated in the machine age (first half of the 20th century). Which is why the categories no longer make sense. They were purely based on division of labour then. And obviously don't account for MASSIVE changes eg. Women working outside of the home.

I have no idea if I'm considered middle class or working class, not sure I actually care. Single parent, mortgage, I have a degree but currently working as a shop assistant in a supermarket (hours work with dc). My grandmother was very proud that she grew up in a working class family but worked hard to buy a house and was then considered middle class.

Access to free school meals is more discreetly handled, these days, OP.

… but poor families only receive 15 hours of funded nursery care and wealthier families receive 30 free hours a week. I am not sure how many people realise this disparity. Poor children have received half the nursery of their more affluent peers by the time they reach Reception (and are estimated to be 11 months behind).

@Dairyfairie

Access to free school meals is more discreetly handled, these days, OP.

… but poor families only receive 15 hours of funded nursery care and wealthier families receive 30 free hours a week. I am not sure how many people realise this disparity. Poor children have received half the nursery of their more affluent peers by the time they reach Reception (and are estimated to be 11 months behind).

I was not aware of this difference tbh. How on earth is that justified? Sorry, am not really up to date on childcare funding as dd is long since out of that phase!

I think class is basically determined by the way you speak and the style of clothes you wear now.

@Dairyfairie

Access to free school meals is more discreetly handled, these days, OP.

… but poor families only receive 15 hours of funded nursery care and wealthier families receive 30 free hours a week. I am not sure how many people realise this disparity. Poor children have received half the nursery of their more affluent peers by the time they reach Reception (and are estimated to be 11 months behind).

Ah....are they not receiving as much (free) nursery time because they're poor, or are they poor because they're not receiving as much free nursery time?

I'm aware there is some provision for 2yo on lower incomes, but is it too late then anyway? Mother has already been out of work for 2 years and can't do much with 15 hours to change the situation.

I'm aware this isn't really on topic. Just interested.

@Alexashutup I don’t see how it can be justified. The Sutton Trust did a report on it this summer: www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/A-Fair-Start-Summary-Report.pdf

Only then did I realise that the children who attended my son’s nursery part-time, did so because they were poor (while those who earn above a certain threshold get twice the hours funded by the government).

@Echobelly

I think whatever people want it to be!

You get types like David Cameron and chums who seem to think middle class is multiple homes, kids in private schools, trust funds. You get people who feel that it's anyone who owns a home (and frankly these days it might be true). And everyone middle class seems to claim they're working class, honest, my grandad was a milkman etc

It's more that you just can't pigeon hole people any more and despite what people say, there is a lot more social mobility than there used to be.

Probably because education is more accessible and people can continue their education and are not forced to leave school at 15/16 to work like they used to have to up until about 50 years ago.

So we have the descendants of milkmen, miners, steelworkers etc who go to university, just like the offspring of doctors, civil servants, teachers etc and then have far more opportunities open to them and are able to work as teachers, civil servants, doctors etc.

Or you find that the income of traditionally working class occupations like trades being higher than some professions like teaching etc, so there is crossover in the type of property and lifestyles people move into.

[quote Dairyfairie]@Alexashutup I don’t see how it can be justified. The Sutton Trust did a report on it this summer: www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/A-Fair-Start-Summary-Report.pdf

Only then did I realise that the children who attended my son’s nursery part-time, did so because they were poor (while those who earn above a certain threshold get twice the hours funded by the government).[/quote]
I believe it's to encourage people into work. When I reality it only seems to help people that are already in work. At best I'd say some people will stay in work and take the hit for a couple of years because they know it gets better. But you have to be earning enough to be able to afford that for a couple of years.

Gov.uk says 30 hours is for households where both parents are in work. If one parent is at home, why would that family need more childcare. This 30 hours isn't nursery education, it's childcare. (Not sure when this began, as it's definitely after my children were that age).

As someone who is not British, I definitely think there is still a very entrenched class system in the UK. Obviously money comes into it but it’s more complicated - it’s to do with education and people’s attitudes to it, there is a lot of snobbery on both sides - which is very unhelpful for social mobility. It’s also really unhelpful in other areas - e.g. it’s quite ridiculous that many healthy foods are considered “middle class”. I have lived in a number of different countries and have not seen such a division.

In response to OP’s question about two year funding:

Yes - children from very low-income families are eligible for 15 hours ‘childcare’ from the age of two.

BUT they do not then receive the additional hours that their more affluent peers are eligible for. The gap grows ever wider, despite that bit of intervention for two year olds.

And also - re childcare - I have not read the other thread but it is obviously beneficial for social mobility and women’s equality to have affordable childcare fir all. If in doubt, compare provision in the US v Scandinavian countries.

That seems incredibly shortsighted, given that the children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are probably the ones with the most to gain from extra nursery hours.

I shouldn't be surprised, though. This government has made its position towards disadvantaged families very clear over the years...

@haba

Gov.uk says 30 hours is for households where both parents are in work. If one parent is at home, why would that family need more childcare. This 30 hours isn't nursery education, it's childcare. (Not sure when this began, as it's definitely after my children were that age).

The 30 hours for more affluent families was an election pledge from David Cameron in 2015.

You are correct that the funding is for childcare @haba, but I find your idea that a family who don’t work don’t need it quite difficult to reconcile with the more humane concern that children whose parents earn very little are then restricted in their own access to education.

Shops at places like Boden or Lucy and Yak.
eats Green and Black's or Tony's chocolate or anything from an independent chocolatier.
Never has false nails, hair, tan.
Spends carefully and doesn't waste money on frivolous short term fun

That's what I remember from recent class posts!

You are correct that the funding is for childcare @haba, but I find your idea that a family who don’t work don’t need it quite difficult to reconcile with the more humane concern that children whose parents earn very little are then restricted in their own access to education.

This. Sadly an awful lot of those children would be better off with the extra hours, for educational purposes and to be out of the house.

@haba

Gov.uk says 30 hours is for households where both parents are in work. If one parent is at home, why would that family need more childcare. This 30 hours isn't nursery education, it's childcare. (Not sure when this began, as it's definitely after my children were that age).

This is the difference in provision at 2 and 3.

At 2 it isn't childcare, it's to make up for the perceived shortcomings of low income families (think cut off is around 16k)

At 3 15 hours is universal so is education.
The extra 30 hours is financial help to those in work as the kids would be in nursery anyway.

So in theory they're happy that at 3 you only need 15 hours but provide a financial benefit to those working over 16 hours per parent at home.

@LizBennet Well put.

A child on a Child Protection Plan (when a child is regarded as suffering or likely to suffer significant harm), is still only eligible for those fifteen hours if their family do not work enough / earn enough.

Their more affluent peer gets thirty hours for free. Their household can earn up to £200 000 a year, before they cease to be eligible.

I don't know why it's still a thing. That's kind of why I'm confused.

It's a thing that lets you look down on some people and look up to other people.

Endless entertainment, if you like that sort of things.

Class definitions in the UK (and especially England) are odd and opaque, to say the least.
I think it still exists because it's part of our equally odd culture and the fact people may derive comfort, from, say their working class heritage, coming from generations of miners for example. Or from their landed gentry background , even if said land is long gone.
For many people in the 'middle' it's often seen as a combination of background, education and employment. But not all three factors are necessarily germane.
For myself I'm secure in what I perceive to be my social class and don't care much what people think. But as i said, for some it may be a comfort, for others a conundrum and yet others see it as a diversion or entertainment. The latter appear to pop up on here fairly regularly.

[quote Dairyfairie]@LizBennet Well put.

A child on a Child Protection Plan (when a child is regarded as suffering or likely to suffer significant harm), is still only eligible for those fifteen hours if their family do not work enough / earn enough.

Their more affluent peer gets thirty hours for free. Their household can earn up to £200 000 a year, before they cease to be eligible.[/quote]
That's absurd. It's no wonder that some kids barely stand a chance.