Sancho Panza Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Guardian 6/11/14 'More people are moving down, rather than up, the social ladder as the number of middle-class managerial and professional jobs shrinks, according to an Oxford University study. The experience of upward mobility – defined as a person ending up in an occupation of higher status than their father – has become less common in the past four decades, the study says, leaving children of those who benefited from it with worse prospects than their parents had. Dr John Goldthorpe, a co-author of the study and Oxford sociologist, said: “For the first time in a long time, we have got a generation coming through education and into the jobs market whose chances of social advancement are not better than their parents, they are worse.” The UK’s boom in managerial and professional level public services and industrial jobs during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s saw an increase in the proportion of children born into professional and managerial families. The decline in these jobs meant that the number of individuals at risk of downward mobility were higher. Goldthorpe added: “Politicians are saying that a new generation of young people don’t have the same opportunities for social advancement as their parents, and these results seem to bear that out. The trend shows that, while social mobility has not stalled, more mobility is going in a downward direction than in the past. “ The emerging situation is one for which there is little historical precedent and that carries potentially far-reaching political and wider social implications.” The study looked at more than 20,000 British people born in periods from 1946, 1958, 1970 and 1980-84. Researchers used an adapted version of official socio-economic classifications that allocated individuals to seven classes ranging from “routine occupations” to “higher managers and professionals”. They compared the class of each individual when in their late 20s or 30s to that of their father. The study found that contrary to popular opinion, social mobility as a whole had not declined or ground to a halt, it was simply more likely to be downward in nature. Across all the birth cohorts, about three quarters of men and women ended up in different class to the one they were born in, a proportion that has stayed roughly stable over time. However, the study found that inequalities in the relative chances of mobility were greater than thought, with the child of a higher professional or managerial father 20 times more likely to end up in a similarly high status job than a child with a working class father was to end up in a professional job. Society needed to actively renew its stock of “top end” jobs if it did not want consign graduates to lower level jobs than their parents, said Goldthorpe. “We need a high-tech sector and a high-powered public sector to create demand for people with qualifications.” The study by Oxford University, with the London School of Economics and Political Sciences, is published on Thursday in the online issue of the British Journal of Sociology.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Baby Boomers’ Children Left With Nowhere To Go Snap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 Baby Boomers’ Children Left With Nowhere To Go Snap. Apologies IRRO.I had a look and missed it.Mods,can you merge please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Inevitable fallout from pumping the #1 biggest expense a person faces in life. incredible the number of conservatives that harp on about the sanctity of the principle of 'equality of opportunities' whilst simultaneously supporting policies that increase dependence on inheritance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwiches33 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 This is only going to get worse as more and more jobs are automated. Eventually all labour will be replaced, its really interesting times, I cannot see how this can be averted. Maybe the plan is for us to all sit around being unemployed poets in million pound council houses? Its seems like thats what they are trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Apologies IRRO.I had a look and missed it.Mods,can you merge please. Easy enough to do as they have different headlines. I'd have posted it too as they've took different angles with the same report. The guardian headline is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Just a time when we are sending half the school leavers to Uni too. If any one was really in any doubt anyway that University was a rite of passage, a way of fulfilling parent's dreams ...graduation is akin to a wedding. And not to disappoint all those quasi public sector staff and landlords on the gravy train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butthead Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 We need a high-tech sector and a high-powered public sector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwiches33 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 We need a high-tech sector and a high-powered public sector I seen this too. LOL. We already have a high tec sector its one of the things keeping the uk on life support despite repeated attempts by government to bleed it or smash it. Those pesky creators keep surfacing and innovating! What exactly is a high powered public sector? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) “We need a high-tech sector and a high-powered public sector to create demand for people with qualifications Oxford and London graduates.” The study by Oxford University, with the London School of Economics and Political Sciences, is published on Thursday in the online issue of the British Journal of Sociology. Corrected. The public sector has far too much power already. Edited November 6, 2014 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 We could all be leading lives of leisure now if it wasn't for high house prices. That would certainly be 'higher status' than being a 1950s middle manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Take up plumbing http://www.pimlicoplumbers.com/blog/plumb-in-to-100k-a-year-pay-but-it-s-no-easy-ride Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 That's a relief, I'm upset to discover I'm a complete an utter 'spaz'. Fewer jobs will mean fewer 'spazes' so I'm less likely to have to have that awkward conversation with my kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 This study is very focused on types of employment, but it seems to have missed the fact that employment makes much less difference to your life chances than it did in the past. You can work hard, be lucky and get yourself into the top 10% of salaries but unless a property inheritance comes your way or you managed to lock in your lifetime housing costs before the year 2000 you will probably have a material standard of living lower than the median household did 20 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) House I bought 30 years ago cost 30k and I earned a good salary of around 10k, same house sold recently for 360k, I estimate my equivalent salary now would be 40k. So it was 3x my salary and is now 9x my salary. The UK population sold down the river by governments of both colours serving their masters. I don't see it that way - apart from Labour overseeing massive relaxation in lending standards. It was buyers who borrowed more and more, to set higher prices. My parents saw the same price rises, due to buyers year-on-year, agreeing to buy similar houses at higher prices.. £30K, £60K, £100K, £150K, £200K, £250K, £400K. Even now I hear owners and imminent buyers tell me 'renting is dead money' vs jumbo mortgages. The excuse givers are the most to blame, for those buyer who set higher and higher crazy prices ("They didn't know what they were doing" / "They couldn't have expected a recession / crash"). Buyers greedy in other ways, still setting higher prices, going BTL, even now, at crazy ponzi prices. Bubble so pumped up and excuses, that it is always the renter-capitalists who lose and are punished. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5109334 Edited November 9, 2014 by Venger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 This is only going to get worse as more and more jobs are automated. Yet the article suggests that more high tech jobs is the solution, despite the fact that high tech in general eliminates more jobs than it creates- which it must if the idea of 'progress' is to mean anything at all. After all if technological progress actually created the need for more human labor instead of less human labor it would fail a basic test of what 'progress' means, at least as most people understand the term. A technology that created more work instead of less work would be kind of pointless. So the dream sold to us by the technologists is that more and better technology will free human beings from the drudgery of work- but they seem to have failed to work out exactly what happens to the people who are 'freed' from their jobs- and the income those jobs provide. The answer seems to be that they will become minimum wage earning drones- not quite the bright and shiny future we were promised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Make your own sandwiches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeryMeanReversion Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 This study is very focused on types of employment, but it seems to have missed the fact that employment makes much less difference to your life chances than it did in the past. You can work hard, be lucky and get yourself into the top 10% of salaries but unless a property inheritance comes your way or you managed to lock in your lifetime housing costs before the year 2000 you will probably have a material standard of living lower than the median household did 20 years ago. Wise words. I find it interesting to consider the consequences. If work/effort no longer pays, those that can will either stop or leave. Those that can't will bleat for more subsidies from those that remain. The current plan to farm the young isn't going to end well, but it will take decades to play out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 We need a high-tech sector and a high-powered public sector I seen this too. LOL. We already have a high tec sector its one of the things keeping the uk on life support despite repeated attempts by government to bleed it or smash it. Those pesky creators keep surfacing and innovating! What exactly is a high powered public sector? LOL Indeed Oh dear A lot of academics (outside highly employable mostly technical fields) support a bloated public sector purely out of self interest, the more relevant and technical ones less so, in my experience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash4781 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The Telegraph article on this is a tad odd. The chart appears to show finance and business as very high risk but the article says those over 100k will be ok (including in finance). Hmm. This is also combined with a change in population demographics of an ageing workforce. All I can see is deflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qetesuesi Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The answer seems to be that they will become minimum wage earning drones- not quite the bright and shiny future we were promised. Aren't (virtually) all NMW jobs going to be automated away? The answer must be a citizen's income. It simply must. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 House I bought 30 years ago cost 30k and I earned a good salary of around 10k, same house sold recently for 360k, I estimate my equivalent salary now would be 40k. So it was 3x my salary and is now 9x my salary. The UK population sold down the river by governments of both colours serving their masters. Short, concise, absolutely correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimJ Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 House I bought 30 years ago cost 30k and I earned a good salary of around 10k, same house sold recently for 360k, I estimate my equivalent salary now would be 40k. So it was 3x my salary and is now 9x my salary. This is the sort of explanation I use when talking to older family members about how multiples required to buy were much less, yet they still just don't get it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 House I bought 30 years ago cost 30k and I earned a good salary of around 10k, same house sold recently for 360k, I estimate my equivalent salary now would be 40k. So it was 3x my salary and is now 9x my salary. The UK population sold down the river by governments of both colours serving their masters. Even if you take into consideration the much higher rate of interest paid 30 years ago on a 25 year repayment term......it would still be better than todays low rates....with a 5% or 10% deposit over a far longer repayment term...... http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1633415/Mortgage-calculator-How-I-afford-borrow.html http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/repo.asp You do the maths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 This is the sort of explanation I use when talking to older family members about how multiples required to buy were much less, yet they still just don't get it!! They will when they try to sell their house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.