Class in British Society Questions, February 28, 2011

1. Compare the quality of life of the working class and the middle class between 1945 and 2000.

The working class in 1945 was struggling to create a new world in Britain and escape the issues of World War II, and starting around that point and within the next few years, working class living standards became undeniably improved by full employment and comprehensive welfare provision. However, educational opportunities were few and far between for the most part, as even two decades later, in the 1960s, only 9% of the population was enrolled in universities and only 3% OF that 9% was working class. So while job opportunities and welfare significantly improved the quality of life of the working class, there was still room for improvement with regards to education. As for the quality of life of the working class as of 2000, although British families earn significantly more on average than the average European family, due to the fact that "According to the report the British pay "the highest prices for diesel, 18% above the average, and the second-highest price for unleaded petrol, 6% more than average. Public spending on health and education is below-average. British workers have fewer holidays than average and retire later (they have the third-highest retirement age in Europe), while life expectancy is the third-lowest at 78.9 years, compared to 80.9 in France or 80.7 in Sweden. ", it can be inferred that for the working class, due to these comparatively high prices, the quality of life is more difficult than it would have been in past years, although this is still up for debate since nowadays, educational opportunities are much more significantly attainable today. Middle class quality of life follows a similar pattern, however life is easier for them than for the working class, considering that the middle class consists of professionals and independent business people, as well as white collar and clerical workers, so they make more money.


Sources:

http://www.marxist.com/british-quality-of-life-among-worst-in-europe.htm

GENDER AND WORKING CLASS IDENTITY IN BRITAIN DURING THE 1950sJournal article by Stephen Brooke; Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, 2001.




2. Compare and contrast avenues for social mobility in 1945 and 2000.

One avenue for social mobility is education, and in 1945 it would be assumed that approximately 9% of British people were in college if not less, given that over time this rate increases and by 1965 it was approximately that 9%, so in 1945 it must have been less, and part of this could have been that it was difficult to send your children to college if you didn't have the financial means to support them through the process. However, some sources today state that in 2000, approximately 20% of UK citizens hold a degree, which is quite a bit greater than 9%. Given that education opens doors and nowadays due to aspects such as financial aid and the ability to take student loans, students from poorer backgrounds can afford education, open themselves up to new opportunities and thus social mobility can become possible.

There are some things, on the other hand, that PREVENT social mobility, and these are said to be gender and race. It's not fair, but when examining status mobility, it is said that women and minorities have a harder time seeking promotions, and that women and minorities hold jobs with less rank, authority, opportunity for advancement, and pay than men and whites. This would have been more of a deterrent in the past, given that there is now attempt for equal opportunity, which attempts to even out these situations and therefore, race and gender are interfering far less with social mobility.

Economist Article. February 8, 2010.

Textbooks often portray "income inequality" as one of the major concerns facing modern economies. Given its mention in the Oxford History reading, and the Economist article (attached), to what extent to you believe income inequality is one of the three biggest problems facing Europe in the era we are studying? Please respond on your blog with at least a paragraph.



I believe that "income inequality" was one of the problems facing Europe in the area that we are studying, but I do not believe that it was one of the top three problems. While there was economic polarization taking place (a widening gap between the rich and the poor), there were other more influential reasons why Western Europe's economy began to take a turn for the worse. One is that there was increased competition from the Far East for exports, so Western Europe's share of exports was proportionally less than it previously had been, therefore less money was coming into Western Europe due to exports. "Oil shocks" (substantial increases in oil prices) also were another significant cause, given that since the prices of oil were dramatically increasing and Western Europe was not making as much money as a whole, they did not have the money to import the amount of oil they had previously been importing, thus global trade took a downward turn as well, as Western Europe previously imported more significantly. And finally, stagflation (economic stagnation coupled with inflation) was a large problem as well. I believe all three of these issues were far more significant in changing the economic climate in Europe during the 1970s, and the uneven distribution of wealth and the eventual economic polarization was a result of these other causes, rather than vice versa. Thus it doesn't make the list of the top 3 causes for economic problems, although it was a problem of its own.

Current events in Egypt - what should Obama do?

In my opinion, the United States and Obama should not get involved in what is going on in Egypt right now, as it could be potentially disastrous regardless of what we could do. The United States has supported Mubarak because he has maintained peaceful policies toward Israel, so if the United States were to be on the side of those protesting, it might (in an indirect manner) more quickly put another leader in charge that is more favorable with the Egyptians that might not actually maintain peaceful policies with Israel, and since Egypt is the largest and most populous Arab country, if any Arab could destroy Israel single-handed it would probably be Egypt. On the other hand, if the United States decides to support Mubarak, it will alienate the majority of the Egyptian people and when Mubarak is finally not in power, it is likely that the next Egyptian leader would not want to cooperate with us and it could provoke future conflicts, be it a lack of economic cooperation or even war. It is just safer for the United States to stay out of the conflicts in Egypt right now, since we already are at war and don't need to make any more enemies. I think that it is not the business of the United States to interfere with peaceful protests and if the protests intensify, it is not our responsibility to stop it.