Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?

[Smokeandsteam]

Because homeowners have multiple parties chasing their votes and renters have none?

Because that one particular form of material interest is the single biggest material factor affecting a person's quality of life? Because neoliberal capitalism is now entirely focussed on property speculation and there can be no challenge to it that doesn't address homes and housing?

None of that is evidence that the biggest political fault line is between renters and home owners. It’s also not persuasive as to why the left should ‘pick a side’ (homeowners v renters)
rather than seeking to advance a set of ideas and praxis that brings the widest possible group together around shared interests.

By the way. Presumably, one of the most immediate demands of renters would be the resources and means to buy their own place. Would the left support this and thereby drain it’s potential reservoir of support further?

I generally agree about the centrality of housing in peoples lives. But, I’m not sure branding all mortgage holders as middle class and arguing for the left to ‘pick sides’ is a particularly convincing programme to engage or get a hearing in the debate

 

[SpookyFrank]

How do you fold together two groups with directly opposing interests? Tennants need house prices to go down, owners want prices to go up.

Opposing landlordism could also mean supporting the rest of the economy. The proportion of working folk's income that goes on rent keeps going up, which means they have less to spend on everything else. None of the 'common sense' economics types appear to have spotted this.

 

[Pickman's model]

How do you fold together two groups with directly opposing interests? Tennants need house prices to go down, owners want prices to go up.

Opposing landlordism could also mean supporting the rest of the economy. The proportion of working folk's income that goes on rent keeps going up, which means they have less to spend on everything else. None of the 'common sense' economics types appear to have spotted this.

If wages increased then the proportion of money going in rent could decrease. Don't see you thinking about that.

 

[Brainaddict]

I generally agree about the centrality of housing in peoples lives. But, I’m not sure branding all mortgage holders as middle class and arguing for the left to ‘pick sides’ is a particularly convincing programme to engage or get a hearing in the debate

You may disagree that house owners are middle class, and maybe it makes more sense to think of them as a subset of the working class, but to me there's no doubt that home ownership, particularly once you are secure in it (i.e. not struggling to pay a mortgage and that being your main worry) puts you in a different relationship to asset price inflation - something that generally benefits the rich and is a major part of the Tory project.

I think having a materialist analysis of class at the moment requires using the idea of stratification within classes, rather than just two (or three according to preference) classes. Like I say, having a good pension also puts you in a certain relationship to asset prices, even if you got that pension by being a dustman. Did working class pensioners in Marx's time (the few who existed) benefit from stock market growth? Generally no. So he didn't talk about it. But now they do. So maybe we should talk about it?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Tennants need house prices to go down, owners want prices to go up.

Is this true though? Unless they are in a position to benefit from it as a sale of an asset (rather than something that exists to be lived in) why does an increase in value matter?

 

[Brainaddict]

Is this true though? Unless they are in a position to benefit from it as a sale of an asset (rather than something that exists to be lived in) why does an increase in value matter?

Man, this has been keeping the economy afloat for years. People release equity by remortgaging, or by downsizing, or through inheritance all the time. This is a lot of what is keeping consumption afloat in this country as wages sink and sink. That and personal debt.

 

[andysays]

How do you fold together two groups with directly opposing interests? Tennants need house prices to go down, owners want prices to go up...

The idea that tenants and home owners are inherently two groups with directly opposing interests needs a bit more discussion, TBH. Owners don't necessarily want prices to go up, and they certainly don't all benefit from it.

It's not as obviously the case as the idea that tenants and landlords (or workers and employers) have directly opposing interests.

 

[brogdale]

By the way. Presumably, one of the most immediate demands of renters would be the resources and means to buy their own place.

Agree with much of that, but not totally convinced about that most immediate demand. Quite a few of my kids' generation appear to have seen through the Thatcherite/neoliberal transformation of the basic human need for shelter into a 'taxable' asset class. They most immediately want (more) affordable rents, greater security of tenure, safer/healthier stock and greater intervention from the (local) state. And those that have heard of/get the idea of council housing like the idea of that.

tbh, it seems quite healthy to question the 'benefits' of home ownership when so many working class families are debt farmed by the banks on the promise of an inheritable asset that the neoliberal state gobbles up in "care" funding/inheritance tax.

 

[Pickman's model]

You may disagree that house owners are middle class, and maybe it makes more sense to think of them as a subset of the working class, but to me there's no doubt that home ownership, particularly once you are secure in it (i.e. not struggling to pay a mortgage and that being your main worry) puts you in a different relationship to asset price inflation - something that generally benefits the rich and is a major part of the Tory project.

I think having a materialist analysis of class at the moment requires using the idea of stratification within classes, rather than just two (or three according to preference) classes. Like I say, having a good pension also puts you in a certain relationship to asset prices, even if you got that pension by being a dustman. Did working class pensioners in Marx's time (the few who existed) benefit from stock market growth? Generally no. So he didn't talk about it. But now they do. So maybe we should talk about it?

Could you say some more about the working class pensioners of Marx's time, pls, few tho they may have been?

The average pension payout from a private pension was in 18/19 £175 per week. So half of the 69% of pensioners with a private pension are receiving less than that. Any actual benefit they're receiving from stock market growth seems marginal. Maybe if we're going to talk about it, you might like to bring some of your actual evidence into the discussion. I daresay Marx would have done.

 

[Brainaddict]

As for picking sides why would ‘the left’ want to write off 63% of the population on the basis that it possesses one particularly form of material interest?

On this I do agree that of course politically no-one can afford to see houseowners as 'the enemy'. But since most houseowners are also wage-earners, there is a way that you can oppose their interests as houseowners while making sure they are overall winners: namely to support wage increases over asset price increases. But there's no question that to do this you have to downgrade the expectations of house owners that they can treat their house as a piggy bank. You have to persuade them that wage increases are actually better than being able to withdraw money from their house. You have to oppose them as a homeowner bloc by supporting them as salaried workers. It's a tricky political act because house price growth appears to people as 'free money', and acrues to many people after retirement when they aren't salaried any more anyway. So there's a large number of owners who won't see wage growth as sufficient compensation for the loss of house price growth (particularly if it comes with deflation of other assets that back their pensions) and that's a problem politically.

Okay, I'm done for now trying to persuade marxists to be materialists. If you don't want to get it you don't, but the Tories (or Blairite Labour) will keep winning if you can't undo this knot.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

You have to persuade them that wage increases are actually better than being able to withdraw money from their house.

You think working class home owners prefer being able to withdraw money from their homes (how often btw?) over wage increases?

 

[SpookyFrank]

If wages increased then the proportion of money going in rent could decrease. Don't see you thinking about that.

Assuming landlords don't go oh look people are getting paid more. I can put the rent up now.

 

[SpookyFrank]

On this I do agree that of course politically no-one can afford to see houseowners as 'the enemy'. But since most houseowners are also wage-earners, there is a way that you can oppose their interests as houseowners while making sure they are overall winners: namely to support wage increases over asset price increases. But there's no question that to do this you have to downgrade the expectations of house owners that they can treat their house as a piggy bank. You have to persuade them that wage increases are actually better than being able to withdraw money from their house. You have to oppose them as a homeowner bloc by supporting them as salaried workers. It's a tricky political act because house price growth appears to people as 'free money', and acrues to many people after retirement when they aren't salaried any more anyway. So there's a large number of owners who won't see wage growth as sufficient compensation for the loss of house price growth (particularly if it comes with deflation of other assets that back their pensions) and that's a problem politically.

Okay, I'm done for now trying to persuade marxists to be materialists. If you don't want to get it you don't, but the Tories (or Blairite Labour) will keep winning if you can't undo this knot.

There's a difference between 'the enemy' and 'not the most urgent priority'. Anyone claiming to be progressive should surely focus their attention on those whose need is greatest surely? So people with no homes, then people with precarious or unsafe homes, then people with little or no prospect of owning a home, then when all those people are OK maybe 'ordinary' homeowners.

Although of course helping the homeless, the precariously housed and downtrodden renters will of necessity involve doing things that property owning folk won't like much. Like saying no, you can't own five houses when there are people with none.

 

[andysays]

Although of course helping the homeless, the precariously housed and downtrodden renters will of necessity involve doing things that property owning folk won't like much. Like saying no, you can't own five houses when there are people with none.

But saying "no, you can't own five houses when there are people with none" isn't something contrary to the material interests of most people who own their own home (and even more people who are currently paying off a mortgage).

Your class enemy is your landlord, not the people living in the house next door who are "lucky" enough to have been able to get a mortgage which they struggle to pay every month.

 

[Pickman's model]

Assuming landlords don't go oh look people are getting paid more. I can put the rent up now.

No doubt some will, and some won't.

 

[Brainaddict]

You think working class home owners prefer being able to withdraw money from their homes (how often btw?) over wage increases?

They absolutely do when they're retired.

As for wage increases when you're not retired, you'd have to fight for those, and low organisation of the workforce means you might be barely capable of doing so. While house values just accrue without you having to do anything (except vote in governments committed to house price growth). So yes, in terms of the life choices they might want to make (start a union in their non-unionised workplace? Nah), even many people in work are happy to rely on house price growth.

 

[Yossarian]

Assuming landlords don't go oh look people are getting paid more. I can put the rent up now.

"This modest increase is due to market conditions and increased overheads..."

 

[Pickman's model]

"This modest increase is due to market conditions and increased overheads..."

Rent controls should return

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

There's a difference between 'the enemy' and 'not the most urgent priority'. Anyone claiming to be progressive should surely focus their attention on those whose need is greatest surely? So people with no homes, then people with precarious or unsafe homes, then people with little or no prospect of owning a home, then when all those people are OK maybe 'ordinary' homeowners.

Although of course helping the homeless, the precariously housed and downtrodden renters will of necessity involve doing things that property owning folk won't like much. Like saying no, you can't own five houses when there are people with none.

I don't know that you can to be honest, no. If you want people on board you have to be able to offer them something that appeals to their interests. That's not to say you can't focus on those groups as well but taken to it's ultimate logic that tends towards a sort of version of that Tory logic that's always pointing out someone who's got something you don't.

 

[Chilli.s]

Something I think defines the difference from wc to mc is paying for your kids to have a different type of education in fee paying schools. The toffs at the top do this as a matter of course, but mc and aspiring wc have a definite choice.

 

[Pickman's model]

Something I think defines the difference from wc to mc is paying for your kids to have a different type of education in fee paying schools. The toffs at the top do this as a matter of course, but mc and aspiring wc have a definite choice.

7% of children go to fee paying schools. So I'm curious why you think this a liminal issue between being working class and being middle class. A difference imo between being working class and middle class around schools is working class people not enjoying the mobility many middle class parents do to move to the catchment areas of good schools

 

[Sasaferrato]

If wages increased then the proportion of money going in rent could decrease. Don't see you thinking about that.

I suspect that in that scenario, rents would rise.

At the moment, rents seem to be pitched at the point where the donor is weakened, but not quite fatally.

 

[Sasaferrato]

7% of children go to fee paying schools. So I'm curious why you think this a liminal issue between being working class and being middle class

Except Edinburgh, where it is 25%.

 

[Pickman's model]

Except Edinburgh, where it is 25%.

It's high in hackney too, some years back it was about 20% but many of those being religious schools iirc. Nonetheless overall it's about 1/14

 

[Brainaddict]

I suspect that in that scenario, rents would rise.

At the moment, rents seem to be pitched at the point where the donor is weakened, but not quite fatally.

This is true. There is not as much housing scarcity as some people say, but there is a little housing scarcity, and even that is enough to put landlords in the driving seat. They can essentially demand as much as people can afford, and for the most part they do. So in order for wage increases to not disappear in rent you need to either end housing scarcity with massive social housing building, or enact rent controls. Preferably both.

 

[Chilli.s]

7% of children go to fee paying schools. So I'm curious why you think this a liminal issue between being working class and being middle class. A difference imo between being working class and middle class around schools is working class people not enjoying the mobility many middle class parents do to move to the catchment areas of good schools

Dunno really, just an observation of the group of people that i know personally

 

[Sasaferrato]

It's high in hackney too, some years back it was about 20% but many of those being religious schools iirc. Nonetheless overall it's about 1/14

Aye, Edinburgh is an outlier in this respect.

Now, I must give up the joyous pastime of posting on Urban, and go to the gym. I'm sitting here naked, post shower, and Mrs Sas is telling me that if I don't move now, certain appendages are going to be used as marbles.

 

[rubbershoes]

Man, this has been keeping the economy afloat for years. People release equity by remortgaging, or by downsizing, or through inheritance all the time. This is a lot of what is keeping consumption afloat in this country as wages sink and sink. That and personal debt.

That's a by product of rising house prices. Unless someone is stepping out of the housing market completely, then rising prices are of no benefit to them.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Is this true though? Unless they are in a position to benefit from it as a sale of an asset (rather than something that exists to be lived in) why does an increase in value matter?

It matters because the landlord is getting an income from the property, in percentage terms, as house prices rise, so do rents to maintain the landlord's profit.

House price rises don't matter so much when the landlord has held the house for twenty years, but for someone buying now, the same standard of property needs a bigger rent to sustain the % profit. This then becomes the rent for that type of property, so the 20 year landlord raises their rent to match the new landlord. The 20 year landlord's % profit is of course huge in comparison to initial outlay, the new landlord not so much.

Really must aaaaarrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Magnus McGinty]

That's a by product of rising house prices. Unless someone is stepping out of the housing market completely, then rising prices are of no benefit to them.

And certainly not a benefit to those who have kids that can no longer get on the ladder because of such rises.