Canada: "middle class"

[g***@gmail.com]

Has this verbal disease infected British politicians?

In Canada, pols at all levels refer constantly and exclusively to "the middle class" when advertising their wares. Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

Whereas US media and pols do sometimes refer to the working class, and US sociologists concede there is an "underclass", Canada appears to be inhabited solely by the middle class.

The irony in Canada is that Justin Trudeau's family and wider kin would be privately outraged if someone called them middle class. Justin inherited Pierre's Mercedes 300SL and promptly spent $400,000 on restoring it.

The other mealy-mouthed phrase is "hard working Canadians", which is rather spiteful to the million-plus who wish to work and have no job. Of course the term is meant to turn the rancour of those working two and three part-time temp jobs on minimum wage towards the unemployed, rather than towards a system that continually removes full-time jobs and replaces them with precarious employment.
\
Comments from the Old Country, about how these issues are phrased in the UK?

[grabber]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Has this verbal disease infected British politicians?
In Canada, pols at all levels refer constantly and exclusively to "the middle class" when advertising their wares. Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.
Whereas US media and pols do sometimes refer to the working class, and US sociologists concede there is an "underclass", Canada appears to be inhabited solely by the middle class.
The irony in Canada is that Justin Trudeau's family and wider kin would be privately outraged if someone called them middle class. Justin inherited Pierre's Mercedes 300SL and promptly spent $400,000 on restoring it.
The other mealy-mouthed phrase is "hard working Canadians", which is rather spiteful to the million-plus who wish to work and have no job. Of course the term is meant to turn the rancour of those working two and three part-time temp jobs on minimum wage towards the unemployed, rather than towards a system that continually removes full-time jobs and replaces them with precarious employment.
\
Comments from the Old Country, about how these issues are phrased in the UK?

"Middle class" is quite not as bad as "elite", but is still a fairly
pejorative term.

Politicians like to claim to be on the side of "ordinary people" and
"hard-working families".

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by grabber

Post by g***@gmail.com
Has this verbal disease infected British politicians?
In Canada, pols at all levels refer constantly and exclusively to "the middle class" when advertising their wares. Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.
Whereas US media and pols do sometimes refer to the working class, and US sociologists concede there is an "underclass", Canada appears to be inhabited solely by the middle class.
The irony in Canada is that Justin Trudeau's family and wider kin would be privately outraged if someone called them middle class. Justin inherited Pierre's Mercedes 300SL and promptly spent $400,000 on restoring it.
The other mealy-mouthed phrase is "hard working Canadians", which is rather spiteful to the million-plus who wish to work and have no job. Of course the term is meant to turn the rancour of those working two and three part-time temp jobs on minimum wage towards the unemployed, rather than towards a system that continually removes full-time jobs and replaces them with precarious employment.
\
Comments from the Old Country, about how these issues are phrased in the UK?

"Middle class" is quite not as bad as "elite", but is still a fairly
pejorative term.
Politicians like to claim to be on the side of "ordinary people" and
"hard-working families".

Does the UK no longer have a large middle class? Just joking, but I'd guess that a fair number of politicians are themselves middle class.

As for "the elite": in Canada and the US that denotes everyone who has more confidence, better grooming, and better looks than oneself.

[Colonel Edmund J. Burke]

"Middle class" is quite not as bad as "elite", but is still a fairly pejorative term.
Politicians like to claim to be on the side of "ordinary people" and "hard-working families".

Yeah, Assgrabber, like, uh...no shit, Sherlock.

[Colonel Edmund J. Burke]

Post by Colonel Edmund J. Burke

"Middle class" is quite not as bad as "elite", but is still a fairly pejorative term.
Politicians like to claim to be on the side of "ordinary people" and "hard-working families".

Yeah, Assgrabber, like, uh...no shit, Sherlock.

Assgrabber meats Anklegrabber--cumming to a theatre near youse.

[dolf]

YOUTUBE: “Catchy Monkey (Kovak)”

— DENSE AS BUSHMEAT —

“Softly softly
Catchy monkey.
Such tucker
As bushmeat.

Looky Looky.
On the money.
Witless wanker.
Seditious heat.

Lies ‘n porky.
Dense donkey.
Endless rancour.
Diseased treat.”

YOUTUBE: “I am, You are, We are Australian”

- dolf

Initial Post: 3 December 2017

Post by Colonel Edmund J. Burke

Post by Colonel Edmund J. Burke

"Middle class" is quite not as bad as "elite", but is still a fairly pejorative term.
Politicians like to claim to be on the side of "ordinary people" and
"hard-working families".

Yeah, Assgrabber, like, uh...no shit, Sherlock.

Assgrabber meats Anklegrabber--cumming to a theatre near youse.

— Truth Whispers As Tears In Rain —

“What of Godhead.
And imago dei.
Or truth convey?
By pure conceit.

Why be wicked.
Such as thee.
Of blasphemy.
Selfish deceit.

Whom did bleed.
Was it not for me?
Your cock deny.
Now all forfeit.”

YOUTUBE: “Time to Die (Gary Numan)”

I will not tread foot in your churches and God is with me...

- dolf

Initial Post: 3 December 2017
--
SEE ALSO: *INVALIDATING* *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN* *CATHOLIC*
*CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND*
*FRAUDULENT*

Private Street on the edge of the Central Business District dated 16th
May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as a Notice of
an Application for Planning Permit

- <http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTATIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF
NATURE-genesis [James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial
tetragrammaton x 4.5 day = #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER
which is an amalgam of the 64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as
trinomial tetragrammaton rather than its encapsulated contrived use as the
microcosm to redefine the macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean
[Babylonian] as binomial canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF
NUMBER.

- <http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006
defines a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is
permissible to extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING
AS A CONSCIOUS REALITY OF HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN
THE TEMPORAL REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] as
EXISTENCE.

- http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.

They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not make them middle-class.

Owain

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.

Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

-GAWollman

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class. Even
in the rather odd company town I grew up in, "class" wasn't used,
although there was a distinction made between 'uptown' (management) and
'downtown' (union). I gather by my day it had become less marked than
in, say, my grandparents' day - my family, for one, had a foot in both
camps.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class. Even
in the rather odd company town I grew up in, "class" wasn't used,
although there was a distinction made between 'uptown' (management) and
'downtown' (union). I gather by my day it had become less marked than
in, say, my grandparents' day - my family, for one, had a foot in both
camps.

That would have been more awkward than having a foot in each camp.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

A sort of economic Dunning-Kruger effect?

Here's an example from the UK:

Only 36 seconds, I promise.

[Cheryl]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

A sort of economic Dunning-Kruger effect?

No, because almost everybody - rich or poor - claims to be middle class,
which would seem logically impossible.

I suspect it has something to do with people being a little
uncomfortable with the whole idea of class, or perhaps a reluctance to
boast. People might claim that others are low-class (there are, of
course, a variety of terms that might be employed), but they generally
don't claim that they themselves are upper class. They're just middle
class, like all nice, self-respecting people, and unlike those lazy
ignorant slobs down the street.

However, in spite of this, statistics do show that some of us are much
richer than others (if you like that definition of class) or have
different educational levels and/or tastes in clothing, entertainment
and other cultural factors (if you prefer that one).

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

A sort of economic Dunning-Kruger effect?

No, because almost everybody - rich or poor - claims to be middle class,
which would seem logically impossible.

Not if the extremes are (very) small but not nonexistent.

Cf. the "99%" publicized by the Occupy movement a few years ago. And then the
discussion was of "the 1% of the 1%."

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

A sort of economic Dunning-Kruger effect?

No, because almost everybody - rich or poor - claims to be middle class,
which would seem logically impossible.

Not if the extremes are (very) small but not nonexistent.
Cf. the "99%" publicized by the Occupy movement a few years ago. And then the
discussion was of "the 1% of the 1%."

I don't think that's how the terms are defined by most surveys. It can
get a bit complicated (median or average income? or perhaps net worth?)
but they're generally not talking about that silly 99% figure as
representing the middle class.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

A sort of economic Dunning-Kruger effect?

No, because almost everybody - rich or poor - claims to be middle class,
which would seem logically impossible.

Not if the extremes are (very) small but not nonexistent.
Cf. the "99%" publicized by the Occupy movement a few years ago. And then the
discussion was of "the 1% of the 1%."

I don't think that's how the terms are defined by most surveys. It can
get a bit complicated (median or average income? or perhaps net worth?)
but they're generally not talking about that silly 99% figure as
representing the middle class.

You said "logically impossible."

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

A sort of economic Dunning-Kruger effect?
http://youtu.be/NXZ52-XgUjA
Only 36 seconds, I promise.

That is extraordinary. The "proud working class" is such a tradition
of stout yeomanry, that is pitiful to see a young girl shrug off her
heritage :(

Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a
White Brit, I am nowadays in a minority - used to be this:

1) First wave immigrants set up a Lower Middle Class trade: running a
takeaway, opening a shop, or other low-paid / low-return business.

2) *Their* children - pushed and encouraged - qualify as solicitors,
engineers, accountants, doctors.

I'm sure *they* notice the class jump as keenly as my ancestors did;
and it can only come about through *very* hard work.

[Lewis]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

A sort of economic Dunning-Kruger effect?
http://youtu.be/NXZ52-XgUjA
Only 36 seconds, I promise.

That is extraordinary. The "proud working class" is such a tradition
of stout yeomanry, that is pitiful to see a young girl shrug off her
heritage :(
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

(Based largely on who I saw on the Underground and in restaurants, I am
entirely discounting the tourist places we went).

OTOH, what you consider white may be rather different. For example, one
person we met I'd consider white, but turned out he was from Argentina
or Venezuela, I've forgotten which, so you might see a difference there
that I wouldn't notice.

Post by Harrison Hill
1) First wave immigrants set up a Lower Middle Class trade: running a
takeaway, opening a shop, or other low-paid / low-return business.
2) *Their* children - pushed and encouraged - qualify as solicitors,
engineers, accountants, doctors.

That has largely been the pattern of immigrants everywhere, though in
the US the class system is a lot more subtle than in the UK (Don't
believe people who say we don't have one, we do, but it's different and
more hidden).

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

...

According to the 2011 census, 44.9% were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

...
According to the 2011 census, 44.9% were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

Is that what racist Americans would call 'Caucasians'?

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

According to the 2011 census, 44.9% were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

Is that what racist Americans would call 'Caucasians'?

No, _racist_ Americans would say "Whites."

Census and survey forms generally include a category "White or Caucasian."

It's in a list _after_ the first question, which is "Do you consider yourself
Hispanic or Latin-American?" because Hispanics/Latinos can further self-
identify as either "white" or "black."

The Census Bureau is considering adding a further category in the list of "races"
for the 2020 census of "Middle Eastern or North African" (or some such), so
that persons of Arab or Iranian ancestry can be counted separately. There is
some concern that this could be used to identify "terrorists," despite strict
provisions that no census information about individuals can be revealed until
50 years later. (1960 census information is the latest available, and it has
been used to investigate things like bilingualism and movement patterns.)

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

...
According to the 2011 census, 44.9% were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

Is that what racist Americans would call 'Caucasians'?

I don't think there's much of a correlation between racial attitudes
and the choice of "Caucasian", "white", or either depending on the
situation.

[Lewis]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

...
According to the 2011 census, 44.9% were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

Is that what racist Americans would call 'Caucasians'?

I don't think there's much of a correlation between racial attitudes
and the choice of "Caucasian", "white", or either depending on the
situation.

I think the (il)logic is assumed to be:

Police are racist.
Police sa caucasian instead of white.
Therefore racists say caucasian.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

...
According to the 2011 census, 44.9% were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

Is that what racist Americans would call 'Caucasians'?

My former doctor is Caucasian in the sense that his parents immigrated
from Armenia, but I'm not that he is sufficiently European-looking to
be called "Caucasian" by a racist.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

...
According to the 2011 census, 44.9% were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

Is that what racist Americans would call 'Caucasians'?

My former doctor is Caucasian in the sense that his parents immigrated
from Armenia, but I'm not that he is sufficiently European-looking to be
called "Caucasian" by a racist.

What's the current status of North Africans and Indians by this theory?
Still all Caucasian, or only some of them?

Does Trump's "banned" list include any non-Caucasians?

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

...
According to the 2011 census, 44.9% were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all
ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

Is that what racist Americans would call 'Caucasians'?

My former doctor is Caucasian in the sense that his parents immigrated
from Armenia, but I'm not that he is sufficiently European-looking to be
called "Caucasian" by a racist.

What's the current status of North Africans and Indians by this theory?
Still all Caucasian, or only some of them?

Well, there was a local student group who wanted to change the
recipients of money they raised for charity from a charity that only
helped Caucasian aka white children because minorities would identify
more with a charity that helped their children. Among those who were
outraged were those who pointed out that "most" does not mean "all",
those who pointed out that children from the Indian subcontinent
sometimes got the disease and were often classified as Caucasian, and
those members of visible minority groups who were offended at the very
idea that they wouldn't donate to help sick children of any skin colour.

I don't remember if North Africans came into this debate over
white/Caucasian children, but clearly at that time some people were
still aware that "Caucasian" could include Indians.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a

Uh... really? That was not my impression of London *at all*. London was
surprisingly white, in fact, especially compared to places like San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Vancouver.

...
According to the 2011 census, 44.9%

of Londoners

Post by Jerry Friedman
were white British, which must be
what Harrison is talking about, and 59.8% were white of all ethnicities,
which is what you noticed.

[Richard Heathfield]

<snip>

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
According to the 2011 census, 44.9%

of Londoners

Post by Jerry Friedman
were white British,

Obviously it depends which part of London.

Newham is perhaps[1] an extreme example, but in Newham 16.73% (just over
one in six) of the population is designated as "White: British" in the
ethnicity statistics. If you include "White: Irish", "White: Gypsy or
Irish Traveller", and "White: Other", it grows to 28.97% (just over one
in four).

[1] I checked afterwards. It is actually /the/ extreme example at this
end of the stats, not just for London but for the whole of England. At
the other end, the "White:*" record seems to be a tie between Allerdale
in Cumbria and Eden (also in Cumbria) at 98.9%, with the Isles of
Scilly, at 98.8%, running them a close third.

The median value (aggregated by district, remember) would appear to be
95%. (This is for England, not the UK.)

The overall "White:*" value for the whole of the UK seems to be in the
region of 87.2%.

Anticipating one possible followup question (why the disparity between
the two figures?), there is no particular reason why the median of 95
and the mean of 87 should be closer to each other than they are. The
first figure is for England alone and gives equal weight to each English
district regardless of its overall population, and the second figure is
for the UK as a whole and is not weighted by district, so they are not
strictly comparable.

But having said all that - why the hell would it matter to anyone?

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Harrison Hill
1) First wave immigrants set up a Lower Middle Class trade: running a
takeaway, opening a shop, or other low-paid / low-return business.
2) *Their* children - pushed and encouraged - qualify as solicitors,
engineers, accountants, doctors.

In many cases it might take three generations (ward cleaner, nurse, doctor) particularly if they start out with no capital, and of course if they become an NHS GP or a solicitor or accountant for a local authority that does not have the same status or income as a consultant in private practice or a partnership in one of the big commercial firms.

There was a recent programme about credit unions and alternative lenders in the UK. One of the scenes had children paying money into their savings accounts. A boy was saving for a computer game. A girl was saving for university. Not much surprise perhaps that the boy was white and the girl Asian.

Owain

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:00:54 AM UTC-7, Harrison Hill wrote:
...

Post by Harrison Hill
Unconnected with your clip: immigration must be changing our class
rules; so where do immigrants slot into the British "system"? My
traditional view of immigration into London - where incidentally, as a
1) First wave immigrants set up a Lower Middle Class trade: running a
takeaway, opening a shop, or other low-paid / low-return business.
2) *Their* children - pushed and encouraged - qualify as solicitors,
engineers, accountants, doctors.

...

"What lovely children! How old are they?"

"The doctor is three, and the lawyer is nearly two."

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US news
reports using "middle class".

There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

...

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as

Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/04/most-say-government-policies-since-recession-have-done-little-to-help-middle-class-poor/

[Mark Brader]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

Distribution of wealth is more poisson shaped than normal, I'd have said.
(i.e. largest number for lower class)

Here's an old one for 64 year old US citizens
Loading Image...

[Cheryl]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

No, but the vast majority describe themselves as some variant of "middle".

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

Well, in that year the Census Bureau reported that 13.5% of Americans
lived below the official poverty line.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

I'd think that "middle class" starts some distance above that line.
Some Federal subsidies are available to people who make up to 150% of it.

(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

Well, in that year the Census Bureau reported that 13.5% of Americans
lived below the official poverty line.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
I'd think that "middle class" starts some distance above that line.
Some Federal subsidies are available to people who make up to 150% of it.

I know that you know this, Jerry; but for those who don't:

Income doesn't come into the "class" equation at all in Britain.
Being "middle class" is solely about how you speak, and what you
say.

It goes without saying that "educated" people often earn more than
the uneducated; but skilled tradesman can often earn more still, without
it affecting their "class" by an iota.

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)
--
Jerry Friedman

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

Well, in that year the Census Bureau reported that 13.5% of Americans
lived below the official poverty line.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
I'd think that "middle class" starts some distance above that line.
Some Federal subsidies are available to people who make up to 150% of it.

Income doesn't come into the "class" equation at all in Britain.
Being "middle class" is solely about how you speak, and what you
say.
It goes without saying that "educated" people often earn more than
the uneducated; but skilled tradesman can often earn more still, without
it affecting their "class" by an iota.

It works even for cars.
Ford complained bitterly that Tony Blair's use of 'Mondeo Man'
drove down their brand image,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

Well, in that year the Census Bureau reported that 13.5% of Americans
lived below the official poverty line.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
I'd think that "middle class" starts some distance above that line.
Some Federal subsidies are available to people who make up to 150% of it.

Income doesn't come into the "class" equation at all in Britain.
Being "middle class" is solely about how you speak, and what you
say.
It goes without saying that "educated" people often earn more than
the uneducated; but skilled tradesman can often earn more still, without
it affecting their "class" by an iota.

What "class" was the boy who with his parents was ahead of me in the line to get into the
Fitzwilliam Museum one Sunday in October 1992? He was talking to them (excitedly) in
what sounded to me like pure RP, and they were talking to him in what sounded to me like pure Cockney.
(It was "Parents' Weekend" at Cambridge; presumably he'd been there for about a month.)

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the ones who get surveyed ...

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

Well, in that year the Census Bureau reported that 13.5% of Americans
lived below the official poverty line.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
I'd think that "middle class" starts some distance above that line.
Some Federal subsidies are available to people who make up to 150% of it.

Income doesn't come into the "class" equation at all in Britain.
Being "middle class" is solely about how you speak, and what you
say.
It goes without saying that "educated" people often earn more than
the uneducated; but skilled tradesman can often earn more still, without
it affecting their "class" by an iota.

What "class" was the boy who with his parents was ahead of me in the line to get into the
Fitzwilliam Museum one Sunday in October 1992? He was talking to them (excitedly) in
what sounded to me like pure RP, and they were talking to him in what sounded to me like pure Cockney.
(It was "Parents' Weekend" at Cambridge; presumably he'd been there for about a month.)

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

Well, in that year the Census Bureau reported that 13.5% of Americans
lived below the official poverty line.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
I'd think that "middle class" starts some distance above that line.
Some Federal subsidies are available to people who make up to 150% of it.

Income doesn't come into the "class" equation at all in Britain.
Being "middle class" is solely about how you speak, and what you
say.
It goes without saying that "educated" people often earn more than
the uneducated; but skilled tradesman can often earn more still, without
it affecting their "class" by an iota.

What "class" was the boy who with his parents was ahead of me in the line to get into the
Fitzwilliam Museum one Sunday in October 1992? He was talking to them (excitedly) in
what sounded to me like pure RP, and they were talking to him in what sounded to me like pure Cockney.
(It was "Parents' Weekend" at Cambridge; presumably he'd been there for about a month.)

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

Gosh, I've never gotten a generous offer like that!

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl
There's also a tendency in Canada at least for almost everyone to
describe themselves as middle class, even if researchers would perhaps
classify some of them, based on income, as lower or higher class.

Here too. A Pew survey in 2015 found that Americans described their
class as
Upper: 1%
Upper-middle: 11%
Middle: 47%
Lower-middle: 29%
Lower: 10%

That distribution looks fairly realistic to me. Are you thinking
that it isn't? Nobody said "middle" should mean 1/3 of the people.

Well, in that year the Census Bureau reported that 13.5% of Americans
lived below the official poverty line.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
I'd think that "middle class" starts some distance above that line.
Some Federal subsidies are available to people who make up to 150% of it.

Income doesn't come into the "class" equation at all in Britain.
Being "middle class" is solely about how you speak, and what you
say.
It goes without saying that "educated" people often earn more than
the uneducated; but skilled tradesman can often earn more still, without
it affecting their "class" by an iota.

What "class" was the boy who with his parents was ahead of me in the line to get into the
Fitzwilliam Museum one Sunday in October 1992? He was talking to them (excitedly) in
what sounded to me like pure RP, and they were talking to him in what sounded to me like pure Cockney.
(It was "Parents' Weekend" at Cambridge; presumably he'd been there for about a month.)

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

Gosh, I've never gotten a generous offer like that!

I admit the ones with threats allegedly from Canada Revenue or credit
card companies are more numerous that the glad tidings that I have won a
valuable prize which I will receive once I've paid a very moderate
handling fee. Or were, back when I actually answered these calls or
listened to the messages left by callers.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the
ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

For this and similar reasons, it's clear that phone surveys are no
longer valid. It's not yet clear whether the phone survey people are
aware of this.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the
ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

For this and similar reasons, it's clear that phone surveys are no
longer valid. It's not yet clear whether the phone survey people are
aware of this.

They gather demographic information. If they don't get enough respondents in a certain category, they keep calling. Occasionally they ask for it up front,
and if they've already got enough responses from the category, they don't proceed.

Poll-takers are trained statisticians.

[occam]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the
ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

For this and similar reasons, it's clear that phone surveys are no
longer valid. It's not yet clear whether the phone survey people are
aware of this.

If you mean the agencies who organise and pay for these poles to carried
out - the answer is 'no'. My son, currently a 2nd year university
student, tells me he has a part-time job calling people just for these
kind of surveys.

His rationale, other than the extra pocket-money he earns, is that his
surveys are carried out in German - good for keeping up his German. The
calls are to European organisations, made from a UK call centre. God
knows what they are about, but I would not be surprised if Brexit and
continued cooperation with UK companies plays a part of these questions.
(I know for sure he is not selling any products.)

[Tony Cooper]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the
ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

For this and similar reasons, it's clear that phone surveys are no
longer valid. It's not yet clear whether the phone survey people are
aware of this.

If you mean the agencies who organise and pay for these poles to carried
out - the answer is 'no'. My son, currently a 2nd year university
student, tells me he has a part-time job calling people just for these
kind of surveys.

Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

Owain

[Tony Cooper]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.

I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:17:56 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.

I don't recall such a discussion. In the US, one is *on* a sports
team. To be a member of the team, one must qualify and be accepted.

In school sports - middle school, high school, college - one tries out
for the team and the coach selects which people will be on the team.
Not all that try out make the team.

In professional sports, it's far more complicated. The would-be
players don't usually try out; they are drafted by the team and that's
usually the result of the scouts observing games and film during the
college season. However, the teams hold pre-season events where
players are invited to work out for the coaches. The coaches don't
accept the player at that time, but may draft the player when the
draft occurs.

It is possible for an undrafted player to join a team as a "walk-on"
by trying out after the draft. In that case, they do "try out".

I can't think of an AmE situation where someone is "in" a team.

Post by Paul Wolff
I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

Backyard sports. Pick-up ball.

The traditional way in playground baseball is for the two captains
(self-designated) to stand facing each other, a bat is tossed in the
air, and one captain catches the bat. The other captain then grasps
the bat on the small-end right above the grip of the first captain.
The first captain then grasps the bat right above the second captain's
grasp. This is repeated until there is no more room on the bat to
grasp. The last captain to be able to grasp the bat gets first choice
of the available players for his team. Choices are then retaliated
between captains.

The above is more difficult to describe in text than I thought.

[Richard Yates]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:07:33 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:17:56 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.

I don't recall such a discussion. In the US, one is *on* a sports
team. To be a member of the team, one must qualify and be accepted.
In school sports - middle school, high school, college - one tries out
for the team and the coach selects which people will be on the team.
Not all that try out make the team.
In professional sports, it's far more complicated. The would-be
players don't usually try out; they are drafted by the team and that's
usually the result of the scouts observing games and film during the
college season. However, the teams hold pre-season events where
players are invited to work out for the coaches. The coaches don't
accept the player at that time, but may draft the player when the
draft occurs.
It is possible for an undrafted player to join a team as a "walk-on"
by trying out after the draft. In that case, they do "try out".
I can't think of an AmE situation where someone is "in" a team.

Post by Paul Wolff
I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

Backyard sports. Pick-up ball.
The traditional way in playground baseball is for the two captains
(self-designated) to stand facing each other, a bat is tossed in the
air, and one captain catches the bat. The other captain then grasps
the bat on the small-end right above the grip of the first captain.
The first captain then grasps the bat right above the second captain's
grasp. This is repeated until there is no more room on the bat to
grasp. The last captain to be able to grasp the bat gets first choice
of the available players for his team.

The 1950s southeastern Pennsylvania protocol was the same but a
further step required that the last captain to grip the bat - usually
with just his fingertips right at the knob - must then, without
changing his grip, swing the bat in a full circle over his head to
prove that the grip is legitimate. If he fails, then the other captain
gets first choice.

Post by Tony Cooper
Choices are then retaliated between captains.

"Alternated" maybe?

Post by Tony Cooper
The above is more difficult to describe in text than I thought.

Very clear to me.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 18:33:39 -0800, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:07:33 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:17:56 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.

I don't recall such a discussion. In the US, one is *on* a sports
team. To be a member of the team, one must qualify and be accepted.
In school sports - middle school, high school, college - one tries out
for the team and the coach selects which people will be on the team.
Not all that try out make the team.
In professional sports, it's far more complicated. The would-be
players don't usually try out; they are drafted by the team and that's
usually the result of the scouts observing games and film during the
college season. However, the teams hold pre-season events where
players are invited to work out for the coaches. The coaches don't
accept the player at that time, but may draft the player when the
draft occurs.
It is possible for an undrafted player to join a team as a "walk-on"
by trying out after the draft. In that case, they do "try out".
I can't think of an AmE situation where someone is "in" a team.

Post by Paul Wolff
I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

Backyard sports. Pick-up ball.
The traditional way in playground baseball is for the two captains
(self-designated) to stand facing each other, a bat is tossed in the
air, and one captain catches the bat. The other captain then grasps
the bat on the small-end right above the grip of the first captain.
The first captain then grasps the bat right above the second captain's
grasp. This is repeated until there is no more room on the bat to
grasp. The last captain to be able to grasp the bat gets first choice
of the available players for his team.

The 1950s southeastern Pennsylvania protocol was the same but a
further step required that the last captain to grip the bat - usually
with just his fingertips right at the knob - must then, without
changing his grip, swing the bat in a full circle over his head to
prove that the grip is legitimate. If he fails, then the other captain
gets first choice.

Post by Tony Cooper
Choices are then retaliated between captains.

"Alternated" maybe?

No, it was supposed to be "rotated".

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Tony Cooper
The above is more difficult to describe in text than I thought.

Very clear to me.

[Richard Yates]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:31:13 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 18:33:39 -0800, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:07:33 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:17:56 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.

I don't recall such a discussion. In the US, one is *on* a sports
team. To be a member of the team, one must qualify and be accepted.
In school sports - middle school, high school, college - one tries out
for the team and the coach selects which people will be on the team.
Not all that try out make the team.
In professional sports, it's far more complicated. The would-be
players don't usually try out; they are drafted by the team and that's
usually the result of the scouts observing games and film during the
college season. However, the teams hold pre-season events where
players are invited to work out for the coaches. The coaches don't
accept the player at that time, but may draft the player when the
draft occurs.
It is possible for an undrafted player to join a team as a "walk-on"
by trying out after the draft. In that case, they do "try out".
I can't think of an AmE situation where someone is "in" a team.

Post by Paul Wolff
I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

Backyard sports. Pick-up ball.
The traditional way in playground baseball is for the two captains
(self-designated) to stand facing each other, a bat is tossed in the
air, and one captain catches the bat. The other captain then grasps
the bat on the small-end right above the grip of the first captain.
The first captain then grasps the bat right above the second captain's
grasp. This is repeated until there is no more room on the bat to
grasp. The last captain to be able to grasp the bat gets first choice
of the available players for his team.

The 1950s southeastern Pennsylvania protocol was the same but a
further step required that the last captain to grip the bat - usually
with just his fingertips right at the knob - must then, without
changing his grip, swing the bat in a full circle over his head to
prove that the grip is legitimate. If he fails, then the other captain
gets first choice.

Post by Tony Cooper
Choices are then retaliated between captains.

"Alternated" maybe?

No, it was supposed to be "rotated".

Ah, a usage question!

I thought briefly of "rotated" but it seemed that "rotating" took more
than two.

"Rotating among"; "alternating between".

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:31:13 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 18:33:39 -0800, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:07:33 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:17:56 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.

I don't recall such a discussion. In the US, one is *on* a sports
team. To be a member of the team, one must qualify and be accepted.
In school sports - middle school, high school, college - one tries out
for the team and the coach selects which people will be on the team.
Not all that try out make the team.
In professional sports, it's far more complicated. The would-be
players don't usually try out; they are drafted by the team and that's
usually the result of the scouts observing games and film during the
college season. However, the teams hold pre-season events where
players are invited to work out for the coaches. The coaches don't
accept the player at that time, but may draft the player when the
draft occurs.
It is possible for an undrafted player to join a team as a "walk-on"
by trying out after the draft. In that case, they do "try out".
I can't think of an AmE situation where someone is "in" a team.

Post by Paul Wolff
I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

Backyard sports. Pick-up ball.
The traditional way in playground baseball is for the two captains
(self-designated) to stand facing each other, a bat is tossed in the
air, and one captain catches the bat. The other captain then grasps
the bat on the small-end right above the grip of the first captain.
The first captain then grasps the bat right above the second captain's
grasp. This is repeated until there is no more room on the bat to
grasp. The last captain to be able to grasp the bat gets first choice
of the available players for his team.

The 1950s southeastern Pennsylvania protocol was the same but a
further step required that the last captain to grip the bat - usually
with just his fingertips right at the knob - must then, without
changing his grip, swing the bat in a full circle over his head to
prove that the grip is legitimate. If he fails, then the other captain
gets first choice.

Post by Tony Cooper
Choices are then retaliated between captains.

"Alternated" maybe?

No, it was supposed to be "rotated".

Ah, a usage question!
I thought briefly of "rotated" but it seemed that "rotating" took more
than two.
"Rotating among"; "alternating between".

Oh, I don't know - "retaliated" sounded perfect to me.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 18:33:39 -0800, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:07:33 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:17:56 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.

I don't recall such a discussion. In the US, one is *on* a sports
team. To be a member of the team, one must qualify and be accepted.
In school sports - middle school, high school, college - one tries out
for the team and the coach selects which people will be on the team.
Not all that try out make the team.
In professional sports, it's far more complicated. The would-be
players don't usually try out; they are drafted by the team and that's
usually the result of the scouts observing games and film during the
college season. However, the teams hold pre-season events where
players are invited to work out for the coaches. The coaches don't
accept the player at that time, but may draft the player when the
draft occurs.
It is possible for an undrafted player to join a team as a "walk-on"
by trying out after the draft. In that case, they do "try out".
I can't think of an AmE situation where someone is "in" a team.

Post by Paul Wolff
I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

Backyard sports. Pick-up ball.
The traditional way in playground baseball is for the two captains
(self-designated) to stand facing each other, a bat is tossed in the
air, and one captain catches the bat. The other captain then grasps
the bat on the small-end right above the grip of the first captain.
The first captain then grasps the bat right above the second captain's
grasp. This is repeated until there is no more room on the bat to
grasp. The last captain to be able to grasp the bat gets first choice
of the available players for his team.

The 1950s southeastern Pennsylvania protocol was the same but a
further step required that the last captain to grip the bat - usually
with just his fingertips right at the knob - must then, without
changing his grip, swing the bat in a full circle over his head to
prove that the grip is legitimate. If he fails, then the other captain
gets first choice.

Post by Tony Cooper
Choices are then retaliated between captains.

"Alternated" maybe?

No, it was supposed to be "rotated".

My memories of schoolyard team-picking make retaliated seem appropriate.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 16:40:02 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 18:33:39 -0800, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:07:33 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:17:56 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.

I don't recall such a discussion. In the US, one is *on* a sports
team. To be a member of the team, one must qualify and be accepted.
In school sports - middle school, high school, college - one tries out
for the team and the coach selects which people will be on the team.
Not all that try out make the team.
In professional sports, it's far more complicated. The would-be
players don't usually try out; they are drafted by the team and that's
usually the result of the scouts observing games and film during the
college season. However, the teams hold pre-season events where
players are invited to work out for the coaches. The coaches don't
accept the player at that time, but may draft the player when the
draft occurs.
It is possible for an undrafted player to join a team as a "walk-on"
by trying out after the draft. In that case, they do "try out".
I can't think of an AmE situation where someone is "in" a team.

Post by Paul Wolff
I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

Backyard sports. Pick-up ball.
The traditional way in playground baseball is for the two captains
(self-designated) to stand facing each other, a bat is tossed in the
air, and one captain catches the bat. The other captain then grasps
the bat on the small-end right above the grip of the first captain.
The first captain then grasps the bat right above the second captain's
grasp. This is repeated until there is no more room on the bat to
grasp. The last captain to be able to grasp the bat gets first choice
of the available players for his team.

The 1950s southeastern Pennsylvania protocol was the same but a
further step required that the last captain to grip the bat - usually
with just his fingertips right at the knob - must then, without
changing his grip, swing the bat in a full circle over his head to
prove that the grip is legitimate. If he fails, then the other captain
gets first choice.

Post by Tony Cooper
Choices are then retaliated between captains.

"Alternated" maybe?

No, it was supposed to be "rotated".

My memories of schoolyard team-picking make retaliated seem appropriate.

I was a left-hander from a family who didn't think I needed a special
mitt to play baseball, so I was the last chosen. I wore a
right-handed mitt (worn on the left hand), caught the ball, flipped
the ball to my right hand, shook off the mitt, flipped the ball to my
left hand, and threw it. Stephen Hawking could round the bases by the
time I made the play.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:17:56 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Tony Cooper
Your son is the student manager of the school track team and carries
out the poles for vaulters?

Wouldn't vaulting be field, not track?

It's a field event, but the vaulters, broad jumpers, high jumpers,
shot putters, etc are on the track team. The "track team" includes
all participants in the track and field events.

I'm sure that we must have already discussed, probably several times,
the difference (none, apart from geographical) between being on a team
and being in a team.
I wonder whether, in places where there are squads from which the team
for the day is selected, the members of the squads are on their squad or
in their squad.

"In" is what I'm familiar with.
Example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5094621/Jermain-Defoe-England-World-Cup-place.html

Jermain Defoe could still grab at place in England's 2018 World Cup
squad,

Jermain Defoe still has what it takes to force his way back into
England's World Cup squad,

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the
ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

For this and similar reasons, it's clear that phone surveys are no
longer valid. It's not yet clear whether the phone survey people are
aware of this.

If you mean the agencies who organise and pay for these poles to carried
out - the answer is 'no'. My son, currently a 2nd year university
student, tells me he has a part-time job calling people just for these
kind of surveys.

Sometimes it's clear from the content of the questions who it was that commissioned
the poll, but the phone people do not have that information -- they only have
the name of the polling outfit that they work for.

Post by occam
His rationale, other than the extra pocket-money he earns, is that his
surveys are carried out in German - good for keeping up his German. The
calls are to European organisations, made from a UK call centre. God
knows what they are about, but I would not be surprised if Brexit and
continued cooperation with UK companies plays a part of these questions.
(I know for sure he is not selling any products.)

[Peter Moylan]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the
ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

For this and similar reasons, it's clear that phone surveys are no
longer valid. It's not yet clear whether the phone survey people are
aware of this.

If you mean the agencies who organise and pay for these poles to carried
out - the answer is 'no'. My son, currently a 2nd year university
student, tells me he has a part-time job calling people just for these
kind of surveys.
His rationale, other than the extra pocket-money he earns, is that his
surveys are carried out in German - good for keeping up his German. The
calls are to European organisations, made from a UK call centre. God
knows what they are about, but I would not be surprised if Brexit and
continued cooperation with UK companies plays a part of these questions.
(I know for sure he is not selling any products.)

Sometimes people are slow to adjust to changing realities.

In the early days of phone surveys, I read of one survey that concluded
that 100% of the people polled had telephones.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the
ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

For this and similar reasons, it's clear that phone surveys are no
longer valid. It's not yet clear whether the phone survey people are
aware of this.

If you mean the agencies who organise and pay for these poles to carried
out - the answer is 'no'. My son, currently a 2nd year university
student, tells me he has a part-time job calling people just for these
kind of surveys.
His rationale, other than the extra pocket-money he earns, is that his
surveys are carried out in German - good for keeping up his German. The
calls are to European organisations, made from a UK call centre. God
knows what they are about, but I would not be surprised if Brexit and
continued cooperation with UK companies plays a part of these questions.
(I know for sure he is not selling any products.)

Sometimes people are slow to adjust to changing realities.
In the early days of phone surveys, I read of one survey that concluded
that 100% of the people polled had telephones.

There is no chance that 100% surveyed by telephone said they had
telephones.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 12:26:54 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the
ones who get surveyed ...

If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

For this and similar reasons, it's clear that phone surveys are no
longer valid. It's not yet clear whether the phone survey people are
aware of this.

If you mean the agencies who organise and pay for these poles to carried
out - the answer is 'no'. My son, currently a 2nd year university
student, tells me he has a part-time job calling people just for these
kind of surveys.
His rationale, other than the extra pocket-money he earns, is that his
surveys are carried out in German - good for keeping up his German. The
calls are to European organisations, made from a UK call centre. God
knows what they are about, but I would not be surprised if Brexit and
continued cooperation with UK companies plays a part of these questions.
(I know for sure he is not selling any products.)

Sometimes people are slow to adjust to changing realities.
In the early days of phone surveys, I read of one survey that concluded
that 100% of the people polled had telephones.

I was at a conference in Oxford, England, in the 1980s. It was about
computers and computing. One speaker gave a warning about ill-designed
surveys, etc. He, an American, described a (non-computer) case in the
US. Passengers using trains on a particular route (A to B) had expressed
a desire for an additional train service to leave A at, say, 10am. The
train company got someone to survey passengers to discover whether there
was enough demand for such a service. The cunning technique they used
was to visit the station, A, and count the number of people on the
platform at 10am waiting for a train to B. The number was of course
zero. They therefore reported that there was no demand for such a
service.

[RH Draney]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was at a conference in Oxford, England, in the 1980s. It was about
computers and computing. One speaker gave a warning about ill-designed
surveys, etc. He, an American, described a (non-computer) case in the
US. Passengers using trains on a particular route (A to B) had expressed
a desire for an additional train service to leave A at, say, 10am. The
train company got someone to survey passengers to discover whether there
was enough demand for such a service. The cunning technique they used
was to visit the station, A, and count the number of people on the
platform at 10am waiting for a train to B. The number was of course
zero. They therefore reported that there was no demand for such a
service.

That's a joke, of course, and it never happened...the form I've heard it
take is the adage "don't plan the capacity of a bridge by the number of
people who swim across the river"....r

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was at a conference in Oxford, England, in the 1980s. It was about
computers and computing. One speaker gave a warning about ill-designed
surveys, etc. He, an American, described a (non-computer) case in the
US. Passengers using trains on a particular route (A to B) had expressed
a desire for an additional train service to leave A at, say, 10am. The
train company got someone to survey passengers to discover whether there
was enough demand for such a service. The cunning technique they used
was to visit the station, A, and count the number of people on the
platform at 10am waiting for a train to B. The number was of course
zero. They therefore reported that there was no demand for such a
service.

That's a joke, of course, and it never happened...the form I've heard
it take is the adage "don't plan the capacity of a bridge by the number
of people who swim across the river"....r

An example I read in a statistics textbook many years ago concerned a
man in Manhattan who had two girlfriends, one in Brooklyn and the other
in the Bronx. He chose which to visit by going to a station that served
both, and taking the train which came first. He was surprised to
realize that he found himself going to one ten times as often as the
other, even though there were the same numbers of train going to both.

(Those of you who know New York better than I do, don't worry if this
example doesn't make sense in terms of geography or train timetables:
it's about sampling bias, not about geography or train timetables.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was at a conference in Oxford, England, in the 1980s. It was about
computers and computing. One speaker gave a warning about ill-designed
surveys, etc. He, an American, described a (non-computer) case in the
US. Passengers using trains on a particular route (A to B) had expressed
a desire for an additional train service to leave A at, say, 10am. The
train company got someone to survey passengers to discover whether there
was enough demand for such a service. The cunning technique they used
was to visit the station, A, and count the number of people on the
platform at 10am waiting for a train to B. The number was of course
zero. They therefore reported that there was no demand for such a
service.

That's a joke, of course, and it never happened...the form I've heard
it take is the adage "don't plan the capacity of a bridge by the number
of people who swim across the river"....r

An example I read in a statistics textbook many years ago concerned a
man in Manhattan who had two girlfriends, one in Brooklyn and the other
in the Bronx. He chose which to visit by going to a station that served
both, and taking the train which came first. He was surprised to
realize that he found himself going to one ten times as often as the
other, even though there were the same numbers of train going to both.
(Those of you who know New York better than I do, don't worry if this
it's about sampling bias, not about geography or train timetables.)

Anyone who doubts that there are subway lines that serve both the Bronx and
Brooklyn would have done well to glance at a subway map before expressing the
doubt.

The solution depends on the subject boarding at one of the few stations where
such trains in both directions are boarded from the same platform.

The answer is that, assuming the subways usually run on time, they happen to
be scheduled so that they don't serve the particular station at equal intervals:
if the trains are running on 20-minute headways (the longest interval tolerated
overnight, but the only way to make sense of the figure given), the X-bound
train arrives 2 minutes after the Y-bound train, and the next Y-bound train
arrives 18 minutes later. Thus the subject goes to X almost every time. (I
made it 90 ~ 10 because that's a lot easier to calculate than 10/11 ~ 1/11.)

With shorter headways, 1-minute precision (necessary to achieve the 90%, let
alone the 90.9090... figure) is essentially impossible to maintain.

[Tak To]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was at a conference in Oxford, England, in the 1980s. It was about
computers and computing. One speaker gave a warning about ill-designed
surveys, etc. He, an American, described a (non-computer) case in the
US. Passengers using trains on a particular route (A to B) had expressed
a desire for an additional train service to leave A at, say, 10am. The
train company got someone to survey passengers to discover whether there
was enough demand for such a service. The cunning technique they used
was to visit the station, A, and count the number of people on the
platform at 10am waiting for a train to B. The number was of course
zero. They therefore reported that there was no demand for such a
service.

That's a joke, of course, and it never happened...the form I've heard
it take is the adage "don't plan the capacity of a bridge by the number
of people who swim across the river"....r

An example I read in a statistics textbook many years ago concerned a
man in Manhattan who had two girlfriends, one in Brooklyn and the other
in the Bronx. He chose which to visit by going to a station that served
both, and taking the train which came first. He was surprised to
realize that he found himself going to one ten times as often as the
other, even though there were the same numbers of train going to both.
(Those of you who know New York better than I do, don't worry if this
it's about sampling bias, not about geography or train timetables.)

Anyone who doubts that there are subway lines that serve both the Bronx and
Brooklyn would have done well to glance at a subway map before expressing the
doubt.
The solution depends on the subject boarding at one of the few stations where
such trains in both directions are boarded from the same platform.
The answer is that, assuming the subways usually run on time, they happen to
[...]

Psst: In your example that follows, the trains *do* serve the station at
equal intervals.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
if the trains are running on 20-minute headways (the longest interval tolerated
overnight, but the only way to make sense of the figure given), the X-bound
train arrives 2 minutes after the Y-bound train, and the next Y-bound train
arrives 18 minutes later. Thus the subject goes to X almost every time. (I
made it 90 ~ 10 because that's a lot easier to calculate than 10/11 ~ 1/11.)
With shorter headways, 1-minute precision (necessary to achieve the 90%, let
alone the 90.9090... figure) is essentially impossible to maintain.

----- -----

Here is a real life example: when I am driving to NYC, I usually
listen to the radio for traffic conditions in and around the city.
There are two AM stations that broadcast traffic info at 10
min intervals: WINS (1010) at :01, :11, etc; and WCBS (880) at :08,
:18 etc. Any time I turn on my car radio, the "next" traffic
report is more likely to be coming from WCBS.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was at a conference in Oxford, England, in the 1980s. It was about
computers and computing. One speaker gave a warning about ill-designed
surveys, etc. He, an American, described a (non-computer) case in the
US. Passengers using trains on a particular route (A to B) had expressed
a desire for an additional train service to leave A at, say, 10am. The
train company got someone to survey passengers to discover whether there
was enough demand for such a service. The cunning technique they used
was to visit the station, A, and count the number of people on the
platform at 10am waiting for a train to B. The number was of course
zero. They therefore reported that there was no demand for such a
service.

That's a joke, of course, and it never happened...the form I've heard
it take is the adage "don't plan the capacity of a bridge by the number
of people who swim across the river"....r

An example I read in a statistics textbook many years ago concerned a
man in Manhattan who had two girlfriends, one in Brooklyn and the other
in the Bronx. He chose which to visit by going to a station that served
both, and taking the train which came first. He was surprised to
realize that he found himself going to one ten times as often as the
other, even though there were the same numbers of train going to both.
(Those of you who know New York better than I do, don't worry if this
it's about sampling bias, not about geography or train timetables.)

Anyone who doubts that there are subway lines that serve both the Bronx and
Brooklyn would have done well to glance at a subway map before expressing the
doubt.

I guess he didn't understand what "it's about sampling bias, not about
geography or train timetables" meant. _Of course_ I could have checked,
and would have done so if it had mattered, but it didn't.

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The solution depends on the subject boarding at one of the few stations where
such trains in both directions are boarded from the same platform.
The answer is that, assuming the subways usually run on time, they happen to
[...]

Psst: In your example that follows, the trains *do* serve the station at
equal intervals.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
if the trains are running on 20-minute headways (the longest interval tolerated
overnight, but the only way to make sense of the figure given), the X-bound
train arrives 2 minutes after the Y-bound train, and the next Y-bound train
arrives 18 minutes later. Thus the subject goes to X almost every time. (I
made it 90 ~ 10 because that's a lot easier to calculate than 10/11 ~ 1/11.)
With shorter headways, 1-minute precision (necessary to achieve the 90%, let
alone the 90.9090... figure) is essentially impossible to maintain.

----- -----
Here is a real life example: when I am driving to NYC, I usually
listen to the radio for traffic conditions in and around the city.
There are two AM stations that broadcast traffic info at 10
min intervals: WINS (1010) at :01, :11, etc; and WCBS (880) at :08,
:18 etc. Any time I turn on my car radio, the "next" traffic
report is more likely to be coming from WCBS.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
An example I read in a statistics textbook many years ago concerned a
man in Manhattan who had two girlfriends, one in Brooklyn and the other
in the Bronx. He chose which to visit by going to a station that served
both, and taking the train which came first. He was surprised to
realize that he found himself going to one ten times as often as the
other, even though there were the same numbers of train going to both.

I'm pretty sure that was a problem in a Martin Gardner column in
Scientific American.

And it was almost certainly nine times as often.

-- Richard

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
An example I read in a statistics textbook many years ago concerned a
man in Manhattan who had two girlfriends, one in Brooklyn and the other
in the Bronx. He chose which to visit by going to a station that served
both, and taking the train which came first. He was surprised to
realize that he found himself going to one ten times as often as the
other, even though there were the same numbers of train going to both.

I'm pretty sure that was a problem in a Martin Gardner column in
Scientific American.

Quite likely.

Post by Richard Tobin
And it was almost certainly nine times as often.

Pedant!

[RH Draney]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
An example I read in a statistics textbook many years ago concerned a
man in Manhattan who had two girlfriends, one in Brooklyn and the other
in the Bronx. He chose which to visit by going to a station that served
both, and taking the train which came first. He was surprised to
realize that he found himself going to one ten times as often as the
other, even though there were the same numbers of train going to both.

I'm pretty sure that was a problem in a Martin Gardner column in
Scientific American.

Quite likely.

And just as likely at some point, a "Weekly Puzzler" on "Car Talk"....r

[occam]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was at a conference in Oxford, England, in the 1980s. It was about
computers and computing. One speaker gave a warning about ill-designed
surveys, etc. He, an American, described a (non-computer) case in the
US. Passengers using trains on a particular route (A to B) had expressed
a desire for an additional train service to leave A at, say, 10am. The
train company got someone to survey passengers to discover whether there
was enough demand for such a service. The cunning technique they used
was to visit the station, A, and count the number of people on the
platform at 10am waiting for a train to B. The number was of course
zero. They therefore reported that there was no demand for such a
service.

That's a joke, of course, and it never happened...the form I've heard it
take is the adage "don't plan the capacity of a bridge by the number of
people who swim across the river"....r

I am not sure about the American example. However, in a recent BBC
documentary about Dr. Beeching and the restructuring of British
railways, he is reputed to have used a similar technique to justify the
axing of around 4000 route-miles in one fell swoop in 1966. The railway
workers interviewed said that Dr. Beeching's stat gatherers would arrive
at unusual ('off peak') times and count the people on the platform when
there were very few. The stats cited in the now infamous Beeching Report
were therefore skewed towards his preconceived plans.

[g***@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 5:26:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:


My favourite technique, when a caller wants me to change networks is to say "I'm sorry, I don't have a telephone."

About a third of them actually apologize and hang up!

[Ken Blake]

Post by Cheryl
If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

I don't know whether it's available in Canada, but you might want to
look into the free Nomorobo (https://www.nomorobo.com/). Since I
started using it about a year ago, the number of such calls I answer
has gon

[Cheryl]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Cheryl
If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

I don't know whether it's available in Canada, but you might want to
look into the free Nomorobo (https://www.nomorobo.com/). Since I
started using it about a year ago, the number of such calls I answer
has gone down dramatically.

Simply not answering the phone unless I recognize the number seems to
work well enough for me.

[John Varela]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Cheryl
If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

I don't know whether it's available in Canada, but you might want to
look into the free Nomorobo (https://www.nomorobo.com/). Since I
started using it about a year ago, the number of such calls I answer
has gone down dramatically.

Simply not answering the phone unless I recognize the number seems to
work well enough for me.

But to know who's calling you must at a minimum look at the phone.
and if you don't answer it, it will continue to ring. When NOMOROBO
identifies a robocaller, the ringing stops after one ring. You only
need to look if the phone rings a second time.

We've had NOMOROBO for simetime, maybe a year. Unfortunately, some
robocall outfits have found a way to beat NOMOROBO, evidently by
spoofing the caller ID. These days, NOMOROBO only catches about half
of the robo calls. That's still an improvement.

[Ken Blake]

Post by John Varela

Post by Cheryl

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Cheryl
If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

I don't know whether it's available in Canada, but you might want to
look into the free Nomorobo (https://www.nomorobo.com/). Since I
started using it about a year ago, the number of such calls I answer
has gone down dramatically.

Simply not answering the phone unless I recognize the number seems to
work well enough for me.

But to know who's calling you must at a minimum look at the phone.
and if you don't answer it, it will continue to ring. When NOMOROBO
identifies a robocaller, the ringing stops after one ring. You only
need to look if the phone rings a second time.
We've had NOMOROBO for simetime, maybe a year. Unfortunately, some
robocall outfits have found a way to beat NOMOROBO, evidently by
spoofing the caller ID. These days, NOMOROBO only catches about half
of the robo calls. That's still an improvement.

Interesting. In my experience it

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by John Varela

Post by Cheryl

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Cheryl
If we answer the phone. I've been checking the caller on my landline for
years, and not answering calls from unknown callers. This has pretty
well eliminated me from surveys, although my plan was to eliminate all
those nice folk who were going to give me large sums of money once I
handed over my banking information.

I don't know whether it's available in Canada, but you might want to
look into the free Nomorobo (https://www.nomorobo.com/). Since I
started using it about a year ago, the number of such calls I answer
has gone down dramatically.

Simply not answering the phone unless I recognize the number seems to
work well enough for me.

But to know who's calling you must at a minimum look at the phone.
and if you don't answer it, it will continue to ring. When NOMOROBO
identifies a robocaller, the ringing stops after one ring. You only
need to look if the phone rings a second time.
We've had NOMOROBO for simetime, maybe a year. Unfortunately, some
robocall outfits have found a way to beat NOMOROBO, evidently by
spoofing the caller ID. These days, NOMOROBO only catches about half
of the robo calls. That's still an improvement.

IME all "spam" phonecalls (here in the UK) spoof the caller ID.
However several legitimate organisations seem to do the same.
I'm pretty sure some calls from John Lewis (A department Store M'Lud)
claimed to be 'International'.

Unless we recognise the caller, or are expecting a call, we leave it to
the answerphone.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 01/12/17 19:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:

<snip>

Post by Sam Plusnet
Unless we recognise the caller, or are expecting a call, we leave it to
the answerphone.

I cannot help finding it whimsically amusing to consider a situation in
which a machine makes a telephone call that is answered by another
machine, and in which the first machine tries to sell something to the
second machine, but the second machine explains that it's too busy right
now to buy anything, and would the first machine please leave a message.

And not only are these machines are talking to each other *in English*,
but also neither of them understands even the tiniest fraction of what
it is saying to the other machine, let alone what the other machine is
saying to it.

I feel a haiku coming on.

Thus the world spirals,
Insensate, down the plughole
Of oblivion.

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Richard Heathfield
I cannot help finding it whimsically amusing to consider a situation in
which a machine makes a telephone call that is answered by another
machine, and in which the first machine tries to sell something to the
second machine, but the second machine explains that it's too busy right
now to buy anything, and would the first machine please leave a message.
And not only are these machines are talking to each other *in English*,
but also neither of them understands even the tiniest fraction of what
it is saying to the other machine, let alone what the other machine is
saying to it.

When Alexa does answering machines they'll be able to have a proper conversation.

Boing! I've added "buy cat food" to your shopping list. Your mother called to ask if you could pick up her dry cleaning tomorrow, but I told her you had an appointment with your proctologist. I gave the Nigerian Embassy your bank details for the lottery payment and turned on your PC for Microsoft to fix it.

Owain

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Richard Heathfield
I cannot help finding it whimsically amusing to consider a situation in
which a machine makes a telephone call that is answered by another
machine, and in which the first machine tries to sell something to the
second machine, but the second machine explains that it's too busy right
now to buy anything, and would the first machine please leave a message.

Somewhere there's a cartoon showing two upscale executives leaving a club and parting:

"My people will be getting in touch with your people ---."
"But I don't have any people."
"If you don't have any people, who will my people be able to talk to?"

[Don P]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What "class" was the boy who with his parents was ahead of me in the line to get into the
Fitzwilliam Museum one Sunday in October 1992? He was talking to them (excitedly) in
what sounded to me like pure RP, and they were talking to him in what
sounded to me like pure Cockney.
(It was "Parents' Weekend" at Cambridge; presumably he'd been there for about a month.)

This reminds me of the new lecturer in philosophy who in 1961 introduced
me to Kant and Hegel. We (at the University of Alberta) were told he
came from Halifax NS and had just returned from a Rhodes scholarship to
Oxford. On arrival, he sounded almost exactly like Isaiah Berlin i.e.
appeared a dyed-in-the-wool Oxford nob -- but later explained that, just
then Oxford University assumed all "colonials" and foreigners, if not
scientists, were mere tourists, and allowed them no opportunity for
serious academic work. The fastest way to adapt to this was to turn
oneself into an Oxonian in all outward respects, including dress, voice
and manners.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <4f7d87fe-8bfe-4b86-b642-***@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

[attribution snipped]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the ones who get surveyed ...

Pew surveys are very carefully constructed to have a representative
sample using a variety of techniques including (depending on the
survey) calling mobile numbers and using other modalities. Sometimes
they will construct a panel that is used for multiple measurements.
They also perform research into research methods for public opnion
studies, and unlike many private survey researchers, they publish most
of their data. Pew is generally regarded as the "gold standard" for
survey research in the US. (It's this Pew:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center>.)

-GAWollman

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Garrett Wollman
[attribution snipped]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
(I don't know what Pew did about any possibility that poor people are
less likely to take surveys.)

Are they more likely to have land lines than cell phones? We're the ones
who get surveyed ...

Pew surveys are very carefully constructed to have a representative
sample using a variety of techniques including (depending on the
survey) calling mobile numbers and using other modalities. Sometimes
they will construct a panel that is used for multiple measurements.
They also perform research into research methods for public opnion
studies, and unlike many private survey researchers, they publish most
of their data. Pew is generally regarded as the "gold standard" for
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center>.)

...

Thanks, I knew Pew was respected, but I didn't know they were that careful.

However, there's still a possible discrepancy in my comparison. Pew
was surveying adults to see what class they put themselves in, but
the Census Bureau's data on the number of people living below the
poverty line includes children, who are more likely than adults to
be living in poor families (21% in 2014 according to

http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html

That article also says that a family needs an income of twice the
poverty level is barely enough for basic expenses, whereas in
my mind "middle class", when applied to income, means more than
enough for basic expenses.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

In article

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about
"middle class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete
placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that
does not make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins
to the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have
similar ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the
term, they tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of
the income distribution. There is no association with the
professional and managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as
there is in Britain, much less where one's parents were educated or
what dialect one speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US
news reports using "middle class".

Here in Aus, "middle class" correlates very strongly with "white
collar". Engineers and lawyers and doctors are middle class. Plumbers
and electricians and so on are working class. Some of those people
accumulate enough money to make them richer than professionals, but that
doesn't make them middle class.

There is an intermediate group of people who don't do productive work
(so not working class) and don't have advanced skills (so not middle
class), but who nevertheless accumulate enough money to buy politicians.
Donald Trump is a good example. They have no class, but a lot of power.
We don't yet have a collective term for such people.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

In article

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about
"middle class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete
placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that
does not make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins
to the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have
similar ideas.  I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the
term, they tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of
the income distribution.  There is no association with the
professional and managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as
there is in Britain, much less where one's parents were educated or
what dialect one speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US
news reports using "middle class".

Here in Aus, "middle class" correlates very strongly with "white
collar". Engineers and lawyers and doctors are middle class. Plumbers
and electricians and so on are working class. Some of those people
accumulate enough money to make them richer than professionals, but that
doesn't make them middle class.
There is an intermediate group of people who don't do productive work
(so not working class) and don't have advanced skills (so not middle
class), but who nevertheless accumulate enough money to buy politicians.
Donald Trump is a good example. They have no class, but a lot of power.
We don't yet have a collective term for such people.

Have you tried "plutocrat"?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan
There is an intermediate group of people who don't do productive work
(so not working class) and don't have advanced skills (so not middle
class), but who nevertheless accumulate enough money to buy politicians.
Donald Trump is a good example. They have no class, but a lot of power.
We don't yet have a collective term for such people.

Have you tried "plutocrat"?

Has it recovered yet from Cole Porter's diss in "Always True to You in My
Fashion" (*Kiss Me, Kate*, 1951)?

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan
Here in Aus, "middle class" correlates very strongly with "white
collar". Engineers and lawyers and doctors are middle class. Plumbers
and electricians and so on are working class. Some of those people
accumulate enough money to make them richer than professionals, but
that doesn't make them middle class.
There is an intermediate group of people who don't do productive work
(so not working class) and don't have advanced skills (so not middle
class), but who nevertheless accumulate enough money to buy
politicians. Donald Trump is a good example. They have no class, but a
lot of power. We don't yet have a collective term for such people.

Have you tried "plutocrat"?

Or "kleptocrat"?

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan
Here in Aus, "middle class" correlates very strongly with "white
collar". Engineers and lawyers and doctors are middle class. Plumbers
and electricians and so on are working class. Some of those people
accumulate enough money to make them richer than professionals, but
that doesn't make them middle class.
There is an intermediate group of people who don't do productive work
(so not working class) and don't have advanced skills (so not middle
class), but who nevertheless accumulate enough money to buy
politicians. Donald Trump is a good example. They have no class, but a
lot of power. We don't yet have a collective term for such people.

Have you tried "plutocrat"?

Or "kleptocrat"?

Daddy Warbucks

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Garrett Wollman
That's a very British perspective.

Exemplified by a PUNCH cartoon. A student-appearing son is listening to his father preaching from his overstuffed armchair, with a whiskey in hand:

"In my experience, people who aren't sure whether they are lower-middle class or middle-middle class are INVARIABLY lower-middle class."

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

similar ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the
term, they tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of
the income distribution. There is no association with the
professional and managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as
there is in Britain, much less where one's parents were educated or
what dialect one speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US
news reports using "middle class".

Here in Aus, "middle class" correlates very strongly with "white
collar". Engineers and lawyers and doctors are middle class. Plumbers
and electricians and so on are working class. Some of those people
accumulate enough money to make them richer than professionals, but that
doesn't make them middle class.

So you still have the British system, which is perhaps unsurprising
given the mobility that still remains between the UK and Australia.

We don't have a "working class"; if you work but are not "middle
class", you might be among the "working poor". If you don't work, you
could be either rich or poor -- or else retired.

If we had a non-income-based class stratification in this country it
would likely be down to age cohorts rather than occupation. Retired
plumbers and retired accountants are far more alike than they resemble
thirty-year-olds in either occupation. (Obsessed with taxes and the
cost of living, for one thing.)

-GAWollman

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Peter Moylan
Donald Trump is a good example. They have no class

Certainly true about Trump.

Owain

[Arindam Banerjee]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

In article

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about
"middle class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete
placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that
does not make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins
to the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have
similar ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the
term, they tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of
the income distribution. There is no association with the
professional and managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as
there is in Britain, much less where one's parents were educated or
what dialect one speaks.

Thanks for that description. It matches what I've inferred from US
news reports using "middle class".

Here in Aus, "middle class" correlates very strongly with "white
collar". Engineers and lawyers and doctors are middle class. Plumbers
and electricians and so on are working class. Some of those people
accumulate enough money to make them richer than professionals, but that
doesn't make them middle class.
There is an intermediate group of people who don't do productive work
(so not working class) and don't have advanced skills (so not middle
class), but who nevertheless accumulate enough money to buy politicians.
Donald Trump is a good example. They have no class, but a lot of power.
We don't yet have a collective term for such people.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

I thought Donald Trump is a politician. Of the same class as Pauline Hanson.
Pauline used to fry fish - and chips, too; and Donald built casinos, hotels, etc.
Both used to be businesspersons, thus.
I don't see how these two could be considered unproductive when they were not in
politics.
They were not called "dole bludgers', "wankers", "sooks", "workcover artists"
etc.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

Which is not to say people don't notice those things. Or the big
motorboat visible from the street compared to the sailboat at the marina.

[John Varela]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not
make them middle-class.

That's a very British perspective.

WIWAL it was the US perspective as well. Those jobs would have been
classed as "blue-collar". Middle class ranged from lower middle
(white-collar workers) and middle middle (lower level supervisers)
to upper middle (upper level managers and professionals). Upper
class required not just wealth but also having attended the right
schools and the right family background. With exceptions.

Nowadays any former bootlegger's son or pop music star is upper
class and everyone else is either middle class or disadvantaged. No
one is poor any more.

Post by Garrett Wollman
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- and I expect our cousins to
the north, who breathe our media exhaust all day -- have similar
ideas. I think when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,
much less where one's parents were educated or what dialect one
speaks.

[Don P]

Post by Garrett Wollman
Here in the US, "middle class" means little more than "employed at
more than poverty wages (but not rich)" -- > . . . when folks like Pew Research Center use the term, they
tend to define it as the middle three quintiles (60%) of the income
distribution. There is no association with the professional and
managerial occupations ("white collar jobs") as there is in Britain,

This has been for 100 years the practical American accommodation of
(originally European) ideas of social class with the American theory
that the USA is or ought to be a "classless society."

Income figured hardly at all in European sociological definitions since
approx. 1850. By that date the English had long recognized "the
middling classes" as a new stratum in between the ruling class and the
voteless proletariat (earlier serfs and villeins.) The practical point
was that the middling classes gradually became throughout the 19th
century the most important political body, because they could vote and
could be persuaded to change their vote (unlike aristocrats and proles,
who usually remained loyal to whatever party they believed represented
their interests.)

This essentially English idea of the Victorian period became the
American political norm in the 20th century, when both mainstream
parties proclaimed their interests were those of "middle America" as
distinct from Wall Street or the (formerly) Solid South. But this was
before TV changed everything . . . and familiarity with modern marketing
sustains the practical approximation that social class in America
corresponds well enough with income.

[JNugent]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.

And they would not be referred to as MC jobs in the UK, though it seems
normal nowadays in the USA, where "middle class" refers only to an
income level sufficient to obtain and pay a mortgage, buy a car and lead
a vaguely comfortable life.

And now also, apparently, the same in Canada (though that doesn't
surprise me).

Post by s***@gowanhill.com
They may be better paid than many middle-class jobs, but that does not make them middle-class.

I think you're right.

[Quinn C]

Post by JNugent

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle
class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

None of those are middle-class jobs.

And they would not be referred to as MC jobs in the UK,

I believe that MC jobs are more in the artistic domain and don't
neatly fit into class distinctions.

Yes, I understood what you mean, but I don't think I've ever seen
MC used for middle class, so it's more a distraction than anything
else.

Post by JNugent
though it seems
normal nowadays in the USA, where "middle class" refers only to an
income level sufficient to obtain and pay a mortgage, buy a car and lead
a vaguely comfortable life.

And I'd say that represents a rather middle-class (petit
bourgeouis) lifestyle, so it's apt, as soon as you accept that
we're talking about levels of income and wealth. What's sometimes
neglected is to consider both of these. Wealth (of the family)
often opens the door to home ownership, rather than income alone.

Post by JNugent
And now also, apparently, the same in Canada (though that doesn't
surprise me).

[Peter Moylan]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Has this verbal disease infected British politicians?
In Canada, pols at all levels refer constantly and exclusively to "the middle class" when advertising their wares. Even those backing a controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle class jobs" ---- e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

The politicians in Australia's present governing party seem to like the
phrase "ordinary working people". In context, this appears to mean
anyone with an income between $100,000/year and $1,000,000/year. They
seem to be unaware that the majority of the population has to live on
less than this.

[the Omrud]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by g***@gmail.com
Has this verbal disease infected British politicians?
In Canada, pols at all levels refer constantly and exclusively to "the
middle class" when advertising their wares.  Even those backing a
controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle class jobs" ----
e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

The politicians in Australia's present governing party seem to like the
phrase "ordinary working people". In context, this appears to mean
anyone with an income between $100,000/year and $1,000,000/year. They
seem to be unaware that the majority of the population has to live on
less than this.

UK politicians like to talk about "hard-working families", by which they
mean couples with children, earning less than about £50,000 per year.
As if single people or couples without children, or better-paid people
such as doctors and engineers, don't also work hard.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by g***@gmail.com
Has this verbal disease infected British politicians?
In Canada, pols at all levels refer constantly and exclusively to "the
middle class" when advertising their wares. Even those backing a
controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle class jobs" ----
e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

The politicians in Australia's present governing party seem to like the
phrase "ordinary working people". In context, this appears to mean
anyone with an income between $100,000/year and $1,000,000/year. They
seem to be unaware that the majority of the population has to live on
less than this.

UK politicians like to talk about "hard-working families", by which they
mean couples with children, earning less than about £50,000 per year.
As if single people or couples without children, or better-paid people
such as doctors and engineers, don't also work hard.

As hard as a politician?

Jan

[Lewis]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by g***@gmail.com
Has this verbal disease infected British politicians?
In Canada, pols at all levels refer constantly and exclusively to "the
middle class" when advertising their wares.  Even those backing a
controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle class jobs" ----
e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

The politicians in Australia's present governing party seem to like the
phrase "ordinary working people". In context, this appears to mean
anyone with an income between $100,000/year and $1,000,000/year. They
seem to be unaware that the majority of the population has to live on
less than this.

UK politicians like to talk about "hard-working families", by which they
mean couples with children, earning less than about £50,000 per year.
As if single people or couples without children, or better-paid people
such as doctors and engineers, don't also work hard.

Same here, when at least on senator referred to people making less than
$1,000,000 a year as "middle class".

[Quinn C]

Post by Lewis

Post by the Omrud

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by g***@gmail.com
Has this verbal disease infected British politicians?
In Canada, pols at all levels refer constantly and exclusively to "the
middle class" when advertising their wares.  Even those backing a
controversial hydro dam project talk about "middle class jobs" ----
e.g. truck drivers, drillers, concrete placers.

The politicians in Australia's present governing party seem to like the
phrase "ordinary working people". In context, this appears to mean
anyone with an income between $100,000/year and $1,000,000/year. They
seem to be unaware that the majority of the population has to live on
less than this.

UK politicians like to talk about "hard-working families", by which they
mean couples with children, earning less than about £50,000 per year.
As if single people or couples without children, or better-paid people
such as doctors and engineers, don't also work hard.

Same here, when at least on senator referred to people making less than
$1,000,000 a year as "middle class".

But it seems to look different from underneath - I read once that
almost 10% of people in a US survey thought their income ranked in
the top 1%.