Paul Ryan is not "blue-collar." Neither is Joe Biden.

[後援会]

He didn't say that there are no blue-collar cultures, he said that there's no Blue-Collar Culture.

Which I think is largely true. "Class" is just one of many different cultural cleavages. I come from a "blue-collar culture" (or more accurately, a localized culture/community typically associated with blue-collar occupations in the popular imagination), but I don't particularly identify very strongly with most American blue-collar cultures. That being said, I think "class" is one of the stronger cleavers. If you forced me to choose, I'd probably volunteer that I relate slightly better with most American blue-collar cultures than the ascendent middle-class/urban/materialistic cultures of my home country. After all, it's not uncommon for me to receive either gentle ribbing (or less gentle scorn) from Americans of lower economic status for being "low-brow" or whatever.

Also, I think someone mentioned it earlier, but I don't think it's reasonable to say "well, you weren't raised in the exact same environment as your father, so you need to have a different culture". I tend to lean towards nurture over nature, but for most people, their parents are overwhelmingly the strongest influence in life, which logically should trigger many of the genetic predispositions their parents pass down. There's always a horrifying moment of realization for every child when they realize all their similarities.

That being said, I think something as amorphous as "culture" can be passed down as well. Of course, people acculturate and assimilate and all of that. Many people rewrite where they come from (to different degrees, sometimes entirely!). But I don't think that's true for many other people. For most of us, our parents are the largest influences in our lives. And I generally side with nurture over nature, but I do think parents have a tendency of triggering our genetic predispositions.

I don't think you can look at, just for example, Rick Santorum (whose big-hands grandfather comes from as you know, a family of dedicated Italian Communists) and say he necessarily threw away his family heritage. Political affiliation is only one aspect of culture and in my opinion, is often more of a symptom of other cultural traits than a trait in of itself. I come from a family that was historically populated by staunchly ideological Communists (specifically of the anti-revisionist nature), and I am quite self-evidently not a Communist (though I have a lot of Marxist reading down). I do however admit that my sense of justice at times is often socialistic and that my general social orientation is fairly collectivist. And hell, if you look at Santorum's "It Takes a Family", it's not a super individualistic social view. Santorum could quite possibly deliver a "We're all in it together" line with as much conviction as Bill Clinton.

I will refrain from making any judgments on Barack Obama's somewhat controversial family heritage, because I honestly still don't know what to think of him. Though I'm not afraid to admit I do take a heavy look at the family lives of politicians when judging their personal orientation (and how closely they hew or move away from heritage. Most don't). Which is why my default view towards a Kennedy will always be very negative. They remind me of the Lannisters.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Has either man said they were? Aopeal yes, partaking in parts of that culture yes. Originating from said background- no.

Again, what culture? Here in Texas, construction workers don't watch hockey and speak with a Northern Cities Vowel Shift. They watch futbol, speak Spanish amongst themselves and congregate around food trucks at lunch for tamales and tacos. Are they not indisputably blue collar workers?

And if the culture Ryan and Biden partake in has no relation to one's work, why not just call it White Ethnic Rust Belt Culture?

[minionofmidas]

Oh, and salesmen were never regarded as 'working class' here either. Back in the day, when these things were clear.

And that despite "the lowest class of commercial travellers" (a period phrase, of course, and not a small group) being working class in virtually all respects including background... and of course, the actually lowest class of commercial travellers - not the people meant by the phrase were one step above tramps (and usually, a few years before becoming tramps unless they died sooner.)

J.J. : I think what Al meant was "talk about missing the point".

"Blue collar," in the US, always refers to someone that was in the industrial field, or doing some kind of manual work.  If you were male, and wore a tie to work, you were not blue collar.  There are dwindling number of blue collar workers, though one of my grandfathers was and the other hovered around the Biden level.  None of their children were.

The Bidens were lower middle to middle class, but not "blue collar."  The Ryans were middle to upper middle class.

There.is.nothing.specifically.American.about.this.definition.Thank.you.

Of course, while industrial/manufacturing jobs (especially dirty manual ones) are dwindling, non-industrial manual jobs aren't. The country couldn't survive long if they were. They're just not being done by Anglos for the most part.

The second para. is of course entirely correct.

Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum are blue-collar in a world where the term is racist code for Non-Egghead White, and nowhere else. Though Rick Santorum's parents would qualify anywhere IIRC.
Joe Biden's case is somewhat more complex, but he's certainly not of bona fide working class roots either.

Santorum's grandparents were blue-collar. His parents weren't.

Obviously, I was referring to his parents' background, not their adult occupation.

[opebo]

Do you even read other people's posts? I mean, do you ever give them more than an extremely cursory glance?

I read your posts, Al - I positively study them - and you never say anything.  If you want to tell J.J. what is a 'blue collar worker' or person, just tell him.  Type it out.  Share it, post it.  We all want to see what you have to say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Looking at the descriptions, about 10-11% of the work force is "blue collar."  http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

Accepting your definition for the moment, then a tenth of the workforce are 'blue collar'. Now then,  the comment of yours that I laughed at earlier (and which thus sparked this entire discussion, to the extent that it can be termed as such) was:

Very few people are "blue collar" today.

Would you say that 10% of the workforce (your figure*) can be described in such terms? I notice from the source that you took your figure from that lawyers make up 0.4% of the workforce. That is a much smaller figure than 10% and yet I note a positive surfeit of lawyers in American public life. Curious.

*Though it's ridiculously low.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's just an informal term for a manual worker.

[J. J.]

Has either man said they were? Aopeal yes, partaking in parts of that culture yes. Originating from said background- no.

What "culture"? To claim there is one universal "blue-collar culture" is really....insulting, frankly.

LOL.  Rosanne Arnold and John Goodman made a fortune off of it.  As did Norman Lear and Carrol O'Conner!  So did Billy Joel with "Allentown."

Whole cities have the reputation for being blue collar!  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21581863/ns/travel-destination_travel/t/philadelphias-tough-image-hard-shake/#.UEwmElHLkis

As someone who did grow up in an area that was proudly blue collar, until the steel market collapsed, I can only say that you are very far out of touch.

He didn't say that there are no blue-collar cultures, he said that there's no Blue-Collar Culture.

Those are references to "blue collar" culture.

[J. J.]

Looking at the descriptions, about 10-11% of the work force is "blue collar."  http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

Accepting your definition for the moment, then a tenth of the workforce are 'blue collar'. Now then,  the comment of yours that I laughed at earlier (and which thus sparked this entire discussion, to the extent that it can be termed as such) was:

Very few people are "blue collar" today.

Would you say that 10% of the workforce (your figure*) can be described in such terms? I notice from the source that you took your figure from that lawyers make up 0.4% of the workforce. That is a much smaller figure than 10% and yet I note a positive surfeit of lawyers in American public life. Curious.

*Though it's ridiculously low.

Well, if you want to talk about lawyers, start another thread.

There was a time, within my lifetime, when that number was over 20%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's just an informal term for a manual worker.
[/quote]

That is not the definition in the US.  People in food preparation are generally "manual workers."  They are not "blue collar," by most definitions, and they make up about 8% of the work force. 

There actually was the term "pink collar" that described these positions, but that overlapped with professional positions usually associated with women, like teaching or nursing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, if you want to talk about lawyers, start another thread.

Missing the point again, I see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

hahahaha

You really are an amazing creature sometimes, you know.

To recap: you stated that 'very few people' are in blue collar occupations these days. You then admitted that by your own (quite bizarre I think, given those statistics: but a debate on a statistical matter with you is not good for anyone's mental health so I'll leave matters there) definition that about 10% of the workforce are employed blue collar occupation. 10% of the workforce (especially given how fragmented contemporary labour markets tend to be) is quite a lot of people. Certainly not 'very few people', anyway. The fact that more people could once have been categorised as 'blue collar' is, of course, completely and utterly irrelevant to the point that you made and to which I objected. Any attempt to argue out of this would be quite, quite absurd.

I think that's a fair summary, all told.

Oh, and before you try to get all clever-clever and try teach me (and anyone else reading the thread) how to suck eggs, I am more than well aware that less people are employed in classic blue collar occupations than was once the case. Mines, steelworks, shipyards, mills, docks and factories have shut or else slashed their workforces to tiny fractions of what they once employed, and have been replaced (when they have been replaced) with jobs that are less skilled but also considerably less physically demanding. We all know this already and don't need to be told.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus wept.

Obviously the tendency was always to use the term especially freely as a shorthand for people working in heavy industry, but I'm fairly sure it was also pretty frequently used for people working as tradesmen in other fields and so on. And from then you can probably extend matters to skilled manual workers (as that term was once defined) in general... except for the fact (oh dear) that a labourer is pretty clearly 'blue collar'. Not only are labourers on building sides labeled as 'blue collar' as a matter of routine, no workplace engaged in heavy industry back in the day could have done without at least a gang or two of labourers. And that's where attempts at a precise definition begin to fall apart; as is always the way with informal terms.

Anyway, I await smug sophistry with comparatively little interest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And was doubtless used by about three jargon loving 'political scientists' and about a dozen hack journalists writing puff pieces for features sections for all of several years.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Has either man said they were? Aopeal yes, partaking in parts of that culture yes. Originating from said background- no.

What "culture"? To claim there is one universal "blue-collar culture" is really....insulting, frankly.

LOL.  Rosanne Arnold and John Goodman made a fortune off of it.  As did Norman Lear and Carrol O'Conner!  So did Billy Joel with "Allentown."

Whole cities have the reputation for being blue collar!  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21581863/ns/travel-destination_travel/t/philadelphias-tough-image-hard-shake/#.UEwmElHLkis

As someone who did grow up in an area that was proudly blue collar, until the steel market collapsed, I can only say that you are very far out of touch.

He didn't say that there are no blue-collar cultures, he said that there's no Blue-Collar Culture.

Those are references to "blue collar" culture.

I know that.

[J. J.]

Well, if you want to talk about lawyers, start another thread.

Missing the point again, I see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

hahahaha

You really are an amazing creature sometimes, you know.

Yes, I've actually been paying attention for the last three decades.

Here is a chart of employment in the US by sector, 1959-2010:



Sorry Al, you are quite quaint, with your longings for cloth caps and that Michael Foot will become PM, but that has not been the reality in the US since I graduated from high school.  (And Tony Blair realized that in the 1990's.)

Manufacturing (which was mostly, but not completely, blue collar) was at about 20% of GDP when I graduated from high school.  In 2010 it was about 11% of GDP (again mostly, but not completely, blue collar).

90% of the workforce is not blue collar, and over the last 45 years the number of blue collar workers has declined, perhaps by more than half.  Things change, Al.  Just in case you didn't realize it, the Beatles are no longer together, Wilson is no longer in power, and you don't have to lobby for sanctions against South Africa anymore (and I actually did divest).

Obviously the tendency was always to use the term especially freely as a shorthand for people working in heavy industry, but I'm fairly sure it was also pretty frequently used for people working as tradesmen in other fields and so on. And from then you can probably extend matters to skilled manual workers (as that term was once defined) in general... except for the fact (oh dear) that a labourer is pretty clearly 'blue collar'. Not only are labourers on building sides labeled as 'blue collar' as a matter of routine, no workplace engaged in heavy industry back in the day could have done without at least a gang or two of labourers. And that's where attempts at a precise definition begin to fall apart; as is always the way with informal terms.

Anyway, I await smug sophistry with comparatively little interest.

Actually AL, those were never blue collar jobs, though I don't deny that some are hard.  And those jobs existed when the label "blue collar" was used.  They were never blue collar jobs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And was doubtless used by about three jargon loving 'political scientists' and about a dozen hack journalists writing puff pieces for features sections for all of several years.

Actually used to describe jobs traditionally held by women, which included nurses, teachers, and some government workers, none of whom are described today as "blue collar."  Actually first used by liberals like Pete Hamill, and picked up by the feminist movement.

You cannot confuse "service Jobs" with "blue collar jobs."

LOL at Al, 3,000 miles and 45 years away.

[AndrewTX]

Can't we all just agree that Everyone running for President, and Vice President, make and have more money than we do? None of them had an everyday Job like the rest of us for a long time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Before going any further I would like to point out that you are embarrassing yourself. I know that this has become 'your thing', so to speak, but I think it's important (if only for my conscience) to make the situation absolutely clear.

Yes, I've actually been paying attention for the last three decades.

Here is a chart of employment in the US by sector, 1959-2010:

Sorry Al, you are quite quaint, with your longings for cloth caps and that Michael Foot will become PM, but that has not been the reality in the US since I graduated from high school.  (And Tony Blair realized that in the 1990's.)

Manufacturing (which was mostly, but not completely, blue collar) was at about 20% of GDP when I graduated from high school.  In 2010 it was about 11% of GDP (again mostly, but not completely, blue collar).

90% of the workforce is not blue collar, and over the last 45 years the number of blue collar workers has declined, perhaps by more than half.  Things change, Al.  Just in case you didn't realize it, the Beatles are no longer together, Wilson is no longer in power, and you don't have to lobby for sanctions against South Africa anymore (and I actually did divest).

If you had actually bothered to read my post properly then you would have noticed that I brought up the issue of deindustrialisation and the deskilling of working class employment in this very thread:

Oh, and before you try to get all clever-clever and try teach me (and anyone else reading the thread) how to suck eggs, I am more than well aware that less people are employed in classic blue collar occupations than was once the case. Mines, steelworks, shipyards, mills, docks and factories have shut or else slashed their workforces to tiny fractions of what they once employed, and have been replaced (when they have been replaced) with jobs that are less skilled but also considerably less physically demanding. We all know this already and don't need to be told.

I repeat: you are embarrassing yourself.

Moreover (hah), I note that you have (once again!) skipped the issue that sparked this (for me) surreal exchange: your rather odd decision to combine a claim that 'very few' people are employed in 'blue collar' occupations with a list of occupations that continue to employ millions of people in America. 'Very few' does not mean the same thing as 'less than was once the case.' The latter point would be unarguable. The former is ludicrous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which jobs? Be specific. Do you mean labourers? Are you arguing that labourers are not blue collar workers?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So still about three people, all told.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How witty.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can't we all just agree that Everyone running for President, and Vice President, make and have more money than we do? None of them had an everyday Job like the rest of us for a long time.

No, because it is important to wonder why this is the case.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Has either man said they were? Aopeal yes, partaking in parts of that culture yes. Originating from said background- no.

I thought Ryan was hostile to unions? Of course (in reality) we're back to the increasing use of the term as a code for something quite different.

[J. J.]

Before going any further I would like to point out that you are embarrassing yourself. I know that this has become 'your thing', so to speak, but I think it's important (if only for my conscience) to make the situation absolutely clear.

As noted, I indicated the definition in the US of "blue collar."  I thing it only fair to point out that you don't get to define the term for the United States.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I repeat: you are embarrassing yourself.
[/quote]

I did, but you apparently didn't bother to read the definition of the term "blue collar."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am using a comparison to say "very few," which even generously is 10-11%. When I graduated from high school, it was about 20%.  When I entered grade school, and first heard the term, it was about 25%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Waiters/waitresses, cooks, teachers, nurses, nurses aides, clerks in stores, secretaries, since the context was that these were classified as "pink collar."  Laborers, in the US usually refers to a non skilled worker in some sort of heavy work.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So still about three people, all told.

No, at one point it was used as a gender divide.  There are 1,500,000 citations on Google, so it seems to be more than three people.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't widely used (and now arguably is outdated).

LOL, Al, you really out of touch.

[J. J.]

Has either man said they were? Aopeal yes, partaking in parts of that culture yes. Originating from said background- no.

I thought Ryan was hostile to unions? Of course (in reality) we're back to the increasing use of the term as a code for something quite different.

I have not seen a particularly hostile stance.  I would not classify any of the other three people on the ticket as being "blue collar," though George Romney perhaps had that background, but well before Mitt was born.  Obama's maternal grandmother did work in a bomber plant during WWII, and also worked as a waitress.

None of these guys are "blue collar."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As noted, I indicated the definition in the US of "blue collar."  I thing it only fair to point out that you don't get to define the term for the United States.

This is really, really bizarre. I'm not even really attempting to 'define' anything: I'm certainly not playing word games.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry but that will not do. You wrote a long post arrogantly accusing me of not being aware of the existence of deindustrialisation and other changes to the labour market over the past thirty-odd years, in response to a post of mine mentioning these very issues. You don't see that this makes you look ridiculous?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No you were not. This is the post in question:

Very few people are "blue collar" today.  Construction workers, assembly line workers, miners, farm workers, drivers, and in the public sector, trash collectors and road crews.

See the issue? No, probably not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am aware that less people are employed in classic manual occupations than was once the case. I have said so (in this thread) on multiple occasions. You do not need to repeat the point, especially as it is not disputed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What has that got to do with the point I was making? Which, for the record, was:

Obviously the tendency was always to use the term especially freely as a shorthand for people working in heavy industry, but I'm fairly sure it was also pretty frequently used for people working as tradesmen in other fields and so on. And from then you can probably extend matters to skilled manual workers (as that term was once defined) in general... except for the fact (oh dear) that a labourer is pretty clearly 'blue collar'. Not only are labourers on building sides labeled as 'blue collar' as a matter of routine, no workplace engaged in heavy industry back in the day could have done without at least a gang or two of labourers. And that's where attempts at a precise definition begin to fall apart; as is always the way with informal terms.

Do you understand the point I am trying to make in the above post? The tendency was/is  certainly to use the term 'blue collar' to refer especially to what might be thought of as  'proper jobs' that were hard work but which required skills and quite possibly (quite probably, back in the day) an apprenticeship, but it is also quite routinely used to describe labourers as well. There is a fairly large difference between these forms of manual labour, and there was even more in the past. My Dad (an electrician) would not take too kindly to being described as a labourer and his grandfather (who spent his working life as a blaster in a slate quarry) would have been outraged. 'Blue collar' is an imprecise and informal term, that's all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm reasonably sure that the term was only used by the usual suspects, so to speak. The sort of people who like jargon. I'm guessing that remarkably few people said about themselves that they had a 'pink collar job'.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When it comes to procrastination there's nothing like repeatedly banging your head on a (figurative) brick wall on the in interwebs. Enough for now though; work to do.

[J. J.]

As noted, I indicated the definition in the US of "blue collar."  I thing it only fair to point out that you don't get to define the term for the United States.

This is really, really bizarre. I'm not even really attempting to 'define' anything: I'm certainly not playing word games.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry but that will not do. You wrote a long post arrogantly accusing me of not being aware of the existence of deindustrialisation and other changes to the labour market over the past thirty-odd years, in response to a post of mine mentioning these very issues. You don't see that this makes you look ridiculous?

Al, blue collar workers were mostly, not exclusively, in the industrial sector.  You apparently don't understand that.  As noted, the industrial sector had declined, rather dramatically.  You questioned earlier why the figure seemed to be so low.  It is because the sector that primarily employed blue collar workers has shrink.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blue collar has perhaps a more defined meaning that you think, in the US.  Marco Rubio's family, for example, were obviously not wealthy, obviously had had to work hard in jobs with few, if any, chances for advancement.  They were not, however, blue collar.

The concept of a "proper job," as I think you mean it, is relatively alien to the US.  It might be referred to as a job with shifts, or a "9 to 5 job," but that refers to white collar and pink collar jobs, just as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many of the American people use that "jargon."  It was originally used to describe jobs traditionally held by women, but also included professional positions. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, blue collar workers were mostly, not exclusively, in the industrial sector.  You apparently don't understand that.  As noted, the industrial sector had declined, rather dramatically.  You questioned earlier why the figure seemed to be so low.  It is because the sector that primarily employed blue collar workers has shrink.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I've been using the word 'deindustrialisation' rather a lot in this thread. What do you think 'deindustrialisation' means, exactly?

I would also like to remind you, again, of the post that triggered all of this:

Very few people are "blue collar" today.  Construction workers, assembly line workers, miners, farm workers, drivers, and in the public sector, trash collectors and road crews.

I know that it isn't nice to rub someone's face in their own embarrassment, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, once again, the point whistles several feet over your head. I can't be bothered to make it again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure that hardly anyone uses that particular piece of jargon. I'm even surer than most of the people that do use it do not have such jobs themselves.

[J. J.]

Al, blue collar workers were mostly, not exclusively, in the industrial sector.  You apparently don't understand that.  As noted, the industrial sector had declined, rather dramatically.  You questioned earlier why the figure seemed to be so low.  It is because the sector that primarily employed blue collar workers has shrink.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I've been using the word 'deindustrialisation' rather a lot in this thread. What do you think 'deindustrialisation' means, exactly?

I would also like to remind you, again, of the post that triggered all of this:

Very few people are "blue collar" today.  Construction workers, assembly line workers, miners, farm workers, drivers, and in the public sector, trash collectors and road crews.

I know that it isn't nice to rub someone's face in their own embarrassment, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

What do you thing assembly line workers do?  Those people are industrial workers,.  That includes workers such as car workers and steel manufacturers. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, once again, the point whistles several feet over your head. I can't be bothered to make it again.
[/quote]

Once again, you post gibberish.  Maids and bartenders are not "blue collar" workers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure that hardly anyone uses that particular piece of jargon. I'm even surer than most of the people that do use it do not have such jobs themselves.
[/quote]

Al, as pointed out, the are 1,500,000 references to it on Google.  The problem is that the definition is jobs traditionally held by women, which includes what are now fairly high paying professional jobs.  Again, the fact you don't like it, doesn't make it any less certain.

[patrick1]

Oh look another thread where JJ is so needlessly pedantic to the point that he looks like a fool.

[J. J.]

Oh look another thread where JJ is so needlessly pedantic to the point that he looks like a fool.

Well, we Al insisting that blue collar means something it doesn't.  He seems to have the mindset of the Labour Party in the mid 1980's (which they abandoned in the mid 1990's). 

The irony is that I can remember, basically as an adult, when probably more that 1 in 5 workers were blue collar and, as a child, when it was more than 1 in 4.  I actually can remember people in manufacturing working in shifts. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What do you thing assembly line workers do?  Those people are industrial workers,.  That includes workers such as car workers and steel manufacturers.

Were you dropped on the head as a child?

The whole issue here, o.k, is that you claimed that 'very few' people have blue collar jobs in the U.S., before immediately listing occupations that employ millions of people in that very same country.

Christ.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never wrote anything about maids or bartenders. This was what I wrote:

Obviously the tendency was always to use the term especially freely as a shorthand for people working in heavy industry, but I'm fairly sure it was also pretty frequently used for people working as tradesmen in other fields and so on. And from then you can probably extend matters to skilled manual workers (as that term was once defined) in general... except for the fact (oh dear) that a labourer is pretty clearly 'blue collar'. Not only are labourers on building sides labeled as 'blue collar' as a matter of routine, no workplace engaged in heavy industry back in the day could have done without at least a gang or two of labourers. And that's where attempts at a precise definition begin to fall apart; as is always the way with informal terms.

Do you understand the point I am trying to make in the above post? The tendency was/is  certainly to use the term 'blue collar' to refer especially to what might be thought of as  'proper jobs' that were hard work but which required skills and quite possibly (quite probably, back in the day) an apprenticeship, but it is also quite routinely used to describe labourers as well. There is a fairly large difference between these forms of manual labour, and there was even more in the past. My Dad (an electrician) would not take too kindly to being described as a labourer and his grandfather (who spent his working life as a blaster in a slate quarry) would have been outraged. 'Blue collar' is an imprecise and informal term, that's all.

...and all that I'm trying to argue (though Lord knows why, because I certainly don't) is that 'blue collar worker' is an informal term for 'manual worker' rather than an absolutely precise term with a single very clear meaning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Boredom led me to type that silly piece of jargon into google and the second item was: "The Term “Pink Collar” Is Silly And Outdated — Let's Retire It"

haha

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh look another thread where JJ is so needlessly pedantic to the point that he looks like a fool.

I think he must have refined his unique and remarkable debating style long before the birth of the interwebs and just transferred it wholesale without realising that on the internet there's an automatic paper trail.