> Paradoxically, working in tech is seen as somewhat low-class.
Fussell (though writing about the US) may have some insight here. For one thing, working is kinda low-class; for another, being concerned about the latest-and-greatest of technology is, separately, kinda low-class. He writes (I'm paraphrasing) that American old money is more likely to drive a 30-year-old truck, to have ancient kitchen appliances, maybe even fairly old entertainment-related electronics, than to have a flashy new sports car and top-end appliances—because caring about new technology is "low", so is something those sorts of people have been socialized not to care about (much of it's the "help's" problem, anyway, after all).
The US has a similar thing going on, along the "working/professional/upper" axis: many programmers make "professional" levels of money (e.g. doctor, lawyer, upper management at mid-level corporations, that kind of thing) but as a society we seem to have decided it's not proper to treat them as professionals, so they remain working-class in many respects (along with actual engineers).
Yes, there's a lot of similar stuff going on in the US. However, the new money / old money distinction in the US seems to not have the teeth that it does in the UK, at least, from the mid 20th century onwards.
The thing about old money having old cars and appliances applies to the UK too. If you're upper-class in the UK, you might wear Wellington boots and go hunting with your dogs in your Subaru hatchback. At a glance, it might look indistinguishable from something you might find someone doing in rural Montana.
The Gilded Age in the US is absolutely fascinating... it seems like at that point in history, the US was trying its hardest to ape European conventions for class, and simultaneously, there was a ton of economic growth fueling the noveau riche. That's when we got people like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. It's the time when Wharton's The Age of Innocence was set (highly recommend this book). Old money went to the opera at the Academy of Music Opera House, and new money went to the Metropolitan Opera House. (Guess which one is still around.)
Fussell (though writing about the US) may have some insight here. For one thing, working is kinda low-class; for another, being concerned about the latest-and-greatest of technology is, separately, kinda low-class. He writes (I'm paraphrasing) that American old money is more likely to drive a 30-year-old truck, to have ancient kitchen appliances, maybe even fairly old entertainment-related electronics, than to have a flashy new sports car and top-end appliances—because caring about new technology is "low", so is something those sorts of people have been socialized not to care about (much of it's the "help's" problem, anyway, after all).
The US has a similar thing going on, along the "working/professional/upper" axis: many programmers make "professional" levels of money (e.g. doctor, lawyer, upper management at mid-level corporations, that kind of thing) but as a society we seem to have decided it's not proper to treat them as professionals, so they remain working-class in many respects (along with actual engineers).