[Sloper]

The problem with the 'inequality' debate is that it is a stinking pile of shit.

the problem with the 'inequality' debate is that it ignores the qualification of comparators and also the causes of the inequality. For these reasons it is a pretty meaningless debate.

...

The point I'm making is that the 'inequality is a problem' are founding their arguments on flawed premises and seeking to draw inferences that are simply not viable.

I could say that fiancial inequality was the cause of a flagging labido or having a bad case of piles and it would be as credible as the prognoses made by the chorus of morons rolling out the sort of tripe in the Guardian.

Many of the fastest periods of growth have been when there has been the greatest inequality and there has been stagnation when inequality was lower.

    

[Stubbs]

Many of the fastest periods of growth have been when there has been the greatest inequality

What, like when Britannia ruled the waves and the sun never set on our empire? Ah those were the days!

[Sloper]

Many of the fastest periods of growth have been when there has been the greatest inequality

What, like when Britannia ruled the waves and the sun never set on our empire? Ah those were the days!

I do love a completely random comment, but maybe it's worth a thread of its own.

[Oldmanmatt]

http://kathleenkerridge.com/2015/01/28/the-upsetting-reality-of-modern-day-poverty/

[Sloper]

So basically a whole series of bad decisions, bad luck and ill health  (some of which is admittedly self inflicted)  have now dropped this family in the shit is supposed to tell us something about inequality? 

Now before you reach for the punter button, if you have four children you get about £75 per week child benefit, and they're also in receipt of WFTC probably worth another £200 per week and if the husband is on a lowish wage there's probably council tax benefit and housing benefit.

The chat about using washing up liquid instead of shampoo is bollocks, I was in Wilco's today and you can buy a large bottle of shampoo for 67p.

Ohh and as for using cheaper cuts of meat and so on, diddums. I am also cooking a beef shank joint (c.£5 per kg at Waitrose at present and mine was reduced to about £3 per kg) and will use ox cheek & kidney, make faggots and so on and so on.

So basically I think the author is being economical with the truth or is just talking shit.

[Oldmanmatt]

Except I went through exactly the same experience, not very long ago.
It is surprising how those benefits dry up or are "temporarily" suspended due to "change in circumstance".
What you have in your mind is an idealised view of how it is supposed to work.

It does not.


But for the efforts of my MP (Tory), the Royal British Legion,  the Sailors Family Society, the Force Cancer Charity and numerous friends and family; we would have been homeless and starving.
Too complicated to go into here, though many here know the tale.

The reality of claiming, anything other than JSA, when the shit hits the fan, is a totally different proposition from the one you describe.

Your fluffy, cuddly view of the welfare system and it's joyful servants and Masters, is utterly misplaced.

Oh no...

My mistake, that's lefty drivel.

That bit was sarcasm, incidentally.

Now enlighten us with your slavish, sycophantic, trumpeting/blind repetition of the Conservative Party line.
(Only, please remember I am really not in the slightest bit "lefty", just not as blinkered as you).

[Sloper]

Matt, we're not talking about a situation where benefits cease etc, this woman in her articles says husband is now back in work an their benefits are coming in and the content is, on the face of it hyperbolic i.e. the washing up liquid vs shampoo.

I'm not saying that their life is comfortable but if you're in receipt of >£145 per week (assuming she's in receipt of some sort of benefit + child benefit) then you should be able to feed your family on that comfortably.

[psychomansam]

Matt, we're not talking about a situation where benefits cease etc, this woman in her articles says husband is now back in work an their benefits are coming in and the content is, on the face of it hyperbolic i.e. the washing up liquid vs shampoo.

I'm not saying that their life is comfortable but if you're in receipt of >£145 per week (assuming she's in receipt of some sort of benefit + child benefit) then you should be able to feed your family on that comfortably.

Unless your school decides to move to a new uniform. Or the car needed for work dies. Or the boiler breaks. Or the roof leaks. Or someone you love dies and you want/need to go to the funeral. Or...

[Sloper]

Irrelevant to the subject.

[IanP]

For those who are interested in a real discussion about this the  new radio 4 two parter with Robert Peston, The Price of Inequality, may be worth listening to:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0520jy5.

Quote from RP especially for Sloper:

'To be clear, worrying about all this is not to engage in the politics of envy, or it need not be. It is to take part in the big debate of our age, which is how to make globalisation serve the interests of millions and millions of people across the rich developed world, whose living standards are stagnating and who are increasingly hostile to the established political parties.'

[Stu Littlefair]

Irrelevant to the subject. Not supportive of my world view.

There. Fixed that for you.

[Offwidth]

From the Observer on Sunday:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/31/inheritance-britain-wealthy-study-surnames-social-mobility

[Sloper]

Irrelevant to the subject. Not supportive of my world view.

There. Fixed that for you.

Stuart, since when is data the plural of anecdote?

This woman's account no more contributes to a debate about inequality then my staring at the sun either informs me as to nature of the universe or how furthers the deabte as to how or if dark energy relates to dark matter.

If we were talking about benefits, poverty, feckless fuckwits vs the needy poor and the road to Damascus then perhaps it would contribute to that detabte: but to this debate it adds nothing.

Ian, Robert Peston's job is to garner viewers/listeners his tenuous nonsequitors and glib comments (and fuck me I should know a bit about glib comments and specious throw away lines) really do not take the matter beyond, at the highest a GCSE level of debate.

[IanP]

Ian, Robert Peston's job is to garner viewers/listeners his tenuous nonsequitors and glib comments (and fuck me I should know a bit about glib comments and specious throw away lines) really do not take the matter beyond, at the highest a GCSE level of debate.

Insightful as ever, I guess you didn't bother to listen to the programme.

[Sloper]

I've listened to RP on so many questions and found him to be superficial, draw false comparisons and make basic errors too often to consider him credible.

I read a good deal of economics and politics and make a point of reading plenty of stuff from lefty fuckwits, Will Hutton et al so it is far from accurate to prortary me as one who only reads sources that are likely to support my stance (I read the Guardian FFS)

[Stu Littlefair]

Irrelevant to the subject. Not supportive of my world view.

There. Fixed that for you.

Stuart, since when is data the plural of anecdote?

This woman's account no more contributes to a debate about inequality then my staring at the sun either informs me as to nature of the universe or how furthers the deabte as to how or if dark energy relates to dark matter.

If we were talking about benefits, poverty, feckless fuckwits vs the needy poor and the road to Damascus then perhaps it would contribute to that detabte: but to this debate it adds nothing.

Well, I was just being funny. But if you want a serious response one is that I believe if you look at wages alone then the poverty gap has widened in this country but, interestingly, this has been mitigated by benefits. In fact I *think* it's correct to say that if you include benefits and wages then inequality has narrowed over the last ten years or so, but I can't remember where I read that, so it might be bobbins.

Obviously, us irrational lefties would say this is government doing what it's supposed to do and reining in the excesses of capitalism. I reckon that's pretty relevant to a discussion of inequality, non?

Also, there's a secondary point to make that (personally) I don't give too much of a stuff about inequality as long as

a) everyone gets better off
b) people on the breadline can live decent lives.

I think Matt's story is an example of where condition b falls down and it then becomes interesting and relevant to start talking about if we're happy with the way the system is distributing the spoils of growth.

[Sloper]

You're generally right about the Gini coeficient and the role of benefits: here's an interesting piece of research from Conservative Central Office, p.10 is interesting but of course now the top quintile don't get child benefits and we're paying more tax this will affect figures for future years.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_367431.pdf

Capitalism is and has always been regulated and the question is not the volume of regulation but its efficacy: this government has closed a lot of tax loopholes and introduced a range of GAAP that are amongst the most robust out there (I think that's what the IMF & OECD concluded).

People on benefits should be able to live and live a decent life but there's no realistic means of accounting for stupidity and poor choices.  If you ask any social worker / teacher / police officer etc who deals with the most deprived they will tell you that the preponderence of smoking and drinking is extraordinary and the ownership of new mobiles, flat screen TVs and so on is not exactly uncommon.

So what's the solution, modern workhouses, payment of benefits on cards that can only be applied for food & bills etc or do we give people the ffreedom to fuck up their lives?

As difficult as it sounds we have to give people this freedom and accept that the consequences they face will be unpleasant for them.

[ghisino]

just came across a very interesting analysis on the inequality issue (in italian).

i won't offer a full translation, but a brief summary and the two main graphs.

gini's coefficient in the US:
http://blog.ilgiornale.it/bagnai/files/2015/02/Disuguaglianza.png

productivity and real wages in the US:
http://blog.ilgiornale.it/bagnai/files/2015/02/Salari.png

the two are linked: inequality starts to grow when real wages cease to follow labor productivity.
in other terms, with the shift from the fordist paradigm (the employee is a customer and we need to pay him enough that he can afford our products) to one where consumption is essentially driven by credit.

the article also includes an interesting criticism of Piketty's proposed solution (more taxes for the rich) : in reality, since the "1%" capitals are elusive and well protected, any application of this policy will end up in "more taxes for the middle class".

also, in a world of growing inequalities, middle classes will in any case be forced to pay more and more taxes, as the poor will be so poor that they will (rightly) fly under the fiscal radar, and the rich will be rich enough to afford effective fiscal evasion measures.

the advocated solution is a sort of neo-fordism, on the basis that the current paradigm is inherently unstable (debtors will end up not paying their creditors) and dangerous for capitalism' survival (https://ideas.repec.org/p/ais/wpaper/1402.html  is also cited)

italian articlehttp://blog.ilgiornale.it/bagnai/2015/02/10/analisi-egoistica-della-disuguaglianza/

[Sloper]

Some interesting comments there (I haven't read the links) but as for the return of a paternalist capitalism where the workers are somehow tied to the company I doubt that that is the solution.

[ghisino]

The focus is on in wages and especially on which share of a company's results go there...

 Though it is indirectly linked to what you say as it is easy to see that in a system where employee are flexible and mobile, they are also easily threatened of being dire and replaced with a cheaper alternative.

While the linked Joe brada paper says that on a systemic scale this Is dangerous for capitalism itself, i doubt the single company can "see" this dimension

And finally I wonder if our ultimate focus as humans is being richer on an absolute value, or dominating/screwing others (which would explain a pursue of inequality as a goal,in itself!)