[psychomansam]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/robert_reich_10_ways_to_close_the_inequality_gap_partner/

About America, but equally relevant here. He ends on a more positive note than I would.

I consider this the biggest threat to our society by far - bigger than immigration, terrorism and everything else the right wing tries to distract us with. It's the biggest threat, yet the government doesn't even acknowledge it exists, and continues to make it worse. What the fuck?

inequalitybriefing.org

[Russell_B]

In a similar vein, Danny Dorling spoke of the UK situation at his inaugral lecture:  

Tis a long but engaging watch (n.b. it is not a TED talk...). From what I can remember, by means of a rough precis: economic divide leads to social divide leads to health divide with current trajectory suggestive of health inequalities within our lifetimes.  Didn't know Oxford once had a partition wall separating the haves and have nots.

More interestingly perhaps, considering this is his inaugral speach at a major British institution, he finishes by saying people should be getting angry about this.  #Do you hear the people sing....#

[Jaspersharpe]

Why did you split up with Katy Perry you dozy bastard?

[Russell_B]

Now look mate... do you mind being called 'mate', cos some people find it all too familiar and I'm not in the game of making people uncomfortable ...there is a disenfranchisement issue here about which I have somewhat of a compulsion to deliberate over.  See, beguiling us peoples with flagrant fear-mongering is the media’s play, a hollow and distracting thing ta be occupying our time. A salacious orgy of hearsay. Now on the matter presiding, do you work for the Mail? Naa mate, I joke!  We’ve got to keep this light don’t we? These are heavy topics, about dark times and who wants that when Cash in the Attic is on ehh? Anyways, the matter of Ms Perry and I is of non-consequence here, a meer diversion, the fact the mundane nature of married life did my nut in is by-the-by. Vive la revolution (and polygamy)!

[slackline]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/robert_reich_10_ways_to_close_the_inequality_gap_partner/

About America, but equally relevant here. He ends on a more positive note than I would.

I consider this the biggest threat to our society by far - bigger than immigration, terrorism and everything else the right wing tries to distract us with. It's the biggest threat, yet the government doesn't even acknowledge it exists, and continues to make it worse. What the fuck?

inequalitybriefing.org

You might want to go to this talk.

[Sloper]

The usual lefty one eyed clap trap.

What is needed is the proper rule of law, an open competitive banking sector, stable political institutions.

The focus on the '1%' is a distraction; what we should be considering is the inequality between the bottom 3-10% and the 10-30% sector of the distribution.

Try reading 'why nations fail'.

[Oldmanmatt]

I wonder which is more important to you (all), the quality of your existence (and I mean relative to the Subsistence farmer), or the difference between you and the wealthiest?

In the West, when we talk about "inequality", we're talking about "difference in the number/value of luxuries possessed, Shirley?

And I'm typing this on my iPad, in front of my flat screen TV (with DVD/DVR etc). Warm in my modern cave, with it's central heating, hot a cold running water etc, etc, etc.
You get the point.

Only just over thirty years ago, as a boy in the '70s, I knew more people without a TV, than with. More families without a car, than with.
Central heating?
Double glazing?
Wall to wall carpet throughout?
A PC?
Dishwasher or even a washing machine?
Even into the '90s, I knew several people, who still had to light a coal fire to warm water (back boiler) for a bath (though most by then had Power showers).
Our standard of living has risen incredibly, across the board. Our definition of poverty has changed.
Who remembers watching "Rising damp"? That house was pretty typical in the '70s.
Drafty doors and windows (people knitted/sewed novelty draft excluders). Condensation and damp stains and mold.
These things were common.

Popping next door to borrow the phone.

And, as I said somewhere else on the forum, a Grandfather, who grew up in a single room, with thirteen brothers and sisters (3 died before age 5) and a trench gassed father in Coventry. And there were thousands like them in Coventry alone!

Our perspective is skewed. We mistake wealth envy for genuine want.

[Sloper]

I wonder which is more important to you (all), the quality of your existence (and I mean relative to the Subsistence farmer), or the difference between you and the wealthiest?

In the West, when we talk about "inequality", we're talking about "difference in the number/value of luxuries possessed, Shirley?

And I'm typing this on my iPad, in front of my flat screen TV (with DVD/DVR etc). Warm in my modern cave, with it's central heating, hot a cold running water etc, etc, etc.
You get the point.

Only just over thirty years ago, as a boy in the '70s, I knew more people without a TV, than with. More families without a car, than with.
Central heating?
Double glazing?
Wall to wall carpet throughout?
A PC?
Dishwasher or even a washing machine?
Even into the '90s, I knew several people, who still had to light a coal fire to warm water (back boiler) for a bath (though most by then had Power showers).
Our standard of living has risen incredibly, across the board. Our definition of poverty has changed.
Who remembers watching "Rising damp"? That house was pretty typical in the '70s.
Drafty doors and windows (people knitted/sewed novelty draft excluders). Condensation and damp stains and mold.
These things were common.

Popping next door to borrow the phone.

And, as I said somewhere else on the forum, a Grandfather, who grew up in a single room, with thirteen brothers and sisters (3 died before age 5) and a trench gassed father in Coventry. And there were thousands like them in Coventry alone!

Our perspective is skewed. We mistake wealth envy for genuine want.

Fascist neo con (I think I love you )

[Oldmanmatt]

Fascist neo con (I think I love you )

Aaaarrrrggghhh!

Liberal realist (self described). I think privatisation of the NHS or School system, will recreate a Dickensian level of inequality and poverty. I think the current crop of ruling prats are borderline Evil (and remember, I've had to listen to Ashcroft's drunken rants).
Having been married to a Romanian, born in '76, for ten years, I've heard a horror story or thirty from the Communist era.
And life just keeps pushing me into the middle.
Into the Grey.

Into compromise and co-operation.

Acceptance.

 

[Oldmanmatt]

Oh..
I'm not too hot on privatisation of Utilities either...

I think the state should be the guardian of the weak, not the tool of the wealthy.

And the current cabinet are complete tools...

[Stubbs]

So we should just be happy we discovered fire and a way to kill sabretooths and stop whining about the guys with the big piles of shells?

[psychomansam]

I wonder which is more important to you (all), the quality of your existence (and I mean relative to the Subsistence farmer), or the difference between you and the wealthiest?

Well now, this is an interesting question, both empirically and ethically. But before responding to it, I should just say it's a little tangential to the original issue. The problem of inequality isn't just about making us happy. The problem isn't simple. Firstly, what are the systems causing inequality? Are they democratic? Do they exist for our good? Are they likely to be a good way to continue? Do they provide economic stability? (You can guess my answers here probably). What other problems do they create? Secondly, what are the results of inequality. In 2011, it resulted in riots*. It also tends to create a power structure where those with power have separate goals and interests to the the majority of the demos, and thus will inevitably screw them over while looking after their own interests. It tends to cause a fragmented, class-based society with distrust between, say, the gypos, chavs, hipsters, eastern europeans, middle class knobs and rich wankers. It is often also race-related and thus creates or re-enforces racism.** There is evidence to say that more equal societies make everyone happier, including the rich.

In answer to your question, well, I can believe I could learn a lot from a subsistence farmer. But I don't believe I have anything (positive) to learn from a city banker. I've got a lovely video clip somewhere of monkeys responding to being given unequal rewards for a task. They clearly see it as unjust. They get angry - even though they were originally happy with their reward. People also have a sense of justice I'm afraid, and no amount of cava and discount caviar will make people happy when they know they're being fucked over.

*In the whole of history, we look at riots and say "They didn't have a voice, it was an unequal society, they were being treated poorly, there was unemployment and/or disenfranchisement among the young, and they had enough". Yet in 2011 David Cunteron said it's chavs being "Feral thugs" and half the country nod their heads in tune with the BadlyBiasedCorporation, the DailyFail and whoever else.

**Police in London are often racist knobs to black kids. This is because black kids ARE far more likely to commit crimes. But if you control for wealth, you realise race isn't actually a factor. Poor kids commit crimes. Unemployed kids commit crimes. I don't know the stats now but at the time of the riots it was 25% unemployment for white 18-25s and double that for blacks. They're poor because of historical injustice and racism. This means they commit crimes. This creates more racism.

[Oldmanmatt]

So we should just be happy we discovered fire and a way to kill sabretooths and stop whining about the guys with the big piles of shells?

No.

How important is it to you, how big your neighbour's pile of shells is?

Sam, where people feel resentment at perceived or actual inequality; what is the answer?

Should the haves have less? The have nots more?

Isn't there a state of "enough"?

Both greed and resentment of the fruits of another's greed, are essentially the same thing? Selfishness?

I resent the inequality, too.

I just don't think it's as important as other issues.

I think there is a good argument for economic encouragement to strive. I suspect that any attempt to level society (and I mean level, rather than reduce inequality), would result in stagnation (read, H G Wells race, the Eloi) and probable collapse.

After all, what happens to a society where no one collects the rubbish or cleans the public toilets?

I'd like us to grow up a bit as a species.

Stop chasing "things".

[tomtom]

I'm going to devils advocate a here and say...


Whats wrong with people chasing 'things' - as in the latest flat screen, or smart phone or holiday in the Caribbean etc.. ? Here (on UKB) I think we are inherently biased as we all pursue a hobby/obsession/career/lifestyle that is about the experience (Bouldering). Its not really about the kit, or shiny items of metalwork or hi tech plastics (as chuffing or MTB is possibly more orientated) but about doing something that feels good.

So whats the difference between wanting to enjoy an experience and wanting to have a new TV? and who are we to judge? Is this not just a form of intellectual snobbery?

[slackline]

I'd like us to grow up a bit as a species.

Stop chasing "things".

Its not the chasing of "things" (material inequality) that bothers me, its the inequality in access to education that is of far greater concern to me thanks to the introduction of tuition fees.

This will seriously discourage many capable people whose parents are not financially well off from undertaking further education because they don't wish to start their working life with +£30000 debt (at a bare minimum, since thats only a fraction over three years worth of tuition fees and doesn't account for the cost of having to subsist and perhaps enjoy yourself a little).

I'm also sceptical about how access to health care/services will pan out with the ill-thought out privatisation of the public service and am hoping it won't create a two-tier (or more) system of healthcare where some can afford whatever luxurious treatment they choose whilst others have the squeeze put on them.


I think a lot of the data has been cherry picked by those who champion the inequality issue (this is based on reading The Spirit Level) but there are some interesting patterns to be observed such as overall life expectancy is greater in countries where the inequality between the upper most and lower most deciles is smallest. 

The focus on the '1%' is a distraction; what we should be considering is the inequality between the bottom 3-10% and the 10-30% sector of the distribution.

Which 10-30% sector of the distribution?

As above I don't think the way they've chosen a select few top Western countries in the Spirit Level and then chosen to compare the bottom decile and the top decile (i.e. not the "1% distraction") is the correct way to interrogate the data.  This is because the metrics are continuous and it would be far more appropriate to analyse the data under a regression modelling approach than to divide it up and then selectively focus on comparing and contrasting the two extremes.

A good critique of this book is presented in The Spirit Level Delusion : Fact-checking the Left's new theory of everything.

[psychomansam]

So we should just be happy we discovered fire and a way to kill sabretooths and stop whining about the guys with the big piles of shells?

No.

How important is it to you, how big your neighbour's pile of shells is?

Sam, where people feel resentment at perceived or actual inequality; what is the answer?

Should the haves have less? The have nots more?

Isn't there a state of "enough"?

Both greed and resentment of the fruits of another's greed, are essentially the same thing? Selfishness?

I resent the inequality, too.

I just don't think it's as important as other issues.

I think there is a good argument for economic encouragement to strive. I suspect that any attempt to level society (and I mean level, rather than reduce inequality), would result in stagnation (read, H G Wells race, the Eloi) and probable collapse.

After all, what happens to a society where no one collects the rubbish or cleans the public toilets?

I'd like us to grow up a bit as a species.

Stop chasing "things".

No there is no state of enough. Philosophical sufficiency arguments fail. Psychology corroborates.

If anyone is interested, here's a couple of papers on equality: Sen, A http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sen80.pdf and Anderson, E http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/ElizabethAndersonWhatIsthePointofEquality.pdf

And if anyone is really interested, ask me why I believe equality of opportunity is a myth, since true equality of opportunity is roughly identical with equality of outcome.

[slackline]

And if anyone is really interested, ask me why I believe equality of opportunity is a myth, since true equality of opportunity is roughly identical with equality of outcome.

So if you believe both are ultimately futile the point of starting the discussion was.... ?


Intellectual masturbation?

[psychomansam]

And if anyone is really interested, ask me why I believe equality of opportunity is a myth, since true equality of opportunity is roughly identical with equality of outcome.

So if you believe both are ultimately futile the point of starting the discussion was.... ?


Intellectual masturbation?

No need to get all existentialist on me. And I've got such an upbeat sig!

Just because true and full equality is both impossible and undesirable doesn't mean sufficient equality isn't desirable. More precisely, I see it as coming down to a balancing act in which equality should be maximised up to and until the point it where it would too greatly erode our illusions of free will* and associated freedoms. (The balance point here being subjective).

*a clue as to why equal of opp  = equal of out

[slackline]

What do you think sufficient equality is then?

[psychomansam]

What do you think sufficient equality is then?

The maximal amount retaining illusory... (see above)

[slackline]

What do you think sufficient equality is then?

The maximal amount retaining illusory... (see above)

Yes I read that but it was (purposefully?) vague with little quantification of where you think the scales should rest.

[Sloper]

Slackers, my point was that the <2% will be prisoners, those in many ways entirely without opportunities to change their socio/economic position & so on, and thanks for the recommendation, next on the reading list.

The real issue for me is the ossification of movement between the lowest 3-10% and the next lowest 10-30% as this is where barriers are the most significant and the hardest to overcome; for example if one is the son/daughter of teacher (who while earning a reasonable wage) is never going to move significantly up/down, the progeny are liekly to value education, proceed to a career which does allow them to move singificantly up the scale; there are few barriers and 'progression' is likely to be reinforced and replicated in future generations.

The ideal of equality of opportunity needs to address the relative barriers in the lower reaches of the distribution curve and address those.

While I too despair at the notion of tuition fees (a Labour policy let's not forget) my view is that the most significant barriers are in place and reinforce before the child reaches school age.

On a philosophical basis the 'demand' for equality is inherently flawed; if one lives in a £1m house and earns £150k p.a. you may still be realtively poor when taken against the majority of one's neighbours; is this something to worry about?  I would suggest not.

Rather than focusing on relative 'equality' what we should be addressing are the barriers to 'achievement'.

[tomtom]

Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?

[Oldmanmatt]

Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?

Well, the discussion seems to have reached the point where we seem agreed that it's pretty hard to achieve equality and perhaps not as desirable as it would first seem?

I'd have to disagree on the "impossibility" of social mobility (my exaggeration) though.

Social mobility is entirely possible. It depends entirely on how motivated the individual is.

I am the first in my family to go on to HE. But I did it through vocational routes and funded it myself (read, spent every penny I could save and worked my arse off to raise the fees).

Upto and including a postgrad Dip in my thirties with a new born, studying at home and working full time.

I found numerous organisations, who assist people wanting to advance, within my (maritime) industry.

Most professional bodies seem to provide routes to Corporate membership (mine was IMAREST and IIMS but I also had a grant from The Institute of Mechanical Engineers).

And I went from Apprentice Fitter and Turner, to Chartered Engineer and Marine Surveyor.

If you have drive and work, you can raise your standard of living, regardless of where you start.

It's fair to say the lower you start, the harder it will be.

It will always be difficult to reach the very top and most people reach a point where the effort required to advance further seems to be a poor value trade. The cost too high.
They reach a point of Enough.

Sloper seems to be arguing for greater opportunity for social mobility. And really, that phrase means reward for industry and effort. Sam seems to have given up on the human race. And we all would like to see everything improved for the least able.
Can I ask what people think is "fair"?

If we wish to even things out a bit, how should we do it?

[psychomansam]

What do you think sufficient equality is then?

The maximal amount retaining illusory... (see above)

Yes I read that but it was (purposefully?) vague with little quantification of where you think the scales should rest.

I'm loathe to given numbers since these are intuitional and my preference is for a more democratic and consequentialist model (see Anderson above). I believe the inequality briefing suggests that the demos think the richest should earn three times as much as the poorest. That seems like a more reasonable state of affairs than we have at the present, but if you read either/both of the papers I link above, you'll see that money is seen as an aside. Amartya Sen asks "Equality of What?" Perhaps we need to focus on equality of education, democratic voice, opportunity for public involvement, membership of a supportive community, recreation, rest, valuable productivity, respect... and no amount of money may be enough. No Sloper, not even 150k/year and a mansion. Not if I'm excluded from your knitting group, from local politics, from the a system of democratic government, from the ability to roam freely in nature. Not if I'm treated as less than others unfairly.