[Sloper]

Andy you're right, inequality is a necessary and desirable part of the system and improper restrictions on inequality damage growth and the wealth of everyone.

After several pages of respectful, informed and cogent debate I'm thinking that it's now time to resort to puerile abuse and stereotypes.

[andy popp]

Andy you're right, inequality is a necessary and desirable part of the system and improper restrictions on inequality damage growth and the wealth of everyone.

Ha! So not what I said, but I can't help but admire the sheer gall!

[Sloper]

Onsight as well, no prior practice required.

[Offwidth]

The latest today:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/under-30s-priced-out-of-uk-alan-milburn

Under 30s without rich parents of course.

[Sloper]

Typical half baked lefty fuckwittery.

1. London is not the UK. In large parts of the UK it is possible to afford a house on 2.5 joint incomes for say 5 year qualified nurse and a cop, for example in Wigan http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32198478.html in Gateshead, http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-31914306.html?premiumA=true in Norfolk http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-46397488.html In Gloucestershire http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-47194994.html in Kent http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48070604.html and in many other towns and cities across the UK.

2. The social divide, hmm what's that, is one saying that one can only enter the respected professions if one has wealthy parents? Utter nonsense.    Having parents who value education, who aspire for their children to achieve more 'and have a better life then they did' are greater determinants of success than poverty or wealth. (of course having access to a good education, which is often correlated with wealthier parents helps).

3. The world has moved on and the clock cannot be turned back.  If you think of Nottingham (a city we both know well) the lace industry doesn't require high skilled machinists, or engineers to repair the machines any more, Raleigh don't require the metal workers & etc, the fag factory isn't there any more and nor are the jobs, ditto the arms manufacturing, Rolls Royce probably employees 50% of the number of blue collar engineers in Hucknall than they did a generation ago and the local lads no longer have the skill set to take the jobs, Boots used to be a mass employer of clerks and so on, not now. (we won't even mention the pits around Bulwell and to the North of the City)

As a result the jobs with good incomes that were the engine of social mobility that were widely  available then are not now.  This isn't something that can be remedied by politics in anything other than the very long term.

[Offwidth]

Now dont you go mincing your words again...speak your mind!

The London/SE issue is very real as who is going to do all these vital jobs?

Where is your data for 2? Parental drive was shown to work in the US by the Freakanomics folk but they have good scholarship systems and positive action. In the UK things are said to be progressing much slower than almost anywhere in europe and going backwards in some areas like media and fashion.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.aspx

This is of course all coming out of the work he did for the current government an informed analyis of the best data we have. He has also come up with lots of practical suggestions if you track back on previous stories... especially Universities should stop pretending to be supporting kids from poor families and show some real improvement.

Back in Nottingham there are plenty of companies looking for skills they can't get. IT being high on the list. Local colleges try hard but the money pushed in this direction is pathetic. The main government efforts at present seem way more interested in forcing people into shitty zero hours based part-time work to keep the employment figures looking good, rather than what would be a much more sensible effort at retraining.

[Sloper]

Spartist clap trap and it's your round Comrade.

If you look at some social groups their children out perform groups with higher social standing / economic advantage, if the principal determining factor was parental wealth one would see similar levels of achievement without 'racial' bias, however this is not the case.

Hence the underlying premise for the article you cited is bollox.

Right off to the bar.

[mrjonathanr]

Right off to the bar.

Not with those powers of advocacy , back around 

[Sloper]

The premise that there's a social elite because of the wealth of the parents* is simply risible.

For most parents the idea that one bankrolls one children is nonsensical, yes some will help fund a deposit on a house, throw a few ££££ into the hat while sprog is up at University but this is not going to be the 'iron Curtain' of the social classes that the lefty drivel posited by which ever Blairite fuckmonkey penned the article Steve alluded to suggested.

For the vast majority what makes the difference between a bunch of exam certificates that sounds like a Welsh town and something that enables said sprog to make their own way in the world will be almost anything but the wealth of their parents.

The stereotype of interview questions such as 'do you ski', 'do you shoot', 'ride to hounds' etc are as anachronistic as my tweed jacket, at least that what my gentleman's personal gentleman advises.

* yes of course if you can afford £25k pa school fees per sprog & etc then they're going to have an advantage

[mrjonathanr]

When I have a moment I'll look at the report but i would say Sloper the issue is as much what the impact of not having may be, as opposed to the possible advantages of being 'a have'

[Sloper]

The point is lots of people don't have and yet group x with a similar profile achieves >>average whereas a group with a similar profile underachieve by <<<<average.

As such parental health is not the determining factor, otherwise you would not see such disparity between groups with different heritage backgrounds, race and religion.

[Oldmanmatt]

The point is lots of people don't have and yet group x with a similar profile achieves >>average whereas a group with a similar profile underachieve by <<<<average.

As such parental health is not the determining factor, otherwise you would not see such disparity between groups with different heritage backgrounds, race and religion.

It is true that individual drive is more important than inherited advantage and that such is more likely to flourish in a supportive atmosphere.

How ever, consider success as climbing a mountain.

How much harder is the task starting from the bottom, compared to strolling out of a luxury chalet, on the Col, just below the summit ridge, having ridden up on the  Cable Car the day before?

Even if the person starting at the bottom only achieves half the full height, that person has worked twice as hard for half the glory.

[Offwidth]

You can do better than that. Rather than all this bluster show me any research data that contradicts the LSE, Sutton Trust, OECD etc research reports that independantly show the UK going backwards (compared to most northern European countries that are improving). It cant be that hard if what you say is even close to true.

[IanP]

The point is lots of people don't have and yet group x with a similar profile achieves >>average whereas a group with a similar profile underachieve by <<<<average.

I'm never real whether you really believe anything you write!  You must know that this argument  really doesn't prove anything - in fact the identical argument can be used for the opposite  conclusion I.e.lots of people are in group x yet where family income is higher achieves > where family income is lower.

Obviously the factors the affect achievement and eventual income are multifaceted and complex but I'd be impressed if you can find proper evidence (as opposed to anecdote and flawed logic) that parental income isn't very significant.

[Sloper]

The proposition that was advanced was that parental income/wealth was the cause we should be concerned about: as that a generation was subject to social divide as a consequence of the resources available to the parents. This is patently not the case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/educational_achievement.stm

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RTP01-03MIG1734.pdf

Of course it's easier to succeed if you come from a family where success is expected, i.e. you're going to go to Oxford it's just a question of what you'll read than from a family with no history of higher education.

It's also facile to suggest that if your parents can afford a tutor you're perhaps more likely to pass the 11+ than a family that cannot (all other things being equal).

But the proposition that the wealth of the parents is the prime determinant is clearly false as groups with similar levels of deprivation have, as groups, very different outcomes, again as groups.

Why are white working class boys now the group with the poorest outcomes, is it racism, class prejudice, the system fails white working class boys more significantly than it fails boys with an Indian heritage?

Adjusting for income certain groups do very much better and consequently we can infer that while parental wealth is a factor it is not the most significant factor.  So if you want to see the evidence read the above. The BBC article is much shorter.

[petejh]

Of course it's easier to succeed if you come from a family where success is expected, i.e. you're going to go to Oxford it's just a question of what you'll read than from a family with no history of higher education.

Wait.. expectations are a factor determining levels of achievement?! That's got me wondering if our best sport climbers might collectively have low expectations - perhaps as a result of media over-hyping of insignificant achievements - which leads me to wonder if this might be responsible for what some perceive as a low standard relative to similar countries. Hmm..

[IanP]

The document you linked to looks thorough and interesting but I'm not certain the authors would agree with the conclusions you draw!  They state in numerous places that socioeconomic factors are a significant factors in educational achievement.  Not quite sure why you're so obsessed with proving that it's not the primary one while at the same time agreeing it is a factor.

[petejh]

You can find statistics and reports to support different views on causes of inequality but causality versus correlation seems unresolved.

Real life experience - doesn't having wealth at least act as a safety net, one which isn't available equally to everybody, that supports those who fail/flunk/get fired or who just want to search around for better options when they discover they don't like what they're doing?

I'd be extremely surprised if family wealth wasn't a major determinant in life chances/success.

Also, Sloper what do you mean by 'very different outcomes' in:

the proposition that the wealth of the parents is the prime determinant is clearly false as groups with similar levels of deprivation have, as groups, very different outcomes, again as groups.

Very different outcomes in that one person from a deprived area becomes a successful mechanic, while others don't?
Or
Very different outcomes in that one person from a deprived area becomes a successful surgeon/lawyer/doctor/academic/architect, while others don't?

One path pays £30K while the other pays £130K. That isn't equal.

[Oldmanmatt]

The document you linked to looks thorough and interesting but I'm not certain the authors would agree with the conclusions you draw!  They state in numerous places that socioeconomic factors are a significant factors in educational achievement.  Not quite sure why you're so obsessed with proving that it's not the primary one while at the same time agreeing it is a factor.

And surely "Parental expectation" is in it's self influenced by the expectations/deprivation of the, now, Grandparent generation.

As a side hypothesis, I wonder if the current under performance of White working class children, might show some link to Grandparents' expectations of advancement within the manufacturing industry (ie Foreman as an aspiration).
With such skilled and semi skilled employment all but non-existent in modern Britain, it would seem to require parents, raised to such expectations; to encourage their children into employment and careers, about which they have no clue.

Does this mean that they instead " give up", faced with the unknown?

[Sloper]

The document you linked to looks thorough and interesting but I'm not certain the authors would agree with the conclusions you draw!  They state in numerous places that socioeconomic factors are a significant factors in educational achievement.  Not quite sure why you're so obsessed with proving that it's not the primary one while at the same time agreeing it is a factor.

Yes of course socio economic factors are an issue, but when one adjusts for wealth at the lower end of the spectrum one sees a marked and significant disparity between groups.  The premise of the article was that the principal issue was income inequality, and when you adjust for this the disparities remain, hence it is not income inequality which is the principal cause. 

If you take poly chronic drug abuse, this is something that is inversely more likely to be found in the lower/est (in numerical terms and I would suggest relative terms too) socio economic groups despite those groups being less able to afford the drugs. So there must be other factors in play other than the means to afford the habit.

Peter, of course you'd expect the doctor to earn more than the mechanic, but why is there a significant over representation of say pharmacists from sub continental 2nd generation immigrants (when income & etc is corrected) than from a similarly deprived afro-Caribbean or East end white background?

The inputs are the same and the group that disproportionately succeeds often have other barriers i.e. English may not be the first language spoken in the home, so what's different and how can we inculcate those factors in the group that are, in relative terms failing? A complex question but the answer isn't saying 'you're doomed to failure because your parents are poor'. The liberal left is not, as a whole, willing to engage on this question because it undermines their theistic belief in the state as the engine of change.

[petejh]

I don't care about left or right. Either extreme is wrongheaded imo.

Have you considered the idea that the 'over representation of say pharmacists from sub continental 2nd generation immigrants (when income & etc is corrected) than from a similarly deprived afro-Caribbean or East end white background? could (I don't know) be connected to familial wealth back in the 'sub continent'? Wealth persists, without a system to balance it. Which brings me as always to the only game in town I know which is:

Take each generation's wealth away. That's you and me, if you die with over £100K it get's very heavily taxed until 2 or 3 generations down the line there's zero benefit to offspring.

[Sloper]

Sadly that sort of idiocy is endemic in the left, you either believe in the rule of law and the rights to property or you do not.

And even if you do believe that, and I doubt you really do, what would be your reaction if the government came around and tried to take your assets and property when you were still alive?  Would you say fine, take £50k after all I'll be left with £99k? I doubt it.

I seem to remember you got rather cross with UKC and their N Wales selective guide (and rightly so) as in your view this interfered with your property rights, or is interference with property rights fine when it's some one else that is being fucked?

[petejh]

Idiocy?
You doubt I believe in the rule of law/property? - I doubt you're in any position to have an informed opinion about what I value.

Hard to take what you write seriously when you can't state a point without writing rubbish like that.

You can take what you want, after I'm dead - which is what I wrote. Try arguing against the point I made, not the point you want me to have made (idiot?). Here's the thing - your son or daughter doesn't, in my opinion, deserve a head start in life over other kids just because their parent did well as a lawyer and built up a stack of wealth. Clean slate. I believe in equality.

Reread what I wrote and come back to me when you understand the difference between living and dead.

edit: guidebooks etc - irrelevant to the argument. Someone else, or me, being fucked when they're dead for tax to balance out future opportunities for the living? - yes fine. Really, I think a massive paradigm shift is required in how we see inherited wealth. You're worm food (if you can afford a grave), or fumes. Revert to zero over a couple of generations and let the present generation take their opportunities on a level playing field.

[Sloper]

Your property when you die becomes the property of your estate, as are the liabilities. 

If the interest in the property dies with the legal / equitable owner, why allow for a threshold at £100k, from your perspective it should be, logically £nil.

So what about life assurance, unlucky, your rights in the policy cease when you die.

ohh, you've got a wife and three kids under 5 who were solely dependent on your income and living in your house. . . fuck em, make the brats make their own way in the world, ooh the wife's given up her career to raise the family ohh she can't slip back into a well paid job and pay the bills, well at least she doesn't have to worry about the mortgage because the hope has been reposed because it was in his name only.

It's only fair, after all we don't want those kids having an unfair head start in the world do we?

You don't believe in equality, you believe in placing a chip on the shoulder of others because you have a chip on yours.

Our son, will g-d willing do well because he has two caring parents who value education, who have invested heavily in his education by reading to him from when he was a day old, taking him to museums, talking to him and instilling good manners and a strong moral code.  If we are able to give him on our death a significant amount of money that will not change his upbringing, his moral code (fuck the proles 'natch ) and so on.

That you can come out with such drivel indicates the sort of spite and fuckwittery which often sits behind the 'equality agenda', you should be ashamed of yourself.

[petejh]

That you can come out with such drivel indicates the sort of spite and fuckwittery which often sits behind the 'equality agenda', you should be ashamed of yourself.

I'd say what it shows more than anything is your tunnel vision and a certain rabid hysteria on your part. You've assumed half of what you just wrote, try coming up with a different version which is less apocalyptic. I'll leave it up to your imagination to see if you're capable of more than one worldview.

But before you pigeonhole another leftie in your birdbrain, given the inheritance tax on one hand it makes sense to tax the rich extremely lightly while they were alive, so as to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.