UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: psychomansam on May 15, 2014, 07:33:51 am
-
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/robert_reich_10_ways_to_close_the_inequality_gap_partner/ (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
-
In a similar vein, Danny Dorling spoke of the UK situation at his inaugral lecture: Geography, Inequality and Oxford (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgHCYMEPSLY#ws)
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....#
-
Why did you split up with Katy Perry you dozy bastard?
-
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)!
-
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/robert_reich_10_ways_to_close_the_inequality_gap_partner/ (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 (http://onlineshop.shef.ac.uk/browse/extra_info.asp?compid=1&modid=2&deptid=9&catid=115&prodid=297&searchresults=1).
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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 :lets_do_it_wild:)
-
Fascist neo con (I think I love you :lets_do_it_wild:)
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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".
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/)) 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 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Regression-Modeling-Strategies-Applications-Statistics/dp/0387952322) 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 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spirit-Level-Delusion-Fact-checking/dp/0956226515/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1400654213&sr=8-2&keywords=the+spirit+level).
-
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 (http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sen80.pdf) and Anderson, E http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/ElizabethAndersonWhatIsthePointofEquality.pdf (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.
-
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? :shrug:
-
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? :shrug:
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
-
What do you think sufficient equality is then?
-
What do you think sufficient equality is then?
The maximal amount retaining illusory... (see above)
-
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.
-
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'.
-
Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?
-
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?
-
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.
-
Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?
Social mobility is important, but it's a subset of the equality issue. In a fully socialist state with full and total equality, there would be no social mobility. I'm not suggesting such a state, merely pointing out the difference. Social mobility is a subset of equality since it is essentially a certain type of equality of opportunity.
-
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?
Indeed I am arguing for greater opportunities for social mobility as it is the ossification of social mobility which is substantially responsible for the increase in liquid asset / income inequality (capital asset and divi inequality is I think a separate issue and inequality here is driven by asset inflation etc).
Seekeing to resolve inequality by extracting monies from the wealthy and redistributing the same is doomed not only to failure but will tend to make the absolute poverty of those at the bottom worse when, as it must, the pot of cash to distribute runs dry.
-
Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?
Social mobility is important, but it's a subset of the equality issue. In a fully socialist state with full and total equality, there would be no social mobility. I'm not suggesting such a state, merely pointing out the difference. Social mobility is a subset of equality since it is essentially a certain type of equality of opportunity.
JFCOAB, I do hope you're trolling.
If you're not then dear god you need to think a little bit more about the Spartist bollocks that you post.
and just to be clear; your post is a classic 'I'm not a racist . . . but'
-
Can someone just use words that a knobhead can understand?
-
Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?
Social mobility is important, but it's a subset of the equality issue. In a fully socialist state with full and total equality, there would be no social mobility. I'm not suggesting such a state, merely pointing out the difference. Social mobility is a subset of equality since it is essentially a certain type of equality of opportunity.
JFCOAB, I do hope you're trolling.
If you're not then dear god you need to think a little bit more about the Spartist bollocks that you post.
and just to be clear; your post is a classic 'I'm not a racist . . . but'
There are three lines to your post and I can't see sense in any of them. Are you drunk?
-
I see 5 lines, but I have had a can and a small bottle so could be mistaken
-
'I'm not a lawyer but....' ;)
-
Everyone interested in this topic should listen to Evan Davis interview renowned economic historian Deirdre McCloskey on Analysis on Radio 4 tomorrow (Monday) evening, 8.30
Agree with her or not McCloskey is always worth listening to.
-
He writes a good article on her and Spikety (sp?) in this weeks Speccie that should be online in a couple of days.
-
Sounds good, I'm going to miss the broadcast as I'll be away but hope to hear it when I get back.
McCloskey and I may be kind of colleagues next year as I think we'll both have visiting posts at the same place. I hope to get a chance to meet her.
-
8) Prof Popp, you're too cool for skool... That's great.
-
That is a great article by Davis - who neatly identifies the issue at heart, who are the rich, really? Are they entrepreneurs who were first movers with important innovations, or lazy heiresses sitting on a pile of inherited wealth. The answer of course is both, and everyone seems to have their own instinctive feeling for which group dominates but I've never come across sound evidence either way.
BTW - the economist has a seemingly well-rounded blog on the "piketty made it up" accusations. My reading of that seems to be that there aren't really any problems you wouldn't find in any other vast collection of messy data, but that may be my inherent biases playing up - http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0
-
This is great, interesting and revealing.
But.
Is it really the point?
Is the accumulation of wealth, by the few, actually the cause of poverty for so many?
Equality suggests an levelling of wealth and most seem to believe that redistribution of wealth is the answer.
Surely redistribution = devaluation.
Without motivation to trade, wealth is meaningless.
Equality is impossible with the current economic system and only possible with a radically different, global, paradigm shift to a wholly new form of society.
-
That is a great article by Davis - who neatly identifies the issue at heart, who are the rich, really? Are they entrepreneurs who were first movers with important innovations, or lazy heiresses sitting on a pile of inherited wealth. The answer of course is both, and everyone seems to have their own instinctive feeling for which group dominates but I've never come across sound evidence either way.
wait a minute.
i see an intellectual problem.
the article has a tricky way to make you accept that, provided that you're not sitting at home doing nothing, then you are 100% entitled to any dominant position you might have, without further distinctions about the size of your privilege.
to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.
thats a much better effort than divine right but still...
-
That is a great article by Davis - who neatly identifies the issue at heart, who are the rich, really? Are they entrepreneurs who were first movers with important innovations, or lazy heiresses sitting on a pile of inherited wealth. The answer of course is both, and everyone seems to have their own instinctive feeling for which group dominates but I've never come across sound evidence either way.
wait a minute.
i see an intellectual problem.
the article has a tricky way to make you accept that, provided that you're not sitting at home doing nothing, then you are 100% entitled to any dominant position you might have, without further distinctions about the size of your privilege.
to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.
thats a much better effort than divine right but still...
The point being, the shoe lickers are PAID.
Not forced, implying a choice (albeit constrained by circumstance).
And, fundamentally, no different from paying a Carpenter to put in your new floor, or a Glazier to replace a broken window. If there was a market for shoe lickers, shoe lickers there would be.
We can't call the uber rich Capitalists without also including the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick maker.
If you work, in any way, you sell your abilities to someone, for your own profit.
And there is choice.
If you were a Barrister, you could continue to sell your professional skills, or; should you be willing to accept a smaller fee, work part time in a climbing wall and have as recompense greater free time.
For me, the problem is not the uber rich, rich, slightly rich, affluent or the slightly affluent et al.
Beyond a certain point of accumulation it all seems pretty pointless.
My concern is for those that cannot reach a sufficient or even basic state of comfort within this system and with it's apparent inability to regulate our voracious consumption and suicidal rush to planetary oblivion.
-
Equality suggests an levelling of wealth and most seem to believe that redistribution of wealth is the answer.
Said it further back in the thread but to me equality is not about who has the wealth, its about everyone having the same access to health care and education, and this should be provided by the state.
With the privatisation of everything the equality in both health care and education are being eroded, because those with money can afford more (although not necessarily better) of both, those without have to make do as they can't entertain forking out for private health care or education.
-
to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.
thats a much better effort than divine right but still...
The point being, the shoe lickers are PAID.
[/quote]
seems a case of moon and finger...
money is a tool. in some cases a tool of domination.
under most circumstances i'd consider the metaphorical shoelickers to be heavily dominated and the athlete to be massively dominant over them.
that's what i care about, not the exact zeroes or the fact that my shoelickers are not technically slaves...
-
The problem with those ho support Pickeerty's thesis (I haven't read it yet, maybe over the summer) is that they appear to seek to correlate the accumulation of vast capital with those who have had vast capital to begin with; we can see some instances where this is true (Duke of Westminster) and those where it is not, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Google, Facebook etc.
While historically the accumulation of great capital required, in an easy form of shorthand, land, presently it does not; it requires a great idea, intelligence, hard work, and access to finance.
As such the barriers to social and economic mobility that were significant in the past, while not vestigial now, are much lower than they have ever been.
-
...
wait a minute.
i see an intellectual problem.
the article has a tricky way to make you accept that, provided that you're not sitting at home doing nothing, then you are 100% entitled to any dominant position you might have, without further distinctions about the size of your privilege.
to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.
...
The point being, the shoe lickers are PAID.
Not forced, implying a choice (albeit constrained by circumstance).
And, fundamentally, no different from paying a Carpenter to put in your new floor, or a Glazier to replace a broken window. If there was a market for shoe lickers, shoe lickers there would be.
We can't call the uber rich Capitalists without also including the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick maker.
If you work, in any way, you sell your abilities to someone, for your own profit.
And there is choice.
If you were a Barrister, you could continue to sell your professional skills, or; should you be willing to accept a smaller fee, work part time in a climbing wall and have as recompense greater free time.
The point being though, is that markets aren't inert 'things' which appear out of thin air like clouds. Markets are created by needs and wants; and needs/wants aren't all innocent or harmless for third parties or non-humans - the invisible elbow of the invisible hand.
An issue with the hyper-rich is that they create their own markets like mountains create their own weather systems, and the markets the rich create can be (not are) out of kilter with what's for the common good of the rest of society. I think that's the just of the point people such as Michel Sandel 'Moral Limits of Markets' and opponents of unrestrained capitalism are making.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/about/about-what-money-cant-buy/ (http://www.justiceharvard.org/about/about-what-money-cant-buy/)
If there were a market for slavery, than slavery there would be...
-
Like on the construction sites in Dubai etc? I'm being a bit of a Sloperesque troll but surely the only reason there isn't such a market in more progressive societies is due to morals, not simple market forces.
-
Yes of course, but that's not what I was trying to say. The point (according to some economic philosophers) is that the super-rich are capable of creating markets which are not beneficial to the wider population. So unlike markets that serve the needs/wants of the majority of society and drive useful technological progress (useful for the majority that is) - there now exist markets created by 'the top 1%' which are self-serving and detrimental to the well-being of the wider populace. The Milli-second scalping of digital stock market transactions by super-rich hedge-funds is one example.
-
Like on the construction sites in Dubai etc? I'm being a bit of a Sloperesque troll but surely the only reason there isn't such a market in more progressive societies is due to morals, not simple market forces.
"the yes men": slavery versus "more eficient remote labour"
http://youtu.be/FUtQ331-FBc?t=1m16s (http://youtu.be/FUtQ331-FBc?t=1m16s)
-
Yes of course, but that's not what I was trying to say. The point (according to some economic philosophers) is that the super-rich are capable of creating markets which are not beneficial to the wider population. So unlike markets that serve the needs/wants of the majority of society and drive useful technological progress (useful for the majority that is) - there now exist markets created by 'the top 1%' which are self-serving and detrimental to the well-being of the wider populace. The Milli-second scalping of digital stock market transactions by super-rich hedge-funds is one example.
Slopers trolling always serves to provoke interesting debate and I suspect is more the product of a well trained debater and advocate; than of truly obnoxious rightwing philosophy.
I'd be surprised if the Uber rich have such a deleterious effect upon the general population. And Jasper, slavery exists, Dubai being one of those places where it's quite hard to ignore.
It wasn't on the construction sites though.
It could be found in dark bars and flashing disco lights.
In short skirts and high heels.
And it was not the fault of the Uber rich.
Much too easy to blame Caligula and ignore the bloodlust of the crowd.
-
I think you're confusing interesting debate with the same four or five people writing on the threads Matt.
-
I think you're confusing interesting debate with the same four or five people writing on the threads Matt.
True.
But I guess we find it interesting.
And you always read it Dense.
Don't stop.
Your sarcasm is the Great Leveler, after all.
-
I try to stay away from the politics and religion threads. I just wish to know my enemy ;)
-
...
wait a minute.
i see an intellectual problem.
the article has a tricky way to make you accept that, provided that you're not sitting at home doing nothing, then you are 100% entitled to any dominant position you might have, without further distinctions about the size of your privilege.
to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.
...
The point being, the shoe lickers are PAID.
Not forced, implying a choice (albeit constrained by circumstance).
And, fundamentally, no different from paying a Carpenter to put in your new floor, or a Glazier to replace a broken window. If there was a market for shoe lickers, shoe lickers there would be.
We can't call the uber rich Capitalists without also including the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick maker.
If you work, in any way, you sell your abilities to someone, for your own profit.
And there is choice.
If you were a Barrister, you could continue to sell your professional skills, or; should you be willing to accept a smaller fee, work part time in a climbing wall and have as recompense greater free time.
The point being though, is that markets aren't inert 'things' which appear out of thin air like clouds. Markets are created by needs and wants; and needs/wants aren't all innocent or harmless for third parties or non-humans - the invisible elbow of the invisible hand.
An issue with the hyper-rich is that they create their own markets like mountains create their own weather systems, and the markets the rich create can be (not are) out of kilter with what's for the common good of the rest of society. I think that's the just of the point people such as Michel Sandel 'Moral Limits of Markets' and opponents of unrestrained capitalism are making.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/about/about-what-money-cant-buy/ (http://www.justiceharvard.org/about/about-what-money-cant-buy/)
If there were a market for slavery, than slavery there would be...
The hyper rich create some markets, including the markets for super yachts, butlers and so on, but in reality these are prettymuch irrelevant.
If you look at many of the markets that have emerged in recent years, mobile telephone, internet thingies, payment by phone (which is transforming financial markets in Africa & etc then these have little to nothing to do with the hyper rich (or even the top 10%).
If you consider foreign holidays these were once the preserve of the rich, not any more. Was this change (and a massive reduction in the inequality of those who could enjoy an overseas holiday) due to the super rich? No, it was a response to other factors, as was the introduciton of package tourism in the 19th C.
-
BTW - the economist has a seemingly well-rounded blog on the "piketty made it up" accusations. My reading of that seems to be that there aren't really any problems you wouldn't find in any other vast collection of messy data, but that may be my inherent biases playing up - http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0)
Oi ... that's not allowed. It clearly states in the UKB terms and conditions that quoting from the Economist may only be done to support free market ideological positions >:(
The idea that Piketty has just 'made it up' is ludicrous and betrays a complete lack of understanding of historical data.
EDIT: that came out wrong and was very much directed at the FT, not Toby.
-
BTW - the economist has a seemingly well-rounded blog on the "piketty made it up" accusations. My reading of that seems to be that there aren't really any problems you wouldn't find in any other vast collection of messy data, but that may be my inherent biases playing up - http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0)
Oi ... that's not allowed. It clearly states in the UKB terms and conditions that quoting from the Economist may only be done to support free market ideological positions >:(
The idea that Piketty has just 'made it up' is ludicrous and betrays a complete lack of understanding of historical data.
EDIT: that came out wrong and was very much directed at the FT, not Toby.
Possibly.
However he tried to find Equations to prove his hypothesis, rather than observing a mathematical correlation and proposing an Hypothesis to explain it.
And the equations are suspect.
This has the effect of undermining his argument and deflecting all interest and comment on to the minutiae; so most people will never bother reading the original.
Not the first to make that mistake and enough to keep his ideas buried for the foreseeable future.
This does not make him "wrong".
-
That's a remarkably confident judgement on Piketty's methodology and data. I take it you've read the book?
-
Not entirely, yet, but my judgement was on the FT article rather than him. Their focus was somewhat narrow, picking holes in the Math. As I said, this doesn't make him wrong. I've yet to be convinced, but the Math is clearly off. Perhaps something's just can't be be expressed that way.
-
That's a remarkably confident judgement on Piketty's methodology and data. I take it you've read the book?
I haven't read either the FT article or the book, but it has been reported (which doesn't make it true) that Pickertty has rejected the ONS data while relying on other data gathered with a similar methodology.
In many ways, access to technology, finance etc we are a more equal society now than ever before and when you have a loosening of constraints in information and finance (within a structure with a reliable & stable system founded on the rule of law) you generally have a wave of innovation and a new 'moneyed' class emerging.
-
A quote from the Economist article illustrates my point better than I did.
"Now, the academic debate is a different thing from the judgment reached in the court of public opinion. There was an outbreak of gloating across the wires the moment the Financial Times story went live. The book has plenty of critics (many of which never spent much time wrestling with the book's arguments in the first place), and many of which reached gleefully for word that Mr Piketty's work might not be perfect. One suspects that in a public back-and-forth that has often failed to hew particularly closely to the substance of the book, this will become an excuse for many to write the book off, and for others a piece of ammo to fire at ideological opponents."
The article goes on to speculate that the "mistakes" may prove "embarrassing" to the author but not fundamentally detrimental to the Hypothesis.
So, if I could just reframe the opening line of my last but one post to..
"However, it seems as though, he tried to..."
-
Too late to edit. I couldn't find the ref. I'd read. Found it on another thread here though (thanks Toby).
This was the Mathematics I was referring to.
http://georgecooper.org/2014/04/29/does-pikettys-r-g-hold-in-a-low-growth-world/
The assertion that allocation of %GDP between the savers and the inheritors, in low growth environments; be split such that the Inheritors gain more than the total GDP...
Does seem suspect.
That article does open with a quote from Piketty himself, regarding the inability of mathematics to express Economic ideas, though.
-
Regardless if whether it's right or wrong it's good that Picketty has been open with his data & analysis (http://simplystatistics.org/2014/06/03/post-piketty-lessons/).
-
I always thought political/social economics was way too hard and ran away into physics and engineering. Aside from the fiction products like Psychohistory and the Culture, I always smelt a rat in 'great thinkers' products especially when they seek to explain universal factors. Maybe this was from reading too much Orwell and Huxley.
I do believe in a few things though. Firstly human psychology...if you have a democracy in an information world any underclass will soon get very pissed off (irrespective of any fault of their own) and extract revenge from time to time (eg crime, riots). The group just above the underclass will look down and get scared and extract their revenge (eg voting UKIP). The more power you give the rich the more it will tend to corrupt them, so society needs to have checks in place. The super rich are pulling up the drawbridge using complex financial vehicles (with global linkage), that are too much designed to protect (especially from tax) and not enough to create wealth...I've been lucky enough to know a few very rich people and see what they do.
On the original points of gadgets and warm caves. plenty of our elderly don't have either (and both are a lot cheaper than they once were so having them isn't always so significant). Plenty of people are reliant on food banks. Plenty of people don't have access to normal finance and have to wonga their way through life. Sink schools and tuition fees are closing educational opportunities for those at the bottom faster than ever. Health gaps are starting to rise again. TTIP is right now trying to make governments liable for the costs of democratic decisions or force further dilution of trade union law (so global buisness can sue them). Something does needs to be done.
-
Nice to see some ill judged tub thumping from the SCR rather than the lower VIth,
Let's pick apart a few of the gems, 'plenty of people don't have access to normal finance' utter bollocks the penetration rate of banking is probably now higher than it ever was before and the cost of banking; in many ways lower, one of this government's proposals was to pay benefits monthly into bank accounts to widen that access. But yes you are correct in that access to finance is a powerful tool against poverty.
The under class don't riot as a rule because they get pissed off they riot generally when three conditions are met 1. It's a nice summers day, 2. There's a critical mass of people on the street (see in part 1) and there's a particular issue that acts a a lightning rod; from Cherry Groce to Paul Duggan, it's usually a death in custody.
3. Voting UKIP (if we can say that there's a common cause) is not about the under class; rather about an out of touch political elite who have no connection with the electorate as a whole.
Sink schools; hmm why do we have sink schools do we a. lame Thatcher, b. blame the teachers or c. blame the parents or d (and don't all go wild with excitement) d. blame society.
Education used to be a 'way out' or 'way up' but successive governments have debauched the value of a degree to the point that for many HE no longer represents a sensible investment of time and money and we need to return to a system with selective education and a smaller, much smaller HE, sector before that's going to change.
Anyways that's enough ranting, I'm off to the pub to do the crossword from the Saturday lefty.
-
Except if anything I'm a social liberal not a leftie (I am only really left of the right). I've met all those groups in inner city Nottingham and elsewhere and they are very real. It worries me that we can't seem to stem the rising tide of unfairness and the waste of potential talent it involves yet the measure we do have in place are almost as expensive as ever.
Your point on finance is ridiculous, do you have any stats to back up your assertion? How do you get a bank account when your credit is shot to shit and why would people with access to standard bank loans use more exploitative payday loan organisations; and why did such organisations grow so rapidly over the last decades? Do you really think the sudden rise in food banks is really skivers seeking free handouts? Have you any contact with Nottingham schools that service St Anns, the Meadows, Bestwood etc and watch how the demand for the more expensive free schools n such areas is really about the middle classes or faith groups escaping (at least the academies had inbuilt protections on social inclusion). I think you need to get out from your comfy middle class existence and mingle. As for a couple more of your facts: riots were just an example, that's what eg means and I understand the complexities but the rich never riot do they (at least outside small groups like the Bullingdon Club). I pretty clearly attached the UKIP point to the fearful group above the underclass (an underclass who of course don't usually vote). I wonder if you think the worry over TTIP and the creeping negativity in society of unregulated globalisation is a guardianista scare story as well?
I was brought up in rural northants in an area where land largely owned by the (not so kind) Spencers (of lady Di fame) where tenant farm workers grafted bloody hard and lived pretty frugal lives, not so far from the subsistence hill farmers who still eak out a living to this day. I was the amongst the first kids to go to Oxbridge from my comp. As my family were not wealthy I had a grant and of course worked in the holidays and left with money in the bank. which opened up the chance of a PhD. I always supported hard work alongside social fairness and felt the way we dealt with the less fortunate was absolutely necessary if sometimes a bit unbalanced, especially with the real growth of a dependency culture through the latter part of the last century. I think (despite my distaste for it), that the current government has chipped away sensibly at some areas just as it allowed other more important areas to slip. The chips are too small though and are often hitting 'unintended' targets unfairly (especially some of the disabled): although absolute poverty (can't afford food and heating etc) has maybe declined a little, the gap to the wealthiest and a sense of unfairness around wealth and opportunity has increased significantly. Although people on the whole worry about this, they seem to be a bit lost in what to do about it... we seem to be increasingly atomized, and almost completely let down by the politicians, Most of the far left and right in England remain largely bonkers snake oil salesmen (maybe excepting the greens), the Labour party sold out, despite a Blair led mandate huge enough to do real good; the liberals seem intent on electoral suicide by abandoning their social liberal core voting base (for instance I still think they were right on tuition fees but are now saying - in the face of sound economic evidence that the rise from £3k to £9K almost certainly hasn't saved the government any money at all - the original pledge was unaffordable: how bloody mad is that?); the conservatives really don't seem to care, despite their rhetoric, relying on cliched targets to build unsubtle policy that increases the unfairness. The chances for someone like me today to do what I did then, simply seems much reduced and for so many reasons.
-
There'll be an ONS report somewhere, but the number of people with bank accounts has been rising steadily alongside a reduction in the number of people paid in cash & etc the issue of bad credit rating is of course valid, but a lot of wonga etc customers have bank accounts (that's how the transfer is made) and the market for wonga is not necessarily the same as a bank loan.
A quick point; Labour were absolutely wrong to introduce tuition fees and set up the mechanism that led to the increase; remember their rhetoric; 'why should it be for the working poor to subsidise the education of the middle classes'?
The rise in food banks is the product of a number of factors; to ascribe to the view that they're the necessary consequence of 'austerity' is simply deluded, the under class were probably not too distant in number in 2003, or 1991 or 1982 than now: what differs is the provision.
Your point about the free schools etc is demonstrating that one of the causes of the inequality and poverty are failing schools, yes the 'middle classes' want better for their children and so (or at least they used to) did the working classes.
Moving away from your 4 yorkshiremen narration; the gap between asset wealth of the top 1, or 2 or even 3% is a complete irrelevance: what matters is the social mobility between the say lowest 5 to 15% and the 15-35% bracket.
Your point about dependency culture is an interesting one; if we reduce the degree to which people become dependent on the state, maybe they'll take a bit more responsibility for their own actions?
-
Having a bank account is very different to having a usable account. The poor have very real problems with banks at the moment and are foced to payday lender or worse stillloan sharks and there are plenty of reports to detail that..
Sink schools need real attention and that means it's these schools that should get the most cash and effort. The investment would probably pay dividends. Middle class escape may be understandable but makes the problems worse. The Freakanomics folk did some interesting experiments in the US that showed the encouraging atmosphere surrounding kids made more difference to success than schools, so there is less to fear than the middle classes think.
Food banks was illustrating lack of equality I didn't use the 'A' word. Yet again your reading skills are lacking. I think the cause are bigger and longer term than austerity
My childhood was pretty close to idyllic thank you very much...not 'Yorkshire' at all. I just saw poor kind people exploited plenty by rich bastewards.
At least we agree on tuition fees although I guess I'm in minority these days thinking we need more people in Higher education to compete in nthe future as a nation (in a controlled way like in Germany rather than our freemarket model with all the institions chasingb the same market))...
-
Too late to edit. I couldn't find the ref. I'd read. Found it on another thread here though (thanks Toby).
This was the Mathematics I was referring to.
http://georgecooper.org/2014/04/29/does-pikettys-r-g-hold-in-a-low-growth-world/ (http://georgecooper.org/2014/04/29/does-pikettys-r-g-hold-in-a-low-growth-world/)
George Cooper has continued to write on this topic. For me, a lot of what he talks about here (http://georgecooper.org/2014/05/24/the-horrible-history-of-mr-piketty/) rings true. He suggests an alternative narrative for the shape of Pikkety's 300 year wealth charts based on just two disruptive events: the rise of North American agriculture in the 19th century, which decimated European farm-land values, and the rise of Asian low-cost manufacturing in the late 20th, which has massively reduced inflation and so allowed interest rates to fall almost continuously for thirty years, creating various bubbles in real asset prices.
Cooper places a vast - I would say unsupportable - burden of explanation on his two 'shocks,' the first of them especially, which is the one I read most carefully. He's playing a little loose with history here too, in my opinion, and I don't recognise his analysis in the context of Britain in the C19th, a country that after all had a bit of a part to play in the global transformations of that century.
-
he gap between asset wealth of the top 1, or 2 or even 3% is a complete irrelevance: what matters is the social mobility between the say lowest 5 to 15% and the 15-35% bracket.
Two points. I don't believe extreme inequality at the top end is irrelevant. In The Spirit Level Wilkinson and Pickett present a very detailed case for a strong correlation between extreme inequality and a wide range of negative social consequences, even in the richest countries. You might disagree with them but their argument and evidence deserves to be be taken seriously. Secondly, and more importantly, immobility and inequality are intricately intertwined at all levels. Countries with high inequality (US, UK, for example) also tend to have very low social mobility - and vice versa for other countries. Immobility entrenches wealth concentration. Most people concerned about inequality are also deeply concerned with immobility and see improving social mobility as the most important route to sustainable reductions in inequality, more important than a redistributive programme (though that can and should have a role).
-
he gap between asset wealth of the top 1, or 2 or even 3% is a complete irrelevance: what matters is the social mobility between the say lowest 5 to 15% and the 15-35% bracket.
Two points. I don't believe extreme inequality at the top end is irrelevant. In The Spirit Level Wilkinson and Pickett present a very detailed case for a strong correlation between extreme inequality and a wide range of negative social consequences, even in the richest countries. You might disagree with them but their argument and evidence deserves to be be taken seriously. Secondly, and more importantly, immobility and inequality are intricately intertwined at all levels. Countries with high inequality (US, UK, for example) also tend to have very low social mobility - and vice versa for other countries. Immobility entrenches wealth concentration. Most people concerned about inequality are also deeply concerned with immobility and see improving social mobility as the most important route to sustainable reductions in inequality, more important than a redistributive programme (though that can and should have a role).
But Andy, surely the inequality and social mobility status today is better than it was, say, between the wars?
Opportunity has declined from a peak in the 80's, I would have said.
I'm reluctant to accept Piketty's assertion of the inevitability of a widening gap as a mathematical certainty.
IMO, the value of and access to, information; will be the greatest influence on future society.
And look at what is at our fingertips, when we choose to look!
Look at the debate that is happening here, on this forum. A bunch of people from a broad spectrum of society, holding a conversation, that would rarely have occurred outside of academia even a decade ago.
The ability to conduct research and cite evidence in minutes.
Everyone who has taken part, has learned something.
This is true across society. Debates may be ill or utterly mis-informed, but they rage across social media daily and shape the society we live in.
We talk here about access to education and ignore that this merely means access to information (ducks as the educators disembowel me... I get the importance of the delivery and understand the need for things to be "taught"). Perhaps traditional HE is not the right way to provide that information anymore.
I cannot see that the baubles of the mega rich represent true inequality. We talk of Wonga etc here, but the Sharks with their notebooks were always there (it was how the Krays made most of their ill-gotten empire), they merely moved online. The HP man and the Rent collector, the Slum Landlord and the Pimp; no more common today, per capita, than a hundred years ago, surely?
Things are not as good as they were ten years ago.
But they are better than they were a hundred years ago.
And people are better and more quickly informed, than they have ever been.
-
Well, you did say a lot of it rang true so I thought I'd take it seriously. Anyway, the alternative narrative only works to falsify Piketty if its not hokum - which I believe the land value one is. There is probably much more to what he says about the period since the 1980s.
I'm not really in a position to comment on methodological issues as I haven't read Piketty yet but on this score I suspect Cooper's blog contains a fair bit of setting up and knocking down straw men.
Matt, I'm not sure what you're saying. Certainly, I haven't said society hasn't got wealthier, inequality has also fluctuated but i'm most concerned about inequality today. The Wilkinson/Pickett argument is that inequality has pernicious effects independent of how wealthy a society is. Is the mega rich don't represent inequality then I don't know what does.
-
And look at what is at our fingertips, when we choose to look!
Most don't choose to look though, they rely on asking questions because its quicker/easier than researching something themselves. And even then there is the "filter bubble" issue and the fact that most people only reinforce their beliefs rather than challenge them.
-
I think it would be interesting (and important) to consider the Geography of this - all of the ideas/comments/assumptions are based on a rather one dimensional (in space and time) model.
The Geography has a large impact on inequality in many ways. It can be as simple as the north south divide - which has grown under this present governement with their reduction of public service jobs (spread more nationally) and increase in their private sector replacements (with a greater SE bais).
In many ways the world is a smaller place - and home working, remote working, skype etc.. allows many people to work and live in different places. And - people can up sticks and move to a different part of the country and follow the jobs (on your bike etc..). But the difficulty with moving after work is that many people (rightly) do not want to leave friends/family/where they grew up/great climbing areas etc... and this has not changed much IMHO over the last 30 years...
Different places will have different levels of inequality - and I suspect mobility. If you have a town/city with few rich and many poor is it easier or harder for poor to move up to the (relative) rich? If you have a city with mega rich and mega poor is the same possible? (think Dubai)...
-
Well, you did say a lot of it rang true so I thought I'd take it seriously.
I don't think I contradicted myself but maybe I didn't express myself very well.
Fair enough.
But, I'd be as suspicious of any explanation based on isolating out a small number of exogenous shocks as I would one based in a general theory. The 'right' exogenous shocks able to account for the very large, long-run processes Piketty's book is concerned with don't exist, in my opinion. As an historian I am always looking for complexity, multi-causality, and a dose of contingency.
-
Yep I've found quite a few clever people to be thick as fuck
-
As an historian I am always looking for complexity, multi-causality, and a dose of contingency.
Generally what I look for - though probably expressed with different words (and graphs/equations) :)
-
I think it would be interesting (and important) to consider the Geography of this - all of the ideas/comments/assumptions are based on a rather one dimensional (in space and time) model.
The Geography has a large impact on inequality in many ways. It can be as simple as the north south divide - which has grown under this present governement with their reduction of public service jobs (spread more nationally) and increase in their private sector replacements (with a greater SE bais).
In many ways the world is a smaller place - and home working, remote working, skype etc.. allows many people to work and live in different places. And - people can up sticks and move to a different part of the country and follow the jobs (on your bike etc..). But the difficulty with moving after work is that many people (rightly) do not want to leave friends/family/where they grew up/great climbing areas etc... and this has not changed much IMHO over the last 30 years...
Different places will have different levels of inequality - and I suspect mobility. If you have a town/city with few rich and many poor is it easier or harder for poor to move up to the (relative) rich? If you have a city with mega rich and mega poor is the same possible? (think Dubai)...
Another reason for the North/South divide has been policies by successive neoliberal governments, starting with Thatcher, of undermining Northern industry. Recently, governments have favoured a strong pound. Which might be useful in the City, but has been awful for exports. People often claim that manufacturing exports is too expensive and unprofitable, or that we can't reign in the city because we're too dependent on it. Well worth thinking about how governments have put us in this situation. The recent response to the 'crisis' has essentially been to print money and use it to invest in infrastructure and industry banking and finance. While doing nothing to reign in high-risk 'investment' such that, last time I checked, we have more high risk investment in the City now than before the crisis.
But it's not just about a north/south divide. Much of the worst poverty is in London. Banking and finance may bring in money (especially if someone pays tax), but it provides fuck all jobs, and is extremely elitist.
Today's news: Children are fucked. Thanks coalition. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27734513)
-
Ahh yes, Thatcher and neo-liberalism, those two tired (at the highest in the case of Thatcher) old tropes to be deployed when you have nothing of value to add to the discussion and don't want to face up to the data.
But let's just ask; why is there such poverty in London? Is it because there's a lack of transport infrastructure, a lack of well paid jobs, some climatic factor that causes poverty, some perverse miasma that only effects the poor? (a bit like the fat gene only affects lardy bastards)?
Andy, as for the top 1% being irrelevant, I cannot see how Laski Mittal or the Hindujas have any impact on the transition between say unskilled manual > skilled manual, skilled manual > technical, technical > professional and so on.
The barriers in so far as they exist at all (and the current minister @ DCMS would dispute they are anything more than illusionary) are the lack of opportunity to study separate sciences at school, a proper maths teacher, a requirement to be able to write grammatically correct English (innit) and speak the language with acceptable diction. That so many of the failings of the state system are the product of the policies of the (generally lefty) education establishment indicates one might say a motivation to maintain the inequality and pull up the ladder of opportunity.
-
Ahh yes, Thatcher and neo-liberalism, those two tired (at the highest in the case of Thatcher) old tropes to be deployed when you have nothing of value to add to the discussion and don't want to face up to the data.
But let's just ask; why is there such poverty in London? Is it because there's a lack of transport infrastructure, a lack of well paid jobs, some climatic factor that causes poverty, some perverse miasma that only effects the poor? (a bit like the fat gene only affects lardy bastards)?
Andy, as for the top 1% being irrelevant, I cannot see how Laski Mittal or the Hindujas have any impact on the transition between say unskilled manual > skilled manual, skilled manual > technical, technical > professional and so on.
The barriers in so far as they exist at all (and the current minister @ DCMS would dispute they are anything more than illusionary) are the lack of opportunity to study separate sciences at school, a proper maths teacher, a requirement to be able to write grammatically correct English (innit) and speak the language with acceptable diction. That so many of the failings of the state system are the product of the policies of the (generally lefty) education establishment indicates one might say a motivation to maintain the inequality and pull up the ladder of opportunity.
Neoliberalism is the dominant political force in the world today. And I'd agree it's very tired and overdue retirement. At least thatchers dead.
Last time I checked, youth unemployment was 25% in London! double that if you're born with a darker skin pigmentation. It will have improved somewhat now, but we still have a situation where there's a lack of jobs, and a vast lack of well paid ones. Minimum wage is fine as a student, fucking awful if you have a family to look after.
As for barriers, yes you highlight some important ones, language being the number one challenge which is very difficult to brainwash them with correctly at school when they spend twice as much time in the home environment. We need to do far more in this area, particularly in primary. Labour built up said programs. They were one of the coalitions first cuts. Cunts.
-
Really, Labour had programs to stop children using a bastard patois in primary schools, I missed that briefing.
Yes youth benefit claimants are a problem, but lets ask why is it such a problem and why disproportionately so in certain BME communities? In many parts of London there are serious shortages of candidates with rising wage inflation or immigration as a consequence.
-
Historical poverty since slavery/imperial exploitation? Institutional racism? Elitism? Unequal educational opportunities? Social immobility? Urban drift?
Or were you suggesting the problem is dem fick layzee wogos? :no:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNeYnWL3D9A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNeYnWL3D9A)
That's how one of the lucky ones feels. No wonder some less lucky kids want to protest, riot or do whatever it takes to tell this government to fuck off.
-
Matt, I'm not sure what you're saying. Certainly, I haven't said society hasn't got wealthier, inequality has also fluctuated but i'm most concerned about inequality today. The Wilkinson/Pickett argument is that inequality has pernicious effects independent of how wealthy a society is. Is the mega rich don't represent inequality then I don't know what does.
Yes, I should change my name to "Ramblingandincoherentoldmanmatt".
My point was intended to be, that inequality, as a wealth gap, within Western society; cannot be as wide as it was even one hundred years ago.
Take the vast palaces that were constructed by the aristocracy of the renaissance and later into the colonial era. Projects almost unimaginable now, for anything less than a nation state.
It's something we studied as part of our market research, when we set up Romeo Marine; to build Megayachts.
At the time I and the Romeo group were heavily involved in the construction of the Dubai (then MY Platinum), which was to be the largest private yacht in the world (for Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid ) at 168mtrs.
The budget for construction was $480M, later stretched to $600M as the living coral reef and glass sides were added to the pool, along with strengthening of the flight deck and superstructure to take his new Chinook helo.
Now Abramovich has since built a larger yacht, which topped $1B.
But...
In 1931, a man know as Ataturk, built then then largest yacht in the world; at a cost of $4M.
A year later, the average earnings within the Manufacturing industry of the largest and wealthiest nation in the world, was around $942/annum. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1937-13.pdf
Or, 4246.3 times less than Ataturk's yacht.
Let's pretend Abramovich's yacht was a round $1B.
Average salary in US manufacturing industry in 2010 (launch date), was $28464. http://www.worldsalaries.org/manufacturing.shtml
35,132 times less than Abramovich's yacht.
So, prima facie, there is a vast increase in inequality, if this example holds true across all aspects of wealth.
On the surface.
But...
(Last one, promise).
Compare the living conditions of a 1931 American labourer with one today.
And then compare it to that of a factory worker in Coventry at that time.
And then to an Iron curtain factory worker/Zek.
If we compare the relative opulence of Savarona with Abramovich's toy, there isn't much in it.
Compare the available health care and life expectancy between the labourer and the Dictator in 1931.
But the rise in standards at the base is massive.
This is what I mean by sufficiency.
The wealth has reduced capacity to provide true inequality. We are concentrating on the number of shells the other man has, without considering if we have enough.
Inequality is irrelevant if the base has sufficient.
I'm not saying the base does have sufficient, merely that reducing inequality is less important than raising the base level and pointing out that the base level, in the West; has very nearly reached a point where sufficient is achievable.
Beyond sufficient, lies only the accumulation of luxury.
Reminds me of a Greek communist I got very drunk with some years ago; who swore he would not rest "until every worker had a Ferrari!"
-
The Wilkinson/Pickett argument is that inequality has pernicious effects independent of how wealthy a society is. If the mega rich don't represent inequality then I don't know what does.
In The Spirit Level they cheery pick the top 23 OED countries for which data is (mostly) available. They present no evidence to support whether or not the level of equality in less wealthy societies (e.g. many African countries) impacts on the "health of the nation" (short hand for the wealth of correlations they review). Even then they don't use all 23 countries in all of the figures and correlation coefficient calculations.
pg277 "Developing the Index of Health and Social Problems"
The International Index has 10 components:
- Life expectancy (reverse coded)
- Teenage births
- Obesity
- Mental Illness
- Homicides
- Imprisonment rates
- Mistrust
- Social mobility (reverse coded)
- Education (reverse coded)
- Infant mortality rate
pg278
Sixteen countries had at least nine of these ten measures (Canada, Germany & USA (missing none); UK (missing education); Denmark, Finland, Norway & Sweden (missing mental health); Australia, Belgium, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand & Spain (missing social mobility)). A further five countries had eight out of ten (Austria, Greece, Ireland, Portugal Switzerland). Two countires (Israel and Singapore) with fewer measures were excluded from the index but included in analyses of individual measures.
The Index of Health and Social Problems was created by taking the mean of the z-scores for each measure (averaged over the number of measures available for that particular country).
There are arguments for being selective in your data usage (mainly quality) but also against (bias), but these are predominantly rich countries when looked at on a global scale.
-
Historical poverty since slavery/imperial exploitation? Institutional racism? Elitism? Unequal educational opportunities? Social immobility? Urban drift?
Or were you suggesting the problem is dem fick layzee wogos? :no:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNeYnWL3D9A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNeYnWL3D9A)
That's how one of the lucky ones feels. No wonder some less lucky kids want to protest, riot or do whatever it takes to tell this government to fuck off.
What a crass and ignorant response.
White British boys now perform less well than boys from a similar profile background from an afro carribean background, there is a significant disparity between different groups with a south asian heritage, and between children who are refugees / first generation citizens from east / west africa, and let's not forget the children with a far eastern heritage.
The causes of this will be numerous and interwoven in a complex web, the one thing that is not a factor in this is elitism or unequal educational opportunities for, taking the later first, if it was a factor why would there be such a spread of results & clustering between pupils in the same school with similar socio-economic backgrounds?
We need to seriously investigate the causes of entrenched educational failure and deal with it (and yes this will costs money, but its money that has a great return) some of the recent academies have turned things around, particularly with boys from an afro carribean background, how? By imposing a strict Jamaican style (i.e. 1950's grammar school) approach.
I just realised I've typed all the above without abusing you, but somehow I think you'll come back with some tripe that saves me the bother.
-
Historical poverty since slavery/imperial exploitation? Institutional racism? Elitism? Unequal educational opportunities? Social immobility? Urban drift?
Or were you suggesting the problem is dem fick layzee wogos? :no:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNeYnWL3D9A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNeYnWL3D9A)
That's how one of the lucky ones feels. No wonder some less lucky kids want to protest, riot or do whatever it takes to tell this government to fuck off.
What a crass and ignorant response.
I think that counts as an insult Mr. PB
White British boys now perform less well than boys from a similar profile background from an afro carribean background, there is a significant disparity between different groups with a south asian heritage, and between children who are refugees / first generation citizens from east / west africa, and let's not forget the children with a far eastern heritage.
You were talking about specific communities. I reply about those communities. You dodge and talk about the population in general.
The causes of this will be numerous and interwoven in a complex web, the one thing that is not a factor in this is elitism or unequal educational opportunities for, taking the later first, if it was a factor why would there be such a spread of results & clustering between pupils in the same school with similar socio-economic backgrounds?
Top set in my (very mixed) secondary is, with a few exceptions, the middle class set. Bottom set is the council estate / immigrant set. Being in a different set is like being in a different school. This is the same in many many schools. It certainly creates very different educational opportunities. Those who get raised or dropped a set tend to have a corresponding change in educational outcomes. (Thus some Nordic country illegalised setting with good results) Obviously, there's always going to be a range in any socioeconomic group because, yes, a variety of factors come into play - everyone's genetic dispositional range is realised diversely by myriad environmental factors.
-
You really can't be as thick as you're trying to appear can you? I suggested that there was a statistically significant variance between certain BME groups and you think that that means I was talking about specific communities?
You interpreted what was a rational, fact based comment to impose your ignorant prejudiced ramblings and then seek to extrapolate utter bollocks from the same, are you really sure you're a teacher let alone one who teaches the subject you claim to?
Of course there's a difference between sets / streams, are you saying that the streaming in your school is due to racial profiling or the historical impact of slavery, colonial rule etc?
Why is it the middle class whether from an Afro Caribbean, Somali, Irish, back ground do better than their peers from a more impovrished back ground and why is that there is a disparity between children from a similar socio-economic background but different 'communities'?
Have you got any answer beyond 'get your socialist worker, only 45p'?
-
You really can't be as thick as you're trying to appear can you? I suggested that there was a statistically significant variance between certain BME groups and you think that that means I was talking about specific communities?
Yes youth benefit claimants are a problem, but lets ask why is it such a problem and why disproportionately so in certain BME communities?
If you were comparing between various BME communities, I apologise for the misunderstanding. As you can see, your sentence was ambiguous. The disproportionality could equally be read as being in reference to non-BME communities. And to think you claim to write legal documents.
You interpreted what was a rational, fact based comment to impose your ignorant prejudiced ramblings and then seek to extrapolate utter bollocks from the same, are you really sure you're a teacher let alone one who teaches the subject you claim to?
Heil Stalin
Of course there's a difference between sets / streams, are you saying that the streaming in your school is due to racial profiling or the historical impact of slavery, colonial rule etc?
In part yes. The point is it's reinforcing socioeconomic inequality by maintaining the status quo. Some of that inequality, in the case of BME communities, can be traced back to these problems. I'm obviously not suggesting they're the only root cause.
Why is it the middle class whether from an Afro Caribbean, Somali, Irish, back ground do better than their peers from a more impovrished back ground and why is that there is a disparity between children from a similar socio-economic background but different 'communities'?
Luck for a start*. The point is that we have a system reinforcing these inequalities.
Have you got any answer beyond 'get your socialist worker, only 45p'?
At least get your fucking facts straight. It's £1.
*Actually I hold to a philosophical position which entails all other answers to this question being merely derivatives of this one.
-
As an historian I am always looking for complexity, multi-causality, and a dose of contingency.
:)
OK, he's talking bollocks.
-
Nice to see some ill judged tub thumping from the SCR rather than the lower VIth,
Let's pick apart a few of the gems, 'plenty of people don't have access to normal finance' utter bollocks the penetration rate of banking is probably now higher than it ever was before and the cost of banking; in many ways lower, one of this government's proposals was to pay benefits monthly into bank accounts to widen that access. But yes you are correct in that access to finance is a powerful tool against poverty.
The under class don't riot as a rule because they get pissed off they riot generally when three conditions are met 1. It's a nice summers day, 2. There's a critical mass of people on the street (see in part 1) and there's a particular issue that acts a a lightning rod; from Cherry Groce to Paul Duggan, it's usually a death in custody.
3. Voting UKIP (if we can say that there's a common cause) is not about the under class; rather about an out of touch political elite who have no connection with the electorate as a whole.
Sink schools; hmm why do we have sink schools do we a. lame Thatcher, b. blame the teachers or c. blame the parents or d (and don't all go wild with excitement) d. blame society.
Education used to be a 'way out' or 'way up' but successive governments have debauched the value of a degree to the point that for many HE no longer represents a sensible investment of time and money and we need to return to a system with selective education and a smaller, much smaller HE, sector before that's going to change.
Anyways that's enough ranting, I'm off to the pub to do the crossword from the Saturday lefty.
I hope your ignorance is at least blissful.
Log for all it's worth.
-
The Wilkinson/Pickett argument is that inequality has pernicious effects independent of how wealthy a society is. If the mega rich don't represent inequality then I don't know what does.
In The Spirit Level they cheery pick the top 23 OED countries for which data is (mostly) available.
There are arguments for being selective in your data usage (mainly quality) but also against (bias), but these are predominantly rich countries when looked at on a global scale.
Cherry picking is a rather loaded term. Data has to be available and be sufficiently comparable. But I don't think they were trying to make an argument about global inequality but rather about the effects of inequality in 'rich' countries - hence the countries chosen for the study.
Of course, Habrich's point that in global terms we are all very affluent is true if somewhat beside the point. That said, the various dimension of increasing global inequality - between nations and within nations both rich and poor - are intricately interlinked. At the same time we must acknowledge that many millions have been lifted out of poverty in recent decades.
ps. feel free to log.
-
I didn't re-read the first few chapters last night, just dug into the appendix's for the bit I quoted* but I do recall they wrote themselves that they could have included more countries in some of the aspects/metrics, but chose not to. I also missed the bit in the appendix that says...
pg 275
First we obtained a list of the 50 richest countries in the world from the World Bank. The report we used was published in 2004 and is based on data from 2002.
Then we excluded countries with populations below 3 million because we didn't want to include tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Monaco. And we excluded countries without comparable data on income inequality such as Iceland. That left us with 23 rich countries
You can exclude tax havens without also excluding other countries with populations < 3 million, so that was a pretty poor rule.
I know all about the requirements of using data, but my overall feeling when I first read the book was that they had loaded the method they chose to analyse the data in their favour. For example I'm completely opposed to taking continuous data such income and then selectively comparing the top and bottom extremes. If the theory holds true then you get a more accurate representation of the relationship by using the full information available from the raw data and not converting it into binary or discrete data (see some boring statistical reasons why here (http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/Main/CatContinuous)).
They bang on about the Gini Coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) which is a measure of income inequality that uses all of the data across the distribution, but then they say on pg18 "We use the ratio of the income received by the top to the bottom 20 percent whenever we are comparing inequality in different countries: it is easy to understand and it is one of the measures provided ready-made by the United Nations. When comparing inequality in US states, we use the Gini coefficient: it is the most common measure, it is favoured by economists and it is available from the US Census Beaureu".
Well I disagree its not conceptually complex for the audience the book is aimed at to understand, with an explanation from the authors (they go to the extent of explaining correlation at the start for those not familiar with it), methods that use all of the data and not just the extremes. Also, just because the ratio of the top to bottom 20 percent was readily available from the UN doesn't mean they couldn't have calculated the more sophisticated Gini Index for nations too and used that rather than the cruder method they chose. In doing so they may have over-emphasised the effect, which is why I purposefully used the term cherry picking.
They could also have done slightly more sophisticated analyses than calculating correlation coefficients for all of the multiple comparisons they made, and they make zero attempt to correct for multiple testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_testing) when a simple Bonferroni correction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction) could have been applied, instead they blindly use p =0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance (and p-values are over-rated anyway, you want to quantify the magnitude of an effect and derive confidence intervals around it which they didn't do).
-
Well it's not on the log pile yet, so own up, who's emotionally stunted? :look:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/09/boarding-schools-bad-leaders-politicians-bullies-bumblers?CMP=fb_gu (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/09/boarding-schools-bad-leaders-politicians-bullies-bumblers?CMP=fb_gu)
I was recently in a room of about a dozen junior doctors. One had been state educated. 93% of the population is state educated.
:popcorn:
-
The Wilkinson/Pickett argument is that inequality has pernicious effects independent of how wealthy a society is. If the mega rich don't represent inequality then I don't know what does.
In The Spirit Level they cheery pick the top 23 OED countries for which data is (mostly) available.
There are arguments for being selective in your data usage (mainly quality) but also against (bias), but these are predominantly rich countries when looked at on a global scale.
Cherry picking is a rather loaded term. Data has to be available and be sufficiently comparable. But I don't think they were trying to make an argument about global inequality but rather about the effects of inequality in 'rich' countries - hence the countries chosen for the study.
Of course, Habrich's point that in global terms we are all very affluent is true if somewhat beside the point. That said, the various dimension of increasing global inequality - between nations and within nations both rich and poor - are intricately interlinked. At the same time we must acknowledge that many millions have been lifted out of poverty in recent decades.
ps. feel free to log.
In respect of the selection of contries for inclusion, (and I have to say I haven't read the text or any critiques of the text) there are also valid reasons for taking parts of countries an excluding them from analysis as an improper distortion i.e. Delaware in the USA.
Further countries with smaller populations are either likely to be geographically smaller which removes the spatial factors that can lead to inequality or with clusters of remote populations which mean that the spatial factors are too large to be significant contributors i.e. Perth and Sydney; as opposed to the 'Goldilocks' distribtuion in many N European states which are close enough to result in competition and inequality; perhaps we can consider this along an updated model of (I think it was christaller K=5? Tom, can you remind me it's a while since I did A level geog.)
Sam, if you're going to troll you need to be a bit more creative about it.
-
Of course, Habrich's point that in global terms we are all very affluent is true if somewhat beside the point.
Why?
Surely it's very arbitrary to consider any subset of the human world for these discussions except for the whole globe?
Sorry. My turn to admit I probably totally failed to express myself. Of course, no one group matters more than any other. I would never claim that. What I meant was that to say that none of us (here) can really complain as we're all rich relatively is unhelpful. You probably didn't mean it to but it looked like an attempt to close down the discussion
-
Of course, Habrich's point that in global terms we are all very affluent is true if somewhat beside the point.
Why?
Surely it's very arbitrary to consider any subset of the human world for these discussions except for the whole globe?
Sorry. My turn to admit I probably totally failed to express myself. Of course, no one group matters more than any other. I would never claim that. What I meant was that to say that none of us (here) can really complain as we're all rich relatively is unhelpful. You probably didn't mean it to but it looked like an attempt to close down the discussion
"That none of us can really complain as we're all rich relatively" is exactly what I meant! Why is it unhelpful?
Because, as I said, it closes down the debate. I should have said 'none of us can really debate (not complain) this as we're all relatively rich' - that's what I really meant. In particular it removes any voice from those that are poor in the context of this country. 'Be grateful and eat up, don't you know there are people starving in Africa.'
And its bloody obvious; I know I'm rich.
-
Absolutely, if it isn't for the rich (relatively speaking) to debate; then who?
What we need to debate is where the 'dew point' is between a set of circumstances that precipitates events which substantially mitigate against mobility (which in turn leads to a reduction of inequality) and where those above that point are substantially immune to the circumstances which could result in such deleterious events.
I would reiterate the point that while I consider that the inequality between a person on benefits in the UK and a person in the favelas of Brazil is an irrelevance to inequality in the UK, it must also be right that inequality between the very well off and the mega rich is also irrelevant: if you live on the Bishops Avenue, you may have a neighbour who is 10 times richer than you, is this an issue, no, not in the slightest.
If you live in back to back shitsville in Liverpool you may be (if you work for the council) 10 times richer than your neighbour on the dole, is that an issue, yes substantially more so.
-
At the very grave risk of appearing to agree, in part with Sloper's less than diplomatic statement...
Toby has a valid point. The outliers in the set which is Humanity are just that.
How does meaningless acquisition of luxury relate to the homeless man outside, selling his Big issue?
Redistribution of wealth would merely devalue said wealth and solve nothing. I maintain the focus on inequality is a Red Herring. A perfectly plausible and attainable ambition, within the existing system; is the elevation of the base level. And how can we ever discuss such an issue as if it were confined with the boarders of this nation?
Impossible! Unless we can somehow eliminate immigration! Many of the worlds poorest rock up on these shores daily.
The problem is inherently global.
How do the Mega-rich make me poorer?
We have quite low inflation right now...
-
A perfectly plausible and attainable ambition, within the existing system; is the elevation of the base level. And how can we ever discuss such an issue as if it were confined with the boarders of this nation?
i'd say the opposite! How can we discuss this issue outside of the sovereign entities called nations?
any attempt to discuss it globally inevitably ends up in the "starving african children" argument.
and the iront is that many megarich are very philantropic in this sense, so more inequality might raise the absolute base level!!!
the inequality issue as discussed in western cultures is something different. It is best defined in "negative" terms by saying that the relatively poorer are envious of the relatively richer. This definition doesn't mean that such envy is unjustified nor tht it shouldn't be satisfied, up to a certain degree (which should be the matter of the debate!)
-
A perfectly plausible and attainable ambition, within the existing system; is the elevation of the base level. And how can we ever discuss such an issue as if it were confined with the boarders of this nation?
i'd say the opposite! How can we discuss this issue outside of the sovereign entities called nations?
any attempt to discuss it globally inevitably ends up in the "starving african children" argument.
and the iront is that many megarich are very philantropic in this sense, so more inequality might raise the absolute base level!!!
the inequality issue as discussed in western cultures is something different. It is best defined in "negative" terms by saying that the relatively poorer are envious of the relatively richer. This definition doesn't mean that such envy is unjustified nor tht it shouldn't be satisfied, up to a certain degree (which should be the matter of the debate!)
One of the issues which needs to be considered is that of justice. Is the distribution of wealth just? Do people get what they deserve? Clearly we don't live in a meritocracy (not that I condone it) and yet we have huge inequality. Thus it's highly probable that not only the inequalities, but the reasons for the inequalities are unjust. Perhaps this is a better question than whether envy/resentment are justified.
As for the global issue, I think we do have a lot to answer for. I'm fairly strongly anti-interventionist, but we do need to recognise that we owe a lot of reparation. It's one thing to ask what we should do about starving children. It's another thing to ask what we should do about starving children in an ex-colony whose government is bribed, and whose farmland is bought up and used for exports by TNCs... for instance.
-
Meritocracy could be another endless debate.
the point (which is sadly rarely addressed) is: how do you define merit and who iis entitled to define it?
let's give some alternative merit definitions just for the sake of making the "meritocracy issue" more clear.
a)merit is defined by the calorie consumption
b)merit is defined by the contribution to the nation's gdp
c)merit is defined by the contribution to other peoples happiness
I am convinced that it is impossible to give a definition that is simple, elegant, and does not suffer from massive inconsistencies.
Many (like my option b) tend to be circular...
In reality then its not dissimilar from the problem of defining what is real art or who is a real artist...who defines art and how do they define it?
Those who have the appropriate money and/or social status, by paying it or by promoting it effectively...
-
nequality between the very well off and the mega rich is also irrelevant: if you live on the Bishops Avenue, you may have a neighbour who is 10 times richer than you, is this an issue, no, not in the slightest.
If you live in back to back shitsville in Liverpool you may be (if you work for the council) 10 times richer than your neighbour on the dole, is that an issue, yes substantially more so.
Briefly. Of course the gap between the mega rich and the stupidly filthy rich isn't very important but I don't think we can divorce the gap between the middle and the genuinely rich from the gap between the middle and the poor. They're not the result to two separate unrelated systems. They forces working to widen gaps might not be identical at all points but they are all components of a single system. That would be my argument. I'm talking about within the UK only at this point, for the sake of clarity.
As an aside, I suspect many of the very rich are actually eaten up with jealousy of the stupid filthy rich.
-
So you are conceding then that the "1%" isn't really important and the 'battleground' over which inequality should be fought is 'in the real world'.
The asset wealth of the rich is determined by a significant degree of factors i.e. currency and stock / gilt variations, property inflation and so on, none of which have a significant impact on whether person A gets job B as xyz and the relative value of their salary or alternatively whether person A is precluded from getting job B or can only get job C @ .3 of xyz salary due to structural failures in say the education system.
As for the jealousy of the rich I presume you've read Oliver James' book Afluenza?
Sam your contributions while amusing as absolutely incoherent; you're anti interventionist but want to impose a extractive / redistributive system to ensure 'equality' and remove the causes of inequality? Do you really teach ethics?
-
So you are conceding then that the "1%" isn't really important and the 'battleground' over which inequality should be fought is 'in the real world'.
The asset wealth of the rich is determined by a significant degree of factors i.e. currency and stock / gilt variations, property inflation and so on, none of which have a significant impact on whether person A gets job B as xyz and the relative value of their salary or alternatively whether person A is precluded from getting job B or can only get job C @ .3 of xyz salary due to structural failures in say the education system.
As for the jealousy of the rich I presume you've read Oliver James' book Afluenza?
Sam your contributions while amusing as absolutely incoherent; you're anti interventionist but want to impose a extractive / redistributive system to ensure 'equality' and remove the causes of inequality? Do you really teach ethics?
One major driver of inequality, of wealth for the 1% and of the financial crash has been increasing property prices. These have been driven up intentionally by the City, and by government, with the recent 5% mortgage scheme being the icing on the cake. I mention it because this is as 'real world' as it gets, effecting absolutely everyone, but particularly those who want their own home.
Well you convincingly beat up a straw man here!
I'm largely anti-interventionist, but think the best reason we currently have for intervening internationally is to make reparations for past and current harms. I don't see this as incoherent. Full equality is impossible, so I'm not trying to ensure equality. Again, I'm non-interventionist, so wouldn't even suggest we should ensure limited equality. I'm not suggesting we remove the causes of inequality either, just the ones we have wrongfully inflicted on others. This needn't necessarily be by governments either. Shell for instance should repair damages from their operations in the niger delta, no matter how complicit local government was.
Had you considered a career in designing scarecrows?
And yes, I both teach and study ethics.
-
So, providing assistance for FTB on properties <£600k (the vast majority of which are outside London) is stoking the asset values of the >1% rather than allowing a degree of self determination for those FTB? I can't decide whether your deluded, ignorant or a bit of both.
So you're suggesting we remove the causes of inequality we've inflicted on others? Do you any understanding of the notion of causality?
Take slavery, one of the largest drivers of slavery was the supply side of a couple of tribes / clans in west afrika (I can't remember the names), yes we* (i.e. UK, France, Spain & etc) were willing buyers but where there was no active supply side there was no mass slavery.
Then take the 'wrongful' aspect of your propositon; are we to judge 'wrongfulness' in the light of the current mores and ethics or of those of the relevant time? If the contend for the former then there's little hope of any meaningful discussion.
-
supply side=slavery :clown:
-
So, providing assistance for FTB on properties <£600k (the vast majority of which are outside London) is stoking the asset values of the >1% rather than allowing a degree of self determination for those FTB? I can't decide whether your deluded, ignorant or a bit of both.
Everyone said help to buy would just push up house prices. Government said noooo of course not. Look what it's done. And the biggest winners are those at the top. That increase in prices will convert to increased profits for large landlords and mortgage proverders. The biggest losers are those at the bottom. (Yes I'm aware people in the upper-middle, like yourself, may also stand to gain).
So you're suggesting we remove the causes of inequality we've inflicted on others? Do you any understanding of the notion of causality?
causa-what-now? (Don't be a dick.)
Take slavery, one of the largest drivers of slavery was the supply side of a couple of tribes / clans in west afrika (I can't remember the names), yes we* (i.e. UK, France, Spain & etc) were willing buyers but where there was no active supply side there was no mass slavery.
So if someone is willing to sell me their child, and I buy it, I've not wronged them? Well it's an interesting position. However both my intuition and the moral theories to which I hold would highlight it as a repulsive wrong.
Then take the 'wrongful' aspect of your propositon; are we to judge 'wrongfulness' in the light of the current mores and ethics or of those of the relevant time? If the contend for the former then there's little hope of any meaningful discussion.
By the current ones. Plenty of room for meaningful discussion and compromise. Admittedly, you might not like the results.
-
supply side=slavery :clown:
It has been a few years since I read about the history of the western african slave trade; but from memory the trade was well established before the arrivial of the 'colonial' westerners and the tribes/ clans who were the enslavers simply scaled up the trade to accommodate the demans of the new marekt (in return for guns & etc which made their activities more efficient).
The vast majority of slaves originated from inland areas that were never under 'colonial' control.
-
So, providing assistance for FTB on properties <£600k (the vast majority of which are outside London) is stoking the asset values of the >1% rather than allowing a degree of self determination for those FTB? I can't decide whether your deluded, ignorant or a bit of both.
Everyone said help to buy would just push up house prices. Government said noooo of course not. Look what it's done. And the biggest winners are those at the top. That increase in prices will convert to increased profits for large landlords and mortgage proverders. The biggest losers are those at the bottom. (Yes I'm aware people in the upper-middle, like yourself, may also stand to gain).
So you're suggesting we remove the causes of inequality we've inflicted on others? Do you any understanding of the notion of causality?
causa-what-now? (Don't be a dick.)
Take slavery, one of the largest drivers of slavery was the supply side of a couple of tribes / clans in west afrika (I can't remember the names), yes we* (i.e. UK, France, Spain & etc) were willing buyers but where there was no active supply side there was no mass slavery.
So if someone is willing to sell me their child, and I buy it, I've not wronged them? Well it's an interesting position. However both my intuition and the moral theories to which I hold would highlight it as a repulsive wrong.
Then take the 'wrongful' aspect of your propositon; are we to judge 'wrongfulness' in the light of the current mores and ethics or of those of the relevant time? If the contend for the former then there's little hope of any meaningful discussion.
By the current ones. Plenty of room for meaningful discussion and compromise. Admittedly, you might not like the results.
1. I don't think that there's any credible evidence of HTB inflating the market as 1. the market is only inflating above tend in London where HTB transactions form a v small %,2. It's a bit early to tell what if any impact it has had on prices, 3. the numbers of HTB purchases is a small % of activity.
2. You seem to miss the point about slavery, it wasn't the number of people that were enslaved that was the cause of the poverty / inequality rather that it was happening at all and the consequences that flow from it; i.e. no rule of law = no investment in improving agriculture, engaging in trade eetc as the products could be immediately expropriated without compensation.
3. If we are to impose current mores on the consideration of the ills of the past I think the Italian government is going to be facing a large bill as a consequence of the Roman activities, Tunisia for the Carthaginians, the Germans for the vandals and so on and so on.
4. What is wrong: absent laws which are analogus to the 10 commandments i.e. prohibitono f murder, are always a product of the morals of the time; for example there was no 'age of consent' in England & Wales until 1956 and the idea that sex with a 13 year old was a criminal offence just wouldn't have been credible to someone in 1850 given that many girls were married <16 (check out the ages in Romeo & Juliet).
5. I call 'bullshit' on you teaching ethics.
-
supply side=slavery :clown:
It may be unpalatable, but the trade has been largely uninterrupted in all recorded history.
Pretty lively during the Roman Empire, for instance, with substantially more peoples " relocated" during the 1000 years +, of that era, than the 200 or so of the colonial era.
It continues today, primarily in North and Central Africa.
And across the world in shadows.
It is unfair to cast the colonial powers as instigators of the trade. In fact they had a greater hand in bringing the trade as close to zero as it has ever been.
It reminds me of the whole "National Costume" m'larky.
It's only a National costume if you pick a single point in history.
At one point, Britain was a great source of slaves.
Later, it was a terrible exploiter of slave labour.
Later still, it was one of the prime movers in the crushing of the trade.
And, once again, the discussion turns global.
Perhaps it's just the result of living overseas for most of my adult life, but I find it impossible to think in a purely Nationalist context.
Where do you draw the line, anyway?
If Scotland gains independence, then all those lovely stats will be wrong anyway.
If you looked at the country, excluding Greater London, it would present a very different picture.
Having a Global financial hub in our midst skews the whole thing out of context and necessitates a global view.
-
1. I've read and believe otherwise. % of sales isn't the most relevant factor.
2. I'm only suggesting reparation for harms done, as I said, not for other causes of poverty.
3. When you've had a total change in (system of) government, it seems less plausible to expect reparation. One might also see such expectations diminishing with time - with scales being very subjective of course, or perhaps diminishing subject to the presence of current problems more or less clearly traceable to said harms. So I'm agreed with you about those specific cases and your reductio ad absurdum fails.
4. Sure. Ethics is subjective. I take a consequentialist view, and when we can see present consequences which are multilaterally agreed on as being harmful consequences of past (multilaterally agreed) harms, that's when I'd suggest reparation.
5. Well I'm trying to teach you, but you're a poor student. Hardly my fault.
-
1. re RTB, you could always try looking at some data.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics)
2. So you're only suggesting reparation for harm done; I don't think you understand what 'harms done' means and how as a matter of law the extent to which damages are recoverable is limited. I presume that you accept that basic legal tenets have to be applied to determine what's recoverable?
3. So if there was no system of government prior to colonial power than there ought be no reparation, what about the idea that the 'colonial imposition' was of beneficial effect; should we as a concomitant demand payment from the donee state for the benefit they have derived?
4. Yes I'd gathered that you believed that the ends justified the means (although you don't have a good idea of what the ends are or the means by which to achieve them).
5. If your contribution is evidence of you 'trying to teach' then I despair.
You will note that others, myself included have made reference to historical fact, a range of broadly held theories and counter points and sought to explain why we hold the views that we do; you however merely string together ill formed and poorly expressed gibberish in the hope that somehow you sound as if you have a basic knowledge of the subject.
I'd say you're reliant on The Great Soviet Encyclopedia and a bastardised understanding of Russell and Kant, I had to write my jurisprudence paper on The Application of the Hegelian Dialectic to American and Scandinavian Legal Realism (although I did pull wider legal positivism into the paper as a counterpoint) and recognise some of your drivel. (PS I rather enjoyed writing 10k words on the subject, but it probably did long term mental damage)
Any lecturer / teacher worth their salt would have the intellectual capacity to adopt a wide range of approaches and ethical constructs / models: why is it that you are unable so to do?
-
supply side=slavery :clown:
seems that nobody understood my joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics)
(especially in relation to the fact that in continental Europe, supply side policies mean less labour regulation and less welfare)
-
Yes, I did miss the subtle humour.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf)
An intersting read; particularly in the light of some of Pickertty's assertions (and yes I noted his name appearing)
-
on topic
http://www.asimmetrie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AsimmetrieWP0214.pdf (http://www.asimmetrie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AsimmetrieWP0214.pdf)
-
1. re RTB, you could always try looking at some data.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics)
2. So you're only suggesting reparation for harm done; I don't think you understand what 'harms done' means and how as a matter of law the extent to which damages are recoverable is limited. I presume that you accept that basic legal tenets have to be applied to determine what's recoverable?
3. So if there was no system of government prior to colonial power than there ought be no reparation, what about the idea that the 'colonial imposition' was of beneficial effect; should we as a concomitant demand payment from the donee state for the benefit they have derived?
4. Yes I'd gathered that you believed that the ends justified the means (although you don't have a good idea of what the ends are or the means by which to achieve them).
5. If your contribution is evidence of you 'trying to teach' then I despair.
You will note that others, myself included have made reference to historical fact, a range of broadly held theories and counter points and sought to explain why we hold the views that we do; you however merely string together ill formed and poorly expressed gibberish in the hope that somehow you sound as if you have a basic knowledge of the subject.
I'd say you're reliant on The Great Soviet Encyclopedia and a bastardised understanding of Russell and Kant, I had to write my jurisprudence paper on The Application of the Hegelian Dialectic to American and Scandinavian Legal Realism (although I did pull wider legal positivism into the paper as a counterpoint) and recognise some of your drivel. (PS I rather enjoyed writing 10k words on the subject, but it probably did long term mental damage)
Any lecturer / teacher worth their salt would have the intellectual capacity to adopt a wide range of approaches and ethical constructs / models: why is it that you are unable so to do?
1. My comment above applies.
2. I'm suggesting we should willingly offer reparations. Attempting to force us is probably defensible, if difficult.
3. Again, you're thinking about demands/duties. Which is tangential. If you can show we saved the world then go ahead.
4. I have lots of ideas of what ends should be, but see above.
5. Ad hominem drivel.
-
Sure. Poor people spend money on essentials, middle income on luxuries and the top income on displaying their wealth and status to other peacocks.
-
So you are conceding then that the "1%" isn't really important and the 'battleground' over which inequality should be fought is 'in the real world'.
I concede no such thing :-*
-
1. re RTB, you could always try looking at some data.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics)
2. So you're only suggesting reparation for harm done; I don't think you understand what 'harms done' means and how as a matter of law the extent to which damages are recoverable is limited. I presume that you accept that basic legal tenets have to be applied to determine what's recoverable?
3. So if there was no system of government prior to colonial power than there ought be no reparation, what about the idea that the 'colonial imposition' was of beneficial effect; should we as a concomitant demand payment from the donee state for the benefit they have derived?
4. Yes I'd gathered that you believed that the ends justified the means (although you don't have a good idea of what the ends are or the means by which to achieve them).
5. If your contribution is evidence of you 'trying to teach' then I despair.
You will note that others, myself included have made reference to historical fact, a range of broadly held theories and counter points and sought to explain why we hold the views that we do; you however merely string together ill formed and poorly expressed gibberish in the hope that somehow you sound as if you have a basic knowledge of the subject.
I'd say you're reliant on The Great Soviet Encyclopedia and a bastardised understanding of Russell and Kant, I had to write my jurisprudence paper on The Application of the Hegelian Dialectic to American and Scandinavian Legal Realism (although I did pull wider legal positivism into the paper as a counterpoint) and recognise some of your drivel. (PS I rather enjoyed writing 10k words on the subject, but it probably did long term mental damage)
Any lecturer / teacher worth their salt would have the intellectual capacity to adopt a wide range of approaches and ethical constructs / models: why is it that you are unable so to do?
1. My comment above applies.
2. I'm suggesting we should willingly offer reparations. Attempting to force us is probably defensible, if difficult.
3. Again, you're thinking about demands/duties. Which is tangential. If you can show we saved the world then go ahead.
4. I have lots of ideas of what ends should be, but see above.
5. Ad hominem drivel.
1. It doesn't, you might think it does but you're wrong / don't understand the subject.
2. You don't either understand what reparations means / have nbo concept of the politics.
3. No I'm talking ethics and logic, do you not understand these concepts?
4. zzzzz
5. Not ad ad hom drivel, I can debate from a numer of perspectives, including a classical Marxist p.o.v., utilitarian, positivist, all the way through to anarchist and can support those arguments with reference to well known writers in the firls and the models they rely upon; you? You seem to rely on the fact that you know that Hornby made model trains. (now that dear boy is an ad hominem).
-
1. re RTB, you could always try looking at some data.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics)
2. So you're only suggesting reparation for harm done; I don't think you understand what 'harms done' means and how as a matter of law the extent to which damages are recoverable is limited. I presume that you accept that basic legal tenets have to be applied to determine what's recoverable?
3. So if there was no system of government prior to colonial power than there ought be no reparation, what about the idea that the 'colonial imposition' was of beneficial effect; should we as a concomitant demand payment from the donee state for the benefit they have derived?
4. Yes I'd gathered that you believed that the ends justified the means (although you don't have a good idea of what the ends are or the means by which to achieve them).
5. If your contribution is evidence of you 'trying to teach' then I despair.
You will note that others, myself included have made reference to historical fact, a range of broadly held theories and counter points and sought to explain why we hold the views that we do; you however merely string together ill formed and poorly expressed gibberish in the hope that somehow you sound as if you have a basic knowledge of the subject.
I'd say you're reliant on The Great Soviet Encyclopedia and a bastardised understanding of Russell and Kant, I had to write my jurisprudence paper on The Application of the Hegelian Dialectic to American and Scandinavian Legal Realism (although I did pull wider legal positivism into the paper as a counterpoint) and recognise some of your drivel. (PS I rather enjoyed writing 10k words on the subject, but it probably did long term mental damage)
Any lecturer / teacher worth their salt would have the intellectual capacity to adopt a wide range of approaches and ethical constructs / models: why is it that you are unable so to do?
1. My comment above applies.
2. I'm suggesting we should willingly offer reparations. Attempting to force us is probably defensible, if difficult.
3. Again, you're thinking about demands/duties. Which is tangential. If you can show we saved the world then go ahead.
4. I have lots of ideas of what ends should be, but see above.
5. Ad hominem drivel.
1. It doesn't, you might think it does but you're wrong / don't understand the subject.
2. You don't either understand what reparations means / have nbo concept of the politics.
3. No I'm talking ethics and logic, do you not understand these concepts?
4. zzzzz
5. Not ad ad hom drivel, I can debate from a numer of perspectives, including a classical Marxist p.o.v., utilitarian, positivist, all the way through to anarchist and can support those arguments with reference to well known writers in the firls and the models they rely upon; you? You seem to rely on the fact that you know that Hornby made model trains. (now that dear boy is an ad hominem).
1. Does
2. Do
3. You're being narrow & I do
4. How about cloud morality?
5. Gosh. Can I sign your penis? It's just so long.
-
Will you two get a room...
-
Far away with no internet access
-
British Public wrongly believe rich pay most in tax, new research shows (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research)
6/8 (http://www.theguardian.com/money/quiz/2014/jun/16/tax-richest-poorest-average-quiz) :smartass:
-
I couldn't see their data or reasoning, but by and large I'd expect their conclusions to be a steaming pile of :shit:
let's just look at one aspect "While income tax and national insurance are broadly progressive, the bottom 10% of households pay roughly 23% of their gross household income in indirect taxes on consumption"
Let's assume that the <10% have on wage earner on 40 hours per week NMW (£6.31) so £11800 per year.
If we take 23% of that, that's £2700. Now since the majority of indirect tax that they're likely to be paying is VAT (o.k. there'll be some IPT and the VAT rate is lower for heating fuel etc) the value of the vatable goods that they'd need to purchase in order to pay £2700 in VAT is >£14,000.
I'd also suggest that the authors don't have a good grasp of numbers re the relativity of CT vs Income
I imagine the rest of the report is similarly bollocks; can anyone actually point me to their figures?
-
Let's ass|u|me that the <10% have on wage earner on 40 hours per week NMW (£6.31) so £11800 per year.
I doubt that the bottom 10% have one wage earner who is in a job with 40 hours/week at the National Minimum Wage.
What is that saying about "To assume makes..."
I imagine the rest of the report is similarly bollocks; can anyone actually point me to their figures?
The source isn't linked in the Guardians article, but it clearly states who commissioned it. If you go their web-site (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/) then the News and Press Releases (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/news-opinion/news-press-releases) its the current top item titled 96% of the Public Favour More Progressive Tax System (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/news/96-public-favour-more-progressive-tax-system) and the opening paragraph has a link to a PDF of the report (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/Unfair%20and%20Unclear.pdf).
However, you'll likely want to go and look up the source of their data, which is given underneath Figure 3 on page 14 as the "ONS Effects of Tax and Benefits on Household Income, 2013" who might have a fairly good idea of how to conduct surveys and calculate portions of tax etc. etc..
I'll leave you to dig that out.
-
I couldn't see their data or reasoning, but by and large I'd expect their conclusions to be a steaming pile of :shit:
let's just look at one aspect "While income tax and national insurance are broadly progressive, the bottom 10% of households pay roughly 23% of their gross household income in indirect taxes on consumption"
Let's assume that the <10% have on wage earner on 40 hours per week NMW (£6.31) so £11800 per year.
If we take 23% of that, that's £2700. Now since the majority of indirect tax that they're likely to be paying is VAT (o.k. there'll be some IPT and the VAT rate is lower for heating fuel etc) the value of the vatable goods that they'd need to purchase in order to pay £2700 in VAT is >£14,000.
I'd also suggest that the authors don't have a good grasp of numbers re the relativity of CT vs Income
I imagine the rest of the report is similarly bollocks; can anyone actually point me to their figures?
You've forgotten about National Insurance and income Tax.
And fuel duty is about 70%.
And also high rates on booze and gaspers.
The figures stack up if you work them out even slightly properly.
-
Cheers, dealing with twats @ the momemnt, so feeling quite bolshie at present, but thanks for that.
Their figures are just bollocks or the <10% have extrodinary spending habits.
The ONS says that the weekly gross income of the lowest declie is £124.50 if someone is paying 11% of their gross income (£6474 is gross) in VAT, then they're paying £712 in VAT. To spend £712 on VAT you would need to spend over £3500 per year on VAT rated goods at the standard rate That's £70 per week or >50% of your disposlable income on VAT rated goods.
-
I couldn't see their data or reasoning, but by and large I'd expect their conclusions to be a steaming pile of :shit:
let's just look at one aspect "While income tax and national insurance are broadly progressive, the bottom 10% of households pay roughly 23% of their gross household income in indirect taxes on consumption"
Let's assume that the <10% have on wage earner on 40 hours per week NMW (£6.31) so £11800 per year.
If we take 23% of that, that's £2700. Now since the majority of indirect tax that they're likely to be paying is VAT (o.k. there'll be some IPT and the VAT rate is lower for heating fuel etc) the value of the vatable goods that they'd need to purchase in order to pay £2700 in VAT is >£14,000.
I'd also suggest that the authors don't have a good grasp of numbers re the relativity of CT vs Income
I imagine the rest of the report is similarly bollocks; can anyone actually point me to their figures?
You've forgotten about National Insurance and income Tax.
And fuel duty is about 70%.
And also high rates on booze and gaspers.
The figures stack up if you work them out even slightly properly.
The figuers don't stack up at all.
The ONS say that the average spend on fuel & power for the <10% is £14.80 per week. Assuming that this is all at the higher rate of VAT i.e. 20% then they're spending c. £2 per week on VAT on fuel i.e. about 1.5% of their disposable income.
That then leaves another £13.50 per week of VAT. Unless the stereotype of the doley scum spending all their money on fags booze and take away food is true then these figures are a load of bollocks.
-
Sorry forgot to add the data. Sorry about the formating and spelling, been on the 'phone having my ear chewed by a wignien, lying prole,
ONS data
Household income and expenditure by income decile group (based on weighted data) 2012
United Kingdom
Lowest Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Highest All
Gross income decile group ten decile decile decile decile decile decile decile decile ten house-
per cent group group group group group group group group per cent holds
Lower boundary of group (£ per week) 170 256 342 438 542 673 818 1,024 1,397
Weighted number of households (thousands) 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 26,410
Total number of households in sample 520 550 570 580 590 570 560 550 550 550 5,600
Total number of persons 680 870 1,110 1,270 1,420 1,460 1,530 1,590 1,590 1,680 13,180
Total number of adults 590 710 880 1,000 1,080 1,120 1,160 1,210 1,200 1,260 10,200
Weighted average number of persons per household 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.3
Commodity or service Average weekly household expenditure (£)
Disposable income + Housing Benefit 124.50 213.40 291.40 362.40 440.00 529.60 632.00 756.60 949.30 1697.50 599.70
Number of recording households in sample 520 550 570 580 590 570 560 550 550 550 5,590
Weighted number of recording households (thousands) 2,620 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 26,400
Fuel and power 14.80 17.90 19.40 20.50 23.00 23.90 24.50 26.80 27.40 33.60 23.20
Number of recording households in sample 440 500 530 550 570 560 540 540 540 550 5,310
Weighted number of recording households (thousands) 2,230 2,410 2,420 2,460 2,510 2,560 2,540 2,570 2,600 2,630 24,920
Lowest Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Highest All
Disposable income decile group ten decile decile decile decile decile decile decile decile ten house-
per cent group group group group group group group group per cent holds
Lower boundary of group (£ per week) 168 244 315 396 477 578 689 833 1,104
Weighted number of households (thousands) 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,650 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 26,410
Total number of households in sample 520 550 560 590 580 590 560 540 560 550 5,600
Total number of persons 670 840 1,050 1,270 1,400 1,510 1,520 1,590 1,620 1,710 13,180
Total number of adults 590 690 840 990 1,070 1,130 1,160 1,190 1,230 1,300 10,200
Weighted average number of persons per household 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.2 2.3
Commodity or service Average weekly household expenditure (£)
Disposable income + Housing Benefit 122.70 211.70 289.60 359.10 437.80 525.90 632.10 755.70 950.70 1710.60 599.70
Number of recording households in sample 520 550 560 590 580 590 560 540 560 550 5,590
Weighted number of recording households (thousands) 2,620 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,650 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 26,400
Fuel and power 15.10 18.00 18.10 22.00 22.40 23.20 24.40 26.70 28.10 33.70 23.20
Number of recording households in sample 440 490 510 560 560 570 550 530 550 550 5,310
Weighted number of recording households (thousands) 2,230 2,400 2,410 2,490 2,510 2,520 2,580 2,550 2,590 2,630 24,920
Please see Notes for conventions used in this report.
ONS, Living Costs and Food Survey 2012, © Crown copyright 2014
-
I couldn't see their data or reasoning, but by and large I'd expect their conclusions to be a steaming pile of :shit:
let's just look at one aspect "While income tax and national insurance are broadly progressive, the bottom 10% of households pay roughly 23% of their gross household income in indirect taxes on consumption"
Let's assume that the <10% have on wage earner on 40 hours per week NMW (£6.31) so £11800 per year.
If we take 23% of that, that's £2700. Now since the majority of indirect tax that they're likely to be paying is VAT (o.k. there'll be some IPT and the VAT rate is lower for heating fuel etc) the value of the vatable goods that they'd need to purchase in order to pay £2700 in VAT is >£14,000.
I'd also suggest that the authors don't have a good grasp of numbers re the relativity of CT vs Income
I imagine the rest of the report is similarly bollocks; can anyone actually point me to their figures?
You've forgotten about National Insurance and income Tax.
And fuel duty is about 70%.
And also high rates on booze and gaspers.
The figures stack up if you work them out even slightly properly.
The figuers don't stack up at all.
The ONS say that the average spend on fuel & power for the <10% is £14.80 per week. Assuming that this is all at the higher rate of VAT i.e. 20% then they're spending c. £2 per week on VAT on fuel i.e. about 1.5% of their disposable income.
That then leaves another £13.50 per week of VAT. Unless the stereotype of the doley scum spending all their money on fags booze and take away food is true then these figures are a load of bollocks.
While doley scum myself I have to say I bucked the trend, spending the money on climbing walls and entertaining myself with the local library, but yes, the poorest in society are the most likely to drink, smoke and gamble. Also, they're likely to have an unhealthy diet, and this entail eating more VAT standard-rated foods.
As an amusing aside, look at some of this for virtually arbitrary bureaucracy:
Zero-Rated
Alcoholic dessert jellies
Tortilla chips
Roasted or salted nuts supplied while still in their shells
Standard-Rated
Semi-set alcoholic jellies designed to be swallowed as cocktails
Potato crisps
Roasted or salted nuts shelled
But the best is the biscuits:
Zero-Rated
-Chocolate chip biscuits where the chips are either included in the dough or pressed into the surface before baking
-Bourbon and other biscuits where the chocolate or similar product forms a sandwich layer between two biscuit halves and is not continued onto the outer surface
-Jaffa cakes
-Biscuits coated with caramel or some other product that does not resemble chocolate in taste and appearance
Standard-Rated
-All wholly or partly coated biscuits including biscuits decorated in a pattern with chocolate or some similar product
-Chocolate covered shortbread
-Gingerbread men decorated with chocolate unless this amounts to no more than a couple of dots for eyes
-Ice cream wafers partly covered in chocolate such as “chocolate oysters”
Amazing!
-
At least we've got a good healthcare system :great:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
-
Absolutely, of all the options the NHS is the least worst means of delivering health care.
-
Absolutely, of all the options the NHS is the least worst means of delivering health care.
We keep agreeing on things. I'm confused.
Listened to an interesting lecture today/yesterday on global healthcare justice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srHypmFnATA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srHypmFnATA) Lawrence Gostin points out that we focus primarily on healthcare, yet public health intervention would perhaps be a more efficient way to spend our money.
He also points out that public health (clean air, water, sanitation) is one of the areas in which people don't complain about egalitarianism. I.e. if you ask them to redistribute wealth for a healthcare system they might exercise their right to bear arms, but everyone is willing to contribute to an improved human environment - and an improved human environment (public health) actually benefits the worst off the most.
Lots of other interesting points too, particularly his criticisms of the WHO.
-
ONS, Living Costs and Food Survey 2012, © Crown copyright 2014
I'm not sure thats the correct ONS source. The Equality Trust cites under figure 3 on pg 14 (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/Unfair%20and%20Unclear.pdf)....
The effects of taxes and benefits on household income (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/index.html)
...which is different to the one you quote/cite.
Digging through all the published data in 2013, which actually pertains to 2011/12, I think the most relevant table is probably table 16 (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2011-2012/data--the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income--2011-2012.xls).
A quick check for the bottom decile of the total of direct taxes (Cell B55 £1347) plus the total of indirect taxes (Cell B85 £3533) as a percentage of the Gross Income (B47 £11371) comes out at 42.92% that the Equality Trust report cites. Double checking the top decile you have total direct taxes (Cell L55 £9190) plus the total of indirect taxes (Cell L85 £6164) as a percentage of Gross Income (L47 £43387) which comes out at 35.38% again the value that the Equality Trust report cites for that decile.
Whether these numbers themselves are representative is another mater, but you can check the methodology yourself (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2011-2012/art--etb-analysis-and-methodology.html).
The ONS are actually really good at being open and transparent about how they collect and analyse data and with the data itself (even if you disagree with their choice of methodology). :2thumbsup:
-
The statistics are wrong, the product of the sickening kleptoacry and bullingdon club scum who are engaged in a class war to exterminate the birthright of those to live on benefits while errr while shamelessly favouring the 1%
Hmm interesting, thanks for pointing out the stats (although I can't access them not having MS on the home laptop), those are rather interesting (and es I'm wrong). the question is, should we be paying benefits which can be spent on VAT abe goods like ready meals, booze and fags? I'd suggest now and pay benefits to accounts that restrict how the benefits can be spent.
In respect of the working poor, i.e. those not on benefits, the question is surely, how we structure taxes between direct and indirect. Personally I'm more in favour of direct taxes than indirect, but I can see this being a very difficult proposition to sell to the electorate.
Ohh and my solution to the people who are trapped in absolute poverty on benefits, workhouses.
-
I can't access them not having MS on the home laptop
I don't have MS-Orifice on any of my computers. The spreadsheet that contains the table I mention opens fine using LibreOffice (http://www.libreoffice.org/) (free open-source software).
The methodology document is a PDF (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_317895.pdf).
-
the question is, should we be paying benefits which can be spent on VAT abe goods like ready meals, booze and fags? I'd suggest now and pay benefits to accounts that restrict how the benefits can be spent.
this could prevent a lot of problems
obviously some determined souls will swap food for alcohol etc, but for many people it's the easy opportunity to get alcohol that leads to lapses
it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person. Paid in arrears of course - just like most people with jobs.
party time! ?
it will make the transition from benefits to work a lot smoother for those that make it that far
-
the question is, should we be paying benefits which can be spent on VAT abe goods like ready meals, booze and fags? I'd suggest now and pay benefits to accounts that restrict how the benefits can be spent.
this could prevent a lot of problems
obviously some determined souls will swap food for alcohol etc, but for many people it's the easy opportunity to get alcohol that leads to lapses
it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person. Paid in arrears of course - just like most people with jobs.
party time! ?
it will make the transition from benefits to work a lot smoother for those that make it that far
It's a tough one and nowhere near as clear cut as either of you would make it seem. I struggled through a couple of years on benefits and it was no fun whatsoever. £75 a week + child tax credits and £134 a month CHB. Actually, it was £55 a week carers allowance, topped up to £75 by income support. Lily was on highest rate mobility allowance, but that was stopped each time she was admitted to the hospice...
We also had Council tax and housing benefit, but that only covered 75% of our rent and paid direct to the council and landlord.
There was no room for anything non-essential.
There are a minority of people who abuse/waste their income whether it be benefits of earned. Also, I took back a hell of a lot less in benefits for those two years than I paid in and continue to pay... National INSURANCE, remember.
We are capable and should be tailoring the system to individual cases.
-
The problem is that NI & etc have never been hypothecated, just collected and thrown into the pot.
The move to a variable system where greater contributions equate to greater payments has a number of attractions; however from the lefty perspective it would result in greater inequality so would therefore be a 'bad thing'.
It is interesting that Labour are also now looking at a system of contributions based benefits, i.e. pay in more >>> get more out if you need it.
This is fine on the upside, but what about the down side? i.e. you've paid nothing in and then what happens, what happens when your inreased payments due to higher contributions run out etc?
-
it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person.
This is a remarkably bad idea!
-
particularly for these people
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315256/benefit-claimants-drug-alcohol-condition.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315256/benefit-claimants-drug-alcohol-condition.pdf)
who make up over 3% of claimants deemed not capable of working
the Daily Mail should do something
not sure what the VAT rate is for class A drugs
fortunately it only costs £25 per week (http://www.bmstores.co.uk/products/3-hammers-cider-3l-253170) (3 litres 7.5%)to remain dependant on alcohol at 160 units per week
obviously if you spend the full £75 every week you get a free hospital stay every 6 months
-
obviously if you spend the full £75 every week you get a free hospital stay every 6 months
That is a limited time offer only, though...
You only get to use the offer 4-5 times, after which you get a permanent spot ~6' lower than ground level...
-
it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person.
This is a remarkably bad idea!
Why? It disrupts the 'giro standard time' whereby people live from one benefits payment to the next, it instills a degree of personal responsibility and makes the transition to work (where most are paid monthly) easier.
I'm not sure about the payments for rent going directly to the recipient as if they fail to meet their liability it will put their tenancy at risk; payments to benefit claimants directly also make it less likely that private landlords will rent to benefit claimants.
-
Exactly! The housing benefit bit is the worst bit of the idea.
-
it'll be interesting to see what happens with universal credit, where people will be paid a whole month's benefit in one go - including housing benefit - so maybe £700 in one lump sum for a single person.
This is a remarkably bad idea!
Why? It disrupts the 'giro standard time' whereby people live from one benefits payment to the next, it instills a degree of personal responsibility and makes the transition to work (where most are paid monthly) easier.
I disagree and think it will only serve to perpetuates and exacerbates the problem of people living from one benefit payment to the next.
Whilst the notion that it will instill responsibility is well meaning those with a propensity to spend all of their money as soon as they have it aren't very likely to change their behaviour as humans are notoriously stubborn creatures of habit (and many have medical problems such as substance addiction that drastically compound this).
-
Personally I find this whole focus unhelpful. It's an apparent case of talking about what Murdoch/Rothermere tell us to.
Let's ignore the fact that spending by the poor on highly taxed alcohol/tobacco/gambling provides government revenue and a more buoyant economy and that the lack of spending and the exportation of profits by the wealthy and by TNCs is far more problematic.
Let's make the poor worse off so that they'll go out and get jobs. Because clearly they're not trying. It can't be that the serious lack of jobs and their relative lack of education is the problem. It can't be racism, sexism or classism. So what if we have unemployed graduates competing with them even for relatively menial work? Just plain lazy.
And of course, they SHOULD be fighting tooth-and-nail for jobs that often don't exist, even if they get ripped off along the way ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/universal-jobmatch-fakes-nearly-60-3211592 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/universal-jobmatch-fakes-nearly-60-3211592) ) and even if these jobs would still leave them in poverty anyway ( http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/new-uk-living-wage-%C2%A3765-new-london-rate-%C2%A3880 (http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/new-uk-living-wage-%C2%A3765-new-london-rate-%C2%A3880) ).
And let's focus on benefits cheats, not the exponentially greater harms done by tax avoidance/evasion at the top.
Last time I checked, the problems in this country were caused by benefits lazy-arses, immigrants and gypos. And possibly the black kids.
If only we were all like those nice successful bankers.
-
http://www.poverty.ac.uk/articles-government-cuts-international-comparisons-public-spending-whats-new/uk-heading-bottom-place (http://www.poverty.ac.uk/articles-government-cuts-international-comparisons-public-spending-whats-new/uk-heading-bottom-place)
By 2017 the UK is set to have the lowest share of public spending among major capitalist economies, including the USA, as a result of the exceptionally harsh cuts in public spending currently planned. But is this really necessary?
The government has prioritised the reduction of public debt and is determined to keep extra taxation to the absolute minimum, resulting in a much tighter public expenditure target being imposed than other advanced capitalist countries. The consequence, according to the International Monetary Fund’s latest predictions, is that while before the 2008 financial crisis, the UK’s public expenditure as a percentage of GDP was in about the middle of the major capitalist economies, above the USA, Japan and Canada though below Germany, Italy, Sweden and France, the UK is heading swiftly to the bottom (see interactive graph below).
General government total expenditure as a proportion of GDP
CanadaFranceGermanyItalyJapanSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States200020022004200620082010201220142016343638404244464850525456%Year
International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database
Actual data to 2011 (USA actual data to 2010) then IMF estimates (darker background).
There is much speculation about why a relatively rich country, which experiences no difficulties in borrowing over long terms at low interest rates, should choose to adopt such unusual economic policies, particularly since such policies are now agreed by most commentators to be damaging to the national interest (Taylor-Gooby, 2012). While the government is determined to shrink public spending, it is maintaining spending on pensions, health and education. These are highly popular areas of spending and it would be electorally damaging to cut them. Welfare for the poor, by contrast, is being cut back sharply though this also appears to be popular.
The consequences of these policies for those on low income have been extensively analysed. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts an increase in poverty (by the standard 60 per cent median income poverty line) of the order of 0.8 million by 2015 and of 2.3 million by 2020. This increase will be concentrated among families with children and single people of working age (Brewer, 2011). The Resolution Foundation shows how job insecurity is increasing and wages stagnating, particularly at the bottom end (Brewer et al., 2012). Housing problems are growing steadily more pressing.
In the short term, the welfare state is under the most severe and sustained attack it has faced, with cuts much harsher than those of the 1980s. If one wants to be gloomy, one can point out that longer-term forecasts of public spending indicate that population ageing, staff costs in human services like health, social care and education, and rising aspirations mean that we will need to spend much more in these areas simply to stand still. These are the more popular areas of the welfare state. The implication is that the pressure to spend in these areas will be hard to resist, so that spending on pensions, health and education for the mass will be sustained. There will be extra pressures on unpopular benefits for the poor and unemployed, on social housing, and on family support. Bad news for inequality, and especially for women and children in low income families.
So what can be done to prevent the UK taking bottom place?
Two suggestions:
· Shifting the terms of the debate: welfare state spending is often divided between the popular mass services (pensions, healthcare, education), which distribute horizontally over people’s lifetimes and are highly valued, and the much less popular benefits, which redistribute from better to worse off (cash benefits for unemployed people, single parents and those on low wages). This ignores the changes in the way people live their lives and the growing risks and needs of the past three decades. Increasingly, the issues that many people confront are about managing work and family life, finding care for children and for frail relatives of reasonable quality that they can afford, getting access to good quality education and training, and finding and paying for decent housing.
These issues bridge the division between mass and minority services. They are not confined to low-income minorities but are shared across much of the population. They are not easily understood in terms of laziness or irresponsibility, and do not attract stigma. However, spending in these areas can help to address issues of poverty and inequality because it can help low income families get jobs and give better opportunities to their children.
Serious investment in childcare might turn out to be a real investment that pays an economic return by helping more people to work. It might also be electorally attractive. Similarly, housing reforms such as a land tax, rent controls and state investment in social housing might help enough people for such reforms to gain support. Education is popular and could expand to include training and retraining programmes of decent quality.
· Redefining welfare: many politicians see welfare as a ‘burden’ on the productive economy. This is misleading. Much social spending is indirectly productive, enabling the productive sector to operate effectively, and this needs to be made clear, as in the case of childcare and social care or education spending that enables people to work effectively. Similarly, much welfare is seen as damaging because it undermines the work ethic. This is incorrect: the problems of low wages that need to be supplemented to enable families to survive and of lack of opportunities to work are much more severe. New approaches to welfare could be developed that stress social contributions and expand the idea of entitlements as a right. One programme developed by Horton and Gregory proposes a return to a welfare system more firmly rooted in universalism and with a new system of national insurance that rebuilds the lost idea of entitlement (Horton and Gregory, 2009).
These ideas may seem utopian, given the scale of the pressures on welfare. A crisis is a turning point. There are indications of the possibility of a shift in public attitudes, as shown by the Occupy movement and associated political struggles. More broadly, public concerns about fair taxes and tax avoidance, childcare and education, and the quality of private sector provision in training and in health and social care are rising and can only get stronger. Never waste a good crisis.
References
Brewer, M., Browne, J. and Joyce, R. (2011) Child and Working-age Poverty from 2010 to 2020, London, Institute for Fiscal Studies. Also available online at http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdf (http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdf) (accessed 12 November 2012).
Brewer, M., Gambin, L., Joyce, R. and Wilson, R. (2012) Who Gains from Growth?: Living Standards in 2020, London, Resolution Foundation. Also available online at http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/media/downloads/Who_Gains_from_Growth_2.pdf (http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/media/downloads/Who_Gains_from_Growth_2.pdf) (accessed 12 November 2012).
Horton, T. and Gregory, J. (2009) The Solidarity Society, London, Fabian Society. Also available online at http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/the-solidarity-society/ (http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/the-solidarity-society/) (accessed 12 November 2012).
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2012) ‘Root and branch restructuring to achieve major cuts: the social policy programme of the 2010 UK coalition government’, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 61–82. Also available online at http://www.social-policy.org.uk/lincoln2011/Taylor-Gooby%20P4.pdf (http://www.social-policy.org.uk/lincoln2011/Taylor-Gooby%20P4.pdf) (accessed 12 November 2012).
-
You've missed workhouses out of the mix.
Only modern workhouses will break the widespread generational aspects of genuine poverty.
We've plenty of old air force bases (and a few old Butlins) which could be converted (providing a stimulus to the construction sector, providing apprenticeships and so on) to provide good quality housing and education (or would that be re-education comrade) health care and targetted support to find work. Once the person has a job offer they could then be provided financial support to move to that area, gain housing and so on (there'd be greater capacity due to the number of long term benefits claimants moving out).
Simply watching the families slowly spin down on a spiral of despair is neither morally right nor positive for the individuals or society as a whole.
The spin offs would be massive and positive; fewer sink estates, the end to the culture of dependency, teenage pregnancy and delinquency.
We could call the supported living areas 'Eton' 'Harrow' and 'St Paul's'.
And no this isn't a troll.
-
Wtf! No it's not a troll it's the most blatant thievery of my Luton plan (from ten years ago) ever.
I've even warned you about such plagiarism on here before. Shameless!
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
-
You've missed workhouses out of the mix.
Only modern workhouses will break the widespread generational aspects of genuine poverty.
We've plenty of old air force bases (and a few old Butlins) which could be converted (providing a stimulus to the construction sector, providing apprenticeships and so on) to provide good quality housing and education (or would that be re-education comrade) health care and targetted support to find work. Once the person has a job offer they could then be provided financial support to move to that area, gain housing and so on (there'd be greater capacity due to the number of long term benefits claimants moving out).
Simply watching the families slowly spin down on a spiral of despair is neither morally right nor positive for the individuals or society as a whole.
The spin offs would be massive and positive; fewer sink estates, the end to the culture of dependency, teenage pregnancy and delinquency.
We could call the supported living areas 'Eton' 'Harrow' and 'St Paul's'.
And no this isn't a troll.
Well assuming they get paid for their work, it might be a good replacement for prisons.
If you'd recommend it for the general public I'd recommend you abandon your family, perhaps it's for the best. You're obviously a fan of forced relocation, so consider yourself lucky that it's just a recommendation.
-
Piketty on C4News now... (you can see it on C4+1 if you miss it..)
-
Wtf! No it's not a troll it's the most blatant thievery of my Luton plan (from ten years ago) ever.
I've even warned you about such plagiarism on here before. Shameless!
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Yes, we discussed this in the Sheaf, and you';re wrong I got in first, it was my idea (ok it was Stalin's really) to name them after senior schools.
-
You've missed workhouses out of the mix.
Only modern workhouses will break the widespread generational aspects of genuine poverty.
We've plenty of old air force bases (and a few old Butlins) which could be converted (providing a stimulus to the construction sector, providing apprenticeships and so on) to provide good quality housing and education (or would that be re-education comrade) health care and targetted support to find work. Once the person has a job offer they could then be provided financial support to move to that area, gain housing and so on (there'd be greater capacity due to the number of long term benefits claimants moving out).
Simply watching the families slowly spin down on a spiral of despair is neither morally right nor positive for the individuals or society as a whole.
The spin offs would be massive and positive; fewer sink estates, the end to the culture of dependency, teenage pregnancy and delinquency.
We could call the supported living areas 'Eton' 'Harrow' and 'St Paul's'.
And no this isn't a troll.
Well assuming they get paid for their work, it might be a good replacement for prisons.
If you'd recommend it for the general public I'd recommend you abandon your family, perhaps it's for the best. You're obviously a fan of forced relocation, so consider yourself lucky that it's just a recommendation.
It's not forced relocation, they have a choice, either stand on their own two feet, get a job, give up the benefits, sort themselves out or move.
What's the difference between a council flat with no prospects & etc in 'the manor' and the same four walls & etc on the Lincolnshire coast? (except for the other residents of Sheffield who don't have to suffer the corrosive effects of the extended network of scum?)
-
Rather than shipping our lesser comrades off to siberia for re-education as you suggest, perhaps we should support them from within their communities? Pre-Thatcher, when council estate didn't = destitution and lack of jobs, these were pleasant enough places to be. Perhaps we should focus on supporting real communities? Although I suppose you support the the witch (ding dong) and think communities are as mythical as society?
You could think of it as SureStart+ or SureCarryOn. The current government is a big fan of such egalitarian programs I believe. (trying not to choke on my own vomit)
-
Regardless if whether it's right or wrong it's good that Picketty has been open with his data & analysis (http://simplystatistics.org/2014/06/03/post-piketty-lessons/).
And the data will soon be even more easily accessible after its extracted from the cumbersome Excel spreadsheets (http://simplystatistics.org/2014/06/30/piketty-in-r-markdown-we-need-some-help-from-the-crowd/) (and its dead simple to output it from R using write.csv()) :2thumbsup:
Looks like Piketty might have used a few devious tricks though such as inconsistent scales.
-
Rather interesting.
My current book is 'why nations fail' (which I can thoroughly recommend) and one of the very interesting points in discussion is the way in which the Dutch East India Co acted in the far east and the devastating economic consequences; some of the same are likely to be responsible for the decline in economic output while probably actually reducing inequality.
-
Part of the problem we have is the level of debate is so woeful; for example
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/30/couple-two-children-earn-basic-needs (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/30/couple-two-children-earn-basic-needs)
I did their 'test' and it appears that I should pay c. 85 per week in rent (about 1/3 of what we pay) but also £77 per week in 'cultural activities' about x10 the amount I spend and £32 per week on clothes WTF? I buy x2 suits a year, usually in the Jaeger sale for £250 (for both) throw in the odd shirt etc and I doubt that I get to £10 per week.
-
Yes but it also says £7 per week on alcohol.
It's nonsense obviously but taken as a whole I reckon the figures are probably about right for what is necessary to not feel totally on your arse, with one kid let alone two.
-
Part of the problem we have is the level of debate is so woeful; for example
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/30/couple-two-children-earn-basic-needs (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/30/couple-two-children-earn-basic-needs)
I did their 'test' and it appears that I should pay c. 85 per week in rent (about 1/3 of what we pay) but also £77 per week in 'cultural activities' about x10 the amount I spend
So you spend £400 per year on social and cultural activities which includes broadband internet, holidays, sporting and social activities (climbing wall anyone), Christmas and birthday gifts, additional food for social occasions (eg Christmas) etc etc?
Agree that the level of debate can be very poor at times ;)
-
Part of the problem we have is the level of debate is so woeful; for example
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/30/couple-two-children-earn-basic-needs (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/30/couple-two-children-earn-basic-needs)
I did their 'test' and it appears that I should pay c. 85 per week in rent (about 1/3 of what we pay) but also £77 per week in 'cultural activities' about x10 the amount I spend
So you spend £400 per year on social and cultural activities which includes broadband internet, holidays, sporting and social activities (climbing wall anyone), Christmas and birthday gifts, additional food for social occasions (eg Christmas) etc etc?
Agree that the level of debate can be very poor at times ;)
Fair point, but £77 per week seems to be well OTT being the equivalent of c.£6000 per year pre tax earnings for a basic rate tax payer.
As for the £7 per week on alcohol. . . Alderson has just gone into shock.
-
The "losers" have been the group in the 75-90 percentile area, part of which is the developed world middle class. So, given that most people are myopically focused on their own country/ peer group, we have the paradoxical situation of political frustration within developed countries rising in response to a perceived inequality issue, whilst on a global basis the recent trend has actually been healthy.
Is it not okay to myopically focus on your country and peer group when they are bucking th global trend?!
-
Bit of a diversion from the main theme here but thought some may be interested to entertain/discuss a possible theory for the perpetuation of Empire politics or 'us' and 'them' (to put it bluntly). I think it feeds into the debate albeit obtusely.
Boarding Schools and Politics.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/07/01/did-boarding-schools-cripple-our-cabinet (http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/07/01/did-boarding-schools-cripple-our-cabinet)
From the age of 7/8 David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg (to name but a few) have grown up in isolated institutions, away from family that set them on a trajectory to the top - to effectively rule 'the Empire' as their forbearers did. Fine you may say, the rich will always be rich but fast forward to modern times when our age of connectedness allows 'survivors' (recent extension of abuse scandal into private schools) to speak to one another more freely and for the 'stiff upper lip' to be exposed some more and your get Boarding School Syndrome (as published in 2013). Tantamount to neglect, emotional crippling, based on Attachment Theory. Neuroscience is reinforcing the idea that access to emotions are essential for decision making but otherwise direct studies are lacking (if at all ethically possible).
Many people have an anecdote or two of having encountered an ex-boarder. I admit personal interest having been through the system myself in the 90s. Wouldn't wish it on my kids.
Once essentially scholarly orphanages appropriated by the ruling classes I think they're outdated and don't produce 'good' leaders well suited to modern politics. I also think there's scope for developing residential sixth form colleges in their place - developing all the skills the pro-boarding lobby rightly state at a more appropriate age.
Would be interested to hear all thoughts on the matter.
-
There is a valid discussion to be had about entrenching privledge in eduaction and the consequences but I think that the perjorative references (I'm not suggesting you're making these references but they are often trotted out as a tired old trope) to 'Empire' politics and 'boarding school syndrome' aren't helpful within that discussion.
-
Fair point. I was being lazy calling on that old adage. Tabloid journalism. Times have changed across the board (excuse the pun). Lots of spurious speculation could be made on the point, e.g. Cameron's relationship with Europe compared to say John Major's, but it's all just that, speculative. Churchill as a great war-time leader, less good peace-time leader another one. Stopping now...
I don't think our leaders need to have lived like 'us' but it does help if they have a good sense of self-awareness that this theory (Boarding School Syndrome) suggests is lacking in all/a lot/some/few of them
-
There is a valid discussion to be had about entrenching privledge in eduaction and the consequences but I think that the perjorative references (I'm not suggesting you're making these references but they are often trotted out as a tired old trope) to 'Empire' politics and 'boarding school syndrome' aren't helpful within that discussion.
I'm not sure they are so tired, or even clichéd. It seems to be a very pertinent observation.
We know well that an Orphanage/care home upbringing can have detrimental effects on Adult behavior. So why should boarding school not?
And the Empire attitude seems to sum up much of the current Cabinet. I find it hard to believe that even Slopers could support the current shower of chinless-wonders?
-
"I don't think our leaders need to have lived like us"? Which "us" are you referring to? I grew up on a shit council estate.
-
There is a valid discussion to be had about entrenching privledge in eduaction and the consequences but I think that the perjorative references (I'm not suggesting you're making these references but they are often trotted out as a tired old trope) to 'Empire' politics and 'boarding school syndrome' aren't helpful within that discussion.
I'm not sure they are so tired, or even clichéd. It seems to be a very pertinent observation.
We know well that an Orphanage/care home upbringing can have detrimental effects on Adult behavior. So why should boarding school not?
And the Empire attitude seems to sum up much of the current Cabinet. I find it hard to believe that even Slopers could support the current shower of chinless-wonders?
Sadly you're wrong, there's nary a criticism of Cameron without reference to the fact that he went to Eton or that he's 'posh' etc which is a knackered old cliche with the allusion that as a consequence he's out of touch and therefore less well placed to govern.
I wonder how many people realise that the owner of a well known outdoor shop was at Eton or bring up the schooling of other well known climbers (particularly to their face)?
As for supporting Cameron, he's the best prime minister that we've got, but I ould much rather have had David Davis or William Bloody Hauge. Deciding who is dislike more the members of the cabinet or shadow cabinet is a great game but not good for my blood pressue. Boy George however is playing a blinder, let's hope he moves one door down in early 2016.
-
Yeah he'd make a great chief whip.
-
Seriously, Sloper, I know Hauge .
I worked for Ashcroft and was their Exped guide in Greenland, during Hauges honeymoon with Ffion.
I also took him Jet skiing in the Growlers and Ffion Ice Diving. Spent 6 weeks with them on Ashcroft's Yacht "Lady M".
I promise you, he's an Ass and a puppet, IMHO.
Ffion was ace. Fearless, smart and quick.
I'd vote for her.
-
"I don't think our leaders need to have lived like us"? Which "us" are you referring to? I grew up on a shit council estate.
Good spot. On the one hand I had the average voter in mind. Perhaps someone not in the 1% of the population who had this start... Such as myself... On the other, I probably had it as everyone that lived outside the school walls who I'd viewed with curosity, distain and envy. I'm sure the feelings were mutual on the other side.
-
Seriously, Sloper, I know Hauge .
I worked for Ashcroft and was their Exped guide in Greenland, during Hauges honeymoon with Ffion.
I also took him Jet skiing in the Growlers and Ffion Ice Diving. Spent 6 weeks with them on Ashcroft's Yacht "Lady M".
I promise you, he's an Ass and a puppet, IMHO.
Ffion was ace. Fearless, smart and quick.
I'd vote for her.
Fair enough, I've only met him a couple of times and was rather impressed, but 6 weeks gives you a significant opportunity to gauge a character.
-
Get you two clangers. I'd like to know how many times Dense has met Hague (or Ffion).
-
What hanging off the mono's on a beastmaker? Loads of times I'm sure.
-
Get you two clangers. I'd like to know how many times Dense has met Hague (or Ffion).
Common Pete, you were never tempted by Close Protection when you came outside?
-
How'd you know I didn't?
But seriously, I was glad to be away from the scene.
-
And I happen to know hague prefers back 3
-
Perhaps someone not in the 1% of the population who had this start...
Thats a huge amount of variation in life-style/quality-of-life to experience.
-
Tho-mas himself:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/07/thomas-piketty-history-money (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/07/thomas-piketty-history-money)
Great video
-
Niall Fergusson's book the Ascent of Money is worth reading as is Peter Jay's 'the road to riches'.
-
Perhaps someone not in the 1% of the population who had this start...
Thats a huge amount of variation in life-style/quality-of-life to experience.
And the experience is a very effective way to mould a character - Le Carre, DH Lawrence, Ian Flemming, Orwell amongst many others capture the essence well.
There are the 1% who boarded and then there's the current bunch of decision makers stretching the scope of 'old school ties' - 1% becomes 0.001%.
It's a hard one to argue though. The 'calm down dear' comment Cameron made smacks of the defensive, elitist with low regard of women but how often and to what extent that part of the character plays into wider decision making is difficult to say. We all have our nuances but I think boarding schools tend to develop a particularly British, institutionalised nuance that needs to be scrutinised for its broader, societal effects.
-
'There are the 1% who boarded and then there's the current bunch of decision makers stretching the scope of 'old school ties' - 1% becomes 0.001%.
It's a hard one to argue though. The 'calm down dear' comment Cameron made smacks of the defensive, elitist with low regard of women but how often and to what extent that part of the character plays into wider decision making is difficult to say. We all have our nuances but I think boarding schools tend to develop a particularly British, institutionalised nuance that needs to be scrutinised for its broader, societal effects. '
Utter cock. If you're still andgry and blaming your parents it's time to grow up. I know the last sentence is a load of cock too, but I'm trying to welcome you to the equivalnet of the far fives court and make you feel at home.
-
Perhaps someone not in the 1% of the population who had this start...
Thats a huge amount of variation in life-style/quality-of-life to experience.
And the experience is a very effective way to mould a character - Le Carre, DH Lawrence, Ian Flemming, Orwell amongst many others capture the essence well.
There are the 1% who boarded and then there's the current bunch of decision makers stretching the scope of 'old school ties' - 1% becomes 0.001%.
It's a hard one to argue though. The 'calm down dear' comment Cameron made smacks of the defensive, elitist with low regard of women but how often and to what extent that part of the character plays into wider decision making is difficult to say. We all have our nuances but I think boarding schools tend to develop a particularly British, institutionalised nuance that needs to be scrutinised for its broader, societal effects.
I'm not saying that its not worth while, rather that it is a lot of other ways of living to experience, tourist town in Cornwall, council estate in Birmigham, middle-class Berkshire etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
-
You've just reminded me that we didn't have a fives court at mine. Only racquets! Another thing to be pissed at Mummy and Daddy for.
Seriously though, are you refuting their effect on British society? I realise that there is a hint of disgruntlement in the tone of my last one and I'm pre-empting your reaction to this but I think the 'rich kid whinging' judgement that you've run with means this debate never makes it past the first hurdle.
-
I realise that there is a hint of disgruntlement in the tone of my last one and I'm pre-empting your reaction to this but I think the 'rich kid whinging' judgement that you've run with means this debate never makes it past the first hurdle.
Where exactly do you get the idea I've run with anything?
If you read very carefully what I've written you will see that what I've written is exactly what I mean. Just to make it clear for you though...
I have said very clearly that there are a lot of ways in which "others" live.
Thats it, nothing more, nothing less. If I had meant more or less than that I would have written it.
Seriously though, are you refuting their effect on British society?
Again, read what I've written. I made no comment on the effect what you are highlighting has on British society. If I had wanted to comment then I would have done so rather than not writing anything.
EDIT : Now clear that it wasn't directed at me.
-
Sorry, meant to quote Sloper. Read what you'd written clearly.
-
You've just reminded me that we didn't have a fives court at mine. Only racquets! Another thing to be pissed at Mummy and Daddy for.
Seriously though, are you refuting their effect on British society? I realise that there is a hint of disgruntlement in the tone of my last one and I'm pre-empting your reaction to this but I think the 'rich kid whinging' judgement that you've run with means this debate never makes it past the first hurdle.
What about nanny, surely she's not blameless?
As for there being any meaningful effect on British society; yes I am refuting that suggestion. There may have been some merit in positing that in say 1850, but in modern society I'd say that there is no discernable effect either positive or malign.
Whether this aspect of the debate has sufficient legs to clear the first hurdle or otherwise is contingent on you having something meangingful to contribute: thus far you haven't gone beyond a vey limp version of Dave Spart, in fact are you sure you're not Tristram Hunt?
-
I've been told there is some physical resemblance with Tristram Hunt.
Despite the earlier bashing, I think Cameron is an interesting character and agree with some of his policies. Bucking the family schooling tradition by electing to send his kids to state school does raise an eyebrow surely? Can't just be a political move to show support for state schools?
I would agree that the debate against is supported 'softly' (psychology theory and practice loosely backed by neuroscience, an emergent science at that) but I think that public perception is generally swaying against them as an idea and that this will bring a change (perhaps an extension of the abuse scandals that the schools feature heavily in).
Anyway, like I said, just testing the waters. Continues to draw out strong feelings on both sides with this chat being pretty tame compared to online newspaper commentary.
-
Public schools are a hangover from the days before state education.
A time when the best an "Ordinary" person could hope for was to learn to read, write and practice a trade.
Now, the gamut of knowledge is available to Joe Prole, should he/she/it have the wit and grit to seek it.
The idea that Public school boys (and it's still mainly boys) are somehow more intelligent and better able to lead is crap (hence their declining numbers in the worlds military officer corps, except infantry).
There may once have been an intellect gap, I'd posit that that was principally the result of poor diet in the poor; is that really still true?
The self proclaimed "Elite" are only such, because they say so and have yet to lose the reins by virtue of wealth and prior positioning.
I would hypothesise the rise of the Meritocracy is inevitable, albeit something that will take many generations to come to full fruition and suffer reversals along the way.
Vive la Science!
Up the Evidence based revolution!
Long live the Enlightened Proportionally Represented Democratic Republic!
Power to the Educated Peoples Front!
-
The point about diet is a very good one the ante natal 'lifestyle' choices of the mother are perhaps more so? (foetal alochol/drugs syndrome is almost solely found in the lower socio economic groups regardless of how you describe them).
I would suggest that in addition to diet the most important factor in educational outcomes is the parents expectations and aspirations which are predominantly a cultural factor: hence we see children from south asian backgrounds outperforming other groups (when all other factors are taken into consideration) by enormous amounts.
As for your point about the education available to the 'ordinary folk) from memory something like 80% of children were in school until the age of 13 in early victorian times and the state's involvement in education in what 1870 or so probably resulted in a massive increase in the penetration of education.
The 'elite' are the elite for a number of reasons: there are far fewer impediments to achieving the elite status, their parents inculcate them with the idea that they will succeed, the educational opportunities are far superior and of course the 'old school tie' and OB network open doors that remain closed to others.
Of these the last is becoming more vestigial now than ever before but sadly for 'the masses' the impediments are growing, the 'aspiration' of parents is withering and the quality of schooling is stagnating.
-
Tho-mas himself:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/07/thomas-piketty-history-money (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/07/thomas-piketty-history-money)
Great video
Radio 4 : More or Less - The Piketty Affair (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b044jh75)
-
An interesting article from the Boston Globe on the links between past slavery and current inequality:
ww.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/23/where-slavery-thrived-inequality-rules-today/iF5zgFsXncPoYmYCMMs67J/story.html
Much of the detail is specific to the case of the US but the general argument about the persistent, long-run effect of historical institutions on current economic structures/outcomes is one worth considering in the UK context too.
-
C'mon Toby, there's clearly no attempt to claim a history of sugar plantations explains all examples of inequality/immobility. Besides, Alaska has clearly had a heavy reliance on extractive industries that might induce similar effects (e.g. not much need to invest in human capital/social capital). I wouldn't even be surprised if there is a history of indentured labour in Alaskan mining/logging etc., though that is speculation on my part.
The article is review of hypotheses advanced by a number of different people and readily admits to the possible critiques. Anyway, I was much more interested in the broader point of the historical legacies of prior institutions - for example patterns of land ownership here in the UK might be explored.
-
I think we found the same reference (and there was clearly also use of indentured labour in 'European' Alaska as well)
However, no matter how far from the romantic ideal the native peoples were they still got totally, royally fucked over by the Europeans. But still off topic.
-
Actually I googled slavery in Alaska and was rather shocked to uncover reference to the indigenous people having some tradition of enslaving each other. This cannot possibly be true of the equivalent folk across the border in western Canada as it is a truth universally acknowledged that our First Nations' history comprises millennia of sustainable and tranquil harmony with the universe until the rapacious Europeans arrived.
:off: :sorry:
Obvs being sarcastic, but there's a very strong tradition of completing raiding parties of neighbouring 'nations' to murder key people and capture dozens of slaves - who would then be kept until they snuffed it/became favoured/were released in next raiding attempt - this is very well documented in north of BC (especially Tsimshian and Coast Tsimshian) but I'm not sure how prevalent it was across rest of province/canuckada. It's not hidden as such, but is a part of FN life that Ont-based bleeding heart guilt-ridden types don't like to discuss...
-
Is Alaska (shown as one of the worst areas for low economic mobility in the chart in that article) famous for its slave-owning past? Certainly not a great choice for a sugar plantation, judging from my personal experience of the pacific north-west climate. Sasquatch: able to help here?
I can state with a high degree of certainty that Alaska is indeed not a great choice for a sugar plantation.
As far as historic slavery/servitude amongst the native peoples, Ive never heard about it or researched it, but common sense would indicate that it likely occured amongst different groups at one time or another. Much like the rest of the known world.
In regards to the inequality issue here in Alaska and the relative comparison to Canada's FN people, Alaska has a very different relationship with native Alaskan's compared to almost any other state/province. Here are a couple of links to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which set the stage for a completely different system in Alaska.
http://www.ciri.com/our-corporation/ (http://www.ciri.com/our-corporation/)
http://www.nativefederation.org/about-afn/history/ (http://www.nativefederation.org/about-afn/history/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act)
One item that is certainly not shown/reflected in the graphic showing Alaska is the relative impact of subsistance lifestyle, which is common in the red area of Alaska.
All that aside, one point made by the article that I feel does fit Alaska is the importance of public infrastructure, and the availability of those resources. The "corporations" put in place by the ANCSA forced a certain amount of democracy onto the native populations, as everyone was automatically an equal shareholder. This meant that while there was a lingering impact from native cutoms and hereditary power structures, there was a counter measure in place to balance it over time. While the road has been rocky, and certain native groups have done much better than others, the overall view is that the ANCSA path has been extremely successful when compared to other areas in the US and canada.
-
"More specifically, they observed that regions where sugar could be profitably grown invariably gave rise to societies defined by extreme inequality. The reason, they speculated, had to do with the fact that large-scale sugar plantations made intensive use of slave labor, generating institutions that privileged a small elite of white planters over a majority of black slaves."
I was rereading this thread and this statement popped out at me as not feeling quite right. It seems to me when I think about public infrastructure and institutions, the opposite of the bold is the case. Other areas developed institutions and infrastructure which benefitted everyone, whereas the plantation system did not develop these institutions, thereby leaving the people without mobility/access to education behind.
-
That's how I read what the article is saying?
-
One of the key themes in 'Why Nations Fail' is the development of institutions that benefit everyone i.e. fair and open Courts lead to development and greater equality and those jurisdictions that develop institutions that are not inclusive lead to retarded development, poverty and greater inequality.
-
This has been well established or a long time (see Douglass North especially). A key question then is: are our institutions becoming more or less fair and open?
-
When you say 'our' I will consider England & Wales as I cannot comment on the institutions in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
My view is that it's rather hard to tell: while the foundation or rules of the institutions have not changed there are a significant number of real barriers to accessing the institutions which make them significantly less open to participants who are not, in essence either rich, middle class or connected ((perhaps also white other than in areas like Tower Hamlets etc), see Eyes passim))
There's also a question of the 'penetration' into political institutions (see the 'family' connections in the nominations for a leading national party, and more prevalent in local government (less a one party issue)) including the civil service and the gross under representation of, however you wish to describe them 'the working class'.
All of the above are problematic but these problems do not necessarily mean that the outcomes of the institutions are likely to become closer to the institutions of bygone ages: my answer is no, they are not becoming less open or fair, they may be less trusted and less representative of the communities they serve but that is another matter entirely.
-
Interesting answer to a complex question. I don't have an answer myself but certainly the impression a lay person get is that access to the law is becoming less and less open, for example.
It is interesting that you highlight both the value of unchanging foundations and that current problematics won't necessarily lead us back to the institutions of a bygone age. I think 'we' (the English I suppose) are never quite sure whether our historic institutions are help or hindrance.
-
Better discussed over a pint, however, there's a massive different between the rules and practices of an institution and how 'the game' is played: for example the practices of Parliament will not be altered by the parachuting in of the grand-daughter of the late Tony Benn, the son of Kinnock (or the son of Tim Yeo for that matter),similarly the Judiciary is drawn from the Bar, and the current situation in effect makes the criminal bar the preserve of the rich and 'banker's wifes' i.e. those that can sacrifice salary for principles, the effect in say 25 years time will be that the Judiciary has reverted to a stereotype from a bygone age.
None of these things are bad per se, but all these things do damage public confidence and that in and of itself is 'a bad thing'.
-
Better discussed over a pint, however, there's a massive different between the rules and practices of an institution and how 'the game' is played:
Absolutely. Very much what I was alluding to. And of course privilege gives the power to entrench privilege.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/28/closed-shop-deepy-elitist-britain
Britain is "deeply elitist" because people educated at public school and Oxbridge have in effect created a "closed shop at the top", according to a government report published on Thursday.
-
Tbh I'd want someone with that education at the top, rather Boris than white Dee
-
Tbh I'd want someone with that education at the top, rather Boris than white Dee
That's partly the problem - a self re-enforcing perception. public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...
-
Or even that 'White Dee' had had the opportunity of access to the same education
-
I'm not interested in the oppurtunities she's had or that Boris has been gifted everything, to get to both their positions in life they've had to tackle various obstacles and I would rather go with someone from his position rather than hers
-
public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...
Than what? The majority of the time it simply will. Whether you are bright enough to get in to a 'top' private school, or are nice-but-dim and go to the ones that cater for that, might not necessarily mean 'better' teachers (though fewer poor teachers), but the reality is you're going to get better staff-pupil ratios, teaching more closely tailored to the individual, less disrupting elements, more extra-curricular stuff, etc etc. Oxbridge is highly selective with the whole world to choose from nowadays, if British private schools didn't deliver they wouldn't be so over-represented.
Unless you mean you don't consider such an education 'better' in which case a pointless discussion...
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/28/closed-shop-deepy-elitist-britain (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/28/closed-shop-deepy-elitist-britain)
Britain is "deeply elitist" because people educated at public school and Oxbridge have in effect created a "closed shop at the top", according to a government report published on Thursday.
The irony of this being published in the Guardian is quite delicious
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/28/closed-shop-deepy-elitist-britain (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/28/closed-shop-deepy-elitist-britain)
Britain is "deeply elitist" because people educated at public school and Oxbridge have in effect created a "closed shop at the top", according to a government report published on Thursday.
The irony of this being published in the Guardian is quite delicious
Indeed - as a large % of the Guardian staff are from Oxbridge. There must have been much hand wringing... Though the report is big news - making a splash across all the media.. Not sure if 'Judges Chronicle' has it running though ;)
-
public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...
Than what? The majority of the time it simply will. Whether you are bright enough to get in to a 'top' private school, or are nice-but-dim and go to the ones that cater for that, might not necessarily mean 'better' teachers (though fewer poor teachers), but the reality is you're going to get better staff-pupil ratios, teaching more closely tailored to the individual, less disrupting elements, more extra-curricular stuff, etc etc. Oxbridge is highly selective with the whole world to choose from nowadays, if British private schools didn't deliver they wouldn't be so over-represented.
Unless you mean you don't consider such an education 'better' in which case a pointless discussion...
Indeed, there's also a question of the quality of teachers (and their knowledge) and the quality of the facilities.
The number of physics teachers in the non selective state sector with an undergraduate degree in physics is, in statistical terms, non existent. I imagine the same is true for Chemistry, Maths and Biology. I would suggest that you cannot effectively teach physics etc to A level without an undergraduate degree. Therefore the absence of properly qualified teachers in the majority of non selective state schools in effect removes the options for the pupils to read for a degree in medicine etc.
Then let's look at the facilities, does the school have a bespoke chemistry lab with fume cupboards, lab assistants & etc. Almost all public and selective state schools will, far far fewer non selective state schools will.
Only a fool would say that a teacher with an undergraduate physics degree and a full equipped lab (with support) isn't providing a higher quality education (in physics) than a teacher without a physics degree who is operating without a lab and appropriate support.
The same will be true with languages, music, sports & etc
There is a massive issue over ingrained privilege in our society but for those that are most concerned about it there also seems to be an absolute rejection of some of what are demonstrably the most effective means of reducing barriers to inequality and opening up the bastions of privilege.
-
It's not just where they went to university, it's their schooling (not that a child has any real say in where they went to school, hence why dispariaging references to Cameron being an OE are so moronic) it's their family connections and so on.
While I don't receive the Judges Chronicle, there have been articles reporting initiatives to widen access at the Bar for a number of years in 'Counsel', although sadly we're now in the position for that many, access to the bar is open, just as is access to the Ritz.
-
public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...
Than what? The majority of the time it simply will. Whether you are bright enough to get in to a 'top' private school, or are nice-but-dim and go to the ones that cater for that, might not necessarily mean 'better' teachers (though fewer poor teachers), but the reality is you're going to get better staff-pupil ratios, teaching more closely tailored to the individual, less disrupting elements, more extra-curricular stuff, etc etc. Oxbridge is highly selective with the whole world to choose from nowadays, if British private schools didn't deliver they wouldn't be so over-represented.
Unless you mean you don't consider such an education 'better' in which case a pointless discussion...
I think it would be more instructive if you asked the question 'of what'.....
I found the report eye opening and thoroughly depressing. I listened to 30 min of radio debate and had to switch off as it made me feel so sad.... Similar disparities between population and representation in gender would lead to calls for positive discrimination.....
-
dispariaging references to Cameron being an OE
I can't work that out because neither of the letters are C.
-
public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...
Than what? The majority of the time it simply will. Whether you are bright enough to get in to a 'top' private school, or are nice-but-dim and go to the ones that cater for that, might not necessarily mean 'better' teachers (though fewer poor teachers), but the reality is you're going to get better staff-pupil ratios, teaching more closely tailored to the individual, less disrupting elements, more extra-curricular stuff, etc etc. Oxbridge is highly selective with the whole world to choose from nowadays, if British private schools didn't deliver they wouldn't be so over-represented.
Unless you mean you don't consider such an education 'better' in which case a pointless discussion...
I think it would be more instructive if you asked the question 'of what'.....
I found the report eye opening and thoroughly depressing. I listened to 30 min of radio debate and had to switch off as it made me feel so sad.... Similar disparities between population and representation in gender would lead to calls for positive discrimination.....
Why should it be 'eye opening' from my reading of the report it is a very long and detailed exposition of the bleeding obvious, as to whether it is depressing or not, my overwhelming emotion was resigned acknowledgement and despair at the indifference / antipathy of proposed "solutions" by those who profess to be concerned about inequality.
-
In terms of power in many ways the only power the royal family retain is the power to motivate the Daily Mail & etc readers to succumb to mass hysteria, flag waiving and the purchase of tatty souvenirs.
-
There is a massive issue over ingrained privilege in our society but for those that are most concerned about it there also seems to be an absolute rejection of some of what are demonstrably the most effective means of reducing barriers to inequality and opening up the bastions of privilege.
I agree with that. I've banged on about it before a couple of times on here and I will again - the most elegant solution that I've come across for reducing ingrained privilege is the tax reform idea put forward by this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/14thSun/about (https://www.youtube.com/user/14thSun/about)
(edit) Unfortunately he's pulled the video, but it was genius. It described a very high (it was around 80%) inheritance tax but also combined it with an extremely low taxation rate for wealthy innovators during their own lifetimes so as to encourage innovation but discourage/prevent increasing wealth inequality.
I imagine a lot of people who've accumulated large amounts of wealth would be horrified by the idea.
-
The higher the rate of taxation, the greater the incentive to avoid and evade the tax.
Most people also regard IHT, if below a certain threshold for thes estate and/or beyond a certain rate as iniquitous.
For example, let's say we have an IHT threshold of £500k and beyond that tax is 40%, so for an estate of £600k the government will take £80k leaving a net estate of £560k, the result being that it's not worth seeking to avoid / evade IHT as the marginal gain is limited when the costs of avoidance / evasion (+_risk) are considered.
Now if we imagine IHT has a threshold of £200k and a rate of 80%, an estate of £600k would pay £320K IHT leaving a net estate of £280k i.e. £80k above the threshold. Suddenly avoidance / evasion becomes not only sensible but eminently practical meaning that instead of HMG getting £40k IHT it would get £0.
Given the value of a reasonable house in may parts of the country many more (I'd suggest most) estates if not now then in the near future will now fall liable for IHT this is going to 'bite' for more and more families: and before you say 'you can't move a house' you're right, but you can move ownership off shore and with a very simple trust structure avoid IHT if it becomes a penal rate.
The very rich have effective tac planning and structures, the people who get caught in the IHT trap are generally the people like 'our' parents who worked hard, on relatively modest incomes, bought a house and saved for the future: lining them up to be arse fucked is as electable as Jimmy Saville running for the Communists.
-
The higher the rate of taxation, the greater the incentive to avoid and evade the tax.
Most people also regard IHT, if below a certain threshold for thes estate and/or beyond a certain rate as iniquitous.
For example, let's say we have an IHT threshold of £500k and beyond that tax is 40%, so for an estate of £600k the government will take £80k leaving a net estate of £560k, the result being that it's not worth seeking to avoid / evade IHT as the marginal gain is limited when the costs of avoidance / evasion (+_risk) are considered.
Now if we imagine IHT has a threshold of £200k and a rate of 80%, an estate of £600k would pay £320K IHT leaving a net estate of £280k i.e. £80k above the threshold. Suddenly avoidance / evasion becomes not only sensible but eminently practical meaning that instead of HMG getting £40k IHT it would get £0.
Given the value of a reasonable house in may parts of the country many more (I'd suggest most) estates if not now then in the near future will now fall liable for IHT this is going to 'bite' for more and more families: and before you say 'you can't move a house' you're right, but you can move ownership off shore and with a very simple trust structure avoid IHT if it becomes a penal rate.
The very rich have effective tac planning and structures, the people who get caught in the IHT trap are generally the people like 'our' parents who worked hard, on relatively modest incomes, bought a house and saved for the future: lining them up to be arse fucked is as electable as Jimmy Saville running for the Communists.
Open a limited company in...
Delaware
Gibraltar
Cayman
Burmuda
Et al...
Register it as a foreign entity/whole owner of a limited company in one of the other jurisdictions; make the chain as long as you want and even revisit the same jurisdictions a few times.
Costs a matter of a few hundred in each state.
Sell assets to last company in the chain.
Easy for a state to pinpoint ownership, they are not that stupid; but obtaining official evidence of directorships and ownerships from a disparate and disinclined group of foreign governments?
This system has been operating for decades, most commonly to avoid liability within the shipping owning industry, hence the "Flags of convenience". To my shame, I have arranged these things for shipowners before. It is common and accepted practice.
There are many reasons why I don't practice my profession anymore.
You can only wash so much off in the shower.
-
Not a tax lawyer, never been a tax lawyer, but as you say it's not exactly hard; the sort of 'tax then till the pips squeak' proposals are generally advanced by people who don't have a clue how tax can be avoided, don't understand the democratic consequences of proposals such as they ones they espouse, and can't foresee the blindingly obvious untoward outcomes of their policies.
So apart form the fact that they won't work, have huge detrimental outcomes and cause real and lasting damage, massive income tax, IHT, corp tax and 'land tax' are all tickety boo.
Have you tried Swarfega?
-
Actually, what I should have said, is that without a Global taxation treaty/scheme; or laws similar to the US (Where citizenship is dependant on declaring Global assets and all are taxable under US law) Sloper is correct that such Taxes would simply drive wealth overseas.
And I can't see that happening soon.
The UK has some of the laxest Expat taxation in the world. Basically, you are only taxable on income generated in the UK. As long as you don't spend too much time in the country and for some categories the limit may be as much as 180 days!
So, as a Seaman, I could work offshore for 180 days, take a couple of weeks holiday somewhere outside the EU (to be safe) and then spend upto 180 days here, without being liable for tax.
-
Indeed, and the last serious protagonists of the global government were a Mr Hitler & Stalin.
It's worse than you suggest for 'windows 3.1' and non doms, you have your assets overseas and you borrow £100,00 per month in the UK against those assets, your off shore account then settles those debts resulting in exactly £0 tax liability, and that's a vanilla scheme, although closed about 6 months ago if my drinking pals are correct.
-
In your rush to show how worldly you are you missed out 50% of the idea though. The idea was to satisfy both main camps: the 'tax the rich' camp and the 'encourage innovative entrepreneurial capitalism' camp.
Income tax would be reduced to extremely low levels, around 10%. That would make any country with such a tax culture an attractive place to be an entrepreneur, as long as you're alive at least.
With the inheritance tax part, in theory it'd take a (UK) billionaire's offspring 2 generations to 'only' receive £400000 through inheritance:
£10000000. Die. Lose 80%. Offsping receives 20%:
£2000000. Die. Lose 80%. Offspring receives 20%:
£400000. Etc.
However, it wouldn't work like that because anyone with an ounce of intelligence who received 2 million pounds inheritance would invest it in low risk funds and bonds and receive around 7-12% growth per year. So it would still take quite a few generations of privileged offspring skewing the affordability of top-quality education, housing, and everything else they touch, to erode that £billion down to sub-one million.
As you point out the option exists to try to hide assets. And schemes exist to enforce asset disclosure. There's the option to devise whatever policies governments see fit in order to enforce their polices, it's just a matter of political will, and that's clearly lacking. Do we get the government we deserve? I'd say we do. But if you were serious about wanting to change ingrained inequality, ideas like this are the most elegantly simple way to do it. Whether it's electable or not wasn't the discussion, I'd guess you'll never change powerful vested interests through democracy alone - in many cases the most powerful people didn't get their wealth or power purely through democratic means in the first place.
-
In your rush to show how worldly you are you missed out 50% of the idea though. The idea was to satisfy both main camps: the 'tax the rich' camp and the 'encourage innovative entrepreneurial capitalism' camp.
Income tax would be reduced to extremely low levels, around 10%. That would make any country with such a tax culture an attractive place to be an entrepreneur, as long as you're alive at least.
With the inheritance tax part, in theory it'd take a (UK) billionaire's offspring 2 generations to 'only' receive £400000 through inheritance:
£10000000. Die. Lose 80%. Offsping receives 20%:
£2000000. Die. Lose 80%. Offspring receives 20%:
£400000. Etc.
However, it wouldn't work like that because anyone with an ounce of intelligence who received 2 million pounds inheritance would invest it in low risk funds and bonds and receive around 7-12% growth per year. So it would still take quite a few generations of privileged offspring skewing the affordability of top-quality education, housing, and everything else they touch, to erode that £billion down to sub-one million.
As you point out the option exists to try to hide assets. And schemes exist to enforce asset disclosure. There's the option to devise whatever policies governments see fit in order to enforce their polices, it's just a matter of political will, and that's clearly lacking. Do we get the government we deserve? I'd say we do. But if you were serious about wanting to change ingrained inequality, ideas like this are the most elegantly simple way to do it. Whether it's electable or not wasn't the discussion, I'd guess you'll never change powerful vested interests through democracy alone - in many cases the most powerful people didn't get their wealth or power purely through democratic means in the first place.
I don't dispute the method at all.
Nor would I protest it's implimentation.
My point was, it's too easy under the status quo and the current system is MORE beneficial to the powers that be; therefore unlikely to change.
If the Commons is dominated by the same group, who most benefit from the current system; then short of a democratic earthquake, nothing will change. Regardless of the merits of an alternate system.
And, see Dense's comment above, for a clear and concise explanation of why that won't change soon.
Too many of the electorate don't care or are more likely to vote for Big Brother/Britain's got Talent/a.n.other piece of shit.
Too many middle class, thinking, voters are way too impressed by Oxbidge education and scared of the "unwashed", to ever rock the boat.
-
In 2000 directors of FTSE 100 companies earned 47 times the average earned by their employees. Today it is 120 times.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587707 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587707)
-
In 2000 directors of FTSE 100 companies earned 47 times the average earned by their employees. Today it is 120 times.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587707 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587707)
And continuing to rise.
Did no-one learn anything in 1789?
1917?
That Versace handbag won't help much when the Proles storm the Palace...
-
This deisparity is completely missing the point and substantially irrelevant.
As to what was learnt from the events 1789 and 1917 was that secure property rights and the rule of law are wholly necessary pre conditions for a just, stable, tolerant and decent society.
The proles may be revolting but they generally can't even be bothered to vote so the risk of defenestraion of the elite by force can be considered a pretty remote prospect.
-
sloper - I think the disparity is actually the point of the thread, so for it to 'miss the point' would be impressive. Perhaps you could tell us which point it missed?
As a question, do people think a 120x pay differential reflects the actual value added to a company by directors? If so, were directors hugely undervalued in 2000?
-
Must admit I'm intrigued as to why the top wages are increasing like this, now. Is it changes in tax rules? An increasingly global job market? Not read Piketty yet, but if it's all capital, why now? Are companies getting bigger? Easier to sell? Is this driving a greater disconnect between owner and worker? In the internet/ news 24 age are we making decisions based more on what we think everyone else is doing, rather than on our own sense of right and wrong?
I'm inclined to think it might be a general shift away from philanthropism. In the Uk, we could blame Thatcher's kids growing up. In the US, I guess the contradiction in the American dream is that if anyone can make it, those that don't have only blame themselves to blame.
-
sloper - I think the disparity is actually the point of the thread, so for it to 'miss the point' would be impressive. Perhaps you could tell us which point it missed?
As a question, do people think a 120x pay differential reflects the actual value added to a company by directors? If so, were directors hugely undervalued in 2000?
While I have no answer to the question as to why directors/executive pay has increased inthe way that it has, the question as to whether they board/NED/senior management are sufficient value to justify their package is a matter for the shareholders.
As for the stats, I haven't seen the data and how it is compared but I recall an article on 'more or less' where one company's wage bill was divided by the number of employees resulting in an apparently massive differential, but the headline figure didn't refelct the number of consultants so the actual multiplier was much lower.
If the package is substantially made up of equity/options then as the equity price rises so does the overall package, this is the very premise of 'moral hazard' and payment by results which senior pay should be judged on.
Why do I say it really isn't the issue? Well, the real issue in terms of the effects on society as well as individuals is the compression of pay rates at the lower (say 2-6th percentile) end of the spectrum and the ossification of movement and barriers between lower skilled/lower payed roles to higher skilled / higher payed roles.
In many areas there is now almost a standardisation of pay around the minimum wage and then a significant gap to something approaching the median / modal average. It is this and the inequality that this creates that is of greater import in my biew.
Those that want a aggregate cap on the multiplier (until you reach a figure of say 50/60) are I am afraid deluded fantasists.
Take our firm (and I use the royal we here), we have a post room where the wages are above NMW but not an awful lot, let us call that the denominator and posit that they're on £10k, if we impose a cap on the senior equity partner of say 12x, this gives him a package of £120k. Now £120k is not a breadline salary, but let's work it out, where do we place the client services team, their manager, the secretaries, their manager, junior fee earners, senior fee earners, solicitors, associates, the IT guys, HR manager and so on on the scale?
You need differentials to maintain staff morale, allow for promotion and so on, if there was a cap on the aggregate then to maintain these necessary differntials the datum point would need to be pushed down.
Ahh but I hear you say, people would want to get on, they'd want the promotion and everything that goes with it, well that's true to a degree particularly in theory but in practice it is bollocks.
Let's say I was in an organisation with a remuneration structure based on a multiple of the lowest salary and the next increment was Seniro Manage 1 with an additional £10k. Sounds good doesn't it, but the difference between Manager 3 and Senior Manager 1 is that SM1 don't get TOIL, O/T, have to go to client evants at weekends and the evening and is of course a more stressful job.
A £10k pay rise roughly equates to an extra £400 per month (as a higher rate tax payer) when you factor in the O/T TOIL, not having to spend weekends/evenings with boring clients and so on, it just doesn't seem worth it.
Why would a senior salaried partner want to be an equity partner and put everything they own on the line for an extra £800 per month? Unless they were insane they wouldn't.
So, in short, limting / capping salaries on a multiple of the lowest wage is impractical as it limits scope for promotion and staff development and also compresses the wages at the bottom (as there tend to be more indians than chiefs) to allow for greater differentials higher up.
Of course this is also slightly fatuous in that the executives will find a way to pay themselves via other methods. Lord Rogers the famous architect has I think salary cap of x17 between himself and the lowest paid, great you say, well there was an interesting story in The Eye which suggested that the cap was regonised more in its avoidance than observance.
-
I doubt anyone has much beef with that.
But as you say:
I have no answer to the question as to why directors/executive pay has increased in the way that it has
Neither have I. I think that's why we've got an inequality thread.
Are the companies 2.5x bigger? Or is it the result of telling a generation that 'there is no such thing as society'?
-
sloper - I think the disparity is actually the point of the thread, so for it to 'miss the point' would be impressive. Perhaps you could tell us which point it missed?
As a question, do people think a 120x pay differential reflects the actual value added to a company by directors? If so, were directors hugely undervalued in 2000?
While I have no answer to the question as to why directors/executive pay has increased inthe way that it has, the question as to whether they board/NED/senior management are sufficient value to justify their package is a matter for the shareholders.
In theory yes but the fragmented nature of share ownership, the inertia of most institutional investors and such issues as shares being held in nominee accounts by most private investors are just some of the factors that mean it is rare for pay to be voted down at annual meetings - only a small % of the "owners" actually even turn up. There are moves to improve "shareholder rights" (http://www.sharesoc.org/Guaranteed_Votes.pdf) but I wont hold my breath as such complaints have been made for over 50 years (read Benjamin Graham on the subject) and there are plenty of ways for Directors to game the system on bonuses and share options too. Good Directors can add value many times their earnings whilst bad Directors can drive a business to the wall but the reward structure is never perfectly aligned to performance. At least in the round they are driving the economy unlike footballers..
-
Hmm. Not sure that comparison works as footballers getting paid obscene amounts of cash are probably more likely to be spending a large proportion of it on pink Bentleys, £5k a night hotels and big headphones.
Although this is obviously quite horrible, it's still "driving the economy" in a way whereas the CEO of (e.g.) Vodafone deciding to cancel phones 4 u's contract just saved his company a load of cash in the long run but cost a few thousand people their jobs.
Yes, I'm being intentionally simplistic, just trying to say it's not as clear cut as the statement you made.
-
I doubt anyone has much beef with that.
But as you say:
I have no answer to the question as to why directors/executive pay has increased in the way that it has
Neither have I. I think that's why we've got an inequality thread.
Are the companies 2.5x bigger? Or is it the result of telling a generation that 'there is no such thing as society'?
The point is the inequality of the top.1% just isn't a material issue.
Globlisation will be a factor, increased property prices will be a factor 'transfers' will be a factor, but none of this is a factor in respect of how the vast majority of us are remunerated, which surely is the issue when we come to discuss wage inequality.
-
V interesting stuff guys. So, a fair summary would be that pay for CEOs and board members has risen so rapidly because of changes in share ownership, but it's not really important because it's the suppression of pay at the bottom that really matters, not what the top .1% get?
I think I broadly agree with all of that but I have some qualms about the latter point. It's not that I think executive pay has a bad material effect but I worry it has a corrosive social impact.
-
over the last 30 years the very largest firms have got much larger through globalisation. Larger revenues means increased scope to ramp executive salaries without impacting margins too much (see my previous post).
Interesting, that's as I suspected.
To reply to Sloper, ultimately I think how the majority are remunerated must be significantly influenced by the attitude of the management. Partly this can be explained in the same way - the bigger the company the more the workforce become commodified. But I suspect there is also a change in attitudes at the top. For example the collapse of Russian socialism has been replaced a kleptocracy of oligarchs. I surmise that the narrowing of UK politics towards the centre right may cause a faint echo of that, and the more we see these top salaries in the news the more other managers will tend to follow suit.
-
V interesting stuff guys. So, a fair summary would be that pay for CEOs and board members has risen so rapidly because of changes in share ownership, but it's not really important because it's the suppression of pay at the bottom that really matters, not what the top .1% get?
I think I broadly agree with all of that but I have some qualms about the latter point. It's not that I think executive pay has a bad material effect but I worry it has a corrosive social impact.
I wouldn't say that executive pay has increased because of a more diversified share ownership, rather that senior pay has become a package of equity and cash, so, perhaps before 100k was 100k in £ now 100k is 30k in cash and 70k in equity to be realised in +3 years, of course if the £70k becomes £200k over those three years then the overall package becomes £230k.
In respect of the social impact I doubt that the public has any real idea as to what the average director of a SME (say up to £20Million turnover) actually earns and if they have no accurate idea then there can be no material social impact.
-
Ha! I'd have thought the reverse - a perception of obscene directors pay, coupled with ignorance of the actual level was the perfect setup for increased resentment and reduced social cohesion...
Wrt your first point, has the blend of equity vs cash changed much over the last 20 years then?
-
I wouldn't say that executive pay has increased because of a more diversified share ownership,
Really? Companies get bigger, and investments are increasingly managed by intermediaries. Shareholders no longer have any interest in how a company is run other than share performance. Execs can pay themselves what they like with less scrutiny from stakeholders than in the past.
-
V interesting stuff guys. So, a fair summary would be that pay for CEOs and board members has risen so rapidly because of changes in share ownership,
I dont think that's the full story but certainly there are more direct checks by Managers over Employees wage growth than there are by shareholders over Executive pay which go some way to explain the widening gulf over time.
Another factor I think is the psychology of those at the top and the (often cosy) relationship with the remuneration committee. The committee will want to attract and retain upper quartile Executives and so feel justified in paying upper quartile salaries. CEOs are generally accomplished at selling their worth, highly competitive with high opinions of themselves and would expect to outperform their peer group. Of course everyone selling themselves into the top quartile means the goal posts quickly move it to be the middle quartile and so on.
The irony is that these Executives care less about the actrual £quantum of their rewards and more about the cachet of being recognized as a high achiever. There was a study done on Harvard? undergraduates who when asked overwhelming preferred the idea of being paid lower if that represented the top quartile of pay than being paid more if it represented the bottom quartile. Nuts innit.
-
Hmm. Not sure that comparison works as footballers getting paid obscene amounts of cash are probably more likely to be spending a large proportion of it on pink Bentleys, £5k a night hotels and big headphones.
Although this is obviously quite horrible, it's still "driving the economy" in a way whereas the CEO of (e.g.) Vodafone deciding to cancel phones 4 u's contract just saved his company a load of cash in the long run but cost a few thousand people their jobs.
Yes, I'm being intentionally simplistic, just trying to say it's not as clear cut as the statement you made.
These CEOs are doing more for the global economy in how they run their businesses compared to how a footballer spends their pay packet. To also be intentionally simplistic capitalism (and its captains) have an inherent drive for efficiency which means that there will be local losers but for the globe there is a huge net gain with it dragging vast swathes of the world population out of poverty with low cost economies then becoming medium cost and so forth. The trick for policy makers is not to fetter this force for (generally) the common good whilst reining the the worst excesses/byproducts by which I mean things like child labour, corporate manslaughter, pollution etc rather than executive pay which to my mind is 90% a populist pastime for politicians and 10% of genuine concern - certainly not justifying the disproportionate amount of attention it gets.
-
V interesting stuff guys. So, a fair summary would be that pay for CEOs and board members has risen so rapidly because of changes in share ownership, but it's not really important because it's the suppression of pay at the bottom that really matters, not what the top .1% get?
I think I broadly agree with all of that but I have some qualms about the latter point. It's not that I think executive pay has a bad material effect but I worry it has a corrosive social impact.
Share ownership is now more diffuse than probably at any time in history, I have no data (I expect Andy Popp is the chap to answer whether this is correct) but I can imagine that share options as part of remuneration packages became more common after the liberalisation of the markets in the 1980s, is this valid Andy?
Of course taking part of your package in equity when prices are generally rising is far more attractive than in a slump / bear market.
There of course real questions as to the efficacy of the control the remuneration committees have, old boys sitting on each others panels, institutional share holders not wanting to make a fuss and so on, I just don't see that there are many other more effective options, however this will evolve if there is a perception that there's no moral hazard in setting pay i.e. a bonus for failure.
The impact of inequality on society is always to be felt most significantly at the left end of the distribution curve as the dick waving my mega yacht is bigger than your super yacht while fairly unattractive does not lead to any great social upheaval.
This is why the real issue, in my view is between say the minimum wage shelf stacker earning £10k and the teaching assistant earning £13k, are we really saying that after tax that differential is sufficient to attract people in to be TAs rather than shelf stackers at Tesco?
-
V interesting stuff guys. So, a fair summary would be that pay for CEOs and board members has risen so rapidly because of changes in share ownership, but it's not really important because it's the suppression of pay at the bottom that really matters, not what the top .1% get?
I think I broadly agree with all of that but I have some qualms about the latter point. It's not that I think executive pay has a bad material effect but I worry it has a corrosive social impact.
Share ownership is now more diffuse than probably at any time in history, I have no data (I expect Andy Popp is the chap to answer whether this is correct) but I can imagine that share options as part of remuneration packages became more common after the liberalisation of the markets in the 1980s, is this valid Andy?
On the first point, Yes and No. Probably (not really my area). We are almost all shareholders now - but largely through proxies (pension funds especially). We have not become the nation of shareholders/shareholder democracy desired by Thatcher or apparently promised by the early flourish of the day-trader movement (and, for me, the recent Post Office privatisation demonstrates the current Tory party has no meaningful commitment to the concept). The individual private trader cannot hope to compete with the massive computing power that allows the financial institutions to make huge volumes of trades with enormous rapidity. So, more of us own shares but we are arguably more passive and more fragmented than ever before (and the information asymmetries greater than ever before). The US in the early C20th was probably much closer to a shareholder democracy with widespread and active popular share ownership and considerable, sometimes effective shareholder activism. Now, to use Hirschman's terms, loyalty and exit are the only options left to shareholders, voice has been largely degraded.
Share options as part of CEO remuneration packages probably really took off somewhat later than the 80s liberalisation - in theory they exist not to reward to bosses but to counter the agency problem (Jensen and Meckling), in other words, to align the interests of agents (managers) with principals (owners, who are dispersed, fragmented and face massive information asymmetries). They should stop managers pursuing their own utility and essentially emerged in response to governance crises/scandals. However, as Enron and other cases show, they have been very open to abuse by aggressive managers aided by weak boards, friendly remuneration committees, and co-opted auditors. 2007-8 demonstrates that corporate governance remains vulnerable, despite many reports, committees and acts.
Managers have proven very well-placed to leverage the processes of financialization that have undermined shareholder voice.
-
Thanks for the detail, if we take the premise that packages wit ha a significant equity component are a fairly recent phenomena then we need to look at director / executive pay with a datum point of say 1987? and plot this against say the Dow Jones / FTSE (excluding perhaps the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook and so on as these will substantially distort the pattern) and see how the plot changes.
If the plot fluctuates consistently (with lag for the option to be exercised) then we can say that in broad terms the underlying cause of the increase in the packages has been in the increase in the value of the companies / equity prices.
If it doesn't then we need to look at other causes.
Similarly I think its also worth looking at wages t the other end of the scale as globalisation has resulted in many roles which would have been ^£ either becoming redundant or having to be paid less due to tighter margins, for example typing now is not the skill it once was.
-
Share options as part of CEO remuneration packages probably really took off somewhat later than the 80s liberalisation - in theory they exist not to reward to bosses but to counter the agency problem (Jensen and Meckling), in other words, to align the interests of agents (managers) with principals (owners, who are dispersed, fragmented and face massive information asymmetries). They should stop managers pursuing their own utility and essentially emerged in response to governance crises/scandals. However, as Enron and other cases show, they have been very open to abuse by aggressive managers aided by weak boards, friendly remuneration committees, and co-opted auditors. 2007-8 demonstrates that corporate governance remains vulnerable, despite many reports, committees and acts.
Yes the theory is good but like you say in practice Execs can play the game to their advantage - if their bonuses are based on EPS (profit) growth they can flatter that by borrowing to finance share buybacks, if it is based on share price then release bullish trading updates, if based on increased turnover then make duff acquisitions. Founders who float their businesses have been known to later buy the company back at a much lower price later on. If memory serves me right the Founder of DFS pulled this off a couple of times. However, not all Execs are in it to rip off shareholders and abuse is a minority practice though more common and in the less regulated (and less professional) small company AIM market.
-
If the plot fluctuates consistently (with lag for the option to be exercised) then we can say that in broad terms the underlying cause of the increase in the packages has been in the increase in the value of the companies / equity prices.
I think the data is extremely unlikely to show that: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/for-ceos-correlation-between-pay-and-stock-performance-is-pretty-random (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/for-ceos-correlation-between-pay-and-stock-performance-is-pretty-random)
(just one small piece of evidence I found within about 5 seconds).
-
I agree Shark, clearly not all bosses are out to game the system. In fact a big problem I have with principal-agent theory is that automatically confers virtue/wisdom on ownership and similarly views all agents as self-interested.
-
C'mon, the idea that media promotion of day trading is a major cause of inequality in Britain is risible. The term is so lost and arcane I actually had to google to check I'd remembered it right. A lack of capital to commit to the long-term, not distrust of the financial markets, is what is stopping people from gaining from share ownership.
-
Hmmm. I'm not sure of the relevance to the inequality debate, but I'm fairly confident many of my generation have a distrust of the financial markets and are far more likely to put money in housing. In the last fifteen years I've heard lots of stories of pension funds performing poorly while house prices have trebled.
-
And in many ways that mistrust has been well earned, however if you earn £25k and can invest say £200 per month investing in property isn't a realistic option, so what's left? Equities, a bit of precious metal or a pension pot? For most it will be the pension pot.
The one thing is certain, you can't rely on the state pension any more, not unless you fancy the Stoney Woodshed in 2040.
-
Hmmm. I'm not sure of the relevance to the inequality debate, but I'm fairly confident many of my generation have a distrust of the financial markets and are far more likely to put money in housing. In the last fifteen years I've heard lots of stories of pension funds performing poorly while house prices have trebled.
Yes, but that is substantially different to buying and holding long term, shares in specific companies.
Pension/hedge funds are gambled daily, spread bets to be sure, but gambled none the less.
Imagine holding shares in Apple from twenty years ago...
-
C'mon, the idea that media promotion of day trading is a major cause of inequality in Britain is risible.
You are massively and obtusely misquoting me there, Andy. But this is not a day I wish to spend on the computer so let's leave it at that.
If I am then I promise its not deliberate. In all honesty, I reread your post a number of times trying to understand it differently. I actually think parts of my own world, the academy, are far more culpable. Let's put it down to miscommunication.
-
I think what Toby's saying is that the overall distrust of the financial markets had led those with money to put aside (even in small amounts) to not invest in the markets. This has been made worse by the media's portrayal of the "little" guy "day trader", who can no longer compete with the big number crunchers. The problem is that small investers are not "day traders". Small investers should be investing in a reasonably diverse long term portfolio, and not fussing about day to day changes. The classic example of this is the latest 2008 "crash". If you just continued investing and didn't even fuss about it, and maintained a long term view, you'll likely have averaged an annual return from 2007-2014 somewhere betwen 5-10%. Which is great for a small invester with a long term view. Day traders are those who make their base living from trading each day on the market.
The problem with this is that the rich are still investing and getting those higher returns while the poor are pulling out the markets and getting no return, and therefore the gap is widening.
I'd argue that the spread in "disposable" income is a bigger cause for the widening gap though, and this directly leads to the investing issue.
-
The problem with this is that the rich are still investing and getting those higher returns while the poor are pulling out the markets and getting no return, and therefore the gap is widening.
I'd argue that the spread in "disposable" income is a bigger cause for the widening gap though, and this directly leads to the investing issue.
This.
The media/day-trading thing is a red-herring as far as I can see; it might be different in the US but I can't remember the last time it was discussed in the press here.
-
The problem with this is that the rich are still investing and getting those higher returns while the poor are pulling out the markets and getting no return, and therefore the gap is widening.
I'd argue that the spread in "disposable" income is a bigger cause for the widening gap though, and this directly leads to the investing issue.
This.
The media/day-trading thing is a red-herring as far as I can see; it might be different in the US but I can't remember the last time it was discussed in the press here.
Yes/no. The barriers to entry are also a substantial issue, and one that the fear mongering from the media has made worse. If you are already at a point where investing anything is a high risk proposition in that you don't have the spare change to possibly lose, and trading itself costs money, and then the media tells you the game is rigged, you're going to be even less likely to invest.
My wife has a college degree, makes good money, and is very financially conservative. It has taken me years to convince her that investing is a good thing. And now 18 months later she's starting to get the hang of it. How do you propose to encourage low-income non-educated people to do this? I can't see it. Especially not when the media keeps saying the sky is falling.
-
I keep coming back to this chart (I posted a link to the whole World Bank report earlier in this thread). Globalisation/ free market believers emphasise the whole picture and especially the gains for the lowest 10% - 70% income group, who are almost all in developing countries, whilst others are looking at the shape in the 75%-100% zone, with that trough of developed world low-income workers getting "left behind".
(http://ukbouldering.com/media/images/worldbank_fig4.png)
I don't understand this chart let alone what it demonstrates - I've even asked my son. There doesn't seem to be a time axis. Can someone explain in simple terms ....
-
The X axis represents the different groups of income distribution. (Low earners to high earners)
The Y axis shows the percentage change in real income over twenty years for each group
Conclusion, everyone except the <=10th percentile group (the very lowest on the poverty line) and the group between the 60th and 95th percentile (probably most of the UK, US, APAC and European Working & Middle Class) was a winner with over 50% increase in real earnings.
-
The time axis is 1988 - 2008.
You're represented by the blue blob 4th, 5th or 6th from the right - depending on how under/overpriced your consultancy rates are.
You're losing ground to the blue blobs right and left of you which represent, to the right, oil oligarchs and Bill Gates or to the left, African farmers and sweatshop employees.
But at least you have an Audi/BMW/Mercedes and a buy-to-let.
-
I'd bet he's in the 2nd or 3rd blob along with most of us on here. (at those who have jobs :) )
The developed world only accounts for maybe 15-20% of the worlds population, so we're all in the right 5-6 dots. Within the developed world, I'd guess we're mostly in the upper 1/2 of that, which moves us into the rightmost 2-3 dots. The worst performers would appear to be the lower class in developed countries.
-
£25k net puts you in the top 1% globally for income so I'd imagine a lot of UKB are sitting pretty on the righty hand side if the graph.
(Dodgy source: http://www.globalrichlist.com (http://www.globalrichlist.com))
Shark, could you really not understand the graph?
-
d
Shark, could you really not understand the graph?
No but I do now. I was looking for a rate of change rather than the absolute change between one date and another.
-
£25k net puts you in the top 1% globally for income so I'd imagine a lot of UKB are sitting pretty on the righty hand side if the graph.
(Dodgy source: http://www.globalrichlist.com (http://www.globalrichlist.com))
Shark, could you really not understand the graph?
£25k net also puts you significantly above the median in the UK as well.
-
£25k net puts you in the top 1% globally for income so I'd imagine a lot of UKB are sitting pretty on the righty hand side if the graph.
I'm sure I'll get this wrong, and need Habrich to explain, but as the graph is in income rather than population, I think there's still going to be a several blobs on the right of £25k to account for those earning in the £100K's and £1m's?
Median for full time employment in UK in 2013 was £27k http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html)
-
You're right about that, i.e. getting it wrong.
The graph is about income distribution, i.e. the range from 0% to 100% and how each decile has changed.
The actual amounts are not a data point on the graph.
So the 0% would probably be someone in a Labour camp in North Korea and the 100% point the Bill Gates / Warren buffet etc
What the boundaries are of the various deciles would be interesting, but I think the point of the graphs is the relativity.
Stubbs, you also misread the point about £25k figure being net, i.e. take home pay of £2083 pe month whcih is something like £32500 gross.
-
And that sort of sums up why I should not post on these sorts of threads!
-
I disagree, if these threads were left only to those who considered themselves 'experts' etc then this place would be much less interesting and less of the resource than it is.
What is interesting here is how the debate has now moved on to to what appears to be an general acceptance (or at least an absence of strident rejection) of the porposition that inequality between the '1%' and everyone else isn't much of an issue despite what Russell brand might say.
-
Actually, I don't think that's the case. I think there's a huge amount of simmering unrest in the group at the low point on that graph, which happens to be the lower class groups in developed nations. Which I think was more of the original question.
I disagree, if these threads were left only to those who considered themselves 'experts' etc then this place would be much less interesting and less of the resource than it is.
:agree:
-
But, as Sloper said, I think that any 'simmering unrest' is between low-income and mid/high income folk in developed nations. And not between low-income folk and multi-billionaires.
The people with low-paying jobs struggling for quality of life in an expensive world, seeing the people with high-paying jobs swanning off into the distance, buying up houses to rent, getting better health-care and perpetuating the gap through expensive education.
Perhaps?
-
But, as Sloper said, I think that any 'simmering unrest' is between low-income and mid/high income folk in developed nations. And not between low-income folk and multi-billionaires.
The people with low-paying jobs struggling for quality of life in an expensive world, seeing the people with high-paying jobs swanning off into the distance, buying up houses to rent, getting better health-care and perpetuating the gap through expensive education.
Perhaps?
I'm not so sure. I could be wrong, but I don't think the low-income people are upset with the middle or upper middle class, as they tend to see that group as working for a real wage, and still "earning" their income. The idea that the millionaire group don't actually "earn" their incomes is part of the distrust.
but add that almost without fail, people put themselves into a lower bracket than reality. This leads much of the middle class deceiving themselves into thinking they're poor without actually knowing what "poor" is, and much of the upper middle class thinking they're "normal middle class" and not having a clue that they aren't.
-
What is interesting here is how the debate has now moved on to to what appears to be an general acceptance (or at least an absence of strident rejection) of the porposition that inequality between the '1%' and everyone else isn't much of an issue despite what Russell brand might say.
I'm unconvinced by this. While in the the UK there isn't a definite trend as yet for strongly increasing income inequality over the general population (as opposed to the top 0.1%) this has happened in the US where middle incomes have seen very little real increase over the last 30 years and the increase in GDP per capita over time is increasingly being mostly absorbed by a smaller and smaller elite. I feel there must be a risk that higher and higher 'super' salaries at the top of business feed down to management levels and this could lead to similar trends in the UK which I believe would definitely be a bad thing.
BTW just so we can be clear on terms entry to the top 1% in the UK is an income of around £125,000 pa so were not talking about multi millionaire s.
-
What is interesting here is how the debate has now moved on to to what appears to be an general acceptance (or at least an absence of strident rejection) of the porposition that inequality between the '1%' and everyone else isn't much of an issue despite what Russell brand might say.
Glad I'm not the only one to disagree with this. Even from a non left perspective we are getting strong warnings that economies are built on healthy middle class growth (as things seem to be going into reverse in the west for the middle classes whilst the super rich are protected). From my perspective we are are being scammed and robbed by the executive classes and their political cronies and they get bolder in this every year.
-
Glad I'm not the only one to disagree with this. Even from a non left perspective we are getting strong warnings that economies are built on healthy middle class growth (as things seem to be going into reverse in the west for the middle classes whilst the super rich are protected).
But that's not really what's happening. The middle class has seen quite good growth, not on the scale of the super rich, or on the scale of the developing nations, but still solid growth. The least growth seems to be at the lower end of developed nations.
I'd argue that the bitching of the middle class is more do to with the "keeping up with the Jones" rather than reality.
From my perspective we are are being scammed and robbed by the executive classes and their political cronies and they get bolder in this every year.
This one becomes really complicated, as most of the execs are deriving a large portion of their money from shareholdings increases, which are also held by huge institutional investors. These huge institutional investers are generally operating with the money from the middle class, so the middle class is also benefitting. This is where the poor are losing massive ground.
-
Actually, I don't think that's the case. I think there's a huge amount of simmering unrest in the group at the low point on that graph, which happens to be the lower class groups in developed nations. Which I think was more of the original question.
I disagree, if these threads were left only to those who considered themselves 'experts' etc then this place would be much less interesting and less of the resource than it is.
:agree:
[\quote]
I don't agree that in the global sense there's people in the 10-20 %centile raging against those in the 20-30 %centile, nor other than in the dining rooms of Primrose Hill (cheap stereotype alert) do I think that people are raging in this country against the next centile above their income level: indeed, f anything in my experience the 'working poor' are more likely to rage against the people on benefits who are able to live a lifestyle not dissimilar to their own without putting in a full shift.
Offwidth, as for the super rich and their cronies gaming the system to maintain their privileged, you find this more in corrupt and often (though of course not exclusively) 'leftist' states, in liberal capitalist democracies the ability of even the most wealthy plutocrat to manipulate elections is very limited indeed.
Finally I would suggest that economic growth is mainly derived by expansion of the working class i.e. the 30-60 %centile as they are, a. more numerous b. less likely to save/invest and c. more likely to follow consumerist trends, (snob alert).
-
Finally I would suggest that economic growth is mainly derived by expansion of the working class i.e. the 30-60 %centile as they are, a. more numerous b. less likely to save/invest and c. more likely to follow consumerist trends, (snob alert).
Exactly the point - in the US this the group (middle class in the American sense rather than the UK privileged upper income sense) is no longer sharing in increasing national income. If they are the long term engine of the increases in prosperity we have seen in the second half of the 20th century maybe we should all worry, irrespective of what her you think inequality is a moral issue.
-
Completely agree with habrich and Sasquach re the perception of investing. However I think in this country it has also been affected by the points Andy made previously.
We grew up with the privatisation of all the previously nationalised industries and it was sold to the people as an opportunity to be a nation of shareholders. What actually happened was the opposite as most people took the quick buck and immediately sold their tiny stake for a profit (like a mini version of Abramovich & co getting shares for vodka).
And the same happened with the building societies. Nobody was going to complain about getting £1500 for "nothing" as it was seen.
Coupled with the fact that lots of people lost a fortune in badly managed personal pension funds it's not surprising that trust in investing in shares isn't that great for most people in the UK.
I'm guilty myself as even though I can see the returns can be great I'm extremely wary as I've seen some horror stories first hand. In some ways it seems you just need to be sensible and look at the long term to get a good return. In others it looks as if a decent slice of luck is required too.
habrich, I recall you saying that you took a pretty big risk which worked out. Had it not, do you think you would have the same general opinion on investing or would it have been affected?
I'd also be interested to hear the longer version of your "gambling on house prices" comment, but as you said, that's going massively off topic.....
-
But that's not really what's happening. The middle class has seen quite good growth, not on the scale of the supebr rich, or on the scale of the developing nations, but still solid growth. The least growth seems to be at the lower end of developed nations. I'd argue that the bitching of the middle class is more do to with the "keeping up with the Jones"
....most of the execs are deriving a large portion of their money from shareholdings increases, which are also held by huge institutional investors. These huge institutional investers are generally operating with the money from the middle class, so the middle class is also benefitting. This is where the poor are losing massive ground.
We will have to agree to disagree (which was sort of my point about Slopers view about agreement being wrong (there are split views on this). Middle class income versus expenditure in the US has already hit serious levels of decline and seems to be starting to drop here and in Europe after flatlining for a while. Sure the middle class are not poverty striken (unless you are one of those unfortunate americans who lost job, house and health insurance) but if they do drive an economy then ignoring the issues is pretty dumb.
The rich people I know have diversified away from stocks a lot....too much money is made on fluctuations eating away at long term profit. They have got a lot richer in Europe while middle classes flatlined and in the US they got a lot richer. The poor are of course much more deserving of sympathy and have had things much harder but thats beside the points I made.
-
Hats off boys and girls. Very informative thread and a quality debate.
-
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 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!
-
Onsight as well, no prior practice required.
-
The latest today:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/under-30s-priced-out-of-uk-alan-milburn (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/under-30s-priced-out-of-uk-alan-milburn)
Under 30s without rich parents of course.
-
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 (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 (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 (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-46397488.html) In Gloucestershire http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-47194994.html (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-47194994.html) in Kent http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48070604.html (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
Right off to the bar.
Not with those powers of advocacy , back around ;D
-
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
-
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'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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://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 (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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 :blink:) 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.
-
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.
-
Parental influence on education is what the Freakanomics people looked at in the US and they found it a very significant factor in their research. Still the macro statistics show a serious problem at the national level in the US and more so the UK. Sloper's links on ethnicity of course fully support my arguments if you read them.... the fact that secondary factor correlations exist doesnt negate the correlations with the primary factor (social background); secondary factors that also in themselves often correlate with poorer areas (like english language problems and specific cultural community factors). Correlation is not the same as causality but given the growing size of the problem and its implications for social cohesion in a democracy it needs looking at urgently.
-
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 :blink:) and so on.
Yes, but it will change his life chances. How much money? A hundred grand? Two hundred. That will significantly improve your son's chances of having a successful, healthy and happy life. Is that natural - course it bloody is. You want the best for him as any sane parent would do. But it isn't equal if you want to be serious about this. No child living did anything special or better than then any other child to 'earn' any inherited wealth they may be lucky enough to be born with. And it's indisputable - despite your claims - that inherited wealth is a major factor contributing to persisting inequality in the world.
And if your strong moral code, good manners, visits to museums and good education from reading and talking to him from an early age are all it takes for a successful life then it stands to reason, according to you, that he won't need your money to help him.
-
I cant help but picture a mini sloper in a pram with very early words being "ucking ole" to a passing 'disadvantaged youf' in a hoodie.
-
We lived in Matlock Bath for the first year of his life precisely so that he could become accustomed to looking down at the proles far below.
-
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.
Deluded.
So you think it's right to tax the rich lightly when they're alive (presumably less than the middle income worker)?
Hmm doesn't sound very equal t me, and where are the taxes going to come from to help the people at the bottom and fund services that society needs? Note you might also want to try and understand the notion that property is not fixed, it can be moved around between jurisdictions and donated inter vivos.
In fact your scheme is so bonkers not even Sam could come up with it.
-
Pete is does look like you've got a rather strange chip on your shoulder over this. Clean slate, level playing field, everyone starts from scratch, have you lost your mind?
-
Deluded
So you think it's right to tax the rich lightly when they're alive (presumably less than the middle income worker)?
Hmm doesn't sound very equal t me, and where are the taxes going to come from to help the people at the bottom and fund services that society needs? Note you might also want to try and understand the notion that property is not fixed, it can be moved around between jurisdictions and donated inter vivos.
In fact your scheme is so bonkers not even Sam could come up with it.
Apologies - I thought this thread was about ideas to reduce inequality, I hadn't realised you just wanted to share links to reports ytou've googled with each other and call each other lefties and righties.
This is a radical idea that would help reduce inequality. It's just an idea, one that you can play with, change it around to make it better if you want. Set the bar wherever you like, 50K, 100K, 1 million. make whatever loopholes, rules and exceptions you like. After all that's what happens presently, the tax system is moulded to fit, perhaps to fit the most powerful.
It tackles the problem from both sides, which is how problems involving two entrenched positions are best dealt with - the conservative can't argue with low taxation for innovators and business leaders. The left can't argue with redistribution of wealth. It's what both sides argue endlessly for in their own way. Or Sloper are you suddenly turning into the thread's biggest socialist by saying 'you can't have light taxation who's going to pay for the people at the bottom'. Bit ironic you using that as an argument isn't it?
-
Actually, Slopers use of the term 'Prole' is generally ironic and he has yet to advance a truly right wing agenda.
His abusive mudslinging at what he perceives to be "lefties" tends to obscure a rather centrist world view.
-
Deluded
So you think it's right to tax the rich lightly when they're alive (presumably less than the middle income worker)?
Hmm doesn't sound very equal t me, and where are the taxes going to come from to help the people at the bottom and fund services that society needs? Note you might also want to try and understand the notion that property is not fixed, it can be moved around between jurisdictions and donated inter vivos.
In fact your scheme is so bonkers not even Sam could come up with it.
Apologies - I thought this thread was about ideas to reduce inequality, I hadn't realised you just wanted to share links to reports ytou've googled with each other and call each other lefties and righties.
This is a radical idea that would help reduce inequality. It's just an idea, one that you can play with, change it around to make it better if you want. Set the bar wherever you like, 50K, 100K, 1 million. make whatever loopholes, rules and exceptions you like. After all that's what happens presently, the tax system is moulded to fit, perhaps to fit the most powerful.
It tackles the problem from both sides, which is how problems involving two entrenched positions are best dealt with - the conservative can't argue with low taxation for innovators and business leaders. The left can't argue with redistribution of wealth. It's what both sides argue endlessly for in their own way. Or Sloper are you suddenly turning into the thread's biggest socialist by saying 'you can't have light taxation who's going to pay for the people at the bottom'. Bit ironic you using that as an argument isn't it?
It wouldn't reduce inequality.
People would simply make inter vivos gifts, transfer assets to trusts, offshore other assets. In reality it would make no difference to inequality, in fact it would make it worse as the middle classes would avoid the IHT that at present isn't worth avoiding resulting in fewer resources to pay for services.
At present people don't generally avoid IHT until their estate is very significant, but that would change when you put the tax to 100%, regardless of the ceiling, if you make the limit £1m, people above will avoid it and so will people with assets of say £850k as there is a risk they could get drawn in.
It would also have the effect of not encouraging people to save for their retirement, purchase a property, as what's the point if the state is just going to confiscate your assets, the consequence is more people would be reliant on the state in their old age.
In respect of me arguing for taxes to pay for services & etc, not ironic at all, I'm a small state libertarian Tory not an anarchist: there are plenty of powers etc that should be solely reserved for the state and these need funding through taxiation of one form or another, and that tax should as Adam Smith identified all those years ago be 'easy and fair'.
I'd rather we were a low tax jurisdiction, but also recognise that tax is properly graduated to a certain threshold (x%when >y£) with proper incentives for investment, entrepenuers relief and so on.
If you really wanted to decrease inequality then the thing to do would be to introduce benefits policies to dissaude people from having >2 children.
Matt, how dare you, I have never been so outraged and offended :P
-
Matt, how dare you, I have never been so outraged and offended :P
I should hope so! I thought it a rather finely crafted (minor) insult...
😉
-
Sloper is right. We already have inheritance tax it's just it's easily avoidable in many cases with proper tax planning.
Any system will have it's loopholes and lowering the threshold would just mean more people having to do such planning and create more work for accountants.
Hang on.....
-
And lawyers, it could be a :goodidea: particularly if I can reduce my tax burden.
-
Apologies - I thought this thread was about ideas to reduce inequality, I hadn't realised you just wanted to share links to reports ytou've googled with each other and call each other lefties and righties.
This is a radical idea that would help reduce inequality. It's just an idea, one that you can play with, change it around to make it better if you want. Set the bar wherever you like, 50K, 100K, 1 million. make whatever loopholes, rules and exceptions you like. After all that's what happens presently, the tax system is moulded to fit, perhaps to fit the most powerful.
I love that we've moved on from whether inequality is or is not an issue :)
Pete- I give you Kudo's for stepping outside the box and looking at possibilities. Many folks get focused on what can be done within the current system, when the current system is what is broken (how badly broken is debatable :) ). I'm not certain it would reduce inequality as much as you think. Assuming you fixed the other issues that have been pointed out, I still think it wouldn't really work. Say for example you have a couple who get lucky and win the lottery (and by some miracle don't waste it). They are better able to provide for their children and such, thereby giving their kids an advantage, the also will likely live to 85-90yo, so they will also be able to provide for this grandkids and potentially their great-grandkids. You're now talking about a cycle that MAY self fix over the course of 100+ years. The problem with this is that the timeframe is too long to maintain any certainties.
And that's not even bringing up the sticky nastyness of genetics :ohmy:
If you really wanted to decrease inequality then the thing to do would be to introduce benefits policies to dissaude people from having >2 children.
Social engineering from a libertarian? :-\
I would've thought you meant that cost causer = cost payer, so therefor if you have more kids your tax rate goes up to pay for the services being used by your troupe of kids :) Rather than "benefits", you simply have real allocation of costs.
I wish I had a good solution, but sadly, I've no idea. I think its a complex issue and one without an easy or clearcut answer.
-
People are free to have as many kids as they like, I just don't think the state should offer incentives / rewards to couples with >2 kids; particularly as there is such a strong correlation between large family sizes, poverty and other untoward outcomes.
I do like the idea of taxes going up with the number of sprogs, provided there's credit for public school feels, BUPA and so on.
I've never argued equality isn't an issue, rather that it is inequality in the lower part of the distribution curve that is relevant rather than the inequality between the '1%' and the lowest quartile & etc
-
People are free to have as many kids as they like, I just don't think the state should offer incentives / rewards to couples with >2 kids; particularly as there is such a strong correlation between large family sizes, poverty and other untoward outcomes.
Yeah, I've always had a bit of an issue here in the US with the "child tax credit" on top of the dependant deductions. Seems like we shouldn't be encouraging people to have kids, although I don't think this actually impacts peoples decisions. At least not for the lower income groups.
I've never argued equality isn't an issue, rather that it is inequality in the lower part of the distribution curve that is relevant rather than the inequality between the '1%' and the lowest quartile & etc
I'm not sure on this. Are you saying that the mobility between the bottom 25% and the 25-50% group isn't there? I'd disagree, at least in the US.
-
Absolutely that's what I'm saying, there's real social ossification between the range that you suggest, a lot of people are rapped on incomes at around 75% of the median and have very few ways to move into jobs >10% of the median, whereas say once you get to x2 of the median the opportunities are there to progress to >x3 the median.
Here's a very non scientific sample of the spread of jobs & salary
http://www.reed.co.uk/jobs/manchester (http://www.reed.co.uk/jobs/manchester)
The situation is I expect very different in the USA
-
Haven't had a chance to watch the debate, but I generally like these debates. It's about US income inequality.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1159-income-inequality-impairs-the-american-dream (http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1159-income-inequality-impairs-the-american-dream)
-
Touching on inequality (or as percieved by Chris Bryant) writes James Blunt
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/19/james-blunts-letter-chris-bryant-in-full (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/19/james-blunts-letter-chris-bryant-in-full)
Dear Chris Bryant MP,
You classist gimp. I happened to go to a boarding school. No one helped me at boarding school to get into the music business. I bought my first guitar with money I saved from holiday jobs (sandwich packing!). I was taught the only four chords I know by a friend. No one at school had ANY knowledge or contacts in the music business, and I was expected to become a soldier or a lawyer or perhaps a stockbroker. So alien was it, that people laughed at the idea of me going into the music business, and certainly no one was of any use.
In the army, again, people thought it was a mad idea. None of them knew anyone in the business either.
And when I left the army, going against everyone’s advice, EVERYONE I met in the British music industry told me there was no way it would work for me because I was too posh. One record company even asked if I could speak in a different accent. (I told them I could try Russian).
Every step of the way, my background has been AGAINST me succeeding in the music business. And when I have managed to break through, I was STILL scoffed at for being too posh for the industry.
And then you come along, looking for votes, telling working class people that posh people like me don’t deserve it, and that we must redress the balance. But it is your populist, envy-based, vote-hunting ideas which make our country crap, far more than me and my shit songs, and my plummy accent.
I got signed in America, where they don’t give a stuff about, or even understand what you mean by me and “my ilk”, you prejudiced wazzock, and I worked my arse off. What you teach is the politics of jealousy. Rather than celebrating success and figuring out how we can all exploit it further as the Americans do, you instead talk about how we can hobble that success and “level the playing field”. Perhaps what you’ve failed to realise is that the only head-start my school gave me in the music business, where the VAST majority of people are NOT from boarding school, is to tell me that I should aim high. Perhaps it protected me from your kind of narrow-minded, self-defeating, lead-us-to-a-dead-end, remove-the-‘G’-from-‘GB’ thinking, which is to look at others’ success and say, “it’s not fair.”
Up yours,
James Cucking Funt
-
"Up yours" is still a great insult. :lol:
-
What a top quality rant, good chap.
His music's still shit, but nice to see he's got a self defecating sense of humour.
(I once heard someone say that about themselves, perhaps they were that funny?)
-
His music's still shit, but nice to see he's got a self defecating sense of humour.
His twitter replies are quite famous;
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kimberleydadds/james-blunts-most-epic-twitter-comebacks#.kjzNK552k (http://www.buzzfeed.com/kimberleydadds/james-blunts-most-epic-twitter-comebacks#.kjzNK552k)
-
Some slightly more global inequality news also from today, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world)
-
Some slightly more global inequality news also from today, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world)
And so what?
If we took the few $Tn and distributed it amongst the poorest 50% it would make virtually no difference.
The people living in mud huts with no clean water aren't concerned about whether Ambramovich is now worth a or y $bn nor does it make any difference to their lives.
All pieces like this do is give middle class lefties something to be concerned about, well I suppose it makes a change from fracking, sexism in Hollywood etc
-
That one was especially for you Slopes, it was hard to decide between than and an article about the Greens :kiss2:
-
Thanks but I already have a fluffer. :o
The Green stuff about a citizen's minimum income is hilarious though.
-
I've been waiting for you to start a thread about Trident, guess I might have to do it instead.
-
I wonder how wealth fits a power law distribution - or whether there's a considerable lump in the middle making it more exponential..
Anyway.. What about scrapping / reducing Vat and raising income tax?
-
I read The Spirit Level : Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/spirit-level) and aside from the fact that they didn't actually explain very well what they claimed to in the title (they mainly just presented lots of correlations and said "well we should be striving for greater equality"), one thing that really annoyed me was that they were very selective about the way they chose their data to compare. To an extent there isn't a great deal wrong with this, you need complete (or as close to) data as you can get from all countries you're going to include, and if its not available it is often folly to try and include them. What irritated me though, as a quantitative statistician, was their cherry picking of the top and bottom deciles to compare and contrast for a lot of the outcomes.
Its well known that categorising continuous data is less powerful than using the raw quantitative data (http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/Main/CatContinuous) (you lose precision, it assumes that the top of a category is the same as the bottom of a category when thats false; cut-points are arbtirary and can be manipulated; if "optimal" cutpoints are chosen they don't replicate in independent samples, see link if interested in more details). Further taking two extremes of a distribution overemphasises any difference you observe, so its a distorted picture.
This is one of the problems I have with the whole "1%" Oxfam report and others of that ilk, they're chopping up the data to fit their narrative.
This graph popped up on my twitter "statistics" list the other day and made me think a little....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7GTie8IQAA3iu-.jpg:large)
It still supports the idea that the rich are a lot richer by virtue of the type of scale on the x-axis, but it also demonstrates two other important points which are commonly ignored in the "1%" type arguments, the mean wealth has improved for everyone over time, but also theres more money to go around these days. Naturally there are more people whom that has to be shared between, but the amount of money far out-weighs the number of people otherwise the mean of the distribution wouldn't have increased. Maybe an economist could explain this in greater detail?
The chart, as it states, is from here (http://ourworldindata.org/).
That said I do think wealth should be more evenly and fairly distributed, a couple of examples off the top of my head are that private companies being bailed out by tax payers shouldn't happen, there are risks involved in a capitalist free market and those who choose start such companies and those who choose to invest in them should accept the losses when they happen as readily as they accept the gains. Secondly and more importantly (to my mind) tax loop holes should be closed so that profit earnt in the country it was generated is taxed within that country to the benefit of the population who spent the money in the first place.
I thought this was an interesting breakdown of where income comes from taxation in the UK A brief guide to the UK public finances (http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/BriefGuide141203-web522.pdf) from The Independet Office for Budget Responsibility. Flick to page 3 and a whopping 42.1% (£271.9 billion) of the total £645.8 billion revenue is derived from Income Tax, second highest is VAT at 17% (£110.1 billion) of the total income. Corporation tax rolls in to third place at 6.46% (£41.7 billion), slightly less than half that of revenue derived from VAT and more than six times that derived from income tax. To me and my non-economics trained mind this is the wrong way round, this hits those without oodles of cash the hardest, and twice over, whilst the rich ferret their money away in off-shore tax haven accounts.
If we took the few $Tn and distributed it amongst the poorest 50% it would make virtually no difference.
This is folly, the additional $Tn wouldn't go to help the poorest 50%, rather the opposite extreme of the distribution from which it is taken, so the poorest 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5%, those who really need it rather than those in the middle who don't.
The people living in mud huts with no clean water aren't concerned about whether Ambramovich is now worth a or y $bn nor does it make any difference to their lives.
Conversely Abromavich wouldn't notice a few less billion in his coffers, and if it were used to help the poorest percentages then those in mud huts could have clean water and even a small solar panel to replace the kerosene burners that are slowly killing them.
All pieces like this do is give middle class lefties something to be concerned about, well I suppose it makes a change from fracking, sexism in Hollywood etc
And all you do with posts like these is patronise people rather than engaging them in intellectual discussion. Why not listen to what people are saying and respond with coherent and intelligent discussion backed up by facts rather than denigration?
-
I've been waiting for you to start a thread about Trident, guess I might have to do it instead.
We should not be maintaining our nuclear capability.
-
Slackline,
Have you read 'why nations fail'? If not well worth it.
In terms of some of your specific posts:
Private companies that fail should not be 'bailed out' with public money. The 'banks' were in many ways a very strange case where the negative consequences of doing the "bad" thing (per 1066 and all that) (bailing them out) were very much better than doing the "good" thing and allowing them to fail.
With respect to extracting the wealth of the £billionaires and it doing no good in the long term. You only have to look at any of the truly desparately poor areas of the world to see that a few $100 isn't the root of their poverty, it's a lack of democratic political institutions with respect for the rule of law. Not only can you see this where there is an absence of such structures you can see the +ve effect when they are introduced and the -ve effect when removed.
Not only that, there are only so many times you can extract the few $bn from the wealthy before they're not wealthy any more.
As for my comments about articles like Oxfam's just giving bed wetting liberal do gooders something to feel self righteous and smug about, well it may be harsh but in effect that is precisely all they do. These articles do not educate or move towards a resolution of the real problems i.e. abject poerty, disease and the abuse of human rights.
The reason you find my comments uncomfortable is that you recognise the fallacy of the arguments and the flawed logic but still, a la those who believe in homeopathy: *want* to agree with 'inequality is bad' meme even though you recognise the very poor foundation for the same.
Engaging in considered debate with the bed wetting liberal do gooders is incredibly difficult as they tend to a, try and shout down any form of counterpoint as if it is a heretical statement, b. they have a very poor grasp of facts (for example the usual estimate of the cost of bailing out the banks is x50 the actual cost) and lack the logical faculties to understand what they're actually arguing for.
But in your case of course none of this is correct: so perhaps let's start off with a simple question: what is actually wrong with inequality per se?
-
But in your case of course none of this is correct: so perhaps let's start off with a simple question: what is actually wrong with inequality per se?
That sounds a bit like saying what is wrong with pain.
Its a useful/vital function of human physiology - but you sure as hell don't want to have any yourself...
Unless you are a tory politician who likes paying people £500 an hour to whip them and shove lit candles up their arse (sorry - I had to post some reposte to bed wetting liberals... ;) )
-
The reason you find my comments uncomfortable is that you recognise the fallacy of the arguments and the flawed logic
No its because you're fucking rude.
But in your case of course none of this is correct: so perhaps let's start off with a simple question: what is actually wrong with inequality per se?
Nothing, but as humans we have the capacity to move away from 'survival of the fittest' that has resulted in our evolution by means of natural selection over millenia and is the ultimate source in disparity between individuals and show compassion, care and understanding for others who are relatively worse off than us. I'd like to think that this apparently unique feature* makes the species slightly different from all other organisms and that thanks to our mental capacities we could improve everyones standards rather than looking out for number one (with a dash of nepotism of course since genes are the unit of selection).
If you were to dare to suggest to people that their behaviour isn't that far removed from animals a fair proportion would think you're talking nonce sense, but it happens all the time, petty triablism and worrying about borders and the 'invaders' trying to steal resources. Inflicting suffering on others as a consequence of these arguments, viz. huge numbers of people persecuted on the basis of false religions or just being in the wrong place when some power crazed crackpot comes along and thinks he can make a quick buck.
By the sounds of it I should probably ditch these...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRRGMOh3x9QNE7ScPCj0P_pdZawiBiOQrGoZee8aKRHanbOTsA_TQ)
-
A lot of the problem with this 1% stuff is that people don't realise who it's actually referring to. In income terms you are in the top 1% in the world if your net income is over about £25k, so it's not just Russian criminals by a long way.
-
A lot of the problem with this 1% stuff is that people don't realise who it's actually referring to. In income terms you are in the top 1% in the world if your net income is over about £25k, so it's not just Russian criminals by a long way.
Quite... http://www.globalrichlist.com/?--- (http://www.globalrichlist.com/?---)
-
A lot of the problem with this 1% stuff is that people don't realise who it's actually referring to. In income terms you are in the top 1% in the world if your net income is over about £25k, so it's not just Russian criminals by a long way.
I don't see how that's a problem.
-
But in your case of course none of this is correct: so perhaps let's start off with a simple question: what is actually wrong with inequality per se?
That sounds a bit like saying what is wrong with pain.
Its a useful/vital function of human physiology - but you sure as hell don't want to have any yourself...
Unless you are a tory politician who likes paying people £500 an hour to whip them and shove lit candles up their arse (sorry - I had to post some reposte to bed wetting liberals... ;) )
Sorry Tom, that's feeble (the reference to pain) as for £500 per hour, sounds about right. :look:
-
Slackline,
If you hadn't noticed we've moved massively away from 'the survival of the fittest', we accept the construction of the state, payment of tax and so on, aid and development (except for some of the loonies) isn't controversial and foreign investment (again absent loonies) recognised as a 'good thing'.
The problem with the 'inequality' debate is that it is a stinking pile of shit.
There are a few roads not far from where I live where the price of a flat is £1m and a house £4m, is the person in the £1m flat disadvantaged by the fact that his neighbours property is worth x4 as much? Of course not.
Is the person on benefits (gross £18k pa) very well off because people in North Korea eat grass? Of course not.
As for me being rude, no, I am being insulting but not rude and it is necessary to pierce the pompous fuckwitted group think that proponents of this drivel impose.
I cannot recall how to do calculus, molar calculations and a lot of other stuff, but that's all due to inequality I'm sure. :chair:
-
There are a few roads not far from where I live where the price of a flat is £1m and a house £4m, is the person in the £1m flat disadvantaged by the fact that his neighbours property is worth x4 as much? Of course not.
Are you sure? What if all of his local shops are taken over by delis where you can't buy a sarnie for less than £12?
We've already identified here that the issues of global, national, regional and local inequality are various and different. Looking at the national/local scale, I would say that many more of the things that make life worthwhile are of limited supply than gets recognised in some discussions. Of course those with more money get, on average, to live in a nicer area, to go to the more interesting cultural events, to use the best transport links, to have the most engaging holidays and leisure pursuits etc etc. One of the problems of an increasingly polarised distribution of wealth is that it tends to mean that the same small group 'gets the good stuff' every single time, gradually squeezing out the small opportunities and pleasures that might otherwise have found their way to others.
It's important to recognise that having 'the nice (haircut/lunch/commute/holiday)' is part of what makes people feel their lives are worthwhile. The 'objective' utility is only part of the picture - it's position in the hierarchy is important.
This is particularly pernicious when this spills into areas that would normally have been protected (perhaps unevenly and ineptly) by local government, for instance by creating huge financial incentives for social housing or subsidised local commercial spaces to be sold off for development. Again, people see little hints of the good life being syphoned off for the benefit of a small group with lots of capital.
Being a pretty centre right sort of person, I don't have a great ideological issue with all of this, but I do think it's a bit facile to dismiss inequality as not posing a problem in and of itself.
This isn't even addressing the fact that inequality has been shown, as well as we can reasonably tell, to cause a variety of social and economic ills in its own right. I would agree with you that this is fraught with interpretive difficulty due to the number of variables and correlations to be controlled.
-
If you hadn't noticed we've moved massively away from 'the survival of the fittest',
In a general sense is that not how capitalist free markets operate? The 'fittest' companies (or individuals who own them) 'survive'? This has a trickle down effect where those with greater assets pass them on to their off-spring who survive them, affording them an advantage (which I won't attempt to quantify) over others who do not have assets passed onto them. Social mobility may have improved, but that doesn't mean everyone moves.
we accept the construction of the state, payment of tax and so on, aid and development (except for some of the loonies) isn't controversial and foreign investment (again absent loonies) recognised as a 'good thing'.
The are perhaps alternatives to the methods that are currently employed, different countries use slightly different systems. Compare and contrast, use the evidence accrued over time to choose the best option rather than sticking with the status quo because thats the way its always been done. I don't understand why people can't see this and NO its not a case of going for the complete opposite end of the spectrum and getting all Marxist on everyone.
In case you hadn't clocked it I made it pretty clear that I think the "1%" type argument is pretty arbitrary but that "the construction of the state, payment of tax and so on, aid and development" could be done differently and to the benefit, in terms of improving basic quality of life, of more people globally.
There are a few roads not far from where I live where the price of a flat is £1m and a house £4m, is the person in the £1m flat disadvantaged by the fact that his neighbours property is worth x4 as much? Of course not.
You're looking within a tribe (i.e. locality within a country), I'm talking on a global scale.
As for me being rude, no, I am being insulting but not rude and it is necessary to pierce the pompous fuckwitted group think that proponents of this drivel impose.
In my world, and I expect most others, it is rude to insult people and resorting to name calling is the last resort of someone who's got nothing better to put forward to support their point of view.
-
Ham
Yep, quite sure.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29406019.html (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29406019.html)
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29183688.html?premiumA=true (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29183688.html?premiumA=true)
The statement that inequality causes social harm is trite and meaningless unless we consider what we mean by inequality: what causes social harm is not 'inequality' but poverty and a lack of access to what are regarded as highly desireable wants: holidays, the odd meal out / night at the boozer etc.
Where one person has to travel 1st Class to the Bahamas and stays in a 5* hotel and the other person travels in a private jet and stays on a private island is a massive inequality but matters not one jot.
Does it matter when the comparators are the private island vs a villa in Corsica, Butlins, no holiday what so ever?
Are we concerned about scale of inequality or proximation?
Is inequality relevant to a level of needs/wants and irrelevant after that?
The whole thing is basically a confection for whinging middle class muppets who fail to understand either the issue they're concerned about or the 'real issues' and the likely solutions to the same.
-
Slackers,
The desctiption of capitalism being 'the survival of the fittest' is a bit like intelligent design vs evolution: it's still utter bollocks but not quite as fuckign daft as young earth creationsim.
Capitalism has been constrained through social mores, custom and religion since the dawn of human civilisation. The course of capitalism may vary depending on how wide the channel and how high the banks, but to suggest it is not and has no been constrained since the begining is false. If you look at the trade in Cornish tin, the sumerian cuniform records of trade and levy etc the historical record is there, laid out for all to see.
Your point about trickle down is an interesting diversion: but in one respect you're wrong, everyone does move, but people move at a different pace or have I missed the pre agrian revolution peasantry (no they're behind you) that remian in Lincolnshire & etc Cambridgeshire fens?
As for your point about the construction of the state and tax ebing done differently and it is this that will improve the lot of the people at the very bottom: yes I think we're wholly ad idem on this, what's needed is liberal democratic market capitalism and enforcement of the rule of law.
Once you've got this the abject poverty tends to dissaperar within a generation and the relative inequality tends towards vestigial.
As for having nothing to put forward to support my view, I have reams of material, numerous citations and a weight of evidence: where shall we start?
North vs South Korea?
Mexico vs Texas?
Zimbabwe vs Botswana?
GDR vs FDR?
-
Ham
Yep, quite sure.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29406019.html (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29406019.html)
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29183688.html?premiumA=true (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29183688.html?premiumA=true)
The statement that inequality causes social harm is trite and meaningless unless we consider what we mean by inequality: what causes social harm is not 'inequality' but poverty and a lack of access to what are regarded as highly desireable wants: holidays, the odd meal out / night at the boozer etc.
Where one person has to travel 1st Class to the Bahamas and stays in a 5* hotel and the other person travels in a private jet and stays on a private island is a massive inequality but matters not one jot.
Does it matter when the comparators are the private island vs a villa in Corsica, Butlins, no holiday what so ever?
Are we concerned about scale of inequality or proximation?
Is inequality relevant to a level of needs/wants and irrelevant after that?
The whole thing is basically a confection for whinging middle class muppets who fail to understand either the issue they're concerned about or the 'real issues' and the likely solutions to the same.
Do you consider it an inequality that, as a proportion of income, taxation decreases progressively with increased income?
(I am of course including VAT - and the capability of people with a significant amount of money to be able to engage in some off shore squirrelling etc.. oh and in the UK..)
-
But in your case of course none of this is correct: so perhaps let's start off with a simple question: what is actually wrong with inequality per se?
Nothing wrong with it per se, but there comes a point where it has a negative effect on growth. http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm (http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm)
-
Tom, you're wrong.
If you earn £10k you pay 2.5% tax & NI as a % of income
£20k you pay about 17%
£50k about 26%
£100k about 34%
£200k about 41%
For someone on £10k to pay the same % of income in tax as some one who earns £20k they'd need to pay £1500 in other tax. Since VAT is the highest (full rate 20% compared to domestic fuel vat, IPT, APD etc) they'd need to be spending not less than £7500 net on full vat rated goods or gross with vat >90% of their income.
This is clearly nonsensical.
If you look at the difference between £20k and £50k gross incomes you would need to spend £9k on VAT & etc i.e. more than the gross income.
Even more nonsensical.
I can see whan you depart from PAYE that you can be more tax efficient and if you have non 'employment' income i.e. divis, rental income this can distort the ratio but never to the degree that you suggest i.e. to make it regressive rather than progressive as it is.
-
But in your case of course none of this is correct: so perhaps let's start off with a simple question: what is actually wrong with inequality per se?
Nothing wrong with it per se, but there comes a point where it has a negative effect on growth. http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm (http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm)
When you say a -ve effect on growth I presume you mean that growth is lower than it might otherwise have been?
Interesting link thanks, I'll read it later (well the 4 page sumamry) but what struck me in the press release is
'The paper finds new evidence that the main mechanism through which inequality affects growth is by undermining education opportunities for children from poor socio-economic backgrounds, lowering social mobility and hampering skills development.
People whose parents have low levels of education see their educational outcomes deteriorate as income inequality rises. By contrast, there is little or no effect on people with middle or high levels of parental educational background.'
Which is sugegstive of the cause being a failure of educational policies and solicial mobility then there being a point at which inequality of wealth (which is the focus of our current discussion) has a retardent effect on growth.
-
Tom, you're wrong.
If you earn £10k you pay 2.5% tax & NI as a % of income
£20k you pay about 17%
£50k about 26%
£100k about 34%
£200k about 41%
For someone on £10k to pay the same % of income in tax as some one who earns £20k they'd need to pay £1500 in other tax. Since VAT is the highest (full rate 20% compared to domestic fuel vat, IPT, APD etc) they'd need to be spending not less than £7500 net on full vat rated goods or gross with vat >90% of their income.
This is clearly nonsensical.
If you look at the difference between £20k and £50k gross incomes you would need to spend £9k on VAT & etc i.e. more than the gross income.
Even more nonsensical.
I can see whan you depart from PAYE that you can be more tax efficient and if you have non 'employment' income i.e. divis, rental income this can distort the ratio but never to the degree that you suggest i.e. to make it regressive rather than progressive as it is.
Its not complete nonce sense...
aside from VAT, there is the huge % duty on Booze/fags & fuel - means that the actual taxation rate on low earners as a proportion of income is much higher..
As incomes rise, sure people spend more, but not linearly more as a proportion of income..
-
Sorry To, but you're on a loser here.
Of course if someone on £10k spends £100 on booze and fags the VAT & duty is a higher proportion of their income than the vat & duty compared with someone who earns £20k.
But ignoring the fact that smoking an drinking are entirely discretionary (I mean for fucks sake I didn't smoke or drink yesterday . . . yes I know you're thinking about the end of Angels with Dirty Faces) your proposition was that tax was regressive and simply that is not the case.
If you add take the burden of taxation as a whole, it is progressive rather than as you suggested.
If you stuck to saying VAT is regressive you'd be limited correct on one metric but wrong generally in that VAT reductions benefit higher earners more
-
Can the clever people of this parish indulge me in a thought experiment?
Let's assume that the current income tax situation (for PAYE workers) is about right. It's not vastly different from most other EU countries and wages reflect take home pay (IMHO) rather than gross pay. (i.e. if a company wants an employee of "X" experience in "Y" place, they have to pay "ZZZ"/ year to attract this person. If income tax was higher, then wages would probably rise to mirror this).
The previous assumption could be argued to death, but let's just take it as an fixed starting point.
Now, society is never going to be truly "equal" that's communism and in most people's eyes this has been shown to be ... well ... slightly ineffective. Ahem.
But, I don't think many people would argue that it is "fair" for the super rich, non PAYE earning, elite to get away with significantly less tax (as a percentage) than someone earning say £20,000, £50,000 etc. etc. And there's mechanisms like the non-dom rule that allow crazy rich foreigners to live in Mayfair for a paltry £30,000 a year with all their foreign wealth insulated.
So. Back to the original point.
Labour have proposed the popular sounding, but IMO flawed mansion tax - any accountant worth his salt should be able to fiddle around with ownership and valuations to dodge this. To me it's hot air and an attempt at vote winning, but will not really address the major issues. Simon Jenkins suggested just using more bands of Cooncil Tax but that ignores the fact that the money from (mainly London) should be redistributed to more needy areas, rather than in the already wealthy areas it would be raised.
So how do we take a "fairer" cut of tax from the very wealthy? Ideas?
Also, how do we stop successive governments sidling up to like big businesses and allowing them to get away with tiny corporate tax bills?
VAT, Fuel Duty etc, fag duty, booze duty etc. are regressive so I don't believe increasing those will result in redressing the balance.
-
The mansion tax is a dud.
If it were to raise anything like the sort of money that Labour say it will then it will be onerous enough to avoid by simply moving the ownership of the property offshore.
If CT were expanded to include bands up to say z for properties >£50m @ say £100k per year then the revenue would go to the LA but the government could reduce the central funding to the LA by a commensurate amount therefore allowing those monies to be used elsewhere, perhaps more funding to LA with high levels of deprivation?
As for how do we get the ultra rich to pay more tax without damaging the wider economy, a good start would be looking at the general anti avoidance principles (GAAP) introduced by this government and the closure of a large number of tax loopholes and the new regime where you have to notify HMRC of your avoidance plans in advance.
In respect of big business & government, hmmm a tricky one: one wants big high value businesses to be domiciled or operating in your jurisdiction but others like stayfucks aren't I think in the same class as google, big pharma etc.
-
The mansion tax is a dud.
If it were to raise anything like the sort of money that Labour say it will then it will be onerous enough to avoid by simply moving the ownership of the property offshore.
If CT were expanded to include bands up to say z for properties >£50m @ say £100k per year then the revenue would go to the LA but the government could reduce the central funding to the LA by a commensurate amount therefore allowing those monies to be used elsewhere, perhaps more funding to LA with high levels of deprivation?
As for how do we get the ultra rich to pay more tax without damaging the wider economy, a good start would be looking at the general anti avoidance principles (GAAP) introduced by this government and the closure of a large number of tax loopholes and the new regime where you have to notify HMRC of your avoidance plans in advance.
In respect of big business & government, hmmm a tricky one: one wants big high value businesses to be domiciled or operating in your jurisdiction but others like stayfucks aren't I think in the same class as google, big pharma etc.
I rather like your CT proposal.
There is though the problem of the Middle bands in high property value areas. It's hard to see how this wouldn't hit those, essentially in a shitty, overpriced house, in London (for example); who's income might not reflect the value of the property?
-
The point with taxing residence (as we do for 99% of the people) is that you can't offshore your residence, also provided the differentials aren't massive between LA areas you won't precipitate movement by virtue of variations in CT value. (i.e. if the CT in trafford is £1500 pa I won't move to Salford where it is £1300)
Your concern about a person with low income living in an expensive house because the area is expensive (rather than it being palatial) is exactly the concern that led to the introduction of the Community Charge aka Poll Tax.
Another problem with the MT is that it introduces a fiscal cliif, i.e. property valued at £1.99m = taxed at the same as a property worth £350k, property at £2.05m taxed at x3 the rate of a property worth £1.99m, like it or not this will be perceived as massively unfair and the public distrust policies which are unfair in this regard as they fear that they too would soon be subject to the policy.
-
Can the clever people of this parish indulge me in a thought experiment?
Let's assume that the current income tax situation (for PAYE workers) is about right. It's not vastly different from most other EU countries and wages reflect take home pay (IMHO) rather than gross pay. (i.e. if a company wants an employee of "X" experience in "Y" place, they have to pay "ZZZ"/ year to attract this person. If income tax was higher, then wages would probably rise to mirror this).
The previous assumption could be argued to death, but let's just take it as an fixed starting point.
This is a good starting point.
Now, society is never going to be truly "equal" that's communism and in most people's eyes this has been shown to be ... well ... slightly ineffective. Ahem.
False - Communism is not "equal". True - Communism has been shown to be relatively ineffective.
This is actually a real sticking point for me in conversations about capitalism versus socialism, because people start mixing economic structure with political structure. While they tend to be highly related, they are not the same. As an American, I find it highly annoying that we view ourselves as the poster child for democracy, but in actuality we are a republic. You guys are an actual democracy. Sorry about the off-topic rant.
But, I don't think many people would argue that it is "fair" for the super rich, non PAYE earning, elite to get away with significantly less tax (as a percentage) than someone earning say £20,000, £50,000 etc. etc. And there's mechanisms like the non-dom rule that allow crazy rich foreigners to live in Mayfair for a paltry £30,000 a year with all their foreign wealth insulated.
This is why the concept of a "flat" tax is so appealing to many people. It seems "fair" on the surface, but in reality it would be next to impossible to achieve. to make it "fair" you'd have to eliminate every other form of taxation and change tax code to reflect no deductions/credits/etc. But back to your point, I'd agree that most people think the differentiation between capital gains type taxes vs. income or PAYE taxes is not really fair.
So. Back to the original point.
Labour have proposed the popular sounding, but IMO flawed mansion tax - any accountant worth his salt should be able to fiddle around with ownership and valuations to dodge this. To me it's hot air and an attempt at vote winning, but will not really address the major issues. Simon Jenkins suggested just using more bands of Cooncil Tax but that ignores the fact that the money from (mainly London) should be redistributed to more needy areas, rather than in the already wealthy areas it would be raised.
Let's question "the fact that the money from (mainly London) should be redistributed to more needy areas, rather than in the already wealthy areas it would be raised." I doubt everyone agrees with this, so it is not a "fact". I'd argue that there is a significant portion of the population that doesn't agree with redistribution.
So how do we take a "fairer" cut of tax from the very wealthy? Ideas?
Also, how do we stop successive governments sidling up to like big businesses and allowing them to get away with tiny corporate tax bills?
VAT, Fuel Duty etc, fag duty, booze duty etc. are regressive so I don't believe increasing those will result in redressing the balance.
Tax all income at the same rate wether it is capital gains, PAYE, inheritance, etc. Then reduce corp income tax to offset a portion of the capital gains tax so that the incentive to start and own a business is not as greatly reduced.
The devil is in the details, but the populace has to have a greater understanding of what is being discussed.
-
We already have entrepreneurs tax relief on investing in start ups, I don't think that all major taxes should be equal as I think it's valid to have a staged income tax rate from 0% to 40%
-
We already have entrepreneurs tax relief on investing in start ups, I don't think that all major taxes should be equal as I think it's valid to have a staged income tax rate from 0% to 40%
Wow. I wasn't expecting that from you.
Tax all income at the same rate wether it is capital gains, PAYE, inheritance, etc. Then reduce corp income tax to offset a portion of the capital gains tax so that the incentive to start and own a business is not as greatly reduced.
Easy to read in either direction, but this was simply meaning that all income should be taxed at same rate(in answer to the question asked by Fultonius). Not necessarily at the same rate across income ranges. So if you are in the 40% bracket, then all of your income would be taxed at the 40% bracket, whether it was from dividends, capital gains, earned income, etc.
-
Yes, it's funny how prejudice an preconceptions affect one isn't it? :-\
As per your suggestion that the rate is banded I seriously disagree. For it to work you have to take all types of income as the same: this would be a serious barrier to saving for a pension as growth in the pension pot could take you across a boundary and thus result in a massive tax hike without any increase in income.
If you separate the types of income and tax them differently i.e. ROI from wage income then there's an incentive to avoid tax by shifting wages into equity and then taking a divi: so if you're on £100 below the 20/40 margin and get a £1000 pay rise you get clobbered, instead if you take £x worth of shares and get £1000 divi you remain on the 20% rate.
My view is that Adam Smith hit the nail on the head when he said that what you need are 'fair laws and easy taxes' which is why tax should be progressive but never oppressive.
While there is much debate about 'the laffer curve' it is without doubt that if you tax at 99% people won't bother to 'work harder', innovate & etc, and if you tax at 1% the state cannot properly function: as such we're looking at what is the optimal tax rates which both properly fund the proper functions of the state and allows maximum freedom for individuals.
-
We already have entrepreneurs tax relief on investing in start ups, I don't think that all major taxes should be equal as I think it's valid to have a staged income tax rate from 0% to 40%
Entrepreneurs relief is actually relief for business owners who sell all or part of their business and means that they only pay 10% on the capital gain rather then 18%/28%.
You're right though in that there is the EIS and SEIS whereby people investing in small businesses can get tax relief on the money they invest (30% or 50% depending on which scheme).
If you separate the types of income and tax them differently i.e. ROI from wage income then there's an incentive to avoid tax by shifting wages into equity and then taking a divi: so if you're on £100 below the 20/40 margin and get a £1000 pay rise you get clobbered, instead if you take £x worth of shares and get £1000 divi you remain on the 20% rate.
Not quite. You wouldn't get taxed on the x amount of shares (provided x was > £11k) as this would be a capital gain, but if you were immediately paid a dividend of £1k this would still take you into the higher rate band and therefore create a liability (albeit at 25% rather than 40%).
-
We already have entrepreneurs tax relief on investing in start ups, I don't think that all major taxes should be equal as I think it's valid to have a staged income tax rate from 0% to 40%
Entrepreneurs relief is actually relief for business owners who sell all or part of their business and means that they only pay 10% on the capital gain rather then 18%/28%.
You're right though in that there is the EIS and SEIS whereby people investing in small businesses can get tax relief on the money they invest (30% or 50% depending on which scheme).
If you separate the types of income and tax them differently i.e. ROI from wage income then there's an incentive to avoid tax by shifting wages into equity and then taking a divi: so if you're on £100 below the 20/40 margin and get a £1000 pay rise you get clobbered, instead if you take £x worth of shares and get £1000 divi you remain on the 20% rate.
Not quite. You wouldn't get taxed on the x amount of shares (provided x was > £11k) as this would be a capital gain, but if you were immediately paid a dividend of £1k this would still take you into the higher rate band and therefore create a liability (albeit at 25% rather than 40%).
Thanks for the details re the EIS & etc
My point was modelled on the proposal from Sasquatch rather than an illustration of what's currently in effect.
-
A lot of the problem with this 1% stuff is that people don't realise who it's actually referring to. In income terms you are in the top 1% in the world if your net income is over about £25k, so it's not just Russian criminals by a long way.
Just to go back to this, on today they said the figure from the oxfam report for worldwide top 1% was assets of $800k
-
Which again is hardly Abramovich levels and why I think a lot of the reporting on this is misleading.
-
Absolutely, there was an interesting piece on R4 this morning which basically said inequality had reduced since 2002 due to the changes in China and one of the reasons poverty and inequality in India was so bad was a lack of capitalism (India followed from memory a Sino style socialist economic policy for a long time).
The other figure was the disparity of child mortality <5 in Nigeria in that it was 500% higher in poor areas than in the wealthiest, now call me a cynic (chorus etc chiz) but maybe this is due to the endemic corruption and tribal politics in Nigeria rather than the oligarchs and billionaires like Buffet, Gates and so on?
-
I think there's two different issues here though:
1. Local inequality (i.e. UK)
2. Worldwide inequality.
Ignoring the rest of the world, many people feel that the UK is becoming increasingly and detrimentally unequal.
With regard to worldwide inequality, then I agree, the vast majority of the developed world are pretty rich in comparison. I'm not convinced both types of inequality can be discussed at the same time, or, even less so solved by the same means.
-
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-inequality-worse/19925 (http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-inequality-worse/19925)
-
I think there's two different issues here though:
1. Local inequality (i.e. UK)
2. Worldwide inequality.
Ignoring the rest of the world, many people feel that the UK is becoming increasingly and detrimentally unequal.
With regard to worldwide inequality, then I agree, the vast majority of the developed world are pretty rich in comparison. I'm not convinced both types of inequality can be discussed at the same time, or, even less so solved by the same means.
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.
-
As per your suggestion that the rate is banded I seriously disagree. For it to work you have to take all types of income as the same: this would be a serious barrier to saving for a pension as growth in the pension pot could take you across a boundary and thus result in a massive tax hike without any increase in income.
I'm trying to understand this. Perhaps it's different in the US, but we yanks only pay capital gains when we cash out on an investment or when we receive a dividend. As such, I have control over when that income gets taxed and can plan for it so that I don't wander into the next bracket. Thus our pension pot only gets taxed when we pull it out (ignoring for now the "Roth IRA" retirement accounts)
If you separate the types of income and tax them differently i.e. ROI from wage income then there's an incentive to avoid tax by shifting wages into equity and then taking a divi: so if you're on £100 below the 20/40 margin and get a £1000 pay rise you get clobbered, instead if you take £x worth of shares and get £1000 divi you remain on the 20% rate.
So this is where I disagree. Why should someone pay less tax on your income because part of it is divi vs. someone who makes all of it in wages? I think someone who makes 150K in wages should pay the same tax as someone who makes 150K in Divi.
I'm not sure how it sits in the UK, but here in the US, the progressive side of taxation only hits the portion of your income above that line. i.e. if the tax rate is 15% below 100K and 35% above 100K, and you make 150K, then you pay 15% on the first 100k, then 35% on the remaining 50K for a total of 32.5K in taxes and a "real" rate of 25% despite being in the "35%" bracket. So in your example, only £900 would get taxed at the 40% rate. Does it not work this way in the UK?
My view is that Adam Smith hit the nail on the head when he said that what you need are 'fair laws and easy taxes' which is why tax should be progressive but never oppressive.
I fully agree, hence why I think getting rid of most loopholes and equaling taxation on all income types. Income is income regardless of source.
While there is much debate about 'the laffer curve' it is without doubt that if you tax at 99% people won't bother to 'work harder', innovate & etc, and if you tax at 1% the state cannot properly function: as such we're looking at what is the optimal tax rates which both properly fund the proper functions of the state and allows maximum freedom for individuals.
Agreed. But there is both the question of optimal rates and also of tax structure. In the US, the current tax rate/structure is blatantly skewed towards screwing the working middle class and helping the rich.
-
Which again is hardly Abramovich levels and why I think a lot of the reporting on this is misleading.
yes yes I agree, just wanted to get that on the record, although if yo look at the figures for the US in terms of the 1% there it's still quite astounding.
-
As per your suggestion that the rate is banded I seriously disagree. For it to work you have to take all types of income as the same: this would be a serious barrier to saving for a pension as growth in the pension pot could take you across a boundary and thus result in a massive tax hike without any increase in income.
I'm trying to understand this. Perhaps it's different in the US, but we yanks only pay capital gains when we cash out on an investment or when we receive a dividend. As such, I have control over when that income gets taxed and can plan for it so that I don't wander into the next bracket. Thus our pension pot only gets taxed when we pull it out (ignoring for now the "Roth IRA" retirement accounts)
If you separate the types of income and tax them differently i.e. ROI from wage income then there's an incentive to avoid tax by shifting wages into equity and then taking a divi: so if you're on £100 below the 20/40 margin and get a £1000 pay rise you get clobbered, instead if you take £x worth of shares and get £1000 divi you remain on the 20% rate.
So this is where I disagree. Why should someone pay less tax on your income because part of it is divi vs. someone who makes all of it in wages? I think someone who makes 150K in wages should pay the same tax as someone who makes 150K in Divi.
I'm not sure how it sits in the UK, but here in the US, the progressive side of taxation only hits the portion of your income above that line. i.e. if the tax rate is 15% below 100K and 35% above 100K, and you make 150K, then you pay 15% on the first 100k, then 35% on the remaining 50K for a total of 32.5K in taxes and a "real" rate of 25% despite being in the "35%" bracket. So in your example, only £900 would get taxed at the 40% rate. Does it not work this way in the UK?
My view is that Adam Smith hit the nail on the head when he said that what you need are 'fair laws and easy taxes' which is why tax should be progressive but never oppressive.
I fully agree, hence why I think getting rid of most loopholes and equaling taxation on all income types. Income is income regardless of source.
While there is much debate about 'the laffer curve' it is without doubt that if you tax at 99% people won't bother to 'work harder', innovate & etc, and if you tax at 1% the state cannot properly function: as such we're looking at what is the optimal tax rates which both properly fund the proper functions of the state and allows maximum freedom for individuals.
Agreed. But there is both the question of optimal rates and also of tax structure. In the US, the current tax rate/structure is blatantly skewed towards screwing the working middle class and helping the rich.
I'm sure the system in the US is very different.
In the UK (and I'm shure Jasper will step in if I'm wrong) all tax payers have a capital gains tax allowance of about £11k per year after which you pay (I think) 40% regardless as to whether you're a 0% or 45% income tax payer.
I think I may have misunderstood your proposal, I though you were saying that once you went over the threshold then everything i.e. including earnings below the change point would be taxed at the higher rate, but I think I got that wrong.
As to why we pay lower rates on divi than paid income I'm not sure (Blondie) but I can imagien that in theory it's to do with the risk and also social good that investments produce and hence the discounted rate.
I'd say it was impossible to close loopholes entirely but we've seen more progress in the last 5 years in the UK than probably in the last 50.
-
Well dividends are paid out of profit after corporation tax so basically 20% (or more) has already been paid on the income before it's been distributed. In simple terms, that's why you only pay further (personal) tax on dividends if they take you into the higher rate bands, and it's a sliding scale like everything else (so over £150k you pay 37.5%).
CGT - you're right Sloper, it's £11K allowance for everyone but then the tax rate is 18% for basic rate taxpayers and 28% for higher rate (sliding scale again). This was brought in to simplify the system as the tax rate used to be higher but you got indexation on the original cost of the asset depending on how long you had owned it.
Well, some say it was to simplify the system, others that it was to help the wealthy who are more likely to make large, quick gains on assets (shares, property etc) as opposed to most people who are only likely to encounter CGT in exceptional circumstances and where assets have been owned for longer periods. I couldn't possibly comment.
-
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/21/unemployment-figures-are-a-sanction-based-stitch-up-research-shows/ (http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/21/unemployment-figures-are-a-sanction-based-stitch-up-research-shows/) :shrug:
It strikes me that the current government are just taking advantage of a long tradition of inadequate reporting of figures for unemployment - by aggressively and heartlessly skewing the figures even more.
Happy Thursday.
-
I'm sure the system in the US is very different.
In the UK (and I'm shure Jasper will step in if I'm wrong) all tax payers have a capital gains tax allowance of about £11k per year after which you pay (I think) 40% regardless as to whether you're a 0% or 45% income tax payer.
I think I may have misunderstood your proposal, I though you were saying that once you went over the threshold then everything i.e. including earnings below the change point would be taxed at the higher rate, but I think I got that wrong.
As to why we pay lower rates on divi than paid income I'm not sure (Blondie) but I can imagien that in theory it's to do with the risk and also social good that investments produce and hence the discounted rate.
I'd say it was impossible to close loopholes entirely but we've seen more progress in the last 5 years in the UK than probably in the last 50.
That would be nice and means my view is mostly a moot point in the UK. In the US, if you earn over 250K you pay about 20% capital gains tax, instead of the stand 39.6% income tax. So in the US, there's an exceptionally strong tax incentive towards div and capital gains if you makes significant amounts of money. Hence why Warren Buffet claimed to pay a 14% tax rate.
Good to hear you've been more successful at closing loopholes. I haven't seen it in the US, but then I don't have a strong historical perspective either.
-
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/21/unemployment-figures-are-a-sanction-based-stitch-up-research-shows/ (http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/21/unemployment-figures-are-a-sanction-based-stitch-up-research-shows/) :shrug:
It strikes me that the current government are just taking advantage of a long tradition of inadequate reporting of figures for unemployment - by aggressively and heartlessly skewing the figures even more.
Happy Thursday.
Ahh the usual fuckwit lefty drivel from our own Dave Spart, have you anything to contribute other than being a legitimate target for abuse?
PS congratulations on your engagement.
-
I'm sure the system in the US is very different.
In the UK (and I'm shure Jasper will step in if I'm wrong) all tax payers have a capital gains tax allowance of about £11k per year after which you pay (I think) 40% regardless as to whether you're a 0% or 45% income tax payer.
I think I may have misunderstood your proposal, I though you were saying that once you went over the threshold then everything i.e. including earnings below the change point would be taxed at the higher rate, but I think I got that wrong.
As to why we pay lower rates on divi than paid income I'm not sure (Blondie) but I can imagien that in theory it's to do with the risk and also social good that investments produce and hence the discounted rate.
I'd say it was impossible to close loopholes entirely but we've seen more progress in the last 5 years in the UK than probably in the last 50.
That would be nice and means my view is mostly a moot point in the UK. In the US, if you earn over 250K you pay about 20% capital gains tax, instead of the stand 39.6% income tax. So in the US, there's an exceptionally strong tax incentive towards div and capital gains if you makes significant amounts of money. Hence why Warren Buffet claimed to pay a 14% tax rate.
Good to hear you've been more successful at closing loopholes. I haven't seen it in the US, but then I don't have a strong historical perspective either.
Therein lies one of the great problems with tax in a modern world in that differentials create inequality but as tax is a sovereign issue while we have sovereign jurisdictions there can be such vast disparities for example Delaware has an enormous % of US companies domiciled there.
Personally I blame German romantic philosophy from the early 19th C as the root of many of the problems we see today: it is sadly however never a theory debated well by politicians. :shrug:
-
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/21/unemployment-figures-are-a-sanction-based-stitch-up-research-shows/ (http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/21/unemployment-figures-are-a-sanction-based-stitch-up-research-shows/) :shrug:
It strikes me that the current government are just taking advantage of a long tradition of inadequate reporting of figures for unemployment - by aggressively and heartlessly skewing the figures even more.
Happy Thursday.
Ahh the usual fuckwit lefty drivel from our own Dave Spart, have you anything to contribute other than being a legitimate target for abuse?
PS congratulations on your engagement.
The usual quality debate being presented here I see. Allow me to reciprocate a little more on your level:
"Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a Gentile."
"Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a slave."
"Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman."
"And most of all, thank you god for not making me an egotistical right wing codpiece"
cheers and whatnot
-
The more I think about that paper the more I think Sloper is right; some force is causing both slow growth and suppression of wages for the poorest. Thus growing inequality and poor growth are linked but not causally.
That force might be worsening standards of education or the lack of well paid industrial jobs, I don't know.
-
stu - I really don't understand this - what do you mean by some force?
-
The more I think about that paper the more I think Sloper is right; some force is causing both slow growth and suppression of wages for the poorest. Thus growing inequality and poor growth are linked but not causally.
That force might be worsening standards of education or the lack of well paid industrial jobs, I don't know.
More worryingly I'm begining to understand astrophysics :-\ :o
One of the factors is undoubtably the rise in globalisation: manufacturing that used to be in the west is now in Asia and moving to Africa as the costs in Asia increase and as such the sort of jobs that were available in the west are now much less numerous.
This can be considered as creative destruction / disruption and in reality not significant as mature post industrial economies have the capacity to diversify and develop in ways that less mature industrial countries don't.
As alluded to in the OECD paper the lag and elasticity is often due to poorest is due to lack of education and also a lack of economic flexibility: this coupled with corruption prevents the developments which allow the poorest to take the step to the next quantum level.
As for education, standards have fallen in the UK but what I think is more important is the cultural status of education: think of all the phrases such as 'he's too clever by half' or the school yard insults (maybe a generational thing) 'swot' and that culturally we do not celebrate education. This in part might be that historically a child could leave school at 16 with no qualifiactions on the Friday and walk into a reasonably well paid job on the Monday.
Generally as well, for large parts of society education is not seen as a vital part of life and the means of a better life. If you compare this to the 'tiger mother' syndrome or the meme in many immigrant communities where gen 1, manual labour, gen 2 teacher, gen 3 doctor lawyer etc then you can see a gulf which if anything is widening.
In other parts of the world you have the complication of corruption: what's the point in trying hard if you're from the wrong tribe, can't pay the bribe and so on the the motivation to study must surely be diminished.
-
The more I think about that paper the more I think Sloper is right; some force is causing both slow growth and suppression of wages for the poorest. Thus growing inequality and poor growth are linked but not causally.
That force might be worsening standards of education or the lack of well paid industrial jobs, I don't know.
I speculate that this is down to issues well discussed elsewhere on here. Technological, communications and regulatory changes perhaps? These have contributed to a situation where capital is massively mobile, and therefore able to reap returns ahead of the general growth rate (a la Piketty, though I tend to think this is a contingent rather than necessary state) .
This has (inevitably) developed an increasingly concentrated pool of very wealthy and influential people. Their incentive is to look for low overall risk, but to insist on decent returns by essentially saying 'play on our terms or we'll take the money away'. It's obviuosly not that simple, but there is certainly a net effect where governments struggle to get large organisations (ie the operational front ends through which capital is deployed) and wealthy individuals to pay their way and to fund the education and infrastructure that would support long term growth. They also struggle to achieve any degree of openness about who actually owns things (ie beneficial ownership), which is a huge problem when it comes to understanding what is driving investment decisions, even where they are of strategic or social significance.
This effect also means that capital and those who structure its deployment (financiers and lawyers) has taken pretty much all the proceeds of growth for a long time, with very little going to wages ie to those who actually do and make stuff, so productivity isn't all that great and there isn't a lot of money sloshing around among ordinary people and small/medium businesses.
I don't make the latter point as some sort of Marxist dig, but it seems obvious to me that if you don't want to invest massively in education and infrastructure, and you don't want to pay healthy wages, then you've essentially cut off some key pathways to growth over the long term. Even technological improvements (which is probably what will structure our economy in the long term) are driven by short-medium term considerations of individual organisations, so probably aren't developed in a way that will maximise overall growth. Certainly it won't drive wages...
It's a sad irony that those who own and deploy large amounts of capital will frequently champion the need for economic growth, but by virtue of their own (legitimate) wish to squeeze the most out of their wealth they might be entrenching global financial/regulatory/political structures that limit the same.
There ends my speculation...
-
This in part might be that historically a child could leave school at 16 with no qualifiactions on the Friday and walk into a reasonably well paid job on the Monday.
Interesting post. In relation to the above, the end of this option has had a pretty big impact on a lot of people in the UK, particularly since you now need not just some qualifications, but really a very high level of education to get any form of meaningful employment (though there will always be exceptions to this rule), because there is a small and vanishing amount of it available. In a sense, the game is up in post-industrial societies. A fair chunk of people now realise that:
a) a pretty large percentage of people are always going to have uncertain, low quality, poorly paid work
b) no one is interested in or capable of doing much about it
c) if you're at the bottom of the pile you'll have climb a long way up it to be sure of a reasonable payoff
Rightly or wrongly, this doesn't do much to encourage people to take personal growth all that seriously.
-
This in part might be that historically a child could leave school at 16 with no qualifiactions on the Friday and walk into a reasonably well paid job on the Monday.
Interesting post. In relation to the above, the end of this option has had a pretty big impact on a lot of people in the UK, particularly since you now need not just some qualifications, but really a very high level of education to get any form of meaningful employment (though there will always be exceptions to this rule), because there is a small and vanishing amount of it available. In a sense, the game is up in post-industrial societies. A fair chunk of people now realise that:
a) a pretty large percentage of people are always going to have uncertain, low quality, poorly paid work
b) no one is interested in or capable of doing much about it
c) if you're at the bottom of the pile you'll have climb a long way up it to be sure of a reasonable payoff
Rightly or wrongly, this doesn't do much to encourage people to take personal growth all that seriously.
Sorry I disagree, plenty of skilled trades don't require a degree and are very well paid, not allow low(er) paid work is uncertain i.e. teaching assistants, postmen, lower rank civil servants and so on.
-
Sorry I disagree, plenty of skilled trades don't require a degree and are very well paid, not allow low(er) paid work is uncertain i.e. teaching assistants, postmen, lower rank civil servants and so on.
Very reasonable point about skilled trades. Education and training policy has not helped to give these the profile they deserve. Also one of the few areas where there is real largescale demand for more people.
The list you provide of lower paid secure work doesn't look that robust to me.
Teaching assistants are absolutely front-of-the-queue for redundancy as schools cut costs to make current contributions to capital. To be secure most will need to get higher level qualifications soon, and many will not have the educational background to do so.
I'm not sure of the situation with postmen, though I seem to know lots of people (edit, this is a lie - I mean three people) who have taken up the work and been given such a jumble of uncertain hours and shifts that they have found it impossible to keep up. The movement of private sector companies into 'last mile' postal services, and the growth of delivery services paying drivers per drop has hardly made this sector more secure recently.
Lower rank civil servants probably do still have quite a bit of security, though I can't see the numbers going anywhere other than down in the near future. The outsourcing of major government schemes means that many jobs are now transferred to private operators who offer less secure employment. Similar local authority clerical and managerial work has been massively cut back since the crisis. Again, I think it's reasonable to think of this as a shrinking and less certain area of work.
None of these areas are necessarily any less certain than elsewhere in the economy, but that's sort of the point. Being paid not very much and with a very uncertain future is not an inspiring goal in life.
-
Indeed, which is why it so bizzare that so many in the lowest quartile have such a negative view of education & etc
-
Walking out of school at 15/16, was usually followed by low paid service sector employment or a long, arduous apprenticeship on low wages.
Neither of those things were a bad thing, in fact
(Speaking as the product of one of the last such) the latter is slowly re-emerging and a fantastic alternative to academic FE.
Young people, with low skills and little experience, are of limited value in the workplace.
Few of them understand that.
I started on a salary of £112 per month, at a time when the Dole was £45 per week.
Like it or lump it. The minimum wage has caused unintended consequences in SME's.
Zero hour contracts for instance.
-
Zero hours contracts were around well before the NMW, I was on a 0HC in the 1980s as a student, we called it 'temping'.
did you know that solicitors have up to a 2 year apprentiship with the minimum being about £14k? (although high flying city types can be on £50k during their TC)
-
Oh the poor lambs! However do they manage?
-
Yes, because with 3 years graduate debt and year post grad debt including £15k fees £14k is just so rewarding :wank: :wank: :wank:
How much do junior doctors, teachers, police officers get?
-
And how much does every other graduate get? Not many fuck alls
-
And how much does every other graduate get? Not many fuck alls
Yeah, I wrote a long post, and deleted; that Dense just put into one line.
The problem is, most Graduates are smart enough to realise they are worthless in the workplace and are willing to put in the grind.
At the other end of the academic scale, it's a different story.
As a society, we have devalued and lost respect for the skilled trades (partly due to the Cowboys that sprang up all over during the '80s).
An apprenticeship as (say) a Plumber, is available. But, at £2.73 an hour, it's hard to find takers.
But, a 16 year old school leaver is not worth 14K per year. They simply don't add that kind of value to a business.
That pay rate is only for the first year, and there are pretty strict limits on working hours and training is provided and monitored by an outside agency.
Even if the company running the apprenticeship can't keep them on at the end (and plenty of small businesses simply can't (think how much extra business you need to bring in to cover that minimum wage, plus employers contributions, holiday pay, holiday cover etc)).
I ditched Uni for a 4 year Engineering apprenticeship (and an HND), at £112 per month (when the Dole was £45 per week).
One of the last such apprenticeships (Royal Navy, Marine Engineering Artificer).
I was still better off than my mates that continued at Uni and was earning 32K pa by the time I was 23.
(Ok, I went and did other things for 3 or 4 years shortly after qualifying and that gave me an extra skill set to trade, but it laid the foundation for my post MOB career).
But, getting these kids to see the value and future potential, of such training, is almost impossible.
-
- Speaking only to first world inequality (not worldwide, just say UK or US as that what i know.) -
One thing that I find interesting is to think about the idea that workers be paid what they're worth, and how that compares to what they're actually earning. If you take a standard bell curve, there should be people at both end of the spectrum and along some curve in between. in reality, you can't really make negative money, so while there is a lower bound, there is no upper bound. This means you'll automatically have a long tail at one end.
Some people are shitty workers and really don't deserve to get paid much. Some are actually more of a liability to the company than an asset. These are at the bottom end of the curve. Some are fantastic and paid well for it and are at the upper end of the curve. These tend to be be really good gamblers, inherited wealth, or extremely specialized work (surgeons, pro athletes, etc.), and fall at the other end of the curve.
I wonder how a standard earnings curve really looks. Does it follow a natural curve, or are there odd spikes and humps. How do different countries compare? Is there something to be learned from this comparison?
I've not seen one of these, though I'd guess they must exist.
-
Never mind. Decided to look it up and they're readily available. Although like most stats, the devil is in the details. Those that support showing inequality show a highly left skewd chart, while those espousing lower income inequality show a more right skewed chart.......
-
Picking up on Stu and Slopers discussion a few posts earlier, there's definately somethjng going on but no-one can really agree on what it is. I'd assert that information technology and communications are playing a really significant role in radically restructuring value chains, economies, the movement of capital and information. Mostly positive but there are real unintended consequences. We live in a time as transformational as the adoption of agriculture or the beginning of the industrial revolution and it's no wonder that were struggling to understand what's happening. When you couple this with a climate that's becoming more unstable and influenced by us then it all looks very confusing, unsettling and even frightening.
-
https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02
The 1%....
-
Picking up on Stu and Slopers discussion a few posts earlier, there's definately somethjng going on but no-one can really agree on what it is. I'd assert that information technology and communications are playing a really significant role in radically restructuring value chains, economies, the movement of capital and information. Mostly positive but there are real unintended consequences. We live in a time as transformational as the adoption of agriculture or the beginning of the industrial revolution and it's no wonder that were struggling to understand what's happening. When you couple this with a climate that's becoming more unstable and influenced by us then it all looks very confusing, unsettling and even frightening.
Th affect of technology is interesting, for example when WP replace typewriters the number of typists went down by a small %, when computers replaced WPs the number went down hugely as standard letters were linked to databases and so on. Then there was digital dictation that allowed the dictation to be sent to mumbai or south africa and now we have a generation who type themselves.
So in a couple of generations we'll have lost an entire type of employment and in reality it's no great loss and the world carries on regardless.
I am also slightly less peturbed by the rise of twitter and so on as while everyone 'now has a voice' the blathering of a billion morons doesn't really seem to have a lot of influence on actual politics.
-
Surprised you're not on twitter Sloper - would have thought you'd like it....
-
I think several former Middle Eastern Dictators may take issue with your views on Social Media.
-
I think several former Middle Eastern Dictators may take issue with your views on Social Media.
Apologies, I should have made myself clear, I was referring to British politics.
-
I think several former Middle Eastern Dictators may take issue with your views on Social Media.
Also the Greeks. And the new Spanish party certainly wouldn't be where it is now without social media. It's also arguable that the green surge, and the engagement of the youth in the Scottish ref are a result of effective use of fb et al, shame there wasn't a similarly good use for the pr ref.
-
Sloper this one comes to mind as a change from social media backlash but I can't think of many others http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/16/forests-sell-off-cameron-uturn (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/16/forests-sell-off-cameron-uturn)
unless you count sacking someone because they tweeted a picture of a transit van...
-
The sale of the Forestry Commission was as close to a non issue on the political stage as you can imagine, Miliband sacking the shadow minister for that tweet was crass, stupid and weak.
Personally I'd say that facebook, twitter and so on follow the crowd rather than drawing the agenda (in the UK).
-
summing-up:"inequality is the root cause of stagnation"
http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2015/jan/25/davos-inequality-root-cause-stagnation (http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2015/jan/25/davos-inequality-root-cause-stagnation)
-
Summing up, total bollocks.
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.
-
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.
...
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.
:-\ :whatever:
-
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.
:-\ :whatever:
-
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!
-
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.
-
http://kathleenkerridge.com/2015/01/28/the-upsetting-reality-of-modern-day-poverty/
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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...
-
Irrelevant to the subject.
-
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 (http://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.'
-
Irrelevant to the subject. Not supportive of my world view.
There. Fixed that for you.
-
From the Observer on Sunday:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/31/inheritance-britain-wealthy-study-surnames-social-mobility (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/31/inheritance-britain-wealthy-study-surnames-social-mobility)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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 (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 (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/
-
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.
-
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!)