[Sloper]

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.

[psychomansam]

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.

[Sloper]

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.

[psychomansam]

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? 


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.

[Oldmanmatt]

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!"

[slackline]

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.

[Sloper]

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? 


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.

[psychomansam]

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? 


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.

[Sloper]

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'?

[psychomansam]

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.

[andy popp]

As an historian I am always looking for complexity, multi-causality, and a dose of contingency.

OK, he's talking bollocks.

[psychomansam]

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.

[andy popp]

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.

[slackline]

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). 

They bang on about the 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 when a simple 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).

[psychomansam]

Well it's not on the log pile yet, so own up, who's emotionally stunted? 

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.

 

[Sloper]

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.

[andy popp]

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

[andy popp]

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.

[Sloper]

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.

[Oldmanmatt]

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...

[ghisino]

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!)

[psychomansam]

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.

[ghisino]

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...

[andy popp]

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.

[Sloper]

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?