Inequality in Britain

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thank you, Wolfie Smith...

Come the revolution...you will be the first up against the wall...:))

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure about all this social mobility

> nonsense that's going on now. People should know

> their place and be happy with it. John Major

> introduced the national lottery and there is

> always the X factor if you want to get rich quick.

And you shall be the second MitchK...:))

*straightens beret*

[Loz]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Thank you, Wolfie Smith...

>

> Come the revolution...you will be the first up

> against the wall...:))

I bet you say that to all the boys...

[Ladymuck]

::o

[The Chair]

Please keep this sensible.

If you want to flirt, take it to the Lounge!

The Chair x

[Ladymuck]

With respect esteemed Chair, I wasn't flirting!!!! I can only assume that you are too young to remember Citizen (Wolfie) Smith...his favourite line (other than "Power to The People") was something like :"Come the Revolution, you'll be the first up against the wall...". As he spoke these words, his right hand mimicked that of a gun and was pointed towards the person he was addressing. Unfortunately I cannot find this on Youtube, but here is a

. It was a brilliant series (IMO). Enjoy this clip.

No kiss for you - flirting indeed!

*flounces off to the lounge*

[Ladymuck]

*flounce shortlived - attempts to get thread back on topic*

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You could give a kid the best education in the

> world, but it wouldn't help them if they are

> surrounded by negative influences in their home

> and social lives. It is indeed a very difficult

> problem to address.

It is difficult...mainly because people are generally hesitant to discuss it or might view any intervention as patronising or smacking of nanny state.

However, the fact is that the most noteworthy causative factor which accounts for higher test results by the age of 5 years is actually good parenting. Indeed, good parenting is directly linked with more advanced intellectual development in children by the age of 5 irrespective of socio-economic background.

[Ladymuck]

Is it possible that there might be a link between economic inequality and financial crises? David A. Moss, an economic and policy historian at the Harvard Business School seems to think so. It's an interesting article.

[Brendan]

I don?t see why it is even contentious that inequality in a system causes instability.

Surely that at least is obvious even to those so utterly inhuman that they can?t get their heads around the real issues which require a grasp of concepts like decency, empathy and fairness.

[Loz]

To be fair on the good professor, he has noted himself that he has identified a correlation, but not yet a causation. Does income inequality in a system cause instability, or instability in a system cause income inequality? Or is there a third factor (or even a fourth) that is the causation of both?

If you take the current recession and the sub-prime crisis, it was effectively caused by a deregulated system of banks lending to a bunch of people without the means to pay it back. So which caused which there? Or was it a meeting of the two - the banks ran out of good risks and so kept lowering the bar until it all came crashing down, whilst all that time greater income inequality meant that that population was increasing in %age of the total anyway?

So, sorry Brendan, I don't think it is quite that simple.

[Brendan]

Ok let?s for a minute assume, no matter how inexplicable it seems, that when confronted with the idea I immediately noticed a number of factors that will influence the 2 things and I didn?t assume that it is simple proportional relationship.

And then, if it?s not too much of a leap of faith, that I assumed most people would also recognise that.

And then, if it isn't too unbelievable, that as well as being a sarky arse I was pointing out the general rule that you need a form of equilibrium within any system for it to be stable.

[Jeremy]

Income Equality and Financial Crises... almost all economies are cyclical in nature. It just so happens that the most cyclical industries are often some of the most profitable ones (i.e. finance). It therefore follows that during the up-turn of a cycle, inequality will increase - until we reach the down-turn! The nature of the economy causes the pattern in inequality.

In the most recent financial crisis, sub-prime borrowing by lower earners seems to have been a major catalyst in the down-turn. But who is more to blame for that? Lower earners desparate to own a home, or irresponsible lenders who gave them mortgages (knowing that they could sell the risk into the market)? I would say the latter.

Greed was a larger factor than poverty.

[Brendan]

The system which allows greed to take advantage of poverty is to blame. I thought that at least has always been obvious.

The arguments just seem to be whether it is good to allow these systems to proliferate because greed is good and well you know it?s only poor people suffering and fuk them anyway or whether laws should be put in place to ensure fairness and stability.

[Loz]

Greed will always take advantage of poverty. That's not so much economics as human nature.

> whether laws should be put in place to ensure fairness

But what is fair?? Or, even, which is a better situation to be in if you are poor?:

- the poorest have the spending power of ?100 and the richest the spending power of ?500

- the poorest have the spending power of ?200 and the richest the spending power of ?2000

Assuming equal buying power in both options (i.e. prices are the some).

[Brendan]

Good question. I suppose it is what we imediatly measure equality against.

What if you asume that the basic tenants of equality are equal access to things like, security, education, healthcare, housing, legal representation and having freedom of movement. And whatever else is determined by society to be an essential.

If those sort of things are assured the rest is just doo-dads and you can say justifiably say that if you want a posh car or a fancy house you can bloody well get a better job.

As long as there is equal access and people have the opportunity to move up and down without facing discrimination the actual gap between earnings isn?t that important suffice to say that it needs to be stable and it does need to be taken into consideration that in a free market the price of essentials is often determined by what the richest are willing to pay rather than what the poorest are able to pay.

Trouble is we live in a place where access to the things I mentioned above is determined by wealth and they are therefore denied to large sections of the population. This causes inequality and entrenches privilege and there is no way that any human being can validly argue that inequality and entrenched privilege are anything other than historical evils which we should to be ashamed of and be striving to overcome.

[Loz]

What if you asume that the basic tenants of equality are equal access to things like, security, education, healthcare, housing, legal representation and having freedom of movement. And whatever else is determined by society to be an essential.

[snip]

Trouble is we live in a place where access to the things I mentioned above is determined by wealth and they are therefore denied to large sections of the population.

By and large (though not entirely) I disagree.

I would argue that everyone in the UK has access to those things you listed. Varying degrees of wealth will buy you better versions/qualities of this, but the basic service is there for all.

For instance, I have used both private medical and NHS facilities over the past couple of year. My experience? You would be hard pressed to tell the difference in outpatient services, wait time excepted. (Fortunately I've not needed to stay in a hospital, so I can't comment on that.)

Frankly, I would rather be poor in the UK than lower-middle class in some other countries.

The one where I would agree is not available to all is not actually on your list - communications. I think internet access is pretty close to being a basic necessity these days.

But overall, what is important is to maintain equality of opportunity. There is too much concentration on equality of outcome - that just benefits a few favoured minority groups. So, of your list, education - I think - is the key. Get that right and the rest should follow. And I think the UK is not too far off getting that right.

[Brendan]

I agree with your premise but not your conclusion.

In my view you measure opportunity by outcome. If the kids of poor people are all still poor and the kids of rich people are all still rich then their opportunities were obviously not equal.

EDIT for shit grammar

[Jeremy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> which is a better situation to be in if you are poor?:

>

> - the poorest have the spending power of ?100 and

> the richest the spending power of ?500

> - the poorest have the spending power of ?200 and

> the richest the spending power of ?2000

>

> Assuming equal buying power in both options (i.e.

> prices are the some).

Big assumption. If prices were the same, then the latter is better. But prices (of pretty much anything) wouldn't be the same!

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>...education - I think - is the key. Get

> that right and the rest should follow. And I think

> the UK is not too far off getting that right.

I am genuinely intrigued Loz as to how you have arrived at that conclusion.

[DJKillaQueen]

So, of your list, education .....And I think the UK is not too far off getting that right.

How can that be true when we have growing levels of illiteracy and innumeracy? (not to mention the 25% unemployment rate amongst 16-24 year olds. And while we still have a public school system which by and large serves to maintain the privileges of the establishment.

And whilst 90% of land is still owned by the 5% 'landed gentry' and their descendents, a privilege protected over centuries to keep the landed gentry wealthy without having to do sod all to earn it.

Inequality in the UK isn't just about the gap between rich and poor, the gaps in wages and so on. It is also about the establishment and the Monarchy and everything that is at the core of the British class system.

[expat]

Do you have a source for the 95/5% split? I can only find that around 40% of the land is not registered.

From the independent April 2007:

A complete picture of who owns modern Britain is to be created as part of the biggest survey of land ownership since William the Conqueror commissioned the Domesday Book nearly a thousand years ago.

But the task is enormous as 40 per cent of land in England and Wales has not been registered by its owners. More than half of all rural land and rural buildings are unregistered.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah the 95/5% split dates back to the formation of the landed gentry and includes landed owned by the monarchy and aristocracy. Obviously some land has been sold since then although for several centuries it could only be inheritted by the eldest son (something written into law to protect sucession rights for the privileged). Today those three groups still own 70% of land in the UK between them and you are quite right in that there has been a cover up by many of the land owners to hide the fact by not reigistering or making available public documentation. It seems they of all people do not want anyone to know just how unfair land distribution has been over the centuries, whilst also avoiding taxes.

Kevin Cahill wrote a very good book on the subject called 'Who Owns Britain'. In it he makes a compelling display of how only around 6000 people, with ancestries dating back to the Norman Conquest own almost 70% on the land (that is less than 1% of the population). In 1872 something called 'Return of Landowners' documented who owned the deeds to what at that time. The landowners through their influence on the house of Lords had that book taken out of circulation at the time but it's all there.

Afer WW1 the Liberals promised land reform and similarly Labour after WW2. Both failed to deliver on that - so entrenched are the aristrocracy and landed gentry in the politcal system and notably the House of Lords. It's part of the problem in keeping land values and rents high, compounding the issue of shortages of affordable housing and also deterring foreign investment as companies can locate elsewhere where land is cheaper with far less planning restrictions.

Kevin's book shows that 77% of the population live on just 5.8% of the land (making a mockery of the argument that Britian is full!). It's a form of privilege that is perhaps the most unfair aspect of British culture and everything in Law, Education, and Politics is set up to protect it.

[Huguenot]

There's been a pervasive air of redistribution of wealth that's infected the Drawing room since DJKQ has tainted this room since my withdrawal.

This has to stop.

It's a vindictive and passive reductionism of the role that people have to play in their own destiny.

There is no 'other' that's preventing achievement in an undisclosed underclass. There may well be a foundation of politically motivated 'blamers' that prevent advancement by creating unidentified enemies of the people.

It doesn't surprise me that underachievers would hide behind this mantle. If you give them an idea that someone else is to blame, they'll seize it and sit on thier hands.

Come on guys!

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL......'tainted'...I like it....

I'm just trying to fully understand exactly what your post is saying......I think you are saying there is no such thing as opportunity afforded by privilege....and that we are all responsible for where we end up in life (which of course is nonsense and blatently obvious to see as such)....but I'm equally not sure that is what you are saying.....

Still trying to get past the tainted thing tbh......>:D<

[Huguenot]

Well, because you nag on about it.

There's no obligation to pay for housing at all.

There's possibly a view that we can create equality by redistributing achievement. It's possible that you believe that achievement and financial benefit is only achieved by theft.

I don't agree.

There's perfectly bright people that profer a service in pennies that makes them wealthy. They're not bad, just clever.

If you pursue a reductionist policy, you'll lose your brightest and your best.

It's not government paying for housing, it's your neighbours.