Inequality in Britain

[SeanMacGabhann]

who specifically is banging on about "equality"?

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

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

> Well. Can someone tell me eaxctly what this

> 'equality' thing is please then? Or is it just a

> vague progressive concept that everyone decent

> says matters? "An equal Britain" ....what is that?

OK...I'm no expert...but briefly (as I understand it)...

First of all, it is important to say that there are many different types of inequality...e.g. inequalities based on gender, race, health etc. etc. However, in the context of this thread, when I refer to inequality I am referring to income or economic inequality (i.e. to do with money - in this case, the difference between the haves and the have nots). Whereas, when I talk of social mobility I am referring to the ability to jump from one social class to another (e.g. the ability of a child born to poor working class parents to move out of poverty and say, become a lawyer and hence middle class). It's a simplistic explanation ????, and it is only my take on things. Doesn't mean that it is correct. Hope it helps.

Maybe some others could give their views too? Could be interesting.

[Brendan]

???, without overanalysing the minutiae, it doesn?t take major powers of observation to look around at British society and see that it is hugely unequal in terms of access to education, housing, opportunity and that this is down to there being huge difference between the rich and poor and reinforced by society being stratified by class.

The one thing I always notice when travelling around Britain is that areas are either really, really horrible or virtually oozing wealth. There is precious little in between. People from these different areas even speak different dialects regardless of the fact that they live next to each other. This serves as an example of how little movement between them or commonality of interest there is.

To go back to the example of the bin man and the surgeon. I don?t think anybody is suggesting that a bin man should be paid the same as a surgeon. But if you look around you will see that while a surgeon will enjoy a very good lifestyle, probably own more than one property, pass on wealth to his children and have extensive freedom of movement around the world a bin man will not be able to put food on the table or even an inadequate roof over his head without government handouts. Despite working the same hours as the surgeon his energies will be completely taken up by trying to survive rather than being able to provide opportunity for his family.

The conservative lobby would no doubt say that he isn?t taking responsibility for his life and deserves all he gets but then conveniently stick their fingers back in their ears if anyone suggests that while that sounds like a smashing thing for him to do he needs to be given the opportunity to do so.

Here?s some food for though on the matter. In, Notes from a Small Island, Bill Bryson says something about meeting a train driver who speaks to him about some philosopher or other (I think a philosopher, I can?t remember the exact details, let?s just refer to this person as X). Anyway he makes the point that this is either a country where train drivers know about and discuss X or that this is a country where people who know about and discuss X end up driving trains.

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> ???, without overanalysing the minutiae...

Blimey Brendan - good post!

Makes my little explanation look rather inadequate:(

[Ladymuck]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> who specifically is banging on about "equality"?

Well, all 3 main political parties (and, incidentally, the Greens) have of late. It's quite interesting how they now all accept that inequalities exist and acknowledge that something needs to be done to combat them.

However, the latest report on this issue is that of the National Equality Panel: note - it's 476 pages long!

But here is a nice little summary from the Independent:

The Big Question: Why has the equality gap widened even through the years of plenty?

[Jeremy]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> a bin man will not be able to put

> food on the table or even an inadequate roof over

> his head without government handouts.

But isn't that what "government handouts" are for? Aren't family/housing benefits a valid form of wealth distribution?

Although there is obviously inequality of access to education, I don't accept that you need to go to a private school to make something of yourself. I think people's views are being skewed by the situation in the local area where parents feel that the local state schools are not viable... but it's not the case everywhere.

I know it's an unpopular view, but I think one of the toughest hurdles is parents (and therefore their kids) who have no aspirations and don't take education seriously.

[Brendan]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> But isn't that what "government handouts" are for?

> Aren't family/housing benefits a valid form of

> wealth distribution?

That?s a matter of personal political tastes. In my opinion a fair society should not have to rely on active socialism to counter act the effects of inequality. It just further differentiates between the haves and have-nots.

Requiring benefit payouts and council accommodation in order to stop hard working people becoming destitute is just an admission that capitalism has failed through its own greed*. On some levels the whole thing is just a bribe which I am neither interested in paying or receiving.

Whereas (and once again these are my personal political views) a properly managed Capitalist system can benefit everybody.

*Notwithstanding perhaps the initial, valid at the time, reasons for the welfare state in the UK and the fact that we are living with the legacy. This is perhaps another facet to the issue.

[Jeremy]

You could argue that they should just be paid an adequate wage in the first place, but then how do you direct the money to those who need it most?

[????]

Personally I'm still at least interested in looking at national universal adult income (removing much benefit bureacracy) backed up by decent benefits for those in need eg disability, carers, plus redistributive significantly higher tax thresholds giving it at source rather than back through benefits

[Brendan]

One option is a tax system which will benefit companies financially if they pay more equally. Properly managed of course so that there is a discrepancy and therefore incentive for people to achieve.

This combined with a minimum living wage, taxation on personal property portfolios and inheritance and financial services regulation which ensures that people with less money don?t end up paying more just because they have less money should go someway to giving people a fair go and giving those that don?t bother the incentive to work towards something.

I don?t think people who achieve should be denied reward but the discrepancy shouldn?t be such that the amount of money and property in their hands is denying someone else a decent lifestyle.

There?s enough money in this economy for rich people to still be rich without completely screwing the poor in the process.

[Ladymuck]

What about the introduction of a Maximum Wage?

[Brendan]

I don?t think it?s workable. What you can do is create conditions which discourage disproportionate remuneration but a specific maximum wage is (and this may sound odd considering the conversation) not really fair.

[MitchK]

I hate the rich, although I do the lottery every week so one day I can be just like them.

[Brendan]

Not sure if I?m allowed satire in here but here you go: DOCTORS DEMAND CONCENTRATION CAMPS FOR THE POOR http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/doctors-demand-concentration-camps-for-the-poor-201003242586/

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> Not sure if I?m allowed satire in here but here

> you go...

I don't see why not...it's (kind of) relevant in that it shows just how unfair (to the point of ridiculous) our unequal society has sadly become. It's debating by provoking change through humour.

Very funny.

[Jeremy]

Maximum wage? Haha, yes that would do wonders for the old entrepreneurial spirit!

I seem to remember a maximum wage was in Jello Biafra's manifesto when he was going for leader of the US Green Party. Great frontman but... mad as a box of frogs.

[Brendan]

Yeah, it?s self defeating. People have to be able to pursue achievement and gain reward from it. It?s how we are programmed to function. It is one thing curbing exploitation and allowing everyone a fair go but saying that you can only reach a certain level and then you may as well just give up is hardly going to get the best out of people.

[SteveT]

Jeremy wrote:- Maximum wage? Haha, yes that would do wonders for the old entrepreneurial spirit!

Entrepreneurs do not get a wage they get the profit from their company, which they are fully entitled to as they have earned it by using their wits.

Bankers who get 63 million have not earned that as a wage or anything like it, it is asset stripping in my book.

[Jeremy]

If you own a business, you still have to pay money to yourself, right? You can't just take it out of the company coffers.

We heard Steve... you don't like banks or bankers...

[Ladymuck]

I must admit that I am unsure as to whether or not the introduction of a maximum wage could offer a viable solution to the problem of income inequality. Certainly, the thought that it might stifle ambition or (as per Jeremy) "do wonders for the old entrepreneurial spirit" (which could perhaps end up causing the economy to shrink even further) makes me a little uneasy. On the other hand, the idea that it might be effective in reducing the ratio between the lowest and highest paid employees appeals. Also, let us not forget how our economy was recently brought to its knees in part (admittedly only a small part) precisely because of massive overpayments to a few.

In all honesty, as radical as it sounds, given the role the banks have played in the collapse of our economy (and the fact that some of them would appear to remain unrepentant), I would not be averse to implementing such a measure - against (some of) the banks.

[niledynodely]

> The solution would be Toby Young-style

> "Comprehensive Grammars" - all pupils are in

> together but streaming exists within subject

> groups to allow the brightest to forge ahead and

> extra attention to be given to those struggling.

>

> The other major change I would like to see in

> education is that grades are not based on absolute

> marks but are a percentage or banding result.

> Grades are not there to tell you how well you've

> done per se, they are there to tell you how well

> you have done compared to everyone else. If

> everyone get's A* it says nothing about how clever

> you are compared to your peers. Exams are no

> easier or harder now than they were 50 years ago -

> just differently graded. Only the top 10% (as an

> example) should be given an 'A', not all of those

> scoring 90% in an exam.

I think that Toby Young solution sounds terrible. The whole problem with comprehensives was they set up one type of educational system (basically academic) and with it prioritised one system of values. Other countries value vocational skills like carpentry, baking, plumbing, building and because they properly value them they properly train people in them and these people then value themselves. And because they properly value them people actually want to learn those skills so if they aren't academic they have somewhere else to turn without feeling that they have in any way failed. I think competitive educational systems are fine as long as there are other roads to travel along if you don't want to enter that particular rat race.

And another spin off is if you properly train a workforce you don't have to nick skilled people who have been trained up at the expense of tax payers from other countries.

[SteveT]

Jeremy wrote:- You can't just take it out of the company coffers.

When running a company where else would the money come from but it's coffers Jeremy?

Any money earned by that company can be removed in full or in part by the owner of that company, as far as I'm aware.

[Jeremy]

You still have to pay yourself... either in the form of salary or dividend. I was assuming any "maximum wage" system would take both of these into account.

[david_carnell]

niledynodely Wrote:

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

> I think that Toby Young solution sounds terrible.

> The whole problem with comprehensives was they set

> up one type of educational system (basically

> academic) and with it prioritised one system of

> values. Other countries value vocational skills

> like carpentry, baking, plumbing, building and

> because they properly value them they properly

> train people in them and these people then value

> themselves. And because they properly value them

> people actually want to learn those skills so if

> they aren't academic they have somewhere else to

> turn without feeling that they have in any way

> failed. I think competitive educational systems

> are fine as long as there are other roads to

> travel along if you don't want to enter that

> particular rat race.

>

> And another spin off is if you properly train a

> workforce you don't have to nick skilled people

> who have been trained up at the expense of tax

> payers from other countries.

Agreed. Although I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Whilst I would love this country to produce skilled bakers, weavers, etc until you move people's thinking away from price-based to quality based then there is a difficulty in this being a useful and practical life-choice.

I seriously considered re-training to become a baker when I was unemployed last year. I still love it. But they earn almost nothing because people aren't willing (in the main) to pay more than a quid a loaf. So I decided it wasn't practical for me. I've waxed lyrical about bread elsewhere but it's merely an example of a wider problem. People no longer will pay for British craftsmanship (and it is out there) when they can get some cheap shit knock-off from China at a tenth of the cost.

And with a minimum wage at less than ?6ph I can't blame them.

[Ladymuck]

niledynodely Wrote:

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

> And another spin off is if you properly train a

> workforce you don't have to nick skilled people

> who have been trained up at the expense of tax

> payers from other countries.

Which practice tends to leave those (usually poorer) countries with a shortage of doctors, nurses, (or whatever) for their own people...strikes me as somewhat immoral.