Inequality in Britain

[Brendan]

Well this is all very nice isn't it...

[Ladymuck]

Crikey! Did not expect ???? to leave.

???? - please come back.

OK, in common with other posters, I don't agree with all of your views. But that doesn't mean that we don't appreciate your input...alternative views are what make this room - as without them there would be no debate and hence no Drawing Room. This area is for serious discussion...and your posts have heated things up. That's good for debate isn't it? I remember heating things up a little in this room on the Organics thread whereupon I promptly had the likes of Mockney and Huguenot (no disrespect intended here Mockney/Huguenot) telling me how wrong I was. But I was buggared if I was going to capitulate! Not on your nelly! We are all entitled to have our say, but if we choose to have that say, we should not be surprised when others then have theirs. It may feel as though you have been pelted with rotten tomatoes in the stocks - but you haven't. You've been disagreed with, that's all.

I shall return to your post some time later tonight. I only hope you will be here to read it.

[mockney piers]

I think a pint in that great force for social cohesion, the local pub, is in order.

Did I mention how much I like you and erspect your intellect quids? Quick, reeducate him ;-)

[Moos]

Can I change the subject, while staying on topic?

One of the vicious circles of poverty / inequality that hasn't yet been mentioned (I think) is how poor people have to pay more for the same items. Electricity meters, expensive bank loans/overdrafts because of low credit, loan sharks, hire-purchase (or whatever that's called now), inability to afford to buy in bulk and get discounts... If financial systems could be better structured to help those in need buy at a reasonable cost, that would really help. It would of course mean more allowances which brings the tricky threshold question into play, but I think it's worth considering.

[Jeremy]

True, but I think the point about expensive finance/credit is largely down to education. Partly to live within your means, and partly not to get taken in by high interest finance such as "payday loans" at 2000% APR.

[????]

My flounce will be shortlived and only prolonged by a weekend away :))

[Brendan]

Flouncing and holidays aside.

What are we actually discussing here?

Is equality a moral point of belief, i.e. that all people are equal and therefore deserve equal opportunity and representation?

Are we assuming that it goes unsaid and the only discussion is how we achieve this or is that assumption perhaps wrong?

It is I think (and here?s where I have to lose my objectivity) a moral point for me. I cannot (except maybe on a hypothetical basis) entertain and argument on the principle but only on how it is best achieved. It would be like someone trying to convince me that robbery can be justified or that rape is excusable. Both of these are arguments that I have heard from people before but I wouldn?t even open them up for discussion.

[mockney piers]

But ALLLLLL property is theft brendan.

I suppose the debate is about the bit between the cracks. Do we have absolute equality for all. An equitable access to certain rights (food, shelter etc) equal opportunity as theoretical concept or as a genuinely practical concept. That was meant to he a sliding scale but didn't turn out that way, and I'm at the pub on my leaving do so am unlikely to clarify.

Brendan can you do the honours.

[Jeremy]

Yes, I think we all agree everyone deserves an equal opportunity in life.

I think the argument is whether the best way to do this is through further wealth redistribution, over and above what we currently have... or do we just need to make sure that everyone has the same "tools" in life?

[david_carnell]

Without trying to be flippant, care to define what those "tools" are Jeremy?

[Brendan]

Are you referring to the ones in government?

[Jeremy]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Without trying to be flippant, care to define what those "tools" are Jeremy?

Apologies for the wanky expression... mainly education, training, career guidance, etc. And a host of less tangible measures to stop kids getting into trouble.

[Ladymuck]

(My apologies if this post now appears a little out of place - this is my first chance of responding since yesterday - but I really do wish to respond to ????'s earlier post).

???? Wrote:

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

> "Perfectly good" would be over the top but I

> believe the old system was helping 'mobility' and

> therefore equality of opportunity more than the

> one that replaced it.

There is indeed evidence to suggest that the pre-comprehensive system increased social mobility. However, this increase is relatively insignificant and therefore any advantage is massively outweighed by the disadvantages. For example, the system indirectly discriminated against children from poor/working class backgrounds in that relatively few got in; those in the lower streams were often written off; the public's general perception was that grammar schools were the best and by implication therefore anyone who attended anything but was considered as having failed; curriculum too narrow (tended to concentrate on classical subjects such as Latin, Greek, Hebrew etc.); and the system was not conducive to proper social integration.

> Of course it was based more

> on mobility than equality which seems to annoy

> those who would advocate equality.

But the two are inextricably intertwined.

>Inspite of the

> more equal=happier mantra, the most equal

> societies have also been among the most murderous

> and sapping of human dignity and spirit of any

> produced in history....happy places?

It would be churlish to deny that under a regime where there are no class distinctions that an element of equality exists: the majority have access to work, earn sufficient to survive on, are fed, housed, clothed and receive healthcare etc. However, that benefit gets virtually wiped out when examining the bigger picture which a Communist regime presents.

[Ladymuck]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> ...I think the point about expensive

> finance/credit is largely down to education.

> Partly to live within your means, and partly not

> to get taken in by high interest finance such as

> "payday loans" at 2000% APR.

Whilst you do have a point Jeremy, this is very easy to say. Many people who fall prey to these types of loans genuinely believe at the time that they will eventually be able to pay them back. I know, I worked on debt cases at various CABs across London for years...some of the cases I dealt with were genuinely heartbreaking.

In any event, current statistics on debt show that the average owed by every UK adult is around ?30,306 (including mortgages). Does that mean then that us more fortunate types should cut up our credit cards or sell off our mortgaged properties to move into rented accommodation?

I agree with Moos, more should be done to help those with little to begin with. Unlike the more affluent looking to access finance, the destitute have limited options at their disposal.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Observing events of recent years it's not just poor people who looked at a pile of bad debt for private and instant gratification and swallow it anyway, is it?

Only the financial institutions who did it get billions of public money to help them out and individuals are left to sort their own problems out. That may be the only way out of the hole but to turn around to individuals and say "your own fault mate" is rubbing salt in the wounds a bit

[Ladymuck]

Agreed Sean.

Bye the way, has anyone else seen these Striking Numbers?:

9,500 - number of new debt problems dealt with by CAB each day

?58,040 - average household debt

?187m - personal interest paid in UK daily

every 11.4 - minutes a property is repossessed

1,841 people - made redundant every day

every 3.69 minutes - someone will be declared insolvent or bankrupt

?384,900,000 - daily increase in Government national debt

Anyone for the pub? My credit card should cover it...

[SeanMacGabhann]

I think the US Healthcase bill that Obama has pushed through in the face of mind-melting opposition is a good example of how progress can be made in the name of equality.

It doesn't mean that someone earning 15k a a year will enjoy the same health benefits as someone earning 150ka year - but it does mean that the poorer person might not have to sell their firstborn to be treated in a hospital

How can this be a bad thing?

[david_carnell]

A report from the respected Institute of Fiscal Studies would seem to suggest a decade-plus of a Labour government has, in fact, been redistributive.

The Guardian covers the report here.

Sadly the report also notes:

The IFS said that while the tax and benefit system as a whole has redistributed from rich to poor, it has arguably had only a marginal effect on overall income inequality

Only Singapore, the US and Portugal have more income inequality, according to UN figures

The full report can be found here.

[DaveR]

I'm happy to jump in where Quids left off and start bashing the liberal consensus....

I'm not persuaded that either wholesale redistribution of wealth or reducing income inequality are necessarily desirable per se. People (you know who you are) are quick to draw easy links between inequality and all kinds of social ills, but slower in producing any kind of hard data to back up causation (unsurprisingly - there are lots of variables out there). It's easier to fall back on a lazy caricature of evil capitalists, greedy bankers, disenfranchised workers etc., plus a load of anecdotal stuff.

Equality of opportunity is an altogether more slippery concept - we're all in favour in theory, but what does that mean in practice? How about we identify the worst, most disengaged parents, and tell them that unless they are more supportive of their kids education, all their kids will be taken away and fostered by 'better' parents? That would probably reduce inequality, and it's arguably the next logical step after compulsory parenting classes. However, I don't see lots of support for that one from the liberals at the back. And that's the problem - once you get keen on this social engineering lark you very quickly bang up against things like 'freedom' and 'privacy'. Or, to put it another way, if I earn more than you, that's really nobody else's business.

[Brendan]

Well you could argue that a relaxed attitude to society with a properly regulated economy bound by law (i.e. the exact opposite of what our current government does) would go some way to addressing it.

But please tell me how you separate social equality from equal opportunity.

[SeanMacGabhann]

some fairly vague accusations of your own thrown in there Dave - but welcome anyway

As I've already posted today, the US introducing the healthcare system is exactly the kind of measure that's real and an example of what I mean by equality

Labour introducing minimum wage in the face of ridiculous claims of the damage it would do is another concrete example

To think that 15 years ago it was possible to legally pay someone a quid an hour takes the breath away

I'm not out to bash any " evil capitalists, greedy bankers, disenfranchised workers etc " but I am willing to look at the worst symptoms of whatever economic model we adopt and try and mitigate them

For the last century+, any introduction of equality (be it abolition of slavery or introducing minimum wage) has all manner of vested interests up in arms. And anyone standing up to those vested interests has the usual mud thrown at them "do-gooders, left liberals, anti-capitalists etc" so I do take short shrift with people who won't even accept there are problems and we should just let the market deal with things

[DaveR]

The introduction of the national minimum wage has had approximately zero effect on overall income inequality over the last 10 years, because the rich have gotten richer, quicker. That's my point, really - either NMW is a good thing per se (I think it is) or it's an "equality measure", in which case it's a failure.

Healthcare (pace Sean) is an interesting one, but I confidently predict that the Obama plan will make little or no difference to inequality of healthcare outcomes in the US i.e. rich people will generally live longer, and healthier. Just like they do in the UK, where we have had a National Health Service for 60 years.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Is the health plan JUST about making people live longer? I'd be happier about the fact that I wouldn't get turned away at a hospital because I didn't have insurance.

Interesting re: minimum wage tho. You could argue that without the minimum wage, the equality gap would be a hell of a lot wider so on that score, it has helped reduce the gap

On the one hand a minimum wage should ensure that the basics for life are taken care of - or at least go some way to improving those chances. On the other hand - if the gap with the richest is getting wider it will mean things like a roof over your head become more and more unnatainable (as house price inflation far outsripped any minimum wage increase) . I would still prefer to be on a minimum wage than at the mercy of employers alone mind you

rather than an arbitrarily chosen amount, I would like to see the minimum wage set at a ratio of the maximum wage in a given company. Maybe something more sophisticated than something THAT simple, but the principle would be the same - "well done CEO, you've led the company to a record year, have your 50% pay rise, but it also means my 10k a year gets bumped by 10% as well"

or something

[Huguenot]

These arguments always get so confusing.

Inequality here has been conflated with poverty, exploitation, social obligation, communism etc.

I don't think financial inequality can be manageable. You can't realistically expect to reduce inequality by taking from the rich - this isn't Sherwood Forest. The idea that you could impose a 'maximum wage' is patently ridiculous.

When people observe that society is disrupted by inequality because of the wage differential (rather than poverty), then the argument is just about envy. I have no truck with that, you don't solve spoilt kids by indugling them.

I run my own company, it provides services for other people. I get paid for doing it by my customers. No-one gets to tell me that I don't get the money 'coz other people are envious.

However, you can insist that I don't exploit my workforce. More than that, a lot of my competitors are not ethical employers, and need legislation to enforce that position.

But.. you can't tell me to give my workforce 'ownership' of the company. If they want to own a company they should go an launch one, with all the risk and heartache that involves.

I pay to retain quality staff and keep them motivated - sod the unions, their three year pay deals and employee uniformity, how motivational is that? They enforce rules that turn the workforce into petty ingrates.

Most of my staff are on profit share (my own interpretation of Sean's proposal), but it only works because I'm not obliged to. It demonstrates my faith in their contribution.

I choose whether to employ executives at earth shattering salaries, that's my choice - no-one else at all.

Universal education and healthcare should not be posed as a social obligation - it's enlightened self interest. A healthy, educated workforce is the lifeblood of social contentment, all the way from Cadbury Bourneville to UK plc.

In that vein, keeping your employees out of poverty is also sensible - because that limits productivity issues like health, education, ingenuity etc.

A lot of the arguments on here are debating the 'obligation' element of healthcare and education. It really doesn't matter at all. It just makes sense to keep your team healthy, and ensure that they are reaching their full potential. If you don't realise that, it's well, because you're a bit daft.

Likewise I'm not necessarily socially or racially prejudiced because I'm ethical, but also because there's absolutely no benefit at all!

So the essential premise of this argument boils down to what kind of inequality one is referring to....

[Ladymuck]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> The introduction of the national minimum wage has

> had approximately zero effect on overall income

> inequality over the last 10 years, because the

> rich have gotten richer, quicker. That's my

> point, really - either NMW is a good thing per se

> (I think it is) or it's an "equality measure", in

> which case it's a failure.

There's no denying that the NMW has had little effect on overall income inequality: the latest reports undertaken by both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the The National Equality Panel confirm this. It is equally clear that the introduction of the NMW per se has gone some way to reducing extreme cases of exploitation of employees by unscrupulous employers.

I do not agree, however, that the NMW (as an ?equality measure?) has failed. On the contrary.

Yes, the fact that it's impact on overall income equality has been negligible is a matter for regret. However, we should not forget that prior to the NMW many many individuals were on a pittance. Migrant workers in particular were especially vulnerable to receiving laughably meagre wages. The NMW helped to improve the living standards of these people. Nor should we let slip the fact that prior to the NMW women earned less than their male colleagues for the same job - even where more experienced or better qualified. Ditto employees from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled workers. What the NMW has done in these instances is to close the pay gap between e.g. men/women etc. at the lowest end of the income scale whilst also effectively reducing discrimination on the grounds of gender/race/disability.

Now, if raising the living standards of the lowest paid, and closing the pay gap in this way isn't tantamount to an ?equality measure?, then ? frankly ? I don't know what is!

Incidentally, why should the NMW being ?a good thing? and ?an equality measure? be mutually exclusive?