Ladymuck

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > morality does not come into how > our government and society are managed. Alas... > > Many people don?t see a problem with this or even > see it as a good thing...or have an innate inability to > empathise. Yes, it's frustrating...and the irony is, if more people did empathise and work towards achieving a common good we would actually all be a lot better off - on many levels. However, the fact that the latest British Social Attitudes Survey reveals that we believe that the poor and the unemployed have only themselves to blame for their situation sums it up though. Sometimes I wish I were a frog.

How horrible Muffins78...I hope you are recovering. B******. Makes me feel quite sick.

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.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is Darling shittin' me? > After a day on the corners, nothin' better than a > a couple-or-three of Addlestones in the Plough. > And that Darling be putting 10%, 10 mothef*ckin' % > on my ass. > That Darling. Who he think he is? > There an election comin' mofo, and we see what > sort of Darling you be then, baby. For sure. > Sheeeit. Nope he aint sh***** ya... Yous gettin' The Growing Man Blues? Yessum...I Can Feel that you iz.

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.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 25p on Meths - sorry LM Well that's just outragious...this peasant will definitely be revolting! *grabs pitchfork, climbs onto tractor and heads to Downing Street*

Does anyone know how much for a bottle of meths these days?

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cider? Pah! Until it's recent rebranding (with > ice, smart bottle) it was only drunk by park bench > deadbeats, psycho derelicts, country yokel inbreds > and sheep shaggers. It's my favourite tipple...hmmmm

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.

What about the introduction of a Maximum Wage?

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?

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???, without overanalysing the minutiae... Blimey Brendan - good post! Makes my little explanation look rather inadequate:(

Sandperson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM, I don't actually believe that we are about to > go out of business I just said it to make Anna > feel better. I know. Though the financial situation is hardly tickety boo.

???? 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.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, the evidence suggests not Lady M, as Labour > introduced a miniumum wage (rightly I think) but > social mobility has declined under Labour. ????, the fact that social mobility may have declined (or at least - stagnated) is not in dispute. However, you cannot ignore the fact that, the reason for this would have to have been as a direct consequence of the serious matter of inequality in Britain in that the gap between rich and poor is widening: the two are inextricably linked. Hence this thread's title: The National Equality Panel Report concludes that Britain has become more unequal since 1997. So do we agree on this at least? I would take issue with your comment that social mobility has declined under Labour though. This is because, in order to measure social mobility we have to allow for generations to pass. Hence it is unfair to lay the blame at the door of Labour given that it would take at least some 32 or so years to determine how socially mobile society has become. So, if we wish to apportion blame (not that I believe that such an exercise is helpful) then we need to go back some 32 years or so which is when the Conservatives were in power. I found this article to be quite informative. > Social mobility is achieved by empowerement and > enablement not handing 'down' some money to ease > middleclass guilt. The labour party has been good > at the latter and yes minimum wage and Family tax > credits have made a real and positive difference > to the poorest families and people. But the Labour > party has done very little to help the very > poorest escape from that position. I am a little confused by your statements. On the one hand you state: "Social mobility is achieved by empowerement and enablement not handing 'down' some money to ease middleclass guilt". You then say: "...and yes minimum wage and Family tax credits have made a real and positive difference to the poorest families and people...". Unless I have completely missed something, these two statements conflict with one another. I do not believe that fiscal measures by the Government are introduced in order to "ease middle class guilt". The commitment to extra resources is to assist the most financially deprived and to help make going to work pay. In the case of the National Minimum Wage, this was introduced to stem exploitation of vulnerable employees...and in that sense it has been a relative success. Notwithstanding this, ?5.73 per hour for an adult is (in my view) insufficient and further measures are required - one reason why I would push for a decent living wage (amongst other measures - as this by itself would not solve economic inequality and the subsequent social immobility attached to it). The document Beyond the minimum: A Briefing from the Scottish Living Wage Campaign, which although is specific to Scotland, makes interesting reading. This paragraph, in particular, struck a chord with me: "Whilst low pay remains a persistent feature of the Scottish and UK economy, wealth and income inequalities have increased. A recent report highlighted that over the last 20 years incomes in the UK have become increasingly polarised. Some do not see this as a problem, as long as poverty is being tackled. However there is increasing evidence that greater levels of income inequality are harmful to society in general. Ensuring that more workers receive a living wage will not end income inequality, but it will provide some justice for those who work in essential jobs, ones that everyone relies on, but which few people value".

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...this ?It?s not equality, it?s mobility? argument > is a red herring...The two things are one in the same or at least > intrinsically inseparable. The reason there is > limited mobility is because of the gross > inequality... Absolutely! See later post.

Sandperson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd also like to say it's nice having you back! > And United are only a few bad results away from > financial meltdown. It's true...on both counts.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DC/LM - er, who has said they're opposed to a > minimum wage or a decent standard of living for > the poorest? I certainly haven't. I wasn't, for one minute, suggesting that you were opposed to a minimum wage etc. My apologies if that's how I came across. >I'm in support > of greater mobility - and a minimum wage doesn't > do much to address that... Really ????? You don't believe that an increase in the minimum wage from ?5.80 per hour to, say, ?7.50 per hour might go some way (even if only a little) to improving social mobility? If the gap between the richest and poorest were bridged (not eliminated - as SeanM pointed out) thus enabling the poorest to move up the economic ladder rather than remain at the bottom of the social heap to be continually exploited by ruthless employers, don't you think such a situation would lend itself more readily towards improving social mobility?

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where did you see/hear that ????, please? > > On radio 4 this lunch time. Have since viewed articles on this (see above) - but thanks all the same SteveT.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I summed up your last paragraph a few days ago in > one succinct sentence but alas, it disappeared > into the ether. I caught it in time...Chair is quite correct... However, on reading it I found myself not only laughing, but also thinking how true!

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But what would balance that out is a narrowing > (not elemiination!) of the gap between the winners > and losers - both financially and to rid > ourselves of the idea that most people on badly > paid jobs somehow deserve that because they > weren't ambitious enough or there isn't enough > social mobility in the system There is evidence to show that economic equality is better for everyone. I.e. if the rich were that little bit poorer and the poor that little bit richer we would all be happier and healthier. Kate Pickett in her book The Spirit Level argues that the gap between rich and poor has a profound effect on a whole range of health and social problems. I.e. it isn't just a matter of A having more income than B. I recall attending a lecture at the National Theatre by Alain de Botton a few years ago. The talk followed on from his book Status Anxiety but I remember he hit on this issue of winners and losers. The gist of the message was that the bigger the inequality of income within a society, the more status competition this breeds. This leads to status anxiety, which in turn leads to unhappiness. Unhappiness can lead to mental and physical health problems, as well as resentment and social ills such as crime. I cannot help but feel that if our society were more equal (which would mean some of us living more moderate lives) that, not only would we be happier, but that many of the social problems that plague us daily would be reduced. Naive? Perhaps. It's just my view.

And add to that: - either increase the national minimum wage (or introduce a living wage) - say, ?7.50 - re-vamp the education system so that high quality education becomes accessible to all irrespective of means - overhaul current tax legislation so as to limit the amount of tax avoidance which takes place amongst the biggest of Corporations - scrap the personal allowance for very high earners - (possibly) look into introducing a maximum wage

Ladygooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ladymuck is a friend and neighbour and I am sure > she has not taken offence over my post. Oh dear...time to say something... Just to confirm...Ladygooner, no offence whatsoever was taken...I realised (knowing you and your fabulous sense of humour as I do!) you were joking. Presumably (the lovely) Sandperson doesn't know you, and I suspect was simply watching my back - which was nice too. (Us Red Devils need to stick together...;-)). xx

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without massively redistributing wealth and assets > (which is anyway both impractical and wrong IMO) > an equalistaion of 'income' just retains the > status quo as it removes the capability of those > without wealth to accumulate it and instead rely > on the patronising handouts from middle class > bureacrats Blimey ????, this almost sounds as though you are saying that any attempt to address income inequality is futile...which, interestingly, is similar to one of the views which emerged from the National Equality Panel Report. And how does, for example, introducing a decent living wage (or increasing the woefully inadequate current minimum wage) "remove the capability of those without wealth to accumulate it"? Similarly, how would an increase in the minimum wage equate to a "patronising hand-out"? I don't see it like that at all.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >...an ex-minister of a party that > wants us all to be equal thinks "Between > ?3,000-?5,000 per day" is a reasonable 'wage'. Where did you see/hear that ????, please? (Have tried googling - nowt). Edited to say: cross-posted with you Sean - sorry.