Biggest drop in income inequality in 30 years

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I've never really thought of the Tories as the

> party of the rich, in particular. More, the party

> of wealth creation (albeit sometimes at too high a

> cost).. so I think a rise in minimum wage isn't

> out of line with their general ethos.

EU now talking about basic income.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/universal-basic-income-robots-eu-meps-unemployment-mady-delvaux-stehres-european-parliament-a7527661.html

[Jeremy]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> EU now talking about basic income.

>

> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-an

> d-tech/universal-basic-income-robots-eu-meps-unemp

> loyment-mady-delvaux-stehres-european-parliament-a

> 7527661.html

"rise of robots threatens mass unemployment"... surely the answer is to travel back in time and destroy Skynet?

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > EU now talking about basic income.

> >

> >

> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-an

>

> >

> d-tech/universal-basic-income-robots-eu-meps-unemp

>

> >

> loyment-mady-delvaux-stehres-european-parliament-a

>

> > 7527661.html

>

> "rise of robots threatens mass unemployment"...

> surely the answer is to travel back in time and

> destroy Skynet?

Do it :) Bloody robots taking my job.

[DovertheRoad]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > EU now talking about basic income.

> >

> >

> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-an

>

> >

> d-tech/universal-basic-income-robots-eu-meps-unemp

>

> >

> loyment-mady-delvaux-stehres-european-parliament-a

>

> > 7527661.html

>

> "rise of robots threatens mass unemployment"...

> surely the answer is to travel back in time and

> destroy Skynet?

I think we need some unions to deny the onset of technological progress and organise mass strikes

[NomDePlume]

I found this site insightful

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk

[uncleglen]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> I don't get the people who hate the Tories, hate

> the Leavers and hate Corbyn. Not really sure where

> they're going or what they want.

>

> Well, they want open EU, open immigration and

> lower taxes, a healthy NHS and trains to run

> efficiently (not privatised).

>

> When asking how it all actually works, I don't get

> a response.

>

>

> Open to suggestions...

Hating the tories etc is a deep-seated hang up of the labour party supporter who thinks that they are inhumane if they do not love everyone....this is a remnant of their teenage years when it is expected that you will espouse socialist views but it is because they have no idea of the logistics that accompany a free-for-all, usually at someone else's expense.

It can be likened to having a party when your parents are away....

Either that or they are so well off (examples include celebs and the like) that tax increases, price increases, heaving public transport and creaking NHS facilities etc do not affect them...

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

...

>

>

> Hating the tories etc is a deep-seated hang up of

> the labour party supporter who thinks that they

> are inhumane if they do not love everyone....

> Either that or they are so well off (examples

> include celebs and the like) that tax increases,

> price increases, heaving public transport and

> creaking NHS facilities etc do not affect them...

Apart from tax increases (which we only don't have because the alternative, cuts to support for the most vulnerable, has been chosen) we have inflation at a two year high with probably a lot worse to come, public transport is failing badly and the NHS is in possibly its worst crisis in history. And we've had a Tory government for nearly seven years. Bloody Labour.

[Henry_17]

Rendel,

As per the OP tax allowances have risen for low earners while they have been tapered for high earners. Inflation at a two year high is not a meaningful statistic unless you can show otherwise; it is still very low by historical standards. The NHS has been heading into slow motion crises since well before the past two governments due to its unsustainable funding structure and low rate of productivity growth in the face of the UK's demanding demographic profile.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Fair question Otta: Waitrose have stopped paying extra on Sundays or for overtime for all new

> employees, Morrisons, Tesco and Wilko have all cut their overtime and Sunday rates, Cafe Nero, John

> Lewis and Asda have all stopped giving staff a free meal to claw back some of the costs of the

> minimum wage

Waitrose? John Lewis? I thought these were all owned and run by their staff?

[rendelharris]

Not exactly, the John Lewis partnership is owned by a trust, with all employees being partners. It's run by a board which consists of a director and deputy director, five employee nominees and five members appointed by the director, so the employees can be outvoted on the board.

[miga]

Income inequality isn't an artefact of a particular government, but of the capitalist system.....man.

[BrandNewGuy]

Whereas the feudal system was an egalitarian paradise.... m'lord.

[rendelharris]

Marx noted that there wasn't such a difference between feudalism and capitalism, given that both are predicated on a dominant powerful class supported by the labour of a subordinate class. The great difference is that under capitalism the subordinate class are permitted to make demands of the dominant class...whether they ever get listened to is another matter.

[Jeremy]

And Karl Marx might have had a point in 1850 or whatever. I think social mobility improved somewhat during the 1900s.

[BrandNewGuy]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Marx noted that there wasn't such a difference

> between feudalism and capitalism, given that both

> are predicated on a dominant powerful class

> supported by the labour of a subordinate class.

> The great difference is that under capitalism the

> subordinate class are permitted to make demands of

> the dominant class...whether they ever get

> listened to is another matter.

Well, in many feudal arrangements, non-market debts of obligation up and down the social structure were taken seriously. Those subsequently became marketised, to our benefit and detriment.

[rendelharris]

Yes, so in theory everyone can reach the top...do you really see much sign of that in practice? Capitalism must by definition always be a pyramidal system. Not that I'd have liked communism, Bill Bryson had a good quote around the time of the Berlin wall coming down, something like "Communism was repressive and dreary and soul destroying, but it does seem a shame that the only system humanity can make work for itself is one based on greed, selfishness and inequality."

ETA Reply to Jeremy

[JohnL]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Yes, so in theory everyone can reach the top...do

> you really see much sign of that in practice?

> Capitalism must by definition always be a

> pyramidal system. Not that I'd have liked

> communism, Bill Bryson had a good quote around the

> time of the Berlin wall coming down, something

> like "Communism was repressive and dreary and soul

> destroying, but it does seem a shame that the only

> system humanity can make work for itself is one

> based on greed, selfishness and inequality."

>

> ETA Reply to Jeremy

We do seem to be moving towards a universal basic income

for everyone system (well it seems to be being seriously

considered).

French (socialists) are the latest.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/universal-basic-income-ubi-france-presidential-candidates-socialist-monthly-all-french-citizens-a7530771.html

[miga]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Whereas the feudal system was an egalitarian

> paradise.... m'lord.

I see what you did there, but I made no direct comparison to other systems, especially not ones largely left behind a long time ago.

My point is that wealth inequality is just a function of the economic system we live in. Surely that's not controversial?

[Jeremy]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Yes, so in theory everyone can reach the top...do

> you really see much sign of that in practice?

Not sure about "the top", but I know many people from very modest backgrounds who have done very well for themselves. Although I will concede that my generation were lucky (free university education and grants, booming economy when we finished education). Times are harder now, but fundamentally I believe social mobility can work very well within a capitalist framework. But there are measures that need to be put into place - good, free education for all, adequate welfare, etc. (socialism is not the only way to provide these btw).

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Yes, so in theory everyone can reach the top...do

> you really see much sign of that in practice?

Here's a list of the supposed 10 richest people in the world. Their backgrounds are rather interesting. I'd say that only two of them (Koch brothers) directly inherited their wealth and two (Gates, Buffett) came from rich parents who no doubt smoothed their path (though both of them are brilliant in their own right).

But six of them have reached the top from various backgrounds from very poor to middle-class. In Carlos Slim's case, you could say his father was doing OK, but he came from a penniless background, so you could argue it a takes a couple of generations sometimes. Certainly the majority on this list do not come from old money.

So certainly more than a few 'signs' there of anyone being able to reach the top.

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

1. Bill Gates - Parents was a pretty well off, to say the least.

2. Amancia Ortega (Zara) - Son of a railway worker.

3. Warren Buffett - Son of a Congressman/stockbroker. Rich parents.

4. Jeff Bezos (Amazon) - Son of an Exxon engineer. Grandfather owned a ranch in Texas.

5. Charles Koch - Inherited.

6. David Koch - Inherited.

7. Carlos Slim - Father was a penniless immigrant, who built up a decent sized business in Mexico.

8. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) - Son of a dentist and a psychiatrist.

9. Larry Ellison (Oracle) - Father died when he was a small boy, mother gave him up to his aunt and uncle, a middle class couple.

10. Ingvar Kamprad (Ikea) - Raised on a farm in a small village in Sweden

The list was from http://indianexpress.com/article/business/richest-people-in-the-world-bloomberg-bill-gates-warren-buffett-mark-zuckerberg-jeff-bezos-koch-brothers-2878601/

[miga]

That's one measure, and if we thought it wasn't possible to better ourselves life would be very bleak.

But then there are all those studies indicating the wealth of your parents is the best predictor to your future wealth.

[rendelharris]

I don't disagree that it's possible to make it to the top, Loz (though I can only see three people on that list one would class as from "humble" backgrounds - definitely some middle class but in America with its tuition fees that's a huge advantage), but for every one who makes the top there must, by definition, be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of drones working for low wages in factories making the computers, mobile phones etc. Also many others suffering from poor services, healthcare etc because the companies these people run dodge their tax obligations (Microsoft, $3.5bn in 2013, for example, Amazon paying ?11.4m tax on ?5.3bn sales in UK alone while paying its warehouse workers minimum wage etc).

Of course there is a very valid argument that these people create jobs, but there must surely come a cutoff where society says yes, good for you and thank you, and you're entitled to a ?10M a year wage (or wherever the line is drawn), but nobody needs an $84bn fortune, some of that can surely go to paying those lower down a decent wage or providing them with healthcare, good education, decent public transport etc? Then we'd have true social mobility, everyone getting a fair crack of the whip and those with the brains, work ethic and talent getting massively rewarded without others having to go without to pay those rewards.

[Loz]

rendellharris: "Yes, so in theory everyone can reach the top...do you really see much sign of that in practice?"

Me: "Here's a list of the richest. 30% came from nowhere and 30% from average backgrounds"

rendelharris: "Is that all?"

Conclusion: rendelharris will never, ever be happy.

[Jeremy]

Rendel, seems to me that you're arguing for better social justice, higher taxation for the rich, etc. So that's what I'd call social democracy - and it is entirely compatible with a capitalist system.

[rendelharris]

Strange response as I said I didn't disagree with you, Loz. Also taking the richest ten men in the world isn't exactly a representative sample, it'd be more interesting to see how many on really high but not superrich wages - say ?200,000-?500,000 - are from poor backgrounds. On average, they won't be. As miga mentioned above, plenty of statistical studies show this: in America the National Bureau of Economic Research released a study in 2014 showing that, on average, adult children earn 33c on the dollar more than their parents did, i.e. if your parental income was $30,000, you will be most likely to earn just over $40,000, if your parental income is $300,000 you will be most likely to earn around $400,000. That's a statistical fact which I think illustrates how social mobility is/isn't working rather more pertinently that taking the world's ten richest men as a yardstick.