Does inequality matter?

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:01 pm

First topic message reminder :

In May 2011, the High Pay Commission reported that, if current trends continue, by 2030 the highest 0.1% of earners in the UK will see their remuneration rise to 140 times average income. The last time someone in the top tenth of one per cent of the income distribution was deemed to be worth 140 other people was when we had a fully functioning aristocracy and Queen Victoria was on the throne.

In 1998, Peter Mandelson stunned many of us on the left by declaring: "We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich". Maybe that didn’t seem to matter so much in the good times; the UK economy grew continuously from 1995 until 2008, the longest period of sustained growth for at least 200 years. Inequality in Britain is the fourth highest in the developed world, after the USA, Portugal and Singapore, but in those good years most people were slightly better off than previously, and public services, which the poor use more than the rich, were receiving vast injections of cash. Under thirteen years of Labour rule (1997-2010), spending on the NHS trebled and spending on education doubled. (Despite all the Tory lies to the contrary, the percentage of our GDP spent on welfare actually fell between 1997 and 2008.) So does it matter if some are much, much better off than most?

Economically, Britain was at its most equal ever in either 1968 or 1976, depending on which figures you use. Inequalities have been rising since Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979. The highest paid 10% received incomes that were eight times higher than the lowest paid 10% in 1985 – by 2008 they were twelve times higher. It is also reported that income inequality has grown faster in the UK than anywhere else. Now, the wealthiest 10% receive 40% of total UK income, while the poorest 10% get 1%. Since 1979, the share of the national income going to wages and salaries has fallen, while the proportion going to profits has risen. If the share had increased at the same rate as national income, incomes in the middle would now be nearly £3,000 higher.

Just before he became Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg lamented that between 1997 and 2007 the wealthiest 20% had seen their post-tax incomes rise so much more than others that they were receiving 7.2 times the incomes of the poorest 20% by the time Tony Blair left office (as opposed to 6.9 times as much when he became Prime Minister). Before he weedled his way into power with Clegg’s help, David Cameron commented on ‘The Spirit Level’, a book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. He said it showed "that among the richest countries, it's the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality-of-life indicator". That implied that he thinks inequality does matter, but much of what his vicious government has done has only made things more unequal.

The 2011 statistics from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggested that inequalities were increasing substantially again and in a far shorter period of time, not least because incomes at the bottom are now falling in real terms. An IFS report in September 2011 revealed that the least well off 20% of British households will lose 6% of their income per year between 2011 and 2014 due to government cuts. The charity ‘Save The Children’, best known for helping some of the world's poorest families, has now launched an appeal to help UK children. The charity says the UK's poorest children are bearing the brunt of the austerity measures, with some missing out on regular hot meals or new shoes. IFS figures estimate that there are 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK and predict a steep rise in the numbers in coming years.

Meanwhile, the 1,000 richest people in Britain saw their average personal wealth rise from £336 million each in 2010 to £369 million by 2011, and then to £414 million by 2012. In 2010/11, the incomes of the chief executives of the largest 100 companies in the UK increased by nearly 50%, while the average pay rise in the private sector was just 2.7%. Because prices increased by 5.2%, most private sector workers actually became poorer and pay freezes meant that many public sector workers did even worse. Author and commentator Owen Jones has written: “The coalition’s mantra that ‘we’re all in this together’ has shifted between the ludicrous and the offensive ever since it came to power: while the average Briton faces the most protracted squeeze in living standards since the 1920s, the Sunday Times Rich List reveals an ever-booming elite.”

The only countries (for which there are comparable statistics) in which the richest 1% ‘earn’ more than in Britain are Argentina, Singapore, South Africa and the USA. In Finland, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Spain the richest 1% earn only nine times average earnings (or less) – in Switzerland only 7.8 times; in Sweden 6.7 times; and in the Netherlands only 5.4 times the average income. As Professor Danny Dorling says: “The Swiss have bankers, the Swedes industrialists, and the Dutch host multinational companies; they all just don’t tolerate such excess.”

Admittedly it’s in a different economic climate, but Ed Miliband clearly isn’t so “relaxed” as Mandelson was about the filthy rich. In September 2010, in his first major speech as Labour leader, Ed said: "I do believe this country is too unequal and the gap between rich and poor doesn't just harm the poor, it harms us all." Greater inequality does matter. Owen Jones argues that inequality weakens social cohesion and a sense of community, and produces more crime and violence. He quotes the example of the riots of August 2011, pointing out that London is one of the most unequal cities on earth, where the richest 10% receive 273 times more than the poorest 10%.

It’s ironic that greater inequality, which right-wing policies always cause, increases the need for big government, which right-wing politicians so detest. Inequality creates the need for more police, more prisons and more health and social services of every kind. (The USA imprisons people at fourteen times the rate of Japan, the UK some five times.) Most of these services are expensive and only very partially effective.

Most companies produce goods or services for the general public, such as houses, clothes, household goods, foodstuffs and insurance. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer people, demand falls; the rich might buy luxury goods, but not enough of the things that most companies offer. Increasing inequality means that many can no longer afford to consume, or can only do so by getting into too much debt, as in the USA subprime mortgage crisis that sparked off the global crunch. Borrowing works for a while, but not for ever. Where no one can borrow any more money, goods and services cannot be sold, factories and businesses close, jobs are lost, and the world goes into recession.

Professor Dorling sums up: “Pay restraint at the top saves more money than any programme of government cuts to public sector jobs can ever achieve. Pay and benefit increases at the bottom are the most efficient means of increasing consumer demand. It was redistribution of wealth which changed this country from thirties misery to swinging sixties.”

Sources used:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/11/inequality-social-health-essay

http://classonline.org.uk/docs/Why_Inequality_Matters.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19478083

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/rack_of_inequality

by ROB Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm

boatlady wrote:
… there's no such thing as equality…

I played a little basketball. I started playing ball a bit before Michael Jordan, so because of seniority, the Chicago Bulls should have been required to hire me rather than “His Air-ness.”

Apply that pattern to many corporations and public agencies, and one can begin to see where many of our systemic problems originate. Folks are hired, promoted, and retained in hard times based upon seniority rather than ability. W.E.B Du Bois spoke of “the talented tenth”, those who are better, not because if cut they bleed blue, but because they are better.

Mike, “Air”, is a bit better than me on the court. Knowing that has not diminished my self esteem.

boatlady wrote:
… we all are potentially 'the best' in some area.

“It ain’t necessarily so.” Some folks are not the best in any area. In your nation alone there are more than sixty two million people. Somebody has got to be second best, third best… one thousandth best…

by boatlady Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:49 pm

Some talents are very small - everyone is special and unique - some of our talents are appreciated only within very small circles, but they are talents nevertheless.
I'm never going to be famous, or to win any prizes or to play professional sports, but I am still uniquely and unbeatably talented at creating a happy home life for my family. That makes me 'the best', perhaps in a very small way, but the best nevertheless.
All achievement doesn't have to be in the public domain, no all all value can be measured in money.

Them's my views, anyway.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:55 pm

"... talented at creating a happy home life for my family"

What greater talent would anyone wish to possess...?

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:46 pm

"To change the World" has to begin somewhere, and where better than within the Home?

This may be something for the Politicians to think about while they are apparently searching for the Universal Panacea. Where I live we are very fortunate in having a neighbour of the type sometimes described as "salt of the earth". This lady has raised a family of four children who are all in regular employment, and who visit her regularly with their families. Quietly and without fuss they ensure that Mum is alright, mending her fences, redecorating her home and tending her garden while she in turn does voluntary domestic work for widow-ladies unable to get about quite as well as they used to.

Heaven forfend that such people should ever find themselves being weighed in the balance by fuckwits such as we have in the Coalition government.

by boatlady Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:49 pm

Change the world, one act of kindness at a time

by **Ivan** Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:29 pm

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." (J. K. Galbraith)

Polly Toynbee writes:-

In his 2009 Hugo Young lecture, Cameron spoke with apparent passion of the damage done by inequality: "We all know, in our hearts, that as long as there is deep poverty living systematically side by side with great riches, we all remain the poorer for it." The wise saw the wolf beneath the sheepskin: sure enough, once in power, the language he and his ministers used to blame the poor for their plight was cruder and fiercer than in Thatcher's day. You need to go back to Edwardian times to find ministers and commentators so viciously dismissing all on low incomes as cheats, idlers and drunks.

The Brookings Institution reports that ever-worsening inequality will be 'permanent' from now on. Most people would be alarmed at a never-ending widening of the gulf, if they knew. Most people want to believe the equal opportunities myth, but are easily comforted when told the poor are bad and the well-off deserving, so social justice prevails in this best of all possible worlds.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/28/benefit-cuts-monday-defines-government

by skwalker1964 Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:12 am

Did anyone see the ITV 'Tonight' programme this evening on poverty? It was excellent - compassionate and emphatically refuting the myth of the 'skivers'.

It looked at different poverty and inequality measures, and all of them were at record levels.

Should be available on catch-up somewhere if people want to see it.

by Deadly Nightshade Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:43 am

skwalker1964 wrote:Did anyone see the ITV 'Tonight' programme this evening on poverty? It was excellent - compassionate and emphatically refuting the myth of the 'skivers'.

It looked at different poverty and inequality measures, and all of them were at record levels.

Should be available on catch-up somewhere if people want to see it.

Have to say that I am really surprised that the 'Tonight' program has managed to pull this off, watch the show last week on the NHS, and was furious at how they handled it. No objectivity, one nurse babbling some nonsense about how "caring" is still one of the main components of their job, while the other stood beside her impersonating Churchill the nodding dog. Vowed after last weeks episode I would not waste another 30 mins watching it in future

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:07 pm

Inequality has this week been reinforced by Order of the European Central Bank. Cyprus is now subject to exchange controls which would be ILLEGAL in all the other Countries of the EU under its various treaties designed to permit the free flow of business across borders.

by ROB Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:53 pm

The Truth About MARGRET SANGER [with typo corrections]
(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)

How Planned Parenthood Duped America

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger’s other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.” And she also spoke of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those “whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Margaret Sanger
Founder of Planned Parenthood

In Her Own Words

Copyright © 2001 Diane S. Dew

“… ‘human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.’” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Racism comes in various guises.

by ROB Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:01 am

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Birmingham campaign
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Birmingham campaign was a movement organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) to bring attention to the unequal treatment that black Americans endured in Birmingham, Alabama. Led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, the spring 1963 campaign of nonviolent direct actions culminated in widely publicized confrontations between black youth and white civic authorities, and eventually led the municipal government to change the city's discrimination laws.

In the early 1960s, Birmingham was one of the most racially divided cities in the United States. Black citizens faced legal and economic disparities, and violent retribution when they attempted to bring attention to their problems. Protests in Birmingham began with a boycott meant to pressure business leaders to open employment to people of all races and end segregation in public facilities, restaurants, and stores. When business leaders resisted the boycott, SCLC organizer Wyatt Tee Walker and Birmingham native Fred Shuttlesworth began what they called Project C, a series of sit-ins and marches intended to provoke mass arrests. After the campaign ran low on adult volunteers, high school, college, and elementary students were trained by SCLC coordinator James Bevel to participate, resulting in hundreds of arrests. To dissuade demonstrators and control the protests, the Birmingham Police Department, led by Eugene "Bull" Connor, used high-pressure water jets and police dogs on children and bystanders. Not all of the demonstrators were peaceful, despite the avowed intentions of the SCLC. In some cases, bystanders attacked the police, who responded with force. King and the SCLC drew some criticism for putting children in harm's way.

The Birmingham campaign was a model of direct action protest, as it effectively shut down the city and, through the media, drew the world's attention to racial segregation in the South. It burnished King's reputation, ousted Connor from his job, forced desegregation in Birmingham, and paved the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial discrimination in hiring practices and public services in the United States.

City of segregation

Birmingham, Alabama was, in 1960, "probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States."^[2] Although the city's population of almost 350,000 was 60% white and 40% black,^[3] Birmingham had no black police officers, firefighters, sales clerks in department stores, bus drivers, bank tellers, or store cashiers. Black secretaries could not work for white professionals. Jobs available to blacks were limited to manual labor in Birmingham's steel mills, work in household service and yard maintenance, or work in black neighborhoods. When layoffs were necessary, black employees were the first to go. The unemployment rate for blacks was two and a half times higher than for whites.^[4] The average income for blacks in the city was less than half that of whites. Significantly lower pay scales for black workers at the local steel mills were common.^[5] Racial segregation of public and commercial facilities throughout Jefferson County was legally required, covered all aspects of life, and was rigidly enforced.^[6] Only 10 percent of the city's black population was registered to vote in 1960.^[7]

Fifty unsolved racially motivated bombings between 1945 and 1962 had earned the city the nickname "Bombingham". A neighborhood shared by white and black families experienced so many attacks that it was called "Dynamite Hill".^[10] Black churches in which civil rights were discussed became specific targets for attack.^[11]

Birmingham's black population began to organize to effect change. After Alabama banned the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1956,^[12] Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth formed the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights (ACMHR) the same year to challenge the city's segregation policies through lawsuits and protests. Shuttlesworth's home was repeatedly bombed, as was Bethel Baptist Church, where he was pastor.^[13] After Shuttlesworth was arrested and jailed for violating the city's segregation rules in 1962, he sent a petition to Mayor Art Hanes' office asking that public facilities be desegregated. Hanes responded with a letter informing Shuttlesworth that his petition had been thrown in the garbage.^[14] Looking for outside help, Shuttlesworth invited Martin Luther King and the SCLC to Birmingham, saying, "If you come to Birmingham, you will not only gain prestige, but really shake the country. If you win in Birmingham, as Birmingham goes, so goes the nation."^[15]

Retrieved 11 April 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

by ROB Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:47 am

Ratio of pay, CEO vs. average worker, by country:

United States - 475:1
United Kingdom - 22:1
Canada - 20:1
Japan - 11:1

From a chart found on Facebook.

by skwalker1964 Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:47 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:

Margaret Sanger
Founder of Planned Parenthood

In Her Own Words

Copyright © 2001 Diane S. Dew

“… ‘human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.’” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Racism comes in various guises.
[/quote]

You'd think the supposed thoroughbreds would at least know it's 'fewer from the unfit', wouldn't you?

Steve (mongrel and proud)

by skwalker1964 Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:48 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Ratio of pay, CEO vs. average worker, by country:

United States - 475:1

United Kingdom - 22:1

Canada - 20:1

Japan - 11:1

From a chart found on Facebook.

Don't have chance to look up the stats just now, but I'm pretty sure that's undershooting the UK average by a country mile..

by ROB Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:27 pm

Steve, my fellow mongrel,

I got the CEO vs. average worker stats from a chart posted on Facebook by a person unknown to me. As is typical of a younger generation accustomed to posting without attributing, there was no source cited. I would like to find and post the original chart, properly sourced, so that we hereon can discuss whether the numbers are accurate. I haven’t found it yet, but I’m an old school dude, and someone who grew up in the Internet era might be able to find it.

Something went wrong somewhere. Average workers produce whatever product the company produces, whether it’s something one can touch or something un-seeable, un-hearable, un-smellable, un-touchable, and un-tasteable. CEOs produce nothing. I cannot see how managing production of that which one does not produce makes one’s value equal to the values of four hundred seventy-five producers.

by **astradt1** Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:51 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8546801/Chief-executive-pay-vs-average-worker-pay-in-graphs.html?image=1

2009 figures show 145:1 for FTSE 100 companies

by Shirina Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:03 pm

I doubt you're going to find a lot of agreement with those figures. I've looked at many charts like that and the actual ratio varies, but no matter which figures are given, the US has a HUGE lead in CEO vs. worker pay as compared with any other industrialized nation.

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:28 pm

Well they don't have Knighthoods, you see, that's why the recognition has to be in cash.

Calling a robber, sorry, Captain of Industry, "Sir J... " saves a 50% salary increment.

It's a continuation of the system whereby a Salesman demanding a higher commission is happy to go away with the title of "Area Manager" instead.

by skwalker1964 Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:35 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Something went wrong somewhere. Average workers produce whatever product the company produces, whether it’s something one can touch or something un-seeable, un-hearable, un-smellable, un-touchable, and un-tasteable. CEOs produce nothing. I cannot see how managing production of that which one does not produce makes one’s value equal to the values of four hundred seventy-five producers.

Rock, I couldn't agree more! As a right-wing economist put it, they receive entrepreneurial rewards for managerial performance.

by Shirina Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:17 am

Something went wrong somewhere. Average workers produce whatever product the company produces, whether it’s something one can touch or something un-seeable, un-hearable, un-smellable, un-touchable, and un-tasteable. CEOs produce nothing. I cannot see how managing production of that which one does not produce makes one’s value equal to the values of four hundred seventy-five producers.

This goes back to what I told Tosh when he compared capitalism and economics with Darwinian Evolution. This is a case of bad evolution where the organism competes with itself rather than an external opponent. It is a case where the brain competes with the heart until one or the other is choked off from life-saving oxygen and blood. Eventually, either the heart or the brain will die.

Of course everyone knows that the heart and brain exist in a state of symbiosis, but the entrepreneurs, tycoons, brokers, and bankers seem to have forgotten this. Or, perhaps, they are well aware of it but instead of treating the disease, they are acting like a terminal patient out to get as much enjoyment and (in their case) wealth as possible before the organism dies. As much as I find an embarrassment of riches disgusting, at least the Captains of Industry in days of yore also had a vision for the nation as well as one for their own personal profits. The famed Gospel of Wealth specifically says that the wealthy are not to horde their wealth but to invest in the community that made them rich. They understood that the heart and brain are equally necessary for the body to survive.

Today, capitalism is a bloodsucking institution designed to take every last drop of blood, every last molecule of oxygen for only one of the two organs. I think we all know who is being squeezed. Even CEO failures walk away with a golden parachute larger than most people will ever make in their lifetimes. As I've always said, if you're going to pay people tens of millions to ruin a company, hire me instead. Hell, I'll do it for just a few hundred thousand! I'll fail for very competitive wages. I should tender my resume immediately.

by skwalker1964 Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:01 am

Capitalism as lupus. Yes, it definitely fits...

by tlttf Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:30 am

Sadly I have to agree with roc, steve and shirina on this subject. However what we are witnessing isn't Capitalism it's uncontrolled greed by a handful of people in power. Capitalism in it's correct formation rewards hard work, what we are witnessing is very similar to a communist revival where a few are rewarded for minimal effort yet hold the finances so tightly that growth and entrepreneurial enterprise is stifled at birth making everybody equally skint barring the few.

by **Ivan** Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:40 am

what we are witnessing isn't Capitalism it's uncontrolled greed by a handful of people in power. Capitalism in it's correct formation rewards hard work, what we are witnessing is very similar to a communist revival

LMAO. Keep quiet and people may think you're thick. Open your trap and post utterly mindless drivel like that and you remove any doubt. But I suppose it's all we can expect from someone who feigns concern about inequality yet shows adulation for the evil woman who created so much of it in the 1980s.

by tlttf Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:38 am

How lucky am I? My own personal guardian angel following me around, to censor me should I dare to make a relevant point that doesn't include the usual socialist drivel. Get a life troll.

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:01 pm

Inequality is often self-evident, as when a chip on the shoulder manifests as an entire King Edward.

by **Phil Hornby** Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:20 pm

Ah - the power of the written word... Very Happy

by ROB Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:08 am

skwalker1964 wrote:
Rock, I couldn't agree more! As a right-wing economist put it, they receive entrepreneurial rewards for managerial performance.

Steve my mongrel brother (I’m half Texan, half Tejano, half West African, half Cherokee, half Irish, half Scot, half Sephardic Jew, half Greek, half Szechwan, and half Thai),

The mega-millionaires whose stories are told in The Men Who Made America were ruthless visionaries that risked their own money, putting everything on the table and played out their hands. For them, there were no golden parachutes. When they failed, they lost everything that they had.

These modern pretenders are wage “earners” whose wages far exceed what they’ve earned. They put other peoples’ money on the table and fold. When they lose the farm, they’re punished with mega-million severance packages, platinum parachutes interlaced with mega-caret diamonds.

Something’s wrong with this picture.

The Men Who Built America: The Every Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymEa24r0xXk&playnext=1&list=PLGS3fAD5oiCTMTmCfxmqMhNmsxXOU07jK&feature=results_main

by oftenwrong Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:19 am

All things must pass.
Matthew 24:6-8

Whatever is wrong with such a picture will eventually right itself, as we know from the Rise and Fall of various Empires over three thousand years of recorded human destiny.

by ROB Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:48 am

The Telegraph
Chief executive pay vs average worker pay: in graphs

RENUMERATION OF CEO COMPARED WITH AVERAGE YEARLY EMPLOYEE PAY 1998-2009

Year, Multiple
1999, 69
2000, 90
2001, 92
2002, 128
2003, 132
2004, 140
2005, 144
2006, 140
2007, 161
2008, 157
2009, 145

Retrieved 22 April 2013 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8546801/Chief-executive-pay-vs-average-worker-pay-in-graphs.html?image=1

by ROB Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:09 pm

Perhaps, given the overwhelming response to the research posted above, income inequality in the United States does not matter.

by skwalker1964 Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:16 pm

I doubt it's that, Rock. For myself, it's just sheer workload at the moment..

by ROB Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:44 am

skwalker1964 wrote:
I doubt it's that, Rock. For myself, it's just sheer workload at the moment.

Steve,

You are a noble exception. In spite of your workload, you’ve taken time to substantively contribute to this thread. If your efforts over there are unappreciated, move on across the water over here, perhaps to… well, my congressional district has some nice homes at affordable prices, and as soon as your accelerated naturalized US citizenship is effective, you could meet the residential requirements for the House of Representatives, run for office, and I could vote for you, volunteer in your campaign, and perhaps persuade enough voters in my district to “Vote For Our British Brother!” to ensure your victory.

But don’t worry; I’m only serious.

PS – You need not relinquish your British citizenship. Some “pretty good” Brits have been dual citizens.

by **Ivan** Thu May 30, 2013 10:53 pm

'The Spirit Level' - Two Minute Trailer

'The Spirit Level' tells the story of how the gap between rich and poor has risen to unprecedented levels, under our noses.

by oftenwrong Fri May 31, 2013 11:41 am

A Joseph Rowntree report can be found here:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2077.pdf

Researchers working on the first report found that households in already-wealthy areas have tended to become disproportionately wealthier and that many rich people live in areas segregated from the rest of society. At the same time, more households have become poor over the last 15 years, but fewer are very poor.

Allowing more detailed comparisons than previously possible, the report contains comprehensive maps which are based on census and survey data illustrating the changes in poverty and wealth across Britain from 1968 to 2005.

The widening gap between rich and poor has meant that ‘average’ households (neither poor nor wealthy) have been decreasing in number. The report raises questions about what Britain will look like in ten years’ time if trends continue as they have.

by boatlady Fri May 31, 2013 2:14 pm

Read Dickens - may give a flavour

by **Ivan** Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:21 am

The UK is much more unequal now than it was in the 1970s, and the gap between rich and poor is deliberately being widened by this sick government that has cut income tax for millionaires, at the very time that half a million people are dependent on food banks. The arrogant, out-of-touch Bullingdon boys have brought in a bedroom tax for people on benefits, but they refuse to bring in a mansion tax for their rich cronies.

In the 1980s, Thatcher’s policies – especially with the shift in emphasis from direct taxation (such as income tax) to indirect taxation (such as VAT) – saw the gap between the richest and poorest 20% widen by 60%. That was the most dramatic widening of income differences on record.

Much has been said, on this thread and elsewhere, about what happened to inequality during the thirteen years of Labour government from 1997 to 2010. An Institute for Fiscal Studies report, entitled ‘Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2012’ (page 45), says that inequality rose in Blair’s first term (1997-2001), fell in the second term (2001-5) and then rose again at the beginning of the third term.

Almost all of Gordon Brown's budgets did at least something to redistribute from the rich to the poor, but the benefit was offset by the unconstrained rise in top earnings. This IFS report shows that by 2010-11, when policies such as the 50% top rate of income tax from Labour’s last budget were taking effect, the level of inequality had fallen back to what Labour inherited in 1997.

The salient point from all of this is that inequality tends to increase rapidly and deliberately under Tory governments, but it remains largely unchanged as a result of Labour administrations.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm124.pdf

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:50 pm

The Rich principally get their income from the Poor. It's really up to Consumers to decline the opportunity to pay inflated prices that provide such tasty shareholder dividends.

Is a mobile telephone "worth" £30 a month? A railway journey £100? Permission to watch satellite TV £720 a year? Watch those prices tumble when people keep their hands in their pockets.

by James Gibson Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:41 pm

Cuts of up to £8,000 have been presented to frontline staff at London’s One Housing Group – an organization that provides essential support to vulnerable groups across London and the South East. The cuts come alongside Mick Sweeney, OHG executive, accepting a pay rise of over £30,000. In response, workers have began a second three day strike aiming to put an end to the crippling pay freezes and subsequent salary cuts. On behalf of Unite, around 150 workers have taken the streets in a march against OHG reductions.

Sally Kosky, Unite National Officer wrote:Except for senior management, OHG has made no pay awards for the last four years. Now it has removed the non-consolidated bonus paid to all staff for the past two years. At the same time, OHG continues to expand, its surpluses are increasing and pay at the top continues to climb exponentially. -

This is just one incident among a sea of inequalities currently being endured here in the UK. While the salaries get bigger for corporate seniors, managers and CEOs, wages stagnate and fall for the overwhelming majority of ordinary workers. This dynamic resulting in the widening gap between rich and poor – a gap that has left the standard of living spiraling downwards for millions of ordinary people. In the papers over the last two weeks there has been a trending story of how Britain’s new generation will have lives than their parents; a new precedent for the modern United Kingdom. A recent poll in the Observer found that most Britons believe children will have worse lives than their parents.

From World War 2 up until the 1970s, we’ve taken prosperity and rising living standards for granted. However, the nuclear dream may slowly be fading away. You only have to visit one of our many abandoned ex-mining communities to see the tragic landscape of modern neoliberal Britain. The answer to the hardships of 2013 are being dealt with austerity and further attacks on the living standards of the most vulnerable people in Britain. Strikes and protests, like the one OHG workers are undertaking, are becoming increasingly common as the harsh reality becomes realized by more and more Britons.

This reality has ignited huge struggles within unions and worker movements in a time where the relationship between trade unions and the Labour party is being fundamentally restructured. It would very unwise for the current government to think that their austerity plans will not be met with fierce opposition from both employed workers and the hundreds of thousands who’ve been left unemployed as a result of the global financial meltdown. George Osborne reported yesterday that the economy was on the mend, but cuts and privatization will be continuing long into the future.

---

This article has been cross-posted from the Critical Proletariat. http://www.criticalproletariat.com

by **Ivan** Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:58 pm

Welcome to Cabinetland: The worsening inequality between Britain's rich and poor is shameful

Extracts from an article by Andy McDonald MP:-

The claim from the coalition is “There are more people in work than ever before”. This claim is emblematic of the torturing of figures this government has been pulled up on repeatedly by the UK Statistics Authority. There are more people in work than ever before because Britain has more people than ever before. But the number of people unemployed is higher than it was in 2010. The rate, 7.8% nationally, is unchanged since the coalition came to power. Despite herding people onto unpaid workfare schemes and counting that as a job. Despite freezing the minimum wage for young people at a time of high inflation. Despite a million people on zero hours contracts, unsure if they will be granted the right to work today.

Productivity has fallen. The output per hour of private-sector workers fell by almost 4% in the year to October 2012, according to data from the Office for National Statistics. Figures for the economy as a whole were not much better, with a 2.4% decline in productivity over the year. There are more people, working longer, in worse conditions to produce less value. Yet Osborne has the nerve to crow about an ephemeral 0.8% increase in GDP, in what is now the longest depression in British history.

Nothing has changed. For over three years this government has been treading water. It has done so with impunity, because the people it represents are doing fine. Your income is down, but the FTSE is up. The economic divide in Britain, hastened and worsened by the north-south divide, is wider now than any time since the war, and it is getting worse.

For the whole article:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/08/worsening-inequality-between-britains-rich-and-poor-shameful

by sickchip Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:39 am

Interesting article, and comments, on social mobility and inequality here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/20/social-mobility-is-essential#comment-28106667

by boatlady Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:14 am

Thought that was a good article - and the comments, including your own contributions very interesting and thought provoking.
The notion of social mobility involving both upward and downward movement is a particularly interesting one, and seems to me to strengthen the case for radically redistributing the rewards for various types of work, and ensuring a robust safety net for those unable to participate in the work market as paid staff.

by Sponsored content