Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.

[elmarko]

But it logically follows that the sect of wealth you are referring to are more likely to use fewer public services. Since when did the mega-rich (and let's face it, if we're talking 'dynasties' here, we're not talking upper Middle England) go to state schools or wait for NHS beds?

I don't think that point holds much water, as the mega rich person in question is only able to become mega-rich off the back of the workers (who are educated by the state & use NHS beds), paying taxes for the NHS/education system doesn't really have any connection if the person needs it or not - it's a systemic cost, part of the cost of keeping a healthy educated population able to garner the wealth required which in turn drives the demand for the goods & services the mega-rich person is selling.

This all sounds very theoretical to me. Inheritance is not at the expense of wider society as it already has been taxed in some way, shape or form (usually multiple times). Maybe I'm being thick here, which is quite possible, but I don't understand what kind of short-termism you're referring to as these kinds of societal directions and decisions are not made by individuals, they're made by policy-makers; at least at the system-wide level that you initially refer to.

I'll use an example.

CEO A in corporation X pollutes the environment (air pollution/sea pollution) which is likely to have disastrous long term consequences for the population to maximise profit.

Wealth left to his children will pretty much protect them from the fallout of said choices.

Or another example,

Politician B, removes social welfare knowing that due to his wealth - his children will never have to rely on the welfare state as he's able to protect them from any accidents/poor life choices which would normally result in the average person ending up in the dole line or relying on disability for sustenance.

Wealth enables people to protect future generations from the impact of changes which effect the general population - as the people in positions of power are also wealthy - we have a social conflict of interests.

 

[Theophany]

I'll use an example.

CEO A in corporation X pollutes the environment (air pollution/sea pollution) which is likely to have disastrous long term consequences for the population to maximise profit.

Wealth left to his children will pretty much protect them from the fallout of said choices.

Or another example,

Politician B, removes social welfare knowing that due to his wealth - his children will never have to rely on the welfare state as he's able to protect them from any accidents/poor life choices which would normally result in the average person ending up in the dole line or relying on disability for sustenance.

Wealth enables people to protect future generations from the impact of changes which effect the general population - as the people in positions of power are also wealthy - we have a social conflict of interests.

But those are not realistic examples, it's all standard textbook economic externalities.

CEO of Corporation X cannot simply do as he pleases, there are environmental regulations to adhere to, CSR considerations to be taken into account, not to mention the fact that such actions would destroy their PR and cost the CEO his job.

As to Politician B is accountable to his constituency and does not have the autonomy to simply remove social security without consensus, so the removal of such social safety net is a failure of democracy, rather than a failure of any economic model.

 

[gjrc]

I don't think that point holds much water, as the mega rich person in question is only able to become mega-rich off the back of the workers (who are educated by the state & use NHS beds), paying taxes for the NHS/education system doesn't really have any connection if the person needs it or not - it's a systemic cost, part of the cost of keeping a healthy educated population able to garner the wealth required which in turn drives the demand for the goods & services the mega-rich person is selling.

I'll use an example.

CEO A in corporation X pollutes the environment (air pollution/sea pollution) which is likely to have disastrous long term consequences for the population to maximise profit.

Wealth left to his children will pretty much protect them from the fallout of said choices.

Or another example,

Politician B, removes social welfare knowing that due to his wealth - his children will never have to rely on the welfare state as he's able to protect them from any accidents/poor life choices which would normally result in the average person ending up in the dole line or relying on disability for sustenance.

Wealth enables people to protect future generations from the impact of changes which effect the general population - as the people in positions of power are also wealthy - we have a social conflict of interests.

both nonsense examples.

 

[arknor]

I think the world would be a better place without all the rich lists and other high scores billionaires seem to base their sucess on.

money should not mean success in it self it should be what you leave behind to benefit society.

but these days it's often not the people with the idea's that make money from them it's someone else leeching from the pool

 

[elmarko]

But those are not realistic examples, it's all standard textbook economic externalities.

CEO of Corporation X cannot simply do as he pleases, there are environmental regulations to adhere to, CSR considerations to be taken into account, not to mention the fact that such actions would destroy their PR and cost the CEO his job.

Which is why the PR business is as large as it is.

Ignoring negative externalities is fine to do (if you are able to protect your lineage against the consequences of them), also negative externalities (which they are indeed standard textbook stuff) are not something which should be accepted as a society.

As to Politician B is accountable to his constituency and does not have the autonomy to simply remove social security without consensus, so the removal of such social safety net is a failure of democracy, rather than a failure of any economic model.

It's a failure of both.

As it's perfectly possible to fool a population into voting in such a way which is actually detrimental to itself by gaining public support via the use of the media or exaggerating statistical anomalous individuals into being representative of the wider population.

Besides, we all already know that democracy doesn't really work either.

both nonsense examples.

Are you suggesting the current government is not trying to remove the welfare state (safe in the knowledge that due to the wealth they posses they will never rely on it?).

 

[Judgeneo]

Step 1. Ask an advanced economic question to people with on average poor macro-economic knowledge.

Step 2. Do not give the questioned ample time to think about the complexities of the question

Step 3. Limit the answer to two simple metrics

Step 4. Compare the answer to carefully selected real world data.

Step 5. Draw a pretty animation.

Step 6. Claim valid investigative journalism.

 

[RDM]

A social leech is somebody who contributes nothing to society,

You would be hard pressed to categorise George Osborne as one then as he is a public servant. You may not like his contributions but that is more a matter of politics than anything else.

 

[elmarko]

You would be hard pressed to categorise George Osborne as one then as he is a public servant. You may not like his contributions but that is more a matter of politics than anything else.

To be fair, I wouldn't/didn't classify him as such.

It's just the public tends to find person X who is unable to work getting very little as more immoral than person Y who is able to work but doesn't due to winning the family lottery & being left millions - who then uses up large amounts of resources.

One smacks of a a culture of "something for nothing" more than the other example (which is specifically the comment in a post I was agreeing with earlier in the thread).

The point is that many claim to support metriocratic values on paper, but also want to give their children an advantage other others - not an equal footing which kind of under-pins much of capitalist ideology.

Some do genuinely support equality of opportunity (which I applaud) but sadly they seem to be in the minority, which when you attempt to support changes which address the end result of this imbalance (changes to improve the lives of people who failed due to lacking the same opportunities) you get accused of supporting equality of outcome.

With inheritance equality of opportunity is impossible, without equality of opportunity it seems somewhat pointless to berate others for failure as the game was rigged from the onset.

 

[WillyNelson]

Waah Waah! More bleeding heart liberal cries of "It's not fair!"

What they should be asking is how, in a wealthy, modern, advanced society we have people who are living in abject poverty, not pointing at the wealthy and saying "look at how much money they have, we should all have some of that." No we shouldn't.

Of course it's an unbalanced wealth distribution. Of course there are few very wealthy people. The middle seem to be doing ok and the top are alright on their own, it's the bottom end we should be focussed on.

 

[elmarko]

Waah Waah! More bleeding heart liberal cries of "It's not fair!"

What they should be asking is how, in a wealthy, modern, advanced society we have people who are living in abject poverty, not pointing at the wealthy and saying "look at how much money they have, we should all have some of that." No we shouldn't.

Of course it's an unbalanced wealth distribution. Of course there are few very wealthy people. The middle seem to be doing ok and the top are alright on their own, it's the bottom end we should be focussed on.

In an unbalanced wealth distribution the middle doesn't really exist.

It's not on a bell curve.

It's nothing about fair or being bleeding heart (I don't even like 99% of the population), it's about recognising reality.

Uneven income distribution has significant social consequences, many of which we would do well to avoid.

 

[Tefal]

It's just the natural cycle of Capitalism, I'd like to think there will be a revolution or something someday but people today are just so indifferent/passive.

i really hope you see the hypocrisy/irony in that sentence. but I'm going to guess you don't.

 

[RDM]

To be fair, I wouldn't/didn't classify him as such.

It seemed to be implied due to him inheriting wealth. But as you say, you wouldn't.

It's just the public tends to find person X who is unable to work getting very little as more immoral than person Y who is able to work but doesn't due to winning the family lottery & being left millions - who then uses up large amounts of resources.

Probably because they are not paying for the person who has inherited through taxation.

The point is that many claim to support metriocratic values on paper, but also want to give their children an advantage other others - not an equal footing which kind of under-pins much of capitalist ideology.

Do you have children? I know that whatever egalitarian ideals I may feel the bond to my own child is stronger. It is only natural to want to protect and help your children as much as possible. I refuse to feel guilty for wanting to make my child's life easier than the rather rubbish upbringing I had.

Some do genuinely support equality of opportunity (which I applaud) but sadly they seem to be in the minority, which when you attempt to support changes which address the end result of this imbalance (changes to improve the lives of people who failed due to lacking the same opportunities) you get accused of supporting equality of outcome.

With inheritance equality of opportunity is impossible, without equality of opportunity it seems somewhat pointless to berate others for failure as the game was rigged from the onset.

You are never going to be able to give the same opportunity to everyone unless you remove all children from their parents. I would rather focus on those that need more help than trying to punitively punish those that don't.

 

[WillyNelson]

In an unbalanced wealth distribution the middle doesn't really exist.

It's not on a bell curve.

It's nothing about fair or being bleeding heart (I don't even like 99% of the population), it's about recognising reality.

Uneven income distribution has significant social consequences, many of which we would do well to avoid.

What? there are few super rich or super poor and the closer you get to average wealth the larger % of the population on both sides of the average. It may not be symetrical but it will be a SD curve of sorts.

 

[WillyNelson]

Uneven income distribution has significant social consequences, many of which we would do well to avoid.

Exactly. But they're not saying "look how poor these people are", they're shouting "look how rich these people are", which betrays their true motivation.

 

[elmarko]

It seemed to be implied due to him inheriting wealth. But as you say, you wouldn't.

I said inheriting wealth then contributing nothing to society.

Do you have children? I know that whatever egalitarian ideals I may feel the bond to my own child is stronger. It is only natural to want to protect and help your children as much as possible. I refuse to feel guilty for wanting to make my child's life easier than the rather rubbish upbringing I had.

Which is fine, but you also have to abandon the illusion that you really support equality of opportunity (I'm not saying you do).

Nothing wrong with admitting you want to give your children a head-start in life, but when people n pretend that others who fail in life had the same chance to succeed (then support denying them assistance via welfare they need as a result of that) to me seems a flawed world view (again, not implying you posses this view).

You are never going to be able to give the same opportunity to everyone unless you remove all children from their parents. I would rather focus on those that need more help than trying to punitively punish those that don't.

I'm not sure why equality of opportunity has to be perfect to bother.

We can attempt to achieve the best level of equality of opportunity without having to break up families & ripping children from their mothers.

As with all things in life, the cost has to be weighed against the benefit - socially & ethically.

 

[elmarko]

What? there are few super rich or super poor and the closer you get to average wealth the larger % of the population on both sides of the average. It may not be symetrical but it will be a SD curve of sorts.

Most of the population earn below the average (sum of wealth over the population) - income isn't distributed on a bell-curve - if you want to invent a new category to be "super-poor" which has a tiny number in it then fair enough (but it has no statistical use).

But when using a fixed length distribution analysis a large number of the population meet some of the criteria for UK poverty.

Exactly. But they're not saying "look how poor these people are", they're shouting "look how rich these people are", which betrays their true motivation.

I've yet to meet a single person who really wants rich people to have less as the core motivation.

Just people who recognise that for the distribution of incomes to change some has to come off the top for those at the bottom to go up.

 

[Tunney]

Exactly. But they're not saying "look how poor these people are", they're shouting "look how rich these people are", which betrays their true motivation.

I think you're missing the point. Inequality is the gap between rich and poor. You can't just look at the poorest in society in isolation.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Provided that the 'poorest' are comfortable, why does the gap between the richest and the poorest matter?

 

[RDM]

I think you're missing the point. Inequality is the gap between rich and poor. You can't just look at the poorest in society in isolation.

You probably could, if you can ensure that the poorest in society have what they need you can pretty much ignore what the richest have.

 

[Theophany]

I think you're missing the point. Inequality is the gap between rich and poor. You can't just look at the poorest in society in isolation.

Yes you can. How do you think the minimum wage is established - by looking at the top 1% and working on a relative basis from there? :/

I think you're missing the real issue, which is that the gap only interests those with a particular agenda. Like people who gobble up this garbage on the Guardian.