Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.

[arknor]

Whose money either goes directly to the corporations or dictators running the countries. It's rare for countries to distribute wealth like that, because the human tendency for greed and selfishness.

and any time we interfere it just makes the situation worse for the people who live there.

we are not able to sort out another countries problems and a lot of them don't take kindly to us trying to.

although it seems to be for the benefit of an oil company and construction companies rather than to benefit anyone who actually lives in whatever country we decide to invade and remove it's leaders

 

[smelly_legend]

I just watched Jouneyman pictures Congo docco...my word....the indiscriminate of gender or age rapes and killings.....darkside...

Also, the Vice one, exactly the same, except in the Liberia.

As Louis CK said, if you're white and male - you can go back to year 1 and not get a raw deal.

 

[Mucky_Pup]

Interesting, so you believe Brain Surgeons only do it for the money?

There will be people who it because it interests them, there will people who do it because they want to help, they will be people who do it for the status, but ultimately it's nieve to think that majority of them don't do it for the money. If they don't do it for the money then they could just as easily be doing a much less stressful and high pressure job.

Why else would they put themselves through what? 5 years of medical school to become a doctor, then however long after that to specialise in one field to turn round and have £6.31 ph written on their payslip?

 

[diamount]

and any time we interfere it just makes the situation worse for the people who live there.

we are not able to sort out another countries problems and a lot of them don't take kindly to us trying to.

although it seems to be for the benefit of an oil company and construction companies rather than to benefit anyone who actually lives in whatever country we decide to invade and remove it's leaders

That wasn't the point I'm trying to make. The wealth divide is much greater in other countries, imo as long as you've got enough money to look after yourself and your family then there is no reason to bitch about overpaid footballers. It's not like the taxpayers are footing that bill.

 

[Freefaller]

Cleaners being paid as much as brain surgeons? No thanks Jeff - I'm out.

I'd rather live in an elitist capitalist country than a place where there's no point in learning more, working harder and aspiring to bigger/better things.

I know all these scenarios are good in theory - in fact they sound ideal from what Hurdurf suggest (can't believe I'm saying that ) however, unless you're willing to put a dictatorship in place people naturally establish their own equilibrium, and that isn't with everyone being equal, but a sliding scale of equality.

 

[oulton]

You do realise that so called 1% is a huge range. To get into the 1% you have to earn about £150k, so the hating of the 1% range from people on £150k to multi million pound earners.

I didn't realise that 150K would put you in the top 1%!

 

[Amp34]

Im not sure you understand indish shouldn't even be able to make more than say 10 or so million in their life, they can buy what they want but have to plan around the fact they won't be getting more than that.

Companies are a bit different, they should pay their workers more as profits grow but also sell goods and services for a reasonable amount, stocks and shares shoulnd't exist, the idea of supply and demand or the perception of value shoulnd't exist so everyone benefits, not a cap on total wealth oowth.

No, I don't think you understand how companies, shares and personal wealth fit together.

You seem to be suggesting that a successful entrepreneur should have to give their company away at a certain point?

How a significant portion of the worlds richest got their wealth:

The person thinks it an idea for business, goes into partnership with a friend and each own 50% of the business. As successful idea grows they usually sell parts of the business to investors meaning the investors invest money and give chunks to new employees as incentives so the company can grow. This reduces the two friends control of shares by dilution (increasing the number of shares in the company) so their shares are say 20% of the company. The friends remain as CEO and CTO (for example) and control a significant portion of the company with their shares helping keep the company they set up on the path they want. As the company grows the shares increase in prices, making the company more valuable. Using companies like facebook and MS as an example that could be up to $100b in 10-20 years because their product is so popular. The original pair that thought up the company and initial employees will probably have reasonable salaries, starting at not much more than scraps to start with then increased to say $100k when the company becomes successful. Fine. Except those shares the original two have are now worth $20b each, so their net worth is $20b+, way above the limit you've just set, meaning they have to sell lots of those shares (and give away the case from the sale) and reduce their control of the company to say 0.1%, the company they set up and are still part of...

To many entrepreneur that would be like having a child taken away at 10 and only being able to see then once a week and not being able to help raise them.

So how do you intend to get around this problem when the current wealth of a significant portion (or even majority) of the megarich made their money like that? Their wealth is integrally intertwined with business value.

Also sorry for mangling your quote in the post, android seems to love jumping around as I type and deleting sections of text at the top...

 

[Efour]

Cleaners being paid as much as brain surgeons? No thanks Jeff - I'm out.

I'd rather live in an elitist capitalist country than a place where there's no point in learning more, working harder and aspiring to bigger/better things.

I know all these scenarios are good in theory - in fact they sound ideal from what Hurdurf suggest (can't believe I'm saying that ) however, unless you're willing to put a dictatorship in place people naturally establish their own equilibrium, and that isn't with everyone being equal, but a sliding scale of equality.

Your very statement is so conditioned and bred into you by the capitalist system.

I'm the same, I couldn't be any different, how could i be? We both live in the same country. Its one of those things were you have to step out of the box i guess.

I'd rather live in an elitist capitalist country than a place where there's no point in learning more, working harder and aspiring to bigger/better things.

Id rather live in the other system, why wouldn't there be a point in learning to be a doctor ? So you get paid the same. Does the job suddenly become socially less rewarding ? Don't you get a feeling of pride for delivering a new baby into the world or does it lose all its appeal because its only suddenly paying £10 an hour ? Is the only reason to do anything on this planet to get another zero on a computer screens account balance? You could be measured on other standards that how much money you have.

I know its a Utopian scenario of nonsense, but id really prefer to live in that kind of world than this one. Kind of like living in a Star trek universe, where people decide to stop chasing little pieces of green paper (Douglas Adams?) and live a life for a better purpose.

It all turns into fanciful schoolboy dreaming from here on so ill stop now.

(its also ironic my name is Jeff, I had a primordial urge to say something in reply)

 

[Amp34]

Only you are talking a load of ****. The reality is that cleaners, tour guides, hotel maids etc. basically anyone working in the tourist industry is far wealthier due to the tips they receive whereas brain surgeons don't receive tips so the whole thing is skewed.

We also seem to be forgetting most of Cuba is falling apart and they have a large brain drain. Lets not let fact get in the way.

Edit: and lets not forget the brain drain inside Cuba (and many other tourism dominated nations) as well, where the intelligent, educated sect (teachers, doctors etc.) leave their professions to work in tourism...

or convinced people they want something they do not need which is something most technology companies do.
people are brainwashed into needed the latest iphone etc like there life won't be the same with the old model.
We went from a resourceful bunch able to tinker and fix things into a throw away society where all money is basically disposed off on things we are told we must have it's almost like it's a way to keep people poor or in debt to control them

some clothing company even started basically from giving their gear to the hip people at uni's etc which is where the term hipster seems to have came from.
people being made to think they must have XXX

Or they are providing products to a society that are ding that themselves. I'm not even convinced we are becoming more consumerist. It's been the case for thousands of years that the lates things make you "cool", even the Romans did it... The difference may be than now most in the UK aren't worried about where their next meal is coming from because they have disposable income. That means consumerism has moved down the chain from the super rich to the average and even most of the poor. Lets not forget the reality, while there is lots of shouting about huge numbers of poor unable to feed themselves it is in fact a very small proportion of society. It shouldnt exist, but it does, with a substantial portion* of those that it does exist with due to personal choice (prioritising drink/cigarettes/gambling etc. over food) or "luck". We should be helping those, not by demonizing the rich however...

*substantial portion, not majority, or all...

 

[Freefaller]

Your very statement is so conditioned and bred into you by the capitalist system.

Probably - and I'm not disagreeing, but having been around the world (there's no place like home...) including Cuba, whilst a wonderful place, there is still an inequality there - and whilst everyone has a home, and everyone gets healthcare - there are still the have and have nots. It's the way humans are - it's our natural condition. Like some people are followers and some are leaders. Some things like to be taken outside of their comfort zones, and adapt and improve but not all. Heck, I work in innovation, process improvement and change management, so I do understand that challenging the status quo is critical - however, in this instance I feel it will lead to so much discomfort and disproportion that I don't think it'll be conducive to actual "utopia".

I'm the same, I couldn't be any different, how could i be? We both live in the same country. Its one of those things were you have to step out of the box i guess.

Having lived in a few countries, (albeit all 1st world countries) the system is different everywhere, although as I said, they all follow the capitalist model, though in some places less aggressively than others. France for example, pride themselves on being more socialist (hence the revolution).

I'd rather live in an elitist capitalist country than a place where there's no point in learning more, working harder and aspiring to bigger/better things.

Id rather live in the other system, why wouldn't there be a point in learning to be a doctor ? So you get paid the same. Does the job suddenly become socially less rewarding ? Don't you get a feeling of pride for delivering a new baby into the world or does it lose all its appeal because its only suddenly paying £10 an hour ? Is the only reason to do anything on this planet to get another zero on a computer screens account balance? You could be measured on other standards that how much money you have.

I guess the opinion is skewed on current perceptions, I don't resent a doctor earning a 6 figure salary, as he's worked harder (and was more capable than me in his studies). I'm sure the most of them do it for the right reasons, taking pride, in fact most people do work to achieve something positive, people generally don't go into work to mess up. However, why should we stiffle those that want more and achieve more? Some people are happy to go above and beyond, some without want or need for recognition, but does that mean we shouldn't offer them more?

The problem with that model is that so much has to change. The cost of living has to become equal, we all have to own the same value in property, same size land... no? Everything has to be shared equally - who's to say who has what? What if someone has more than someone else? Of course people can spend their money on whatever they want, but if people aren't able to save or if things are all worth the same, then how does a country or the people thrive?

I know its a Utopian scenario of nonsense, but id really prefer to live in that kind of world than this one. Kind of like living in a Star trek universe, where people decide to stop chasing little pieces of green paper (Douglas Adams?) and live a life for a better purpose.

In an ideal world there would be no poor people, we wouldn't have to work, we'd seek out to better ourselves, go on quests, philosophise, innovate, contemplate, explore the universes and do as you say. It would be great. I could go to the gym whenver I wanted, eat the best foods I wanted, and read books, study and drive fast cars and bikes without having to worry about how to do the next adventure.

It would take more than a revolution to do this - we either need to be in some sort of post apocalyptic scenario where most of the world has been wiped out, or somehow change the genetic make up of humans to no seek out that "dream" that is so based around the aggressive (and not necessarily nice) capitalist model.

It all turns into fanciful schoolboy dreaming from here on so ill stop now.

Nothing wrong with dreaming - I do it all the time, especially on holidays, staring up at the stars with a nice brandy sour or G&T

(its also ironic my name is Jeff, I had a primordial urge to say something in reply)

 

[Mr Jack]

'Fair' is a normative concept. The corollary to 'is it fair that the top 1% have 60% of the wealth' would be 'how is it fair to artificially skew wealth to an arbitrary distribution.'

We're already artificially skewing wealth to an arbitrary distribution. There is nothing natural about operating under a set up that produces these dramatic inequalities; they're a result of choices that our country has made. Policy decisions over the last few decades have moved wealth from the lower end to the higher end and supported the acquisition of extreme wealth.

The rules are always biased; the question is not "should we bias the rules?" but "how should we bias the rules?". I believe considering the end result of rules is a worthwhile part of making and changing those rules.

 

[Xordium]

Id rather live in the other system, why wouldn't there be a point in learning to be a doctor ? So you get paid the same.

Because truly altruistic behaviour is very rare seen in all aspects of nature. If you really want people to graft away year after year for such a goal then fully expect not many people to do so.

Not all services are equal, not all hold the same value and not all need quality performing to the same extent. As I said to hurfdurf earlier it a issue of quality. 99% of the time it would be inconsequential if a cleaner did a poor job - 99% of the time it would be very bad if a doctor did a poor job.

Maybe I am wrong? You are correct the goal is very often not purely financial , and if that is the case it is very speciality specific, but a pat on the back is not really enough is it - there has to be more for the effort placed into the progression.

 

[Mr Jack]

Where on earth did anyone say cleaning is a worthless job? Cleaning is a very necessary job, the problem is anyone can do it so it will never be a job that will pay well.

Right. But it could be a job that pays a decent wage. For example, forty years ago hospital cleaners were paid about a third more in real terms than they are today. There's no inherent reason that this situation cannot be restored.

 

[krooton]

A good brain surgeon needs a combination of talent, intelligence and ambition.

It's a much more stressful job than cleaning (if someone doesn't wipe that desk down perfectly, it isn't likely to result in someone being lobotomised), and requires more from the person doing it.

I don't think many of the difficult and stressful jobs in the modern world could ever be chosen out of pure interest or reward of doing. If all pay was equal, everyone would do the least demanding job that they enjoyed doing, and that subjectivity would lead to over and under-resourcing in various roles.

I enjoy my job, but if I got paid the same as when I used to work in an internet cafe, I would go straight back to working in that cafe, hell it was basically what I do when I am at home any way.

 

[Calabi]

If people arent becoming Brain Surgeons, Doctors, Scientists for the love of Science then there is a big problem.

There was a program on the BBC recently about what motivates scientists and its not money.

Anyway its funny how the smart people dont really get paid much. Like the Iphone for instance everyone thinks Steve jobs was the smart person who deserves all the credit for its creation. When what he did was ask his scientists to give him what he wanted, they had to do the hard work, they had the hard job of figuring out how to make the surface not get sticky with fingerprints. I bet they didnt get more than a standard wage maybe a small bonus.

Brain Surgeons, and the other smart people dont get paid much comparably, they should get more. Everyone seems to think were arguing about less, that we must slice our tiny pie into smaller pieces, thats not the idea.

Its the really smart people that know how to manipulate the system that get the most.

 

[elmarko]

Your very statement is so conditioned and bred into you by the capitalist system.

I'm the same, I couldn't be any different, how could i be? We both live in the same country. Its one of those things were you have to step out of the box i guess.

I'd rather live in an elitist capitalist country than a place where there's no point in learning more, working harder and aspiring to bigger/better things.

Id rather live in the other system, why wouldn't there be a point in learning to be a doctor ? So you get paid the same. Does the job suddenly become socially less rewarding ? Don't you get a feeling of pride for delivering a new baby into the world or does it lose all its appeal because its only suddenly paying £10 an hour ? Is the only reason to do anything on this planet to get another zero on a computer screens account balance? You could be measured on other standards that how much money you have.

I know its a Utopian scenario of nonsense, but id really prefer to live in that kind of world than this one. Kind of like living in a Star trek universe, where people decide to stop chasing little pieces of green paper (Douglas Adams?) and live a life for a better purpose.

It all turns into fanciful schoolboy dreaming from here on so ill stop now.

(its also ironic my name is Jeff, I had a primordial urge to say something in reply)

To be honest those are pretty much my views on the matter.

As a species I honestly think we need to move away from such a simplistic & socially harmful motivation system (money).

Capitalism is just one of many systems humanity has lived under, it would be silly to think humanity will embrace it until the end of time - as society developed & cultures advance people will be motivated by loftier ideals.

Personal development, mastery, competition, making a contribution & for the good of society - instead of just materialistic greed.

I don't expect this to happen within any reasonable time-scale, much of the world is too barbaric.

People often (mistakenly) assuming that greed is human nature, it isn't - the urge to survive & adapt is human nature, we strive to succeed in whatever social set-up we are born into.

If greed & materialism are traits which are rewarded, those are the traits which will be presented within a population - if altruism, intelligence & co-operation were rewarded in society those traits would become more common.

Humanity isn't hard-wired into being good or evil, simply into doing whatever allows us to succeed.

 

[Theophany]

We're already artificially skewing wealth to an arbitrary distribution. There is nothing natural about operating under a set up that produces these dramatic inequalities; they're a result of choices that our country has made. Policy decisions over the last few decades have moved wealth from the lower end to the higher end and supported the acquisition of extreme wealth.

The rules are always biased; the question is not "should we bias the rules?" but "how should we bias the rules?". I believe considering the end result of rules is a worthwhile part of making and changing those rules.

In a capitalist economy, a negative skew of wealth (if we imagine a bell curve) is the normal outcome. It has not artificially been made that way by governments, they have merely let the system run its course.

So naturally I'm intrigued to know what it is you mean when you say that "policy decisions over the last few decades have moved wealth from the lower end to the higher end."

 

[elmarko]

In a capitalist economy, a negative skew of wealth (if we imagine a bell curve) is the normal outcome. It has not artificially been made that way by governments, they have merely let the system run its course.

So naturally I'm intrigued to know what it is you mean when you say that "policy decisions over the last few decades have moved wealth from the lower end to the higher end."

I believe he means, historically we have always interfered with capitalism due to the fact you need to, to avoid monopolies/cartels & price fixing.

We force corporations to pay taxation to cover the negative externalities they are responsible for along with the systemic costs required to maintain a society.

We have never lived in a true free market capitalist economy (rightly so), so it's just a matter as to what degree we influence the system or let it run it's course.

The policy choices made have been relaxations to legislation & reductions in corporation/high end tax rates (across the west) - to shift the balance further away from the population.

 

[Amp34]

Some legislation has been relaxed, some legislation has been tightened.

I get the feeling there is a certain amount of grass is greener in this debate... I'm sure older people will suggest this same debate about relaxing legislation has been going on for decades, while others will say there have been periods of retightening...

 

[Theophany]

I believe he means, historically we have always interfered with capitalism due to the fact you need to, to avoid monopolies/cartels & price fixing.

We force corporations to pay taxation to cover the negative externalities they are responsible for along with the systemic costs required to maintain a society.

We have never lived in a true free market capitalist economy (rightly so), so it's just a matter as to what degree we influence the system or let it run it's course.

The policy choices made have been relaxations to legislation & reductions in corporation/high end tax rates (across the west) - to shift the balance further away from the population.

But if we have never had a true free market then, by definition, governments have never moved wealth from the lowest end to the highest end. They've merely slowed or capped the rate at which it happens under the pure capitalist model, neither of which support his line of argument.