Wealth inequality
Discussion
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSLdho4bu/
Yes the link is to wealth inequality in the US rather than the U.K. but I think the situation is similar.
Yes I’ve heard the facts before but it is interesting to see the stark difference between what people think is ideal, what they think the current situation is and reality.
What is funny is that the “ideal” visualised by the “socialist” hating Americans is probably more equal than the so-called socialist countries in Europe that Americans look down on.
Yes the link is to wealth inequality in the US rather than the U.K. but I think the situation is similar.
Yes I’ve heard the facts before but it is interesting to see the stark difference between what people think is ideal, what they think the current situation is and reality.
What is funny is that the “ideal” visualised by the “socialist” hating Americans is probably more equal than the so-called socialist countries in Europe that Americans look down on.
Biggy Stardust said:
Why are you outraged if not jealous?
Inequality is not a good thing, even if you are in the richer segment of society. You are still exposed to the problems of those in the lower income brackets, and the externalities of that. The levels of inequality in the UK are only becoming more entrenched and the last 15/20 years has seen the decline in social/wealth mobility which had been increasing ever since the Second World War. It is already a big political problem and will continue to be, thanks to QE which vastly increased the value of assets while doing little to support wages - so those who already had a house did well, and those who already had shares did well, but those who had neither, due to age or income, have not done so well.
Condi said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Why are you outraged if not jealous?
Inequality is not a good thing, even if you are in the richer segment of society. You are still exposed to the problems of those in the lower income brackets, and the externalities of that. The levels of inequality in the UK are only becoming more entrenched and the last 15/20 years has seen the decline in social/wealth mobility which had been increasing ever since the Second World War. It is already a big political problem and will continue to be, thanks to QE which vastly increased the value of assets while doing little to support wages - so those who already had a house did well, and those who already had shares did well, but those who had neither, due to age or income, have not done so well.
Doesn't seem to matter what political system you have, there are always those who have and those who do not.
If you try and counter that with regulation or governmental interference, does it ever really last that long? At best it just ends up being different people in the different buckets.
Murph7355 said:
Doesn't seem to matter what political system you have, there are always those who have and those who do not.
Indeed, it's innate. Some are wired to do better than others. Take it all away from them and many will wind up at the top again. And I know of plenty of people who are genuinely incapable of getting ahead no matter what good fortune lands in their lap. But as with the post above the degree of it is influenced by those who pull the levers. Asset prices went wild just as things got a whole lot tighter for those who aren't dripping with them.
Asset owners have always been at the top and I'm sure they enjoyed the boost. It's not something they'll be looking to let go of. Until they wind up dangling from lamp posts.
It would be an interesting experiment to give 100 random people £10000 each and then go back in ten years to see what they had done with it.
In all probability, most would have frittered it away in a few days/weeks/months on drink, drugs and rapidly devaluing chattels. A few would have put it in savings or low risk investments, some would have put it in higher risk investments and either done very badly or very well, and a very few would have used it to start themselves a business. In all likelihood, the final wealth distribution would be not unlike the 'reality' distribution in the video.
Being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth can help, however being born with fire in one's belly counts for a heck of a lot too.
In all probability, most would have frittered it away in a few days/weeks/months on drink, drugs and rapidly devaluing chattels. A few would have put it in savings or low risk investments, some would have put it in higher risk investments and either done very badly or very well, and a very few would have used it to start themselves a business. In all likelihood, the final wealth distribution would be not unlike the 'reality' distribution in the video.
Being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth can help, however being born with fire in one's belly counts for a heck of a lot too.
Check out "gary's economics" on youtube
He was a relatively poor kid that had a knack for maths and battled his way into the city as a trader, made his millions but left it to campaign against the rising inequality.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB8...
He sees what his dad was able to do as a humble postie and compares that to what his friends today face with, on the face of it, far better education qualifications and jobs/job prospects. He also expresses how few in the city or at all levels of economics teaching come from anything close to a poor background.
He was a relatively poor kid that had a knack for maths and battled his way into the city as a trader, made his millions but left it to campaign against the rising inequality.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB8...
He sees what his dad was able to do as a humble postie and compares that to what his friends today face with, on the face of it, far better education qualifications and jobs/job prospects. He also expresses how few in the city or at all levels of economics teaching come from anything close to a poor background.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Biggy Stardust said:
So many jealous people in the world.
Pedant alert...envious. Jealousy is not wanting someone to have what you have; the jealous husband, a jealously guarded secret.
Envy is wanting something that someone else has got. Envious of my neighbour's car.
DickyC said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Biggy Stardust said:
So many jealous people in the world.
Pedant alert...envious. Jealousy is not wanting someone to have what you have; the jealous husband, a jealously guarded secret.
Envy is wanting something that someone else has got. Envious of my neighbour's car.
Condi said:
Inequality is not a good thing, even if you are in the richer segment of society. You are still exposed to the problems of those in the lower income brackets, and the externalities of that.
The levels of inequality in the UK are only becoming more entrenched and the last 15/20 years has seen the decline in social/wealth mobility which had been increasing ever since the Second World War. It is already a big political problem and will continue to be, thanks to QE which vastly increased the value of assets while doing little to support wages - so those who already had a house did well, and those who already had shares did well, but those who had neither, due to age or income, have not done so well.
Good postThe levels of inequality in the UK are only becoming more entrenched and the last 15/20 years has seen the decline in social/wealth mobility which had been increasing ever since the Second World War. It is already a big political problem and will continue to be, thanks to QE which vastly increased the value of assets while doing little to support wages - so those who already had a house did well, and those who already had shares did well, but those who had neither, due to age or income, have not done so well.
Anyone who wants to offer an opinion on this topic should read The Spirit Level
It reports comparisons between countries on many metrics from unwanted pregnancies and crime rates to obesity measures - essentially measures of misery and deprivation and finds how this correlate with income inequality (which they define as the gap between the lowest quartile and the highest quartile). There's a commonly held view that the existence of large gaps in income act as some kind of Darwinian incentive and those who don't compete deserve to fail - This isn't just morally dubious it simply isn't true.
Every measure is correlated with income equality
TLDR Key messages from the book
1) The strength of a country’s economy doesn’t necessarily reflect its citizens’ well-being
2) Income inequality stresses people out, which causes health problems
3) Income inequality can cause mental health problems and mistrust in society.
4) Income inequality incites violence as people fight to uphold their social status
5) Income inequality hurts everybody in a society, even the wealthy.
6) Rather being a symptom of wider problems, inequality is the root cause of them
7) Greater income equality can even help fight global warming.
8) The problems of inequality are linked and can therefore be changed together.
9) We can change our society into a more equal one.
andy_s said:
DickyC said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Biggy Stardust said:
So many jealous people in the world.
Pedant alert...envious. Jealousy is not wanting someone to have what you have; the jealous husband, a jealously guarded secret.
Envy is wanting something that someone else has got. Envious of my neighbour's car.
oddman said:
Good post
Anyone who wants to offer an opinion on this topic should read The Spirit Level
It reports comparisons between countries on many metrics from unwanted pregnancies and crime rates to obesity measures - essentially measures of misery and deprivation and finds how this correlate with income inequality (which they define as the gap between the lowest quartile and the highest quartile). There's a commonly held view that the existence of large gaps in income act as some kind of Darwinian incentive and those who don't compete deserve to fail - This isn't just morally dubious it simply isn't true.
Every measure is correlated with income equality
TLDR Key messages from the book
1) The strength of a country’s economy doesn’t necessarily reflect its citizens’ well-being
2) Income inequality stresses people out, which causes health problems
3) Income inequality can cause mental health problems and mistrust in society.
4) Income inequality incites violence as people fight to uphold their social status
5) Income inequality hurts everybody in a society, even the wealthy.
6) Rather being a symptom of wider problems, inequality is the root cause of them
7) Greater income equality can even help fight global warming.
8) The problems of inequality are linked and can therefore be changed together.
9) We can change our society into a more equal one.
Good post/link. I think that lots of people simply want to earn more and keep their fingers crossed that the above issues don't bite them. And even if they do get bitten, I wonder if they would put 2 and 2 together.Anyone who wants to offer an opinion on this topic should read The Spirit Level
It reports comparisons between countries on many metrics from unwanted pregnancies and crime rates to obesity measures - essentially measures of misery and deprivation and finds how this correlate with income inequality (which they define as the gap between the lowest quartile and the highest quartile). There's a commonly held view that the existence of large gaps in income act as some kind of Darwinian incentive and those who don't compete deserve to fail - This isn't just morally dubious it simply isn't true.
Every measure is correlated with income equality
TLDR Key messages from the book
1) The strength of a country’s economy doesn’t necessarily reflect its citizens’ well-being
2) Income inequality stresses people out, which causes health problems
3) Income inequality can cause mental health problems and mistrust in society.
4) Income inequality incites violence as people fight to uphold their social status
5) Income inequality hurts everybody in a society, even the wealthy.
6) Rather being a symptom of wider problems, inequality is the root cause of them
7) Greater income equality can even help fight global warming.
8) The problems of inequality are linked and can therefore be changed together.
9) We can change our society into a more equal one.
DickyC said:
Vanessa Feltz used jealous to mean envious frequently on her early morning show on Radio 2 and I wrote in to respectfully correct her. She didn't read out my email and I wondered if I was mistaken and - researched is too grand a word - I read what I could find. Yes, in general use, the two words are interchangeable.
Yeah, that was the point of the 4 words above that have transmogrified into other meanings over time - I too was a 
'but decimate...' but as Canute knew, tides turn and meanings become what is meant.
GliderRider said:
It would be an interesting experiment to give 100 random people £10000 each and then go back in ten years to see what they had done with it.
In all probability, most would have frittered it away in a few days/weeks/months on drink, drugs and rapidly devaluing chattels. A few would have put it in savings or low risk investments, some would have put it in higher risk investments and either done very badly or very well, and a very few would have used it to start themselves a business. In all likelihood, the final wealth distribution would be not unlike the 'reality' distribution in the video.
It really wouldn't. In all probability, most would have frittered it away in a few days/weeks/months on drink, drugs and rapidly devaluing chattels. A few would have put it in savings or low risk investments, some would have put it in higher risk investments and either done very badly or very well, and a very few would have used it to start themselves a business. In all likelihood, the final wealth distribution would be not unlike the 'reality' distribution in the video.
Those that don't need the money would invest it (ie, the well off). Those that are less well off would spend it on vittels/fun, because they feel they so infrequently have the opportunity to do that, and to hell with long term planning.
A few would save a bit and spend a bit. But in reality, a £5K nest egg is not going to change your life.
What would be interesting is to give both groups £10 million, set for life money - remove the present need from the question, and make sure financial advice is provided. The outcome would be far less predictable I feel.
Matthen said:
GliderRider said:
It would be an interesting experiment to give 100 random people £10000 each and then go back in ten years to see what they had done with it.
In all probability, most would have frittered it away in a few days/weeks/months on drink, drugs and rapidly devaluing chattels. A few would have put it in savings or low risk investments, some would have put it in higher risk investments and either done very badly or very well, and a very few would have used it to start themselves a business. In all likelihood, the final wealth distribution would be not unlike the 'reality' distribution in the video.
It really wouldn't. In all probability, most would have frittered it away in a few days/weeks/months on drink, drugs and rapidly devaluing chattels. A few would have put it in savings or low risk investments, some would have put it in higher risk investments and either done very badly or very well, and a very few would have used it to start themselves a business. In all likelihood, the final wealth distribution would be not unlike the 'reality' distribution in the video.
Those that don't need the money would invest it (ie, the well off). Those that are less well off would spend it on vittels/fun, because they feel they so infrequently have the opportunity to do that, and to hell with long term planning.
A few would save a bit and spend a bit. But in reality, a £5K nest egg is not going to change your life.
What would be interesting is to give both groups £10 million, set for life money - remove the present need from the question, and make sure financial advice is provided. The outcome would be far less predictable I feel.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff