Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

Eating the crumbs from the rich man's table
Jeremy Bosk
Posted: 06 December 2011 07:23:47(UTC)
#1

Joined: 09/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,294

Thanks: 85 times
Was thanked: 213 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising

There is a new report from the OECD, not known as a haven for "pinko Communist, pointy-headed intellectuals". It suggests what everyone always knew - although some pretended otherwise: trickle down economics does not work. In a society with extremes of income and wealth, misery and squalor follow as night follows day.
http://www.oecd.org/docu...49147827_1_1_1_1,00.html
Robert Court
Posted: 06 December 2011 10:57:26(UTC)
#2

Joined: 22/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 605

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Jeremy Bosk

One interesting bit from your link:

"The higher-paid worked more hours. As in most other OECD countries, the UK recorded a trend towards an
increasing divide in hours worked between higher- and lower-wage earners. Since the mid-1980s, annual
hours of low-wage workers remained stable at around 1050, while those of higher-wage workers augmented
from 2240 to 2450 hour"

So the rich don't only get paid far more per hour they work they work twice as many hours on average; hoe dare they work so hard!

It certainly seems that working hard is the major solution to most economic problems.

I'm sure you'll say that there are insufficient jobs available and that, of course, poses a problem.
dd
Posted: 06 December 2011 13:04:48(UTC)
#3

Joined: 15/09/2010(UTC)
Posts: 241

Thanks: 131 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 37 post(s)
Who was it who said: "It's funny how the harder I work, the luckier I get."?
1 user thanked dd for this post.
srg751 on 22/08/2016(UTC)
Franco
Posted: 06 December 2011 14:46:34(UTC)
#4

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 20

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
As it says in the Good Book, to those that have it shall be given.
Franco
Posted: 06 December 2011 14:46:36(UTC)
#5

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 20

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
As it says in the Good Book, to those that have it shall be given.
seahound
Posted: 06 December 2011 15:22:25(UTC)
#6

Joined: 08/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
The meek shall inherit the earth but the strong will take it off them.
The lepard will lie down with the lamb but the lamb won't get much sleep.
Robert Court
Posted: 06 December 2011 16:05:56(UTC)
#7

Joined: 22/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 605

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
I put that quote in above to show that those who work hard obviously gain the most, but if you haven't got a job and can't find a job then things are obviously pretty bleak as in:

"COUNTRY NOTE: UNITED KINGDOM
Income inequality among working-age persons has risen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other
OECD country since 1975. From a peak in 2000 and subsequent fall, it has been rising again since 2005 and is now
well above the OECD average.
The annual average income of the top 10% in 2008 was almost GBP 55,000, almost 12 times higher than
that of the bottom 10%, who had an average income of GBP 4,700. This is up from a ratio of 8 to 1 in 1985. Taxes
and benefits reduce inequality by a quarter in the United Kingdom, in line with the OECD average."

GBP 4,700 equates to GBP90.38 per week and I assume includes stuff like housing benefit if total income to those unemployed while 55k is obviously well over GBP 1,000 per week.

I think a person is doing ok once he/she is earning GBP 100 per day (i.e. GBP 500 per week, GBP 26,000 per annum).

It's not easy to drag that bottom 10% up by over five times their present income; work and lots of it seem to be the answer; finding productive work let alone forcing people to take it is another problem.

On GBP 100 per week your disposable income for food, transport, clothing is probably about GBP 35 per week; on GBP 500 per week your disposable income probably soars by at least TENFOLD to something more like GBP 350 per week unless you're foolish enough to have a huge mortgage and insist on borrowing money for a fancy new expensive car, etc.
Jeremy Bosk
Posted: 06 December 2011 16:15:44(UTC)
#8

Joined: 09/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,294

Thanks: 85 times
Was thanked: 213 time(s) in 128 post(s)
dd

I expect it was the same PR person who installed the signs "Arbeit macht frei".

Jeremy Bosk
Posted: 06 December 2011 19:11:17(UTC)
#9

Joined: 09/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,294

Thanks: 85 times
Was thanked: 213 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Robert

The hours worked correspond roughly to either 20 or 40 hours per week. A very large proportion of women with children work part time to fit in with school hours and school holidays. There are a lot of people who work part time by choice for such reasons. Others work part time because they cannot get full time work.

http://www.ippr.org/uplo...echnical%20briefing.pdf

Robert Court
Posted: 06 December 2011 19:22:58(UTC)
#10

Joined: 22/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 605

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Work DOES set you free (the use by the Nazis was a really nasty exception to the rule).

Strangely, NOT working if you're in an impossible situation [if you can empower yourself some other way] can also set you free.

Debt is the biggest prisoner, yet there are people who DELIBERATELY take on debt with zero intention of paying it back.

So we have:

1. The haves and the have nots.

2. Those that believe that work will make them free and those that believe they can exist on thin air.

3. Those that honour their debts and those who fraudulently take on debt.

4. Those that are apathetic and those who are determined to change things proactively if things get bad.

Some rich people have no need to work and other rich people work so hard they have no opportunity to enjoy the fruit of their labour. Some poor people work hard and never seem to make ends meet. We live in an unjust society but the statistics speak for themselves; those who work hardest on average prosper most and that cannot be denied.

We have such a thing called 'mobility of labour' - it can be very hard to 'up sticks' and move, but if you've already lost everything then you have nothing to lose as proved by those who emmigrated to the USA in the Irish potato famines.

Ultimately we are responsible for ourselves; the nanny state cannot take away that responsibility however much you say it must.
seahound
Posted: 06 December 2011 20:39:54(UTC)
#11

Joined: 08/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Robert, nobody who does not work believes they can exist on thin air.
They live on on money provided by people who work.
Robert Court
Posted: 06 December 2011 20:46:41(UTC)
#12

Joined: 22/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 605

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
seahound

Sure, but they believe it's magically created by the state and have zero concept that other's are going without for their benefit; there is no guilt, there is no 'thank you' there is just 'it is my right'.

Some can say they themselves paid their contributions over many years before they themselves fell on hard times, but there are also many who have never earned a single day's pay in their entire lives - and how do we help them?
snoekie
Posted: 06 December 2011 22:43:07(UTC)
#13

Joined: 26/08/2008(UTC)
Posts: 132

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 25 time(s) in 16 post(s)
And just how many of theses are doing part time work, perhaps full time in the 'black' economy'? A fair many I reckon.

So still cheating!
snoekie
Posted: 06 December 2011 22:45:58(UTC)
#14

Joined: 26/08/2008(UTC)
Posts: 132

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 25 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Cash in hand.
seahound
Posted: 06 December 2011 22:53:55(UTC)
#15

Joined: 08/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Robert agree 100%.
The welfare system was meant to be a temporary help tp people who
had fallen on hard times.
Now it is a life style choice.
No one should be paid to sit on their back sides sucking on a bottle of cider
& watching day time tv.
snoekie
Posted: 07 December 2011 00:36:05(UTC)
#16

Joined: 26/08/2008(UTC)
Posts: 132

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 25 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Seahound, so unworldly, certainly on something, new borns generally indulge!
Artemis Gorgo
Posted: 07 December 2011 08:31:17(UTC)
#17

Joined: 11/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 6

Lie, damned lies and statistics

As with so many 'reports' headlines will be grabbed/ construed to futher a personal agenda or prejuduce. This is a classic example. If you want to take the bare results you could argue capitalism doesn't work; the poor are natural prey for the rich; social injustices are growing etc.etc. etc. What is not taken into acount is a real understanding of what is driving the trend - is it longer working hours by some? is it choices/ opportunites for people to work more part-time (single parents, married parents where one partner decides to take on some part-time or unskilled full time work because they have the opportunity to do so which they did not have before)? is it changes in law which allow older people to work past their retiement age? or is it simply that we have reached a level of wealth that people are making choices in life which are simply not about working hard and earning as much as possible and therefore we are looking at a meaningless statistic? etc. etc. etc.

Of course, how you react to this comment will reflect your personal agenda too.

Robert Court
Posted: 07 December 2011 09:27:00(UTC)
#18

Joined: 22/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 605

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Artemis Gorgo

Good points.

I do see a trend towards only 1% of the population provide all the food and manufactured goods (and, ultimately, services) we need.

So what would happen if 99% didn't need to work?

Would the 1% be happy to provide for the 99%?

Would you be happy just to work for bloated consumers or would you like less bloated consumers to feed and provide for?

Do we move towards some Utopian society of plenty?

or:

Do we move towards a huge underclass ruled by the few in power who would now have riches beyond our wildest dreams?
Daniel L
Posted: 20 August 2013 19:03:39(UTC)
#19

Joined: 12/08/2013(UTC)
Posts: 25

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
I think that some people who are on the bottom and needing the assistance aren't always just looking for hand outs, just like all the people on the top don't feel like they should avoid taxes as much as possible. Look at Bill Gates, he gives to so many charities and is perfectly fine with paying more taxes than he already pays...
JohnR
Posted: 22 August 2016 12:51:49(UTC)
#21

Joined: 25/01/2014(UTC)
Posts: 30

Thanks: 22 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Saint William and his travails along the road to redemption. The end justifies the means.

Just remember to overlook the decades of greedy monopolistic, anti competition, tax dodging, slave waging and how much of the money he donates is coming from other, sincere and less publicity hungry beneficiaries donating to his 'foundation'
2 Pages12Next page
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets