[Politics] Wealth Inequality

[Comrade Sam]

She didn’t think they were ‘having too much of the pie’. That was never part of her dogma from what I remember. She was all for people increasing personal wealth. Perhaps misguided but it was the idea underpinning privatisation, Tell Sid, council house sales etc. It was the undemocratic nature of unions that Thatcherism railed against. Closed shops, block votes, secondary picketing, strike votes carried and leaders elected on 2 or 3% of the vote etc. That was the thrust of the 1979 campaign.

Do you know how unions work? They are probably the most democratic bodies in the UK. Unions don't strike without their members wanting it and even then they need to be pushed. The selling off of of the public sector was always going to end up in the hands of the few at the cost of the many. It was said at the time and now in hindsight it is clear. Thatcher used popular rhetoric to win the support of the middle classes and those that didn't gain from strike victories - share options, own your council house, get your employees to work any hours, easy credit. But ultimately we now have mass homelessness and zero hours employment, huge personal debt and austerity to help grab the last fork in the state drawer. She was the last hope of the rich and powerful to save their Britain and whilst she didn't use the violence of Pinochet, the massive disparities in our society are her legacy (and her child Blair).

 

[Blue3]

I fail to understand why anyone has the need to just keep on gathering more and more wealth once all your basic needs are met then exceeded but what’s an acceptable amount before it become obscene?

 

[beorhthelm]

Do you know how unions work? They are probably the most democratic bodies in the UK. Unions don't strike without their members wanting it and even then they need to be pushed. The selling off of of the public sector was always going to end up in the hands of the few at the cost of the many. It was said at the time and now in hindsight it is clear. Thatcher used popular rhetoric to win the support of the middle classes and those that didn't gain from strike victories - share options, own your council house, get your employees to work any hours, easy credit. But ultimately we now have mass homelessness and zero hours employment, huge personal debt and austerity to help grab the last fork in the state drawer. She was the last hope of the rich and powerful to save their Britain and whilst she didn't use the violence of Pinochet, the massive disparities in our society are her legacy (and her child Blair).

right, no such thing as wild cat strikes or secondary pickets? iirc the NUM didnt have a vote on stike action, many carried on working and got ostracized for that - how very democratic. unions should be deomcractic, like any human organisation some get dominated by a few, corrupted to become playthings for those that run them. it was a pretty easy sell to the middle class and working class that had got fed up with the unions by 1979.

 

[Bakero]

A good proportion of the media is left-leaning. Neither side seems to recognise the existence of their own lot.

I think we may have a different idea of left-leaning

 

[Comrade Sam]

right, no such thing as wild cat strikes or secondary pickets? iirc the NUM didnt have a vote on stike action, many carried on working and got ostracized for that - how very democratic. unions should be deomcractic, like any human organisation some get dominated by a few, corrupted to become playthings for those that run them. it was a pretty easy sell to the middle class and working class that had got fed up with the unions by 1979.

Is that what Murdoch told you?

 

[beorhthelm]

Is that what Murdoch told you?

the corruption? experience. what happened in 1979? history.

funny how those that revere the unions and socialist policies will blame so many individuals for failings along the way, rather than reflect, learn, improve their case for the next challenge.

 

[beorhthelm]

I’ve gone the other way. I’m still economically left wing but socially more conservative. It’s a very common shift for older people to make. Unfortunately the only party even vaguely representative of that viewpoint is Reform but I can’t support them for other reasons eg their cosying up to Putin and Trump. I’m effectively homeless when it comes to electoral choices.

fyi, Reform isn't economically left wing, they just promise to spend extra on NHS because it's popular. they also want tax cuts, so who knows how they'd acheive both.

 

[dazzer6666]

I fail to understand why anyone has the need to just keep on gathering more and more wealth once all your basic needs are met then exceeded but what’s an acceptable amount before it become obscene?

It’s as much power as wealth for many, but the wealth is often the easiest way to represent the power

 

[Machiavelli]

My instinctive feeling is that wealth inequality is too large and that it would be beneficial if it were narrower. It’s obviously impossible, to know what it should be though.

I think it’s fair and reasonable to expect there to be some distribution, but IMO it’s too skewed and, like gravity, the skew attracts more skew over time and not though actual work or increse value proportionate to that increase. I think if it were more proportional it would actually increase overall incentivisation benefit everyone.

Instinct. Really? See:

Home - WID - World Inequality Database

Home The source for global inequality data. Open access, high quality wealth and income inequality data developed by an international academic consortium.

wid.world

While dull to read, Piketty has a few very insightful ideas within a robust broader analysis. Foremost amongst these is that for the vast majority of the history of capitalism r>g. In other words, when the rate of return of capital (or what the financial sector would refer to as return on investment) is higher than the growth rate, inequality follows.
Between c1920 and 1980, g>r, and inequality narrowed, since then r>g is back with a vengeance.
Another insight offered in 2013 is that growth rates will be low in 21C core economies, which has profound impacts:

Let's say r is 6% and in the normal run of things g is 2%, yet falls over a protracted period to 1%, then r shifts from 3g to 6g

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

A good proportion of the media is left-leaning. Neither side seems to recognise the existence of their own lot.

A couple of the papers are left leaning, but such news outlets are becoming more and more obsolete as social media and specific TV channels dominate much of the news output. Almost none of the big media channels are left leaning, such as Sky, nor are social platforms like X and there’s reams of evidence to prove this with some research. BBC has moved horrifically to the right and there’s so much evidence of that now it’s overwhelming, particularly when it comes to political shows. You only have to see how much exposure Farage has had despite never being an elected MP before this election to see just how far right they’ve gone.

In fact, I’d argue that much of the country has moved so far right that the media outlets that are considered left wing are only actually centrist outlets, but of course that’s up for debate.

 

[BadFish]

A good proportion of the media is left-leaning. Neither side seems to recognise the existence of their own lot.

Which outlets are you considering left leaning?

The guardian, the mirror (is it still?, bluesky.

What I missing?

 

[dsr-burnley]

Do you know how unions work? They are probably the most democratic bodies in the UK. Unions don't strike without their members wanting it and even then they need to be pushed. The selling off of of the public sector was always going to end up in the hands of the few at the cost of the many. It was said at the time and now in hindsight it is clear. Thatcher used popular rhetoric to win the support of the middle classes and those that didn't gain from strike victories - share options, own your council house, get your employees to work any hours, easy credit. But ultimately we now have mass homelessness and zero hours employment, huge personal debt and austerity to help grab the last fork in the state drawer. She was the last hope of the rich and powerful to save their Britain and whilst she didn't use the violence of Pinochet, the massive disparities in our society are her legacy (and her child Blair).

Don't get the idea that the unions were all on the side of the working man. For example, in Colne in the mid-seventies, a 40 year old cotton worker with two children was sacked because the union insisted. His crime was that for 2 weeks when he was 16 he worked in a non-union factory. The unions might have been supportive of their own members but they stamped on the face of the people they saw as enemies.