Interesting discussion. My tuppence worth …

Capitalism comes in many varieties – some of which are more gentle than others, capitalism is just the risk of capital wealth in endeavour to gain a return. But in any form for capitalism to benefit all there has to be a proper dynamic tension between labour and capital. The golden age of capitalism was post WW2 where growth in wealth was distributed between the providers of capital and normal workers – there was a spiral-up in growing living standards, consumerism and social welfare (and not just in the UK) – production drove wealth and wealth drove consumption etc (Fordism). There are many arguments about why it worked, some to do with balance of power between capital and unionised labour, fear of a demobbed and potentially militant workforce turning to communism pushing against traditional embedded wealth, a feeling of national debt to the working man for the war effort, primarily domestic manufacturing feeding domestic markets so retaining wealth etc…

Apart from that period, the history of capitalism has been a raising of the wealth of the top more than the bottom. This doesn’t mean that the bottom (or middle) hasn’t benefited, just not at the same rate as the top. So the inequality gap rises – but is the bottom/middle any better or worse off than under an alternative – who knows. Some argue that soviet communism advanced a basically peasant agrarian nation to a modern state faster than capitalism has done elsewhere – despite the horrendous loses of the second world war – but at what cost to personal freedom, human rights and totalitarianism would seem to always lead to corruption whatever the best intentions of the revolution that put them in place.

This is happening more quickly now as the transnational nature of business and the ease of moving capital from one economy to another weakens the position of workers/unions/governments to pursue a social justice agenda. This transnational nature of business means it is very difficult for any single country to pursue socially progressive policy as it damages competitive position.

I would argue that the balance of power has shifted to much to away from labour in favour of capital – but I can’t see anything that can be done about it now there is a world economy.

I applaud Bill Gates for trying. If someone amasses wealth to the extent that he had, and then tries to do some good by by-passing all the middle-men and putting it back in at the bottom, then more power to them.

Why don’t more follow in his footsteps? And by “more”, I mean, all of them. We all end up in roughly the same size coffins don’t we?

Arse – I’m really trying not to get involved with the Bill Gates thing.
I need to step away from the internet for a bit and ride my bike.

Good post olddog.

I think the major issue is one of political representation. The vast majority of us would rather see a fairer distribution of wealth. So how come we don’t have one? Our democratic system isn’t doing its job.

The vast majority of us would rather see a fairer distribution of wealth.

I’d guess the majority (in the West) might say that, until they realised the size of the pay cut they’d be getting.

I’d guess the majority (in the West) might say that, until they realised the size of the pay cut they’d be getting.

I already posted the world average salary (12 grand a year). I’ve lived on that much before happily enough and could do so again.

I was referring to within the UK, where most of us would get a payrise.

However you make a good point, it gets more complicated when you look at the world as a whole.

I already posted the world average salary (12 grand a year). I’ve lived on that much before happily enough and could do so again.

But many couldn’t. I certainly couldn’t get near living on that and supporting my family.

We can start with the richest hundred though. It’s ok, they can have a nice big house or two, a yacht and enough coke and hookers to do them for the rest of their lives. We can even make sure their (probably useless) offspring are looked after too.

We can see how that goes, then start on the next hundred.

I certainly couldn’t get near living on that and supporting my family.

I bet you could get a lot closer than you imagine.

andyrm – Member
But many couldn’t. I certainly couldn’t get near living on that and supporting my family.

How would we know though – we have no idea what it would be like to live in that situation. The whole structure would change.
At the moment we have situations where having mothers go back to work quicker is supposedly better for the GNP, so we encourage childcare at younger and younger ages, 2 cars, etc which all requires a higher income (and generates more tax). That income requirement means that you charge more per hour for your time, which means that your employer has to pay you more, which means he has to charge more for the goods/services/etc.

The headline statistic is reflective of massive population growth in poor countries. Governments in those countries see population growth as building a nation and creating human raw materials for economic growth. That’s their and their voters choice and not a cause of great stress to us. It’s very sad and difficult if they have low life expectancy and food shortages, very low wages but that is a side effect of their policies.

HAH, it’s a result of those countries policies? How about it’s a result of a lack of education including schools, books and teachers due to financial limitations. How about it’s because condoms and oral contraceptives are to expensive for someone living on 1 pound a week. Finally how about considering much of our overpopulation problem has been caused by dear insitutions such as the Catholic Church who have been brain washing people about sex from Africa to the Philippines since AD 1200.

It will also be of great concern to us when global temperatures start ramping up and much of the equatorial region becomes utterly economically nonviable, thanks mostly to the actions of the west in co-operation with China.

Racist idiot.

How would we know though – we have no idea what it would be like to live in that situation. The whole structure would change.
At the moment we have situations where having mothers go back to work quicker is supposedly better for the GNP, so we encourage childcare at younger and younger ages, 2 cars, etc which all requires a higher income (and generates more tax). That income requirement means that you charge more per hour for your time, which means that your employer has to pay you more, which means he has to charge more for the goods/services/etc.

All good points – but it would need someone to be prepared to suffer hardship and eschew modern lifestyle perks, not something I’d be prepared to do. I imagine if we gave up all the nice things we enjoy (holidays, going out, nice car, nice bikes, nice clothes etc, granted non-essential but good for quality of life) then it’s probably do-able, but would life be much fun living like that? Where would the motivation to work come from if the rewards aren’t there?

But isn’t the point that the people paying for that lifestyle now aren’t other people in the UK, but many/most of the 3.5 billion mentioned?
i.e There is a deception that it’s sustainable, when the reality is different.

Best visualisation that I’ve seen of the differences between perceptions of current wealth distribution, what people think would be a ‘fair’ distribution, and what it actually is (in the States) is here.

In the midst of all this, remember that these 2 are related… not to mention CMD’s links with the Chipping Norton Set and Murdoch Empire to name but a few; is it any wonder that disparity is growing in such a climate of nepotic and incestuous manipulation.

Lets not forget, despite the generally publicized belief that the Royals have little influence on the running of the country, the passing of laws is ultimately in their hands:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed

Ultimately, through the ages, the buck stops with Britain; the legacy of our invasion and plunder of other continents is the basis of modern global powers and the inequality therein

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWedTbuAtR4[/video]

In the midst of all this, remember that these 2 are related…

I’m related to both of them too. So are you.

In the same way that we are effectively related to not only all life on earth, but the entire universe, by merit of our being just an animated collection of the building blocks thereof…

In the midst of all this, remember that these 2 are related…

Let’s not. I would not want to be judged complicit in the shit my family got up to.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wW72g4FMeg[/video]

I’m confused now. Am I meant to work less hard to earn less, or work as hard for less in the form of paying more tax to send to other places?

If it’s either of the above, I’m out.

I imagine you don’t work nearly as hard as the majority of people in the 3.5 billion poorest.

I imagine you don’t work nearly as hard as the majority of people in the 3.5 billion poorest.

Depends how you define hard work.

Some would say a hard physical job without mental taxation is harder than a mentally challenging but physically non-demanding one, others the opposite. Same could be said for responsibility and pressure of a job – it’s all subjective.

Regardless, by your own logic, if ‘they’ work hard they should be earning what you earn? What I’m trying to say is you owe more of what you have to circumstance than you (by you I mean all of us in the west) would care to admit.

So if all the work was not sent to cost competitive countries, would those countries do better or worse?

What about the Gates foundation, they’ve donated what, $30billion to good causes around the world. Where would this money have come from? Would these countries be better off without it?

Its not like they are robbing from the poor to give to the poor.

I imagine alot of Oxfams management are on alot better salaries than me or their volunteers.

Some would say a hard physical job without mental taxation is harder than a mentally challenging but physically non-demanding one, others the opposite. Same could be said for responsibility and pressure of a job – it’s all subjective

Are you saying that the people in poor countries are stupid and only do physical jobs? That you should be paid more because you do a ‘clever’ job.

I think your brilliant, utterly **** genius insight into this topic highlights your real economic worth.

Well I imagine the figurehead CEO’s of charities put in 12hour days 6 days a week for their 6-figure salaries

Not.

Are you saying that the people in poor countries are stupid and only do physical jobs? That you should be paid more because you do a ‘clever’ job.

I think your brilliant, utterly **** genius insight into this topic highlights your real economic worth.

Yes well done. Slow hand clap for the man completely misreading a post and getting all indignant on behalf of someone else.

If you read my post correctly, you will see I am saying it is impossible to quantify “hard work” when comparing different jobs and sectors, regardless of the country it is in. Does my best mate who runs a specialist vehicle restoration company work harder than me as a sales manager in a multinational? We both finish work exhausted each day and both work long hours – is his physical ache worth more than my mental tiredness? Or is my stress on sales targets worth more than his sore hands from lifting engine blocks? See where I am headed here?

It’s not about “stupid foreigners” doing menial jobs being worth less – sadly you have drawn that inference all on your own.

Try not to be so angry on behalf of people in future eh?

I imagine alot of Oxfams management are on a lot better salaries than me or their volunteers.

^^This.

You’ll find senior execs at a lot of UK charities are on more than their counterparts in private sector SME’s with similar numbers of employees too – and that’s wrong, very wrong.

I’ve got no problem whatsoever with high earners in private sector organisations provided they add value and generate revenue.

I do object to people making insane money if they haven’t generated results to justify it – for example, a banker that generates massive profits should get a bonus in line with that. But one who makes losses definitely shouldn’t. It’s all about incentivisation. My sales team wouldn’t perform if bonuses and commissions were stopped – it’s what drives them.

This Oscar winning documentary should be mandatory viewing
(especially as Matt Damon is an MTBer 😆 ):

[video]http://vimeo.com/57527797[/video]

not only did the banks knowingly instigate the 2008 collapse and it’s global fallout, but they were bailed out and rewarded; they now continue their deeds, as governments spiral further into debt.

Diverting the negative attention onto charities is not really suitable, as for the most part, they are working to fix the ills that many of the richer and more powerful financiers and organizations are causing and perpetuating.

You’ll find senior execs at a lot of UK charities are on more than their counterparts in private sector SME’s with similar numbers of employees too – and that’s wrong, very wrong.

Dunno about senior execs but most charity jobs pay significantly less than an equivalent job on the private sector. Because amazingly some people are motivated by things other than money.

Mark Goldring (CEO of Oxfam) earns £120k a year so before he starts banging on about the poor he may want to look closer to home and let people wonder where there donations are going

I wouldn’t turn my nose up at it, but 120k as chief exec of a massive charity? With what exactly are we comparing his role?

Mark Goldring (CEO of Oxfam) earns £120k a year

If he does anything like what I imagine he does that doesn’t seem insane.

He isn’t a monk. Although Oxfam would presumably have a little more petty cash available if he was…

Can I just clarify… to name but a few, there are banks which have taken people’s homes away and continue to plunge the planet into further debt, weapons manufacturers who work in league with oil giants such as Halliburton to promote and sustain war, and Monsanto, who are attempting to monopolize global food supply and you turn your attention to Oxfam, because they have a couple of quite well off folk within their hierarchy?

Not sure if this has been posted on here, but a really good documentary on the subject is:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCbAyk8aRxI[/video]

Home

The idea that income inequality or even trends in income inequality are tied to a particular economic systems are clearly fasifiable. Different trends in inequality are seen in economies with similar systems in both developed and emerging markets. Furthermore, some of the fastest growth rates in inequality in developed economies have occurred in relative statist/social democratic societies in Europe (albeit from lower bases.)

In the UK and the US there was a long trends of declining inequality from late 19C up until the 1970s.

So something else must be involved.

Interesting, two of the biggest drivers if global inequality have been China and Russia albeit it for different reasons. At the same time, Brazil has seen opposite trends with inequality narrowing from rel high levels.

Since 2008, levels of global inequality between nations rather than iside them has also decreased for the first time since the mid 19C as emerging economies have caught up with developed ones. Trends here are still very early though.

Bigdummy I’d like to see his benefits package and his standard working hours. I doubt as a CEO that he’ll work 5 days a week and have zero benefts (say £600 a month car allowance, good pension etc?).

In other words charities only publish the BASIC pay of their heads.
Cynical but interested.

If you or I earnt a basic of 130k we’d consider ourselves to be doing very well.

Furthermore, some of the fastest growth rates in inequality in developed economies have occurred in relative statist/social democratic societies in Europe (albeit from lower bases.)

When their governments adopted less socialist policies you mean.