Protesting at wages less than £500 a week!

[chem1st]

You're assuming the conclusion. By positing that income equality brings social ills, you conclude that income equality brings social ills.

 

 

In fact, many of the most prosperous and happiest societies in the world have very large disparities in income. (And many others don't.)

 

Please provide evidence to the contrary...

 

Here is a short publication from a fellow at Sheffield University.

 

http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/publications/commentary/red_pepper_inequality_kills.pdf

 

It considers the murder rate, and is titled, 'Inequality kills'.

 

Between 1981 and 1985, people living in the poorest 10 per

cent of areas were 4.5 times more likely to be murdered than those

living in the richest ten per cent. By 2000, the poorest 10 percent were six

times more likely to be murdered. Some simple projections using

figures for the 1980s and 1990s help illustrate these trends. In the richest

neighbourhoods, for every 100 murders that we might ‘expect’ to

take place if the national average were applied equally, only 50

occurred. In the poorest 10 per cent of council wards, using the same

measure, there were around 300 murders compared to the 100

expected. In fact, the rise in murders in Britain has been concentrated almost

exclusively amongst men of working age living in the poorest parts of the

country. Living in the areas most affected by the recession and high

unemployment of the early 1980s, many of these men left school at 15

or 16 and were unable to find work. In each case, there is no simple

causal relationship at play. Murders typically result from a complex

interplay of factors – including social exclusion, esteem and status – as well

as a considerable degree of bad luck. For every murder victim, dozens of

others have been ‘almost murdered’. There is a common myth that gun

crime is behind high murder rates in poor areas. In fact, a higher

proportion of rich people are killed by guns than poor people. The most

common way of being murdered in poor areas was through being cut with

a knife or broken glass. Most murders are shockingly banal – such as a fight

after a night out drinking in which a threat was made and someone

died.

 

Consider the case of Hinkler and Gower being discussed in a different thread.

[HeadingNorth]

Please provide evidence to the contrary...

 

To the contrary of what? I already told you that in some countries there is high income disparity and considerable social ills.

[chem1st]

Consider Sweden, perhaps the happiest society in the world.

 

Look at the homicide rate, from 1400 AD till now...

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Historical_homicide_rate_in_Stockholm.svg

 

From the period 1820-1949, Sweden was the only country in the entire world to have not engaged in war, the society was a very equal one, and the murder rate was low.

 

Consider how income inequality rose up until World War 2 began, and then decreased for the following 20-30 years.

 

The statistics of spree and thrill killing vs time, which appear to peak after recessions.

[Tenants]

As of 2004, the mean wage in Britain was £456 per week; the median income (the halfway point between highest and lowest wage if you list them all in order) was £328 per week.

 

Official government figures tend to be several years behind current events.

 

If it wasn't for the increased inequality today, workers could expect a salary of £500/week.

 

Wouldnt £500 be inequality, when other sectors dont earn that for manual labour

 

The public sector is taking cuts, its the way it is. It's become bloated and needs to be more efficient. I don't think cuts for anyone is a good thing, we are all part of society and all work hard (well most of us that can... do)

 

But we have to rethink the public sector, we simply can no longer afford it. I'm not sure what would be better for society at large (including the people working in the rail industry)

 

- Low wages

or

- Less Jobs, so they have to work more to do the job of several people (and a fraction would be out of work!)

 

Neither of these two options sound good to me, on the one hand you give people very little money, so the quality of life is poor for the workers. On the other hand, you sack a whole load of people (destroying their lives), and at the same time stressing the existing workers!

[chem1st]

So, they're

They did, 100 years ago, please read the OP. They are all dead now. RIP, they were men of Britain!