The Rich get richer, much richer1

[L00b]

You can joke about it but not long before we won the world cup that is basically not far below the level of earnings of a lot of footballers. In the early 60s the average weekly wage was £15. Footballers got on average £20.

I'm well aware, I1L2T3. And I find financial packages of modern day footballers ridiculous. And I say this as a staunch baby-eating capitalist (preferably in mildly, fairly and objectively regulated markets) militating for full-on meritocracy (wherein I don't begrudge Sorrell his millions at all).

 

Just the joke, I1L2T3, just the joke. No hidden meaning or point

 

...then again, a lot of that football money is down to broadcast rights, i.e. down to advertising spend, and look what Sorrell is making his millions doing. Coincidence? Perhaps not.

Edited May 10, 2016 by L00b

[I1L2T3]

.........if you do not agree that the "poor"(bankrupt word in Britain these days)have never been so wealthy!.........you are living on a different planet to lots of us with long memories...........just like the junior doctors who have recently chose to strike!

Still wet behind the ears,earning more than lots of us can only dream about.Most having taken out far more than they have put into this country at this stage of their lives................maybe a wake up call is coming not far down the road!

 

I think people are trying to argue that people have a higher standard of living. That is probably true for a lot of people.

 

But just remember that a good standard of living can be financed by debt

 

Somebody who has that debt-funded standard of living is not wealthy. They just look like they are. There is a chance, a very good chance, that they have no meaningful wealth, especially if they rent.

 

The wake-up call that's coming maybe isn't the one you imagine.

[Obelix]

Was that Oxford or Cambridge? Or perhaps the London School of Economics, or maybe Imperial College London?

 

These are the prestige institutions that feature in the CVs of those who populate the boardrooms and government departments, where students enjoy privileges such as one-to-one tutorials, and get to meet with others of privilege. If you need evidence, just take a look at David Cameron's ministerial appointments.

 

And it is from these charmed heights that policies are delivered that impose poverty and struggle on ordinary people. People such as those who work long hours on the minimum wage to care for elderly and frail people in our communities.

 

It's across all of them. I've written references up for LSE, Oxbridge, as well as the plate glass and red brick institutions.

[I1L2T3]

I'm well aware, I1L2T3. And I find financial packages of modern day footballers ridiculous. And I say this as a staunch baby-eating capitalist (preferably in mildly, fairly and objectively regulated markets) militating for full-on meritocracy (wherein I don't begrudge Sorrell his millions at all).

 

Just the joke, I1L2T3, just the joke. No hidden meaning or point

 

...then again, a lot of that football money is down to broadcast rights, i.e. down to advertising spend, and look what Sorrell is making his millions doing. Coincidence? Perhaps not.

 

We're not a million miles away in views surprisingly. I also believe capitalism is the best system, I believe in good regulation not more regulation, I believe in a smaller state and I believe in allowing individuals freedom to unlock their potential. I sound a bit like a Tory I guess but I'm not one. Far from it.

 

I also happen to agree that Sorrell might not be the best example for this argument.

[tzijlstra]

Poor old Solomon1 draws valid attention to the access to privileged institutions enjoyed by families like the Sorrells, whilst the injustices of a system which allows these obscene discrepancies between the life chances of the charmed few and the ordinary people becomes a further theme for quibble by the distraction mongers.

 

Don't be fooled!

 

And Cyclone wishes to argue about semantics, about the meaning of words such as 'meanwhile', in another ruse to muddy the waters and wrench the argument away from the stark facts.

 

Neoliberalism, the economic policy which is delivering such huge rewards to families like the Sorrells whilst simultaneously leaving elderly and vulnerable people facing a terrifying future as crisis looms over the care system, does not work.

 

Cyclone might like to re-examine those gini figures and explain why inequality rose dramatically under Thatcher and has remained high ever since. The evidence that Cyclone cites confirms that inequality was a significant component of Conservative policy in the 1980s, and has since become structural in the UK economy.

 

It is a bit uncouth to target Cyclone in particular, that aside, you speak of neoliberal policy like it is dreadful, unfortunately for you all the figures bear out that it is indeed a very advantageous method to alleviating poverty. Can you explain what system you adhere to and how that might work better in the UK?

 

Was that Oxford or Cambridge? Or perhaps the London School of Economics, or maybe Imperial College London?

 

These are the prestige institutions that feature in the CVs of those who populate the boardrooms and government departments, where students enjoy privileges such as one-to-one tutorials, and get to meet with others of privilege. If you need evidence, just take a look at David Cameron's ministerial appointments.

 

And it is from these charmed heights that policies are delivered that impose poverty and struggle on ordinary people. People such as those who work long hours on the minimum wage to care for elderly and frail people in our communities.

 

I came from a poor background and grew up in the agricultural north of the Netherlands where going to Uni was seen as something that the shop owners' kids did. I utilised what was available to me by getting a maximum government loan for tuition fees and subsistence, not a lot of money at all, but I managed to scrape through and got a diploma from a poly, there would have been no way my parents would have paid for that. Once I was able to afford my own further education I obtained an MSc from Sheffield (which is the best in the world in my field) and a PhD from Loughborough, I turned down an opportunity to go to Oxford because I did not want to leave my wife behind and didn't fancy the commute.

 

In the UK anybody now has the opportunity to do a degree, things have improved for the better and once you start looking beyond the headline fees that always seem to take precedence, you will realise that the current system increases participation from poorer segments of the population.

 

Within my environment I see examples of kids who still don't believe they can go to Uni because their parents can't afford it - they are wrong, as demonstrated by numerous undergrads I teach at Loughborough that have come from poor backgrounds.

 

Is the system ideal? Of course not, but it is a hell of a lot better than it was when parents were responsible for funding their kids' subsistence costs without support.

Edited May 10, 2016 by tzijlstra

[Cyclone]

Remember the 70's? People couldnt afford to eat out. Very few had phones, Central heating, cars (people had to catch the bus fgs). Health care was low, life expectancy was short. Foreign holidays?? Yeah right.

 

You do know and you can probably remember. You are just trying to justify your stance.

 

The people who don't want to work are not very well off, but they have all their subsistence paid for by those who do and particularly by People in the OP who pay a helluva lot of tax to support them.

 

Please remove the cataracts fom your eyes (yes you can get them done for free on the NHS paid for by the BIG taxpayers). Not sure the taxpayer will pay for the chip to be surgically removed from your left shoulder though

 

Life expectancy wasn't that different tbf.

 

But nobody had a mobile phone, or a computer in their pocket. Or a computer at home for that matter.

TV's were probably limited to 3 channels and about 14" in size.

 

People don't remember this though when they're complaining. It's not about how everyone's life has improved, they just care about how much more someone else has.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2016 at 20:08 ----------

 

Poor old Solomon1 draws valid attention to the access to privileged institutions enjoyed by families like the Sorrells, whilst the injustices of a system which allows these obscene discrepancies between the life chances of the charmed few and the ordinary people becomes a further theme for quibble by the distraction mongers.

 

Don't be fooled!

 

And Cyclone wishes to argue about semantics, about the meaning of words such as 'meanwhile', in another ruse to muddy the waters and wrench the argument away from the stark facts.

 

Neoliberalism, the economic policy which is delivering such huge rewards to families like the Sorrells whilst simultaneously leaving elderly and vulnerable people facing a terrifying future as crisis looms over the care system, does not work.

 

Cyclone might like to re-examine those gini figures and explain why inequality rose dramatically under Thatcher and has remained high ever since. The evidence that Cyclone cites confirms that inequality was a significant component of Conservative policy in the 1980s, and has since become structural in the UK economy.

 

You mean the gini figures that show that inequality fell for most of a century, and has risen slightly since hitting the lowest point and now been flat for 2 decades.

 

When you claimed it was rising. You understand the word, 'rising'? It means going up, right now. Not going up 2 decades ago.

 

You were wrong. The entire premise of your thread is wrong. Sorry about that.

 

re:meanwhile - it's not semantics to point out that you are trying to link two phenomena that are entirely unrelated. It's a disingenuous tactic from you, and I called you out on it.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2016 at 20:11 ----------

 

So explain to me as a son of a miner, how I could easily go to Uni under the Conservatives?

 

I've got a large number of Explorer scouts - they dont seem to have problems getting into decent uni's despite families being working class or on benefits...

 

It's odd isn't. I'm the grandson of a miner and the son of a bus driver. And yet I managed to go to uni, I missed out on Cambridge though, although I did have an interview there, one of my friends went there, and another to Oxford.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2016 at 20:14 ----------

 

Was that in the 1960's?

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2016 at 14:06 ----------

 

 

Completely

 

Do you?

 

What percentage are admisions from private sector schools?

 

You understand it so completely that you think you need money to go to Cambridge... Tell me, what are the tuition fee's there, and how do they compared to Sheffield Uni?

Edited May 10, 2016 by Cyclone

[Cyclone]

You understand that we have an aging population, who are living longer and thus have more health complications and higher treatment costs?

[mossdog]

I think people are trying to argue that people have a higher standard of living. That is probably true for a lot of people.

 

But just remember that a good standard of living can be financed by debt

 

Somebody who has that debt-funded standard of living is not wealthy. They just look like they are. There is a chance, a very good chance, that they have no meaningful wealth, especially if they rent.

 

The wake-up call that's coming maybe isn't the one you imagine.

..........."contentment is wealth"! maybe that's the wake up call that people need to realize not just imagine!..........available to anyone!

By the way nearly everyone has a debt funded lifestyle in this country now in some form or other!

[Cyclone]

How so? Most boomers have owned their own homes for many years and are now claiming comfortable pensions.

[mossdog]

How so? Most boomers have owned their own homes for many years and are now claiming comfortable pensions.

.......that's just the boomer generation and many have outstanding mortgage debt.............we don't have to look far for the rest of the outstanding debts owed by most of the population in some form or other.