The Rich get richer, much richer1

[Obelix]

... and the introduction of pay ratios.

 

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why-pay-ratios-are-key-tackling-uk-inequality-five-things-worth-knowing

 

This you see sums up the difference between the loony left and the rest of the world.

 

The Left thinks that the best way to make the poor happy is to punish the rich so much that everyone is more or less as poor as everyone else.

 

Most the rest of everyone else thinks the best way is to support people so they can realise their potential and earn more and make more money.

 

How does it go - "the virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery the vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth." Everyone gets some of the pie - more inequality for me please.

[RonJeremy]

The mortgage is just the start. To be the best Ron you can possibly be you might get the car and holidays on tick. Maybe a car on tick for Mrs Ron as well. Plus a few credit cards, and a loan to build a conservatory where you can lounge in your y-fronts.

 

It builds up. Before you know it you're trapped in the job with maybe no savings and you're a couple of paydays away from the gutter.

 

But you will be content I guess, and feel more wealthy for it.

 

What is your definition of wealth Ron?

 

I don't know. Never really thought about it. Roof over your head, heating, healthcare, security, money to pay for it all.

Wiki might tell you better than me.

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2016 at 07:02 ----------

 

... and the introduction of pay ratios.

 

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why-pay-ratios-are-key-tackling-uk-inequality-five-things-worth-knowing

 

Great more envy.

 

Haters gunna hate.

 

Nothing we can do about it.

[Staunton]

... a total change in the way money is created.

 

A radical reform of education (making sure to support teachers and minimise the impact upon them).

 

A total change in foreign policy to ensure that businesses operating in the UK do not exploit labour and resources in other countries.

 

Urgent, responsible environmental action.

 

There are many changes... too many to document.

 

However, until, or unless, ordinary people begin to challenge the power and influence of the privileged political class, then social justice and human flourishing will remain a dream, while greed, contempt and exploitation will continue to characterise the basis of business and government.

 

This is the reason that I post here on SheffieldForum, to do what I can to counter the right wing press and their tabloid journalists and urge people here in Sheffield to consider what is really going on. This is why I began this thread, and why, in spite of the nonsense and distraction, I continue to make statements such as the one quoted above and:

 

 

The title of my original post was 'The Rich get richer, much richer' , implying that the poor get poorer too, much poorer.

 

George Osbourne was fond of repeating 'we're all in this together'. Such a claim has been shown to be a lie. Sorrell enjoyed a remuneration package in 2014-15 of over £20,000 an hour: a care worker in one of those threatened care homes, £6.70.

 

However, the kernel of my argument with Martin Sorrell is not specifically related to the level of his his remuneration package, grotesque as that is, but that he proclaimed that he is not ashamed of his astonishing level of income, as reported in the Daily Mail. This proclamation, I suggest, was made in the context of a number of high earning CEOs expressing some unease at their high remuneration awards. Sorrell is a beligerent exponent of neoliberal doctrine, and wishes to encourage his fellow CEOs to exploit the system without shame, to enrich themselves whilst millions are forced into hardship, as the news reporting the fact that 5000 care homes are facing a funding crisis amply demonstrates, that some of the most frail and vulnerable members of our community face devastating circumstances as continuing austerity cuts and the ever more aggressive implementation of a failed economic doctrine destroys the very foundations of our services.

[Cyclone]

Why do you persist in trying to link Sorrels pay to the care home crisis. What possible link do you see between them?

 

And why do you keep claiming that inequality is increasing when it isn't?

[Staunton]

Why do you persist in trying to link Sorrels pay to the care home crisis. What possible link do you see between them?

 

And why do you keep claiming that inequality is increasing when it isn't?

 

 

 

If you access the Equality Trust webpage that Cyclone cites:

 

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/scale-and-trends

 

and click on the How Has Inequality Changed? link, you will find the following (my comments are in square brackets);

 

 

The UK became a much more equal nation during the post-war years. The data available shows that the share of income going to the top 10% of the population fell over the 40 years to 1979, from 34.6% in 1938 to 21% in 1979, while the share going to the bottom 10% rose slightly.

 

Since 1979 this process of narrowing inequality has reversed sharply. [As shown in the graph displayed on this web page], inequality rose considerably over the 1980s, reaching a peak in 1990.

 

Since the early 1990s, changes in inequality have been less dramatic than the change from 1979 to 1991. After falling slightly over the early to mid-1990s, inequality, as shown by the Gini coefficient, rose again from 1997, reaching a new peak of 0.362 in 2000–01. Despite falling for three years from 2000-01, inequality rose again from 2005-2010. Inequality fell in 2010 and has stayed relatively level since.

 

The unequal way that income is shared across society has, however, changed very little over the last few years. The financial crisis, which occurred in 2008, has had only a very small effect. The top fifth continue to dominate the income spectrum, taking almost half the income before and after the crisis.

 

Inequality in 2011-12 was lower than before the recession. This was due to falling incomes at the very top of the distribution and increases at the very bottom, largely from social security payments.

 

[However the bottom 90%, that includes most of us here in Sheffield saw no significant increase, and whilst those increases in social security payments are cited as a factor, there have since been vigorous policy changes on the part of the coalition and conservative governments to reverse that rise.]

 

Rising inequality has seen a dramatic increase in the share of income going to the top, a decline in the share of those at the bottom and, more recently, a stagnation of incomes among those in the middle [the so-called squeezed middle].

 

In 2010, while the top 10% received 31% of all income, the bottom 10% received just 1%7.*In terms of wealth, in 2010 (the latest year for which data is available), 45% of all wealth in the UK was held by the richest 10%. The poorest 10% held only 1%.

[Vaati]

Had to remove some posts for not using quotes so that it is clear as to what was said and by whom. The replies to said posts have also had to be removed to make the thread make some sort of sense again.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Groose

[Staunton]

When I cite the Daily Mail's report relating to Martin Sorrell's attitude towards CEOs and their cash grab simultaneously with the BBCs findings that 5,000 care homes are at risk of bankruptcy, I am simply putting things in context.

 

Context is a central methodology of Marxist critical analysis, and neoliberals hate it – they cannot stand the revelation of the facts that such techniques permit. And further, they really, really don't want other people to see the reality that reference to contextual factors exposes. That is what all the fuss is about here on this thread. They really do see all such revelations as a direct threat to their interests, which is not surprising because that is precisely what they are. If too many people become aware of the underlying principles of the so-called Conservative Party, there might be a change of mood and even an increase in demands for change. And they don't want that!

 

What the Daily Mail and BBC reports reveal when placed in juxtaposition is the extremely wealthy Martin Sorrell, frustrated by other CEOs becoming squeamish in the face of mounting pressure, urging them to be resolute as they trouser millions from the system (i.e. neoliberalism), whilst at the other end of that same (neoliberal) system, some of the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly and frail residents of care homes, face a frightening future since their care providers are at risk of failure.

[tzijlstra]

When I cite the Daily Mail's report relating to Martin Sorrell's attitude towards CEOs and their cash grab simultaneously with the BBCs findings that 5,000 care homes are at risk of bankruptcy, I am simply putting things in context.

 

Context is a central methodology of Marxist critical analysis, and neoliberals hate it – they cannot stand the revelation of the facts that such techniques permit. And further, they really, really don't want other people to see the reality that reference to contextual factors exposes. That is what all the fuss is about here on this thread. They really do see all such revelations as a direct threat to their interests, which is not surprising because that is precisely what they are. If too many people become aware of the underlying principles of the so-called Conservative Party, there might be a change of mood and even an increase in demands for change. And they don't want that!

 

What the Daily Mail and BBC reports reveal when placed in juxtaposition is the extremely wealthy Martin Sorrell, frustrated by other CEOs becoming squeamish in the face of mounting pressure, urging them to be resolute as they trouser millions from the system (i.e. neoliberalism), whilst at the other end of that same (neoliberal) system, some of the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly and frail residents of care homes, face a frightening future since their care providers are at risk of failure.

 

The context is, dear Marxist friend, that socialism/communism has failed spectacularly in places where sharp interference with the market was involved. The context is that Sorrell is in charge of a company that was basically dead and now employs 190,000 people world-wide, putting bread on the table for all of them, providing them and their families with roofs over their heads and probably a nice pension to boot. Ask a Russian who lived through the communist era what they would have given for that back then. Or indeed, closer to Marxist ideals, a Cuban. The context is that Sorrell isn't running a business in carehomes for a reason, that reason being that it is a highly regulated industry that is increasingly subject to market interference and that has little or no perspective of profit, meaning that excellent managers like him shunt the industry and instead we get "Carl from Luton", with no business sense, seeing a chance to squeeze a lemon and buy a nice new property out of the flightpath of Luton Airport. Only to go bankrupt a few years later.

Edited May 11, 2016 by tzijlstra

[tinfoilhat]

I think sorrell and his mega rich buddies (who I don't begrudge a penny by the way, as they don't blanently tax avoid and there's no evidence he does) would do himself and is ilk a few favours with a bit of philanthropy. A few pet projects here and there. Bill gates is/was worth $53bn and he doesn't get stick for it because he gives a bit back.

 

There was an article a while back saying philanthropy is in decline and that's quite sad.

[tzijlstra]

I think sorrell and his mega rich buddies (who I don't begrudge a penny by the way, as they don't blanently tax avoid and there's no evidence he does) would do himself and is ilk a few favours with a bit of philanthropy. A few pet projects here and there. Bill gates is/was worth $53bn and he doesn't get stick for it because he gives a bit back.

 

There was an article a while back saying philanthropy is in decline and that's quite sad.

 

How do you know he doesn't? If I had a sizeable amount of money to donate I wouldn't want the world to know. I'd give it because I wanted to give it, not to win brownie-points with the public at large.

 

Not that I am saying that is what Gates does by the way, the American culture is rather different on this subject, most retired sports and business people with a lot of money have charitable trusts in their name.