Widening gap between rich and poor.

[Mister M]

Including a Masters? And living costs for 5 or 6 years?

 

However I agree entirely that the problem is not just economic, it is indeed more complex. All I am saying is that social mobility since the crash is now on a downward trajectory for lots of reasons, but not through lack of trying.

 

Most of the people like yourself (and me) who have done well are baby boomers benefiting from the welfare state which actively encouraged social mobility and advancement in many ways. But now those opportunities are being done away with for the millennial generation who, try as they may, (and they do try very hard) are finding it much harder to achieve.

 

And it's going to get worse.

 

There is strong evidence that part of the problem with such divides is that they tend to be self reinforcing. So someone who lives in a wealthy area, is likely to have better schools nearby, a healthier environment, the social capital and confidence to know their rights and have them enforced, money to buy fresh healthy food. Perhaps most importantly, as this report makes clear the richest young people in UK also likely to inherit most wealth

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/05/richest-young-people-majority-inherited-wealth-uk

So much for the meritocracy we live in....

Edited March 31, 2017 by Mister M

[Robin-H]

If you change the years on the page that I linked to, income inequality is rising very slowly after 2010

 

3.51 in 2010

3.58 in 2013

 

2013 is the latest available data.

 

That doesn't seem to match the figures from the Office of National Statistics.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

 

The gini coefficient is at its lowest since 1986. There has been a gradual decline in income inequality over the last 10 years.

[Anna B]

That doesn't seem to match the figures from the Office of National Statistics.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

 

The gini coefficient is at its lowest since 1986. There has been a gradual decline in income inequality over the last 10 years.

 

Why do you keep on quoting the gini coefficient which has been discredited when there is ample evidence all around you proving the opposite? And if it's statistics you want, a quick Google will bring up ample evidence that you are wrong.

[Robin-H]

Why do you keep on quoting the gini coefficient which has been discredited when there is ample evidence all around you proving the opposite? And if it's statistics you want, a quick Google will bring up ample evidence that you are wrong.

 

I was quoting the gini coefficient because I was replying directly to a comment about the gini coefficient...

 

The gini coefficient has not been discredited. There are of course limitations with using it, but there will be with all measures, and the gini coefficient is still the most widely used. You cannot claim that is has been discredited because it does not fit with your viewpoint.

[Anna B]

I was quoting the gini coefficient because I was replying directly to a comment about the gini coefficient...

 

The gini coefficient has not been discredited. There are of course limitations with using it, but there will be with all measures, and the gini coefficient is still the most widely used. You cannot claim that is has been discredited because it does not fit with your viewpoint.

 

So, has El Cid read it wrong, or have you?

[Robin-H]

So, has El Cid read it wrong, or have you?

 

Neither. We are both accurately quoting the figures from the sources we provided, although there appears to be a very slight inconsistency in the figures. It may be that the figures were adjusted slightly and one of the sources has not been altered to reflect this.

 

This not does discredit the entire concept of the gini coefficient.

[geared]

Perhaps you shouldn't fixate on one statistical assessment to explain such a complex argument?

[Obelix]

Why do you keep on quoting the gini coefficient which has been discredited .

 

When was it discredited? Is that ebcasue it doesn't match what you think it ought to? Or is there real world research showing that it's wrong?

 

It's very difficult to discredit a fraction, which ultimatelty is all that the coefficient is.

[Anna B]

When was it discredited? Is that ebcasue it doesn't match what you think it ought to? Or is there real world research showing that it's wrong?

 

It's very difficult to discredit a fraction, which ultimatelty is all that the coefficient is.

 

Look on Google. There are also at least 20 different catagories of Geni coefficients, so depends which one you pick.

[Cyclone]

If you take away tax credits and housing benefits then businesses would have to increase employees' wages which would probably mean many of these businesses going to the wall.

 

The only people who benefit from tax credits and housing benefits are employers and landlords which means you're right about dependency on the state but it's employers and landlords who are the dependants.

 

Tax credits can be replaced with a sensible system of taxation in the first place.

Don't tax it and then return it through a layer of expensive bureaucracy.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2017 at 17:40 ----------

 

Disagree.

 

I was born to a mum who was a cleaner and a dad who was a window cleaner. I was brought up on a council estate, and went to a very average comp, my parents having very limited interest in my education.

 

I became the first in my family to obtain a degree, a masters, and to make partner in a law firm. That was done through determination and hard work.

 

A friend who came from Wybourn did the same, whilst one of his parents was serving time in prison! He's now head of an IT company.

 

Equally, I've had friends from 'wealthy' families, who have achieved nothing but taking drugs and signing on.

 

You may well say that these are just examples of people 'escaping' their background, but it goes further than that.

 

I have a brother who will openly admit he has no academic interest whatsoever, and is likely in the 'bottom percentile', whilst I'm in the top.

 

The friend from Wybourn is in the top percentile - his brother is in prison.

 

One of the wealthy families - one brother is a barrister, the other is a drug addict.

 

The 'escape' idea doesn't account for any of that.

 

My point is that there is a lot more to it than background, and to assume otherwise is a far oversimplified way of looking at it.

 

Are we born equal? No, not even within families, but whilst no one can deny that parental input is huge, there's also a vast personal, perhaps natural element that you're overlooking, and that's the desire to succeed and progress that ECCOnoob talks about.

 

Can I skip to the end and say that your anecdotes don't in any way refute the idea of privilege.

You can disagree all you like, but the facts prove that inherited privilege is very real.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2017 at 17:42 ----------

 

You missed my second point entirely though.

 

'Wealth', perceived or not, can be irrelevant. If it was solely due to background and financial status, then myself and my brother would have done identically well, as would the other examples I gave.

Did you fail your modules on stats or something?

You're talking about two specific examples as if they'll somehow disprove the statistics about populations...

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2017 at 17:43 ----------

 

But prior to times changing people of Andys generation (and mine and yours) had the chance to better and improve. Weve only ourselves to blame if we didnt.

 

I take your (slightly exaggerated) point about the younger generation though - theyve got it tougher and I dont think we've prepared them well enough for it.

 

20 - 30 years ago social mobility was reasonable.

Social mobility since then has declined considerably.