That shut the old windbag up!

[Immortal Wombat]

I thought you weren't discussing social problems anymore Stew?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I thought you weren't discussing social problems anymore Stew?

This is economics.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boddington's
"The poor" get richer too. And "the poor" is rather a vague term. It seems to insinuate that the same people stay poor all their lives. That is a false idea. People who are classed as poor when they are twenty could be among the richest when they are 40.

Oh come on off it, how often does that happen. Don't include students, that doesn't count. How often does such a reversal of fortune normally happen? Very rarely, excluding the odd lottery win

Can you define poverty level for me please...

No. Take any arbitrary definition, that will do.

Ah, so your beef isn't actually that the income of the poor is growing at a low rate, but that a number of people are doing well for themselves?

Again, average income is rising faster than theirs.

And again, "the rich" isn't the same group of people. It's just those who are doing best for themselves in the current time period. In the next decade or two, they can be replaced by a new breed of people who have taken educated risks and done well for themselves.

Oh come on off it, the majority of the middle class will be the same people or their progeny. The super-rich may change places, but to be able to make those kinds of investments, they can't have been skint in the first place.

There are a limited number of houses in the south of England.

How do you propose (without vague statements please) we distribute this limited resource?

Erm, BUILD MORE PROPERTY. BUILD HIGHER. What do you think they do in every other big city. But for some reason, they don't like anything tall being built in London.

I've got to go, I don't really have time for your facetiousness.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Oh come on off it, how often does that happen. Don't include students, that doesn't count. How often does such a reversal of fortune normally happen? Very rarely, excluding the odd lottery win

As you are quite keen on telling us, you come from a working-class background, went to Oxford university, and will no doubt be a member of the upper-middle or upper class in a couple of decades.

No. Take any arbitrary definition (of poverty level), that will do.

That the poverty level is based on a proportion of median income shows that it is inherently flawed.

I think you realise this which is why you didn't dwell on this point.

Again, average income is rising faster than theirs.

So? Somebody's income has to rise faster.

Oh come on off it, the majority of the middle class will be the same people or their progeny.

Do you have stats to back up these baseless "facts" you are flinging around?

The super-rich may change places, but to be able to make those kinds of investments, they can't have been skint in the first place.

What kinds of investments? You don't have to be rich to go to Cambridge or Oxford.

Erm, BUILD MORE PROPERTY. BUILD HIGHER. What do you think they do in every other big city. But for some reason, they don't like anything tall being built in London.

The south is not just London.

Who will pay for knocking down the buildings and building taller ones? Or who will pay for the destruction of green belt land?

And will the houses be distributed by lot?

I asked for a answer that wasn't shrouded in vagueness...

I've got to go, I don't really have time for your facetiousness.

There was nothing wrong with my post. I think you are just being ungentlemanly.

[Evil Knevil]

The underclass remains where it is, regardless of everybody else in society.

A large section of the (employed) poor lives on the minimum wage under poor working conditions, they only get pay-rises when the Government extorts it for them.

They are heavily dependant on the state to survive ( but they don't get enough support to move to something better).

"The poor" get richer too. And "the poor" is rather a vague term. It seems to insinuate that the same people stay poor all their lives

The point is that the poorest members of society are getting less and less of the wealth of society. Any economics textbook will demonstrate that the lowest income quintile of the population is recieving less of the countries wealth, while only the top 2 quintiles increased in wealth.

This effectively means the rich are getting richer by taking wealth from the poor, although not in a Evil Robbing Baron sort of way.

This sort of trend has been ongoing since about 1980.. hmmm

There is a static class of poor people, although not as big as the socialists will tell you; about 1-2million people in absolute poverty, who live virtually hand by-mouth.
Beyond that there is a class of minimum wage earners, about 4 million people who cannot really expect more than the lowest wage for their work.

This isn't a class of urban poor either. It generally occurs in smaller towns and in the suburbs (albeit council owned suburbs) as well.

Thats what it means!

Anyway I took part in the Poll Tax riots, I mean it was introduced here, in Scotland first, and I was a lowly student, expecting a rise in my rent

Anyway I joined a rally and threw stuff at policemen, a bit easy really, not as exciting as I expected, how about you Dolphin?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil


The point is that the poorest members of society are getting less and less of the wealth of society. Any economics textbook will demonstrate that the lowest income quintile of the population is recieving less of the countries wealth, while only the top 2 quintiles increased in wealth.

In real hourly wage rates by pay deciles, between '74 and '94:

top 10% male wage grew 44%
middle 10% grew 29%
bottom 10% grew 5%

top 10% female wage grew 70%
middle 10% grew 42%
bottom 10% grew 25%

[Sava]

Wow, I didn't realize Margaret Thatcher was a conservative. I figured a woman would be liberal.

I hate conservatives... so to her.

[Solly]

She did a lot of good for the UK. That fact tends to get lost amongst the high-profile one or two unpopular things she did.

[Adam Smith]

EK:

This effectively means the rich are getting richer by taking wealth from the poor,

If the overall size of the economic pie were fixed then this would be true. In fact, however, total national incomes are growing over time. Thus a much more likely explanation is that the incomes of people whose skills are in demand are increasing more rapidly than those whose skills are not. Ie some parts of the pie are growing faster than others. In the short run, one way this happens is through increased trade. Incomes nicrease for those who produce export goods, and incomes decrease for those who face import competition. In the long run people can move or get new job training, allowing their incomes to increase.

[Evil Knevil]

In real hourly wage rates by pay deciles, between '74 and '94:

top 10% male wage grew 44%
middle 10% grew 29%
bottom 10% grew 5%

top 10% female wage grew 70%
middle 10% grew 42%
bottom 10% grew 25%

Thats income rises! Is only a 5% rise in 20 years a good thing? Anyway that wasn't my point.

The rise in womens wages is due to the aggregate rise in their working hours and the number of women working, because of Thatchers restructuring of the economy towards part-time work (more suitable for women). I'd say thats definately one of the good things she did.

The point I'm making is that the richest two groups of income are increasing their share of the nations wealth

(i.e the top 1% of the population owns 20% of the wealth) {1}

wheras the percent of the nations wealth owned by the poorest groups is decreasing!

Therefore there is a transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest. Although the incomes of the poor rose slowly, as you demonstrate, overall the rich got a much higher rise in income, and the achieved a great deal of this by a transfer of wealth, rather than an overall growth in wealth.


I do admit Thatcher did some neccesary things:

Curbed the power of the Unions,

Denationalised the dinosaurs (Steel, Coal, Rover, Gas, possibily Telecoms)

Increased Worker productivity.


But there were many caveats, as I'm sure PH will soon tell you!





{1} Obviously I made that figure up to try and demonstrate what I mean.

[Evil Knevil]

If the overall size of the economic pie were fixed then this would be true. In fact, however, total national incomes are growing over time. Thus a much more likely explanation is that the incomes of people whose skills are in demand are increasing more rapidly than those whose skills are not. Ie some parts of the pie are growing faster than others. In the short run, one way this happens is through increased trade. Incomes nicrease for those who produce export goods, and incomes decrease for those who face import competition. In the long run people can move or get new job training, allowing their incomes to increase.

I see what you mean, but the point is the share of wealth decreased owned by the poor decreased during Thatchers time, meaning they became relatively less well off (compared to if they had stayed the same).

I guess it isn't neccesarily a dog-eat-dog relationship, but what I mean is rich grew richer, while the poor got less of the Nations income....
............... for whatever reason.

Now I'd argue that the change was caused by mergers, a depression of workers incomes, tax cuts for the rich, an increase in the more regressive indirect taxes. More American style business operations (with more heirarchy, and expensive CEO's)

A decrease in demand for the skills of the poor --related to Adam Smith's point-- due to the rapid closing of Coal mines and Steel works etc

Hmm, Economics bites.

[MikeH]

GP: If you need to see why Thatcher was so hated then the fact that Boddington's is supporting her should at least help you get part way there.

'92 was crazy. The mad thing about the poll tax riots was the variety of people that were rioting and protesting. We're not just talking about a few crazy anarchists it was huge cross sections of the public. The reaction against it was massive. Hundreds of thousands of people refused to pay the tax. Thousands and thousands rioted all over the country as well as the massive public demonstrations. It's totally unprecedented for political demonstration in this country. I was only 16 at the time and wasn't protesting but it was really wierd seeing what was going on.

I say it was totally unprecedented but the last time they tried to introduce a poll tax here (I forget the king but Bugs will know) peasants came up from Kent and stormed the Tower of London killing the then Archbishop of Canterbury (evil grand visier equivalent) and stuck his head on a spike London Bridge. I think Thatcher got off lightly.

[Seeker]

"the last time they tried to introduce a poll tax here (I forget the king but Bugs will know) peasants came up from Kent and stormed the Tower of London killing the then Archbishop of Canterbury (evil grand visier equivalent) and stuck his head on a spike London Bridge. I think Thatcher got off lightly."

Ahh the good old days....I guess you'd call that 'direct action'?

[Havak]

Actually the direct action was what the establishment then did to those peasants I can assure you.

We peaceful protestors of the early 90s had it a lot easier - even Thatch did not dare execute voters will nilly (I'm sure she would have liked to at times of course).

[Seeker]

"Actually the direct action was what the establishment then did to those peasants I can assure you. "


What's a few drawing and quarterings between friends? Mel seems to have got off on it....