You're arguing that employers use their bargaining power in order to generate rent through underpayment. Fair enough. Very classical economics of you!
Me too. Now do you understand that as productivity overall rises, wages must rise too under Republican capitalism?
issue was not what minimum wage is but whether you understand relationship between wages and productivity.
there is no underpayment when some industries decline nor over payment when some industries grow. There is just the very very efficient free market Republican price allocating resources in the most efficient way possible. Do you understand?
Doesn't this reflect our higher per capita GDP, huge dominance in new inventions, and the Republican Darwinian reality that some people have very high IQ, ambition, drive, stamina, etc ? Mao dressed everyone equally in black pajamas and everyone equally starved to death. Is this lesson really over the liberal's head?
I get it, but how do you think it relates to the article you quoted from, and linked in the first post in this thread ?
There are other countries with higher per capita GDP and much lower levels of inequality. Those countries doubtless have people withe same level of IQ, ambition, drive and stamina. Inventions crop up everywhere in the world. In my opinion (and it is only an opinion), the desire to create and maintain high levels of inequality seem to be hardwired into US society. After dallying with lower levels of inequality after WWII, the US then set about dismantling the things which led to it. Things like highly progressive tax rates, organised labour, infrastructure investment and free tertiary education (the G.I. bill). While the GOP has been the prime mover in this, the Democratic Party is also complicit because they haven't pushed back hard enough on the GOP's actions and they haven't been committed to things like single payer. The US electorate also seem to be confused about things too. They are rightly concerned about inequality and complain about it - part of Donald Trump's appeal was that he promised to put the working man back on top so that a regular guy could earn a good salary and live a nice middle class life - but don't want any of the other stuff (high taxes for the wealthy, effective unions a strong welfare system) that feature in developed countries with low levels of inequality. The UK (where I live) is like the US' little brother. We seem to want the same kind of highly unequal society (or more specifically have rejected those same things that lead to a less unequal society) but so far the NHS and EU have prevented quite the same levels of inequality. The latter will soon be out of the picture and if Brexit is as economically damaging as many are suggesting we may not be able to afford the former. I'm not part of the 1% but I'm likely in low single digits. I'll likely be OK-ish, I cannot say the same about the majority of my compatriots.
Prevented quite the same level inequality? Tad of a myth. The UK, for example, has had much higher rates of child poverty. It's social immobility is on a par with America. There's no "Brits want" or "US culture says". Anglo Saxon Capitalism fully embracing neoliberalism isn't a natural phenomena. It's imposed by government. See, for example, the petty left and how they engineered a right wing economic consensus.
You don't understand how Household Income and Income Disparity are linked? Wow! Moving right along ...
There are countries with high household income and low levels of inequality - the Scandinavian countries spring to mind. There are countries with high household income and high levels of inequality - the US is a prominent example. There are countries with low household income and low levels of inequality - not altogether common but Albania is an example. There are countries with low household income and high levels of inequality - most of the developing world. I'm not sure that there is a hard link but globally, high income tends to correlate with low inequality The article you linked to and quoted from in the first post of this thread was comparing the rate of average household income per person growth to the rate of GDP growth in those economies
Social immobility is comparable, Child poverty seems significantly lower, but heading in the wrong direction (if you think child poverty is bad) https://www.oecd.org/els/CO_2_2_Child_Poverty.pdf UK inequality is still significantly lower than in the US. Looking at the GINI coefficients Income: US 41 UK 33 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=GB It's imposed by goverments who have been elected by the people. Since the 1970's the UK and US have moved away from the policies that helped to keep inequality in check. People were in favour of strong unions, high taxes on the wealthy and a strong welfare safety net. Public opinion has shifted and now as societies we are anti-union, anti welfare and anti-tax. You can argue (and I would agree) that this is the result of an ongoing propaganda exercise by the establishment to remove the common man's (or woman's) hands from control but in the UK and US we've seized onto those messages enthusiastically whereas in other developed economies it hasn't happened to the same extent.
British child poverty was the highest in the developed world. See, for example, the analysis provided by the Luxembourg Income Study (and researchers like Smeeding). Admittedly Uncle Blair did put a big dent in it. However, any long term gains were lost with New Labour helping to support austerity. Complete cobblers of course. You ignore that both countries offered the public consensus politics. You also ignore that, despite right wing tabloidism, support for increasing tax to pay for social benefits is on the rise. This reflects reaction to objective evidence on the severity of poverty. We saw something similar in the 80s, where support doubled to over 60%. Nope, it goes further than that. Unlike New Labour, I never bought the proposition that the British people were essentially selfish g*ts.
I'm just going with the best contemporary evidence I can find which suggests that UK child poverty is blow the OECD average. It may be on the rise but it's still the minority view. When it becomes the majority view then a party advocating this will rise to power and enact legislation to increase taxes on the wealthiest. The ballot box currently disagrees with you. The main thrust of Brexit vote was an act of "up yours" selfishness.
You're not actually. The Luxembourg Income Study is the best evidence, as it ensures internationally comparable definitions in large datasets capable of accurate comparison. And none of this can support your "prevented quite the same level inequality". That the UK had the highest child poverty rate is an empirical fact. Subsequent reductions are now being reversed through the continued failures of right wing economics. That support is cyclical, with support significantly increasing as poverty problems intensity, is not consistent with the view of a long term shift in public opinion. Two aspects with that. First, the majority of the electorate rejected Tory policy. Labour voters of course are more likely to be positive over welfare policy (and Lib Dems in between the two parties with willy-nilly attitudes). Second, any Brexit vote reflected multiple factors. Is an 'up yours Mr Elite' from the working classes selfishness? Nope. It ranges from rejection of the consequences of neoliberalism to acceptance of Bennite democracy.
UK Inequality as measured by GINI coefficient is significantly lower than that of the US. According to your preferred study: http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/April2012_UNICEFChildPovertyInsights_02May.pdf The UK's is lower
The name probably has confused you. It isn't a single study, it is a means to allow multiple analysis using consistent definitions. And I've referred to an example of analysis where Britain's child poverty rates were an outlier. This destroyed the "prevented quite the same level of inequality" comment.
Then please present the data that shows that UK child poverty rate is higher than that of the US. I've looked at child poverty reports produced by your preferred source and the US child poverty rates are higher. In any case I understood that the GINI coefficient was the internationally accepted measure of inequality. By that measure income inequality in the UK is significantly lower than that in the US (though IMO both are unacceptably high).
Try not to misrepresent what I said. I stated the following: "The UK, for example, has had much higher rates of child poverty". You can confirm those prior outcomes via the research already mentioned: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533006776526094
I'm puzzled. You quote the Luxembourg Income Study as your preferred source regarding child poverty (instead of the OECD figures I provided) bit when I asked for evidence that UK child poverty was higher than that in US. The paper you linked to shows a mixed picture. Based on relative poverty rates (Table 1 on page 74), the US ranks worst for child poverty, the UK 4th. Interestingly, from that paper: The US does have a lower level of absolute poverty if the US definition of poverty is used: That said, looking at my original point, I was referring to US and UK inequality, not child poverty. It should be clear from this that I'm comparing US and UK levels of inequality. I stand by this comment. I believe that, through the withdrawal of benefits (in the name of austerity), the continued demonisation of unions and the apparent inability of any of the major parties to get elected on a platform of higher taxes for the wealthy, the UK is heading in the same direction as the US regarding income and wealth inequality but so far the EU has provided a brake (on workers' rights) and the NHS addresses health inequality somewhat. I believe Brexit will be bad for workers' rights and will imperil the future of the NHS.
I doubt you're puzzled, given your deliberate attempt to misrepresent. I said the UK had higher child poverty rates; Smeeding confirms it. Your original comment was not credible. We can also factor in pre-welfare inequalities. That leads to results where UK has higher working poverty than the US (and therefore it is more reliant on its welfare state to reduce inequalities; problematic today of course because of the attacks on welfare). You simply repeat unsupportable comment. The EU provided no break in worker rights. Uncle Blair maintained the Thatcherite labour policies that stripped workers of the rights enjoyed elsewhere in Europe. This guaranteed continuation of a low skilled equilibrium, eventually leading to the gig economy and zero hour contracting. Supporters of New Labour should be ashamed.
