Of course its credible. The link you yourself provided has the US at worst for child poverty and UK at fourth worst for relative poverty. Do what you like, but by the GINI measure of income inequality, US inequality is higher. According to the OECD, in work poverty is worse in the US than it is in the UK: https://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/43654166.pdf ...and I contend that without the backstop of the EU, UK workers' rights would be even worse - the working time directive is a clear example.
Nope. Fixing the poverty threshold, it shows the UK had the highest child poverty. I'm not a fan of myth building. The UK has high inequality and low mobility. To suggest that the EU has been some form of saviour is hogwash. It's even more desperate when it comes from a New Labour type who supported continued Thatcherite policies. You've already been given a source that confirmed higher working poverty problems in the UK, with increased need for welfare state intervention to reduce inequalities. You havent factored in how traditionally the UK is more reliant on welfare policy to correct for even greater pre-welfare inequalities. Laughable, given our problems with zero hour contracts and the gig economy. All problems that exist today because of cretinous New Labour ideology
...and there are other sources (including OECD data) which contradicts that. The US has higher inequality and lower mobility. The EU may not have been a saviour but EU membership has forced the UK to adopt a variety workers' protections including: - Working time - Paid leave - Equal pay - Maternity and paternity rights - Anti-discrimination laws - Agency worker protections - A raft of health and safety rules ..in all cases against the wishes of employers. Free from the "shackles" of EU legislation, UK employers will be free to treat employees as badly as UK law allows. Post-Brexit I see a rapid erosion of workers' rights as the UK tries to compete with the developing world on price. ....and yet the UK does which means that there is less working poverty. A key element of this are the working families tax credits introduced by the last Labour government. You seem to want to blame everything on New Labour. The gig economy is a very recent development. Of course what meagre rights employees in the gig economy have seem to be down to EU legislation
There isn't anything to contradict his findings. Fixing the poverty threshold and using internationally comparable data, Britain's history of child poverty is 'number 1' Again, you ignore the history of social mobility in the UK. Examples: Corak (2004, Do poor children become poor adults?, Lessons for public policy from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility) finds: "The United Kingdom, the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent France, are the least mobile countries with 40 to 50% of the earnings advantage high income young adults have over their low income counterparts being associated with the fact that they were the children of higher earning parents." Next try the article provided by Blanden et al (Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America). This makes the following unfortunate comment: "the extent of intergenerational mobility for sons is lowest in the UK and US, is at intermediate levels for West Germany and is highest for the Scandinavian countries" Did they reverse the Thatcherite policies that your party enforced? Nope. Look at the snide offered. Celebrating marginal anti-discrimination laws (e.g. efficient positive discrimination isn't allowed), while ignoring how New Labour ensured greater reliance on low wage labour and continued anti-union policy. Pathetic.
Social mobility is very poor in the UK but it's not quite as bad as it is in the US - as the data in that report shows. In any case, my original point was about income inequality which, if judged by GINI coefficient is far worse in the US. The EU lacks the power to override UK law wholesale - which makes the whole "ruled form Brussels" thing so laughable. If you recall, my assertion was that the EU had been a positive influence on UK workers rights and without their influence, post-Brexit, workers rights will suffer. I stand by that assessment both in terms of the protections that EU membership has brought and my fears for workers' rights in a post-Brexit UK.
Just given two reports that show Britain has been on par with the US, again demolishing your original claim. Let's be fair with your New Labour though. Some did benefit significantly. Thatcher, when she was finally booted out, allowed the richest 0.01 per cent of society to secure 70 times the national mean average income. By 2007, given New Labour's neoliberalism, it had climbed to 144 times the national mean average. Your original point was nothing but pretend. Arguing that somehow the EU stops the same levels of inequality as the US is not credible. Britain's inequalities (through numerous measures) has been worse. And it's policies from your New Labour that have ensured it. The EU lacks power? No sh*te Sherlock. Makes your original point just a little silly! Marginal changes introduced by EU regulation are nothing compared to the right wing economic policies pursued by the false moderates.
No it doesn't. The abstract from the paper you linked stated that UK and US social mobility were of the same order but the paper itself shows a difference And the situation now ? And the situation in the US (against which I was comparing UK inequality) ? I was speaking specifically about income inequality which, by the GINI measure is significantly worse in the US than it is in the UK. You're cherry-picking a few points like child poverty and claiming that the UK is worse but other bodies which measure it (like the OECD) have the US as having worse child poverty. Then again, child poverty at the end of New Labour's term in office was significantly lower than it was at the start so maybe some (but not enough) progress was made: https://www.jrf.org.uk/data/poverty-levels-and-trends-england-wales-scotland-and-northern-ireland Those marginal changes are better than nothing - which is what we'll likely have post-Brexit.
That you even typed that is amazing. 'Same order'='On a Par'. Bit obvious really. You're still being disingenuous. You argued that the UK, given the wonderful work of the EU, isn't in the same league as the US. I've shown that in fact things have often been worse here. You ignore all of that and New Labour's role in intensifying inequality. Reference to record use of food banks or the impact of structural breaks like the financial crisis won't magic away the error. Still reinventing! You made a bogus claim over the impact of the EU on Britain's position relative to the US. It was kack on two levels. First, as we've seen, the UK has done relatively badly in social wellbeing comparison. Second, any measures from the EU are of marginal impact compared to the Thatcherism imposed by your New Labour. I merely used multiple studies to show Britain's inferior position. I have already remarked about how New Labour did reduce child poverty rates. However, Thatcherite labour policies were behind increased exploitation and a "skipping through the meadows" reality for the rich. No wonder your New Labour received so much dosh from rich benefactors...
1 and 9 are of the same order - they are not on a par . Not quite, I argued that the EU curtailed the UK's worst excesses. UK income inequality measured by GINI coefficient whilst far too high is still significantly lower than that of the US. . The claim isn't bogus. There are many cases where EU legislation has forced the UK to improve workers' rights. Without the EU, UK workers would be in an even worse state than they are now. If you think the UK is in an inferior position now, you just wait until after Brexit when workers, free from EU protection, will start to be stripped of what few rights they have, unions will be further constrained and the government of the day sadly informs us all that we can no longer afford the NHS and instead we will move towards a US-style individual health insurance model. As it stands, the UK has lower income disparity and marginally higher social and economic mobility than the US. The situation is getting worse, 10 years of ConDem and Conservative "austerity" have seen to that, but I don't see the situation being reversed post-Brexit.
Basic error. We are necessarily referring to studies based on random sampling. Essentially the results cannot be distinguished. Which isn't credible, given the EU of course could do naff all to stop the Thatcherism supported by your New Labour. Which means little (given a gini coefficient can improve from an event such as as the financial crisis, but with no improvement in living standards for the majority of folk). Marginal effects and nothing more. They'd certainly be dwarfed by the effects of union bargaining (assuming of course your New Labour didn't maintain anti-union legislation) Sorry, but it won't be anything compared to the Thatcherism that you and the false moderates allowed to go unchallenged. All of our current problems, such as a low skilled equilibrium, can be traced back to that neoliberalism.
We're talking about inequality. The UK's GINI coefficient is significantly lower than the US's. The UK is less unequal by that measure. How do you know ? How can you be sure ? The highlighted is absolute hogwash - not least because the UK workforce is better trained and more skilled than it was under Thatcher. Also the number of people employed in lower-skilled jobs is falling, those in higher skilled jobs is rising https://assets.publishing.service.g...ploads/attachment_data/file/282503/occ108.pdf I realise that you believe that the solution is Jeremy Corbyn and his centrally controlled economy - and wholesale return to the 1970s in terms of union/management (lack of) relations, nationalised industries and so forth. I doubt its effectiveness. Post-Brexit, the UK will be at the mercy of the vulture capitalists circling overhead. Unless there is wholesale economic collapse then the likes of me will likely muddle through, but the people who will bear the brunt of the impact of Brexit are those people who can least afford to do it.
"Prevented quite the same level inequality" continues to be tosh, as I've already demonstrated. Because you're referring to marginal changes (e.g. exact nature of anti-discrimination). You're not referring to a Thatcherite assault on labour markets (which have been shown to lead to severe problems, from a lack of upskilling to intensifying underpayment problems). But hey, what don't you refer to one study that concludes that EU legislation has "prevented quite the same level inequality" in the UK. Good luck! Are you seriously denying that Thatcherism is neoliberalism and that New Labour (Thatcher's greatest triumph) did not maintain Thatcherite labour policies? Wow! So you don't think utilities should be publically owned? Your right wing economics is beginning is show! Utter guff! Given you supported Thatcherism, its nothing but soundbite. And of course Labour, now its free of the right wing kack imposed by Uncle Blair and co, will be able to introduce radical policies which will overhaul the economy. From worker ownership to the investment bank, it will have more of an impact on our economy then EU membership.
Workers rights improve as their value to their employer improve. Currently the biggest problem for UK workers rights is oversupply in the UK workforce. I have never seen it worse in my lifetime. They have more paper rights. Holiday pay and joke pension enrolment. (Which just gives a dribble of their money to pension brokers instead of them). You have the right to sick pay and holiday pay, but don't expect your job to be waiting for you to come back. You have the right too work until you are injured and for as long as you can keep up afterwards. Some jobs are better than others. Employers expect your second job to pay your rent. And prefer people on benefits who cost them less. They don't have to offer living wages at all. Good luck getting a permanent contract. On the plus side, judging by the amount of English people back at work, cuts to benefits have been life changing. Some try and get injured immediately, more seem to like the new lifestyle.
No you haven't. The GINI coefficients clearly demonstrate that the UK is less unequal than the US Without EU legislation we wouldn't have had the raft of workers' rights I listed upthread. Your claim is that, under New Labour's stewardship, the UK became a low-skill economy. I was pointing out that a greater proportion of the workforce are employed in higher skilled roles and the workforce is better educated and better trained then back in the early 1990s. The short answer is, it depends. If it means a return to the electricity generation efficiency levels and water quality levels of the 1970s then no thank you (improvements in water quality standards having been driven by the EU of course). I have direct experience of both the electricity (generation) and water industries. The privatisation model was a mess but there were all kinds of problems with the existing system too. My personal view is In an ideal world the railways should be in public ownership - but properly funded. The water industry should be in public ownership Electricity should be in private ownership but there needs to be capacity planning at a national level Gas and Telecoms should be in private ownership The last "proper" Labour government left office in 1979. It's been 39 years since then and yet all of the UK's problems are down to the 13 years between 1997 and 2010. Yes, enforced worker ownership and the investment bank will have an effect, but not in the positive way you imagine.
First, I've already described the uselessness of a snapshot measure. An improvement in the gini coefficient caused by the financial crisis, for example, is not indicative of any improvement in equity. Second, your trumpeting of the EU has already been shown to be guff. Britain's history into child poverty and working poverty illustrate that. Without Thatcherism supported by your New Labour, we'd have unions capable of engineering positive change. You only pointed out how your viewpoint is corrupted by supply side economics. Take training. Our figures are exaggerated as they include false sources such as health and safety. Take education. The low skilled equilibrium is a demand led phenomenon. End result of increases in graduates? Greater overeducation problems and threats t9 social mobility (given the social capital advantages available to the middle classes). Arguably what I'd expect from a New Labourite bending over backwards to try and justify inefficient privatisation. Remember thus is the party that gave us the PPP shambles and ratcheted up the privatisation of the NHS. I wonder to what extent New Labour is out of touch with reality, accounting for their lost 5 million voters? Take your comments which effectively suggested that neoliberalism had majority support. The latest survey indicates that New Labour's austerity just isn't popular: "Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to put up taxes to fund an increase in spending for public services has received a boost after research showed that 60% of people thought the government should do just that" Yes, it's a shame that Blair and co supported the elite to the detriment of the working man. You forgot an argument. Busy looking for one in the Daily Mail? Take worker ownership. We know the empirical evidence. Such firms are found to be more productive. Do you have a problem with increased productivity? Might account for your foot stamp...
Here are the GINI trends. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...leincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016 Since 2008 there has been a reduction in GINI but it's just a continuation of the trend started in 1991. So you say, but unions contribution in the UK prior to Thatcherism were patchy to say the least. That's not to say that the issue is with organised labour per-se, but management and unions in the UK have a history of highly antagonistic relations. Is there anything to suggest that there is any real prospect of change ? The fact remains that a greater proportion of the UK workforce work in high skill jobs. The question is whether they would also support the increase in taxes required to pay for that increase. Austerity is/was a ConDem and Conservative policy - I see you like to assign everything bad to New Labour Your previous claim was that everything wrong with the UK was down to New Labour
If you think that graph is informative, you're having a laugh! You'd need to do something more specific: e.g. hypothesis testing of the impact of a policy change, using regression methods which control for other factors that impact on gini coefficient. And what happens when we do burrow down? I've already indicated the sting in the 'tale' with child and working poverty. Of course there is more detailed research. Take Dorling's analysis. He's able to conclude: "By accelerating the processes we associate with Thatcherism, New Labour has helped bring about a greater crisis of inequality and larger banking fiasco in Britain than is seen anywhere else in Europe". Based on what evidence? You throw out these sound bites with naff all behind them. At least reference Patrick Minford? It would be in keeping with New Labour's Thatcherism after all. The likes of Machin has looked at the assault on labour rights and subsequent negative effect on union recognition. Just looking at the 1983 to 1991 period, 40% of the increase in wage inequality would not have occurred if 1983 union recognition levels had been maintained. Are you sure you don't get all of your views on unions from Carry On At Your Convenience? There was a lot if evidence of union discipline in the 70s. See, for example, 1974 and the social contract. Which also means very little! Of course with deindistrialisation and technical progress, we'd expect to see a shift towards jobs counted as high skilled. But burrow down again! Graduates forced into low skilled employment is increasing significantly. Also the training requirements for jobs is on the decline. In 1997, for example, the average male job required 13 months of training. By 2017 it had fallen to 7.5. The clue is in the headline: British Social Attitudes survey finds that 60% of people believe the government should raise taxes for funds You've ignored New Labour's support for Thatcherism. It's in keeping that you ignore it's support for austerity. Things have got so bad for New Labour, that the Tories now quote Chris Leslie as a poster child for right wing economics. My previous claim was that someone championing the EU for their social contributions, while ignoring New Labour's Thatcherism, hasn't got a leg to stand on. Basic sense really.
All very interesting but I was comparing inequality between the UK and US, not between the UK and the rest of the EU. By the standard measure, GINI coefficient, the UK has (unacceptably high but) lower income inequality than the US I lived through the 70's and 80's and experienced first hand the problems of having unions and management at loggerheads. I'm all for the unionisation of labour and have seen the benefits first hand, especially in Germany where unions and management seem much more able to work cooperatively towards mutual benefit. I also agree that the drop in unionisation was a catalyst for an erosion of workers' rights. I'm just not confident that either management or unions are sufficiently mature in the UK to work together effectively. I fear a return to 70's style antipathy which is no good to anyone. I'm very happy for the experiment to run though. If some graduates are being forced into lower skilled employment that's a shame. Then again there are far more graduates in high skilled jobs than there were back in the 80's when I entered the workforce and it's also heartening that many jobs are able to attract better qualified individuals. I'd be interested to see why the average training time for male jobs has reduced. Has there been a similar drop in female jobs ? Does it represent a levelling of the playing field ? Does it relate to increased automation or other technological advances ? Is it in part due to the fact that skills are more transferable these days and/or the workforce is better educated ? My apologies - I misread that. I'll be interested to see how that support is reflected in the ballot box. I think you're too eager to assign all blame to New Labour. Ah, the re-writing of history. As if the (much needed) expansion of government spending under New Labour never happened.
A poor dodge! Dorling merely confirms what I've said: New Labour's inequality record was appalling. All missed of course in your efforts to use gini coefficients out of context! Now he also does some good stuff in terms of amending economic geography for the UK. This one is a classic (and very relevant, given how New Labour protected the super rich so diligently): Its not an experiment. We've already seen Union discipline in the 70s and continued examples of Unions increasing productivity. Blair's 'education education education' certainly helped the middle classes. Less so for the working classes who increasingly found jobs taken from 'lower ability' graduates. Britain is clearly more reliant on certification. Training reductions will reflect aspects such as deindustrialisation. Crikey, the Tories were allowing 'working in a chip shop' to be sold as an apprenticeship in customer service. Already seen the consequences: the shift to Labour in the last election was the largest shift in the vote since 1945. Nope, I blame all supporters of neoliberalism. You just happen to be ignoring New Labour's role in it. We've already seen how that spending increase often hid right wing stupidity (e.g. growth in NHS spending twinned with privatisation of service). We wouldn't have the extent of privatisation today without the previous market fundamentalism imposed by New Labour. Didn't Uncle Blair give Branson his knighthood?
Thus a family that has been pounded down to 200K household income but with 8 working adults living in it is not relevant ? Republican's would answer that by saying. "Where is that ? " or "They better get educated" or "isn't that illegal? " or "Something isn't right in that house" or "they must be doing drugs" Anyone else would ask why and seek a solution...
And the male 18 -25 still hasn't left home. His staying at home and working has raised the GDP to Household income chart as seen above. This is what republicans do on a daily basis, dig deep to find a chart that fits the agenda of Propaganda pushing that all is well during their reign. if a dem was in the house right now and the exact same chart was available, it would not be shown, one that leans far away from it would. It is just a fact that basically, the RIGHT will stop at nothing to push that things are going great. When in fact nothing has changed and the big boom is coming. May even be delays for 3 more years, but it will happen. I can see POTUS losing in 2020 and spending his last 3 months in office starting a WAR, attacking other countries out of bitterness.
This is a damn fine reason to explain why GDP per household is so high. However, if the child living in the house, did have income, would it not be reported independently? Household Income should be only that of parents and dependent children? US definition of a household for tax purposes (from "Household" in WikiP): Which seems all-encompassing as a definition ...
kudos for that personal view. The above are all major public-services and there is no need whatsoever for competition to decide the price of water or electricity. Etc., etc. As long as they are provided also with union-representation that is not overly pay-inflationary. After all, they've got jobs for life if they want them. Many people do ...
