Why Obsess With Wealth Gap?

[lambsy_uk]

Why do we see a left-wing obsession with the gap between rich and poor? (I say left-wing because it is something David Miliband has mentioned in the past)

I am not wealthy and I am not in povety either, just so you know where I'm coming from; I'm a family man with a wife, job and 2 children. Average.

So when I look to wealthy people firstly I try not to envy them, I may like to have their wealth but not envy them. I'd expect poorer people would like to have their wealth too, however I often hear people wish the wealthy had less.

Now surely the logical and charitable stance would be for the poor to have more and not worry about what the rich have, however many proclaim they'd gain great satisfaction from seeing wealthier people becoming a lot less wealthy.

I hear left-winged politicians going on about the gap between rich and poor, about the inequality of it. Does it matter what the gap is? Does it matter if the rich are getting richer as long as the poor are becoming less poor too!

This quote has been attributed by some to Abraham Lincoln though this is disputed, but it says what I think:

"You can not make the poor rich by making the rich poorer!"

So can anyone explain why people fuss about the wealthier when perhaps they'd be better served concerning themselves with their own circumstances?

[Anonymous]

Those of us who feel a widening gap between rich and poor are not automaticaly left wing. You use the term far too freely. Take a look at:

http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201306/economics-inequality-why-wealth-gap-bad-everyone-27421

[Anonymous]

sorry missed out (is a bad thing)

[lambsy_uk]

"Those of us who feel a widening gap between rich and poor are not automaticaly left wing. You use the term far too freely. "

I did qualify why I used that term!

[lambsy_uk]

I read the article, it's a shame that it relates to the US where things are very different to the UK but I picked up on some pertinent points.

Increases in the minimum wage lead to rises in the bottom 40% - 50% of wages, therefore the poor are less poor. But this is not from making the rich less rich.

The point about the rich holding onto their wealth rather than spending it may hold weight but what does this have to do with wanting to see the rich become poorer? If there are wider economic interests in seeing the gap in inequality narrowed than is it not better to see the poor become less poor (minimum wage rise) rather than take wealth away from the rich?

[al**bear]

Well it could be that Cameron & Osborne kept telling Us

"We're all in this together"

When in fact the reality is that the poor (Working as well as Not) got poorer &

The Rich got a lot lot richer

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

Lamsby, it is not so much about what a person has in the bank, but that having money confers advantages in every field of life - education, health, and so on.

Now, if you believe in a meritocracy, then everyone, regardless of wealth, should have an equal(ish) (absolute equality can never exist) chance of getting on in life.  This is not the case.  Poor children are disadvantaged by their environment - poor diet, poor living conditions, less access to all sorts of stuff, fewer role models, you name it.

Education alone cannot iron out the differences, because children arrive in the classroom with attitudes in place.  No government could ever spend enough to negate the effects of poor parenting.

[lambsy_uk]

"When in fact the reality is that the poor (Working as well as Not) got poorer "

The poor in the UK have not got poorer, they are definitely better off than they used to be!

[lambsy_uk]

"No government could ever spend enough to negate the effects of poor parenting."

Now aint that the truth!!!

Poor children are disadvantage with poor diet, role models, environment etc., but isn't the solution to make them less poor?

Yes I understand the priciple that all should have equal opportunities but surely the way to make things equal is for us all to have a chance at excellence rather than impose on us all a glass ceiling of mediocrity!

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

Poor children are disadvantage with poor diet, role models, environment etc., but isn't the solution to make them less poor?

---

It could help some, if the money were used wisely.  But that relies on the care-givers choosing that route.

Money to individuals will never be the answer.  You need changes on a much wider level than that of the individual family unit.  And, to make real headway, the cost would be vast.  Plus any investment would be difficult to target.  All Infant School aged children getting a free lunch is a half-hearted attempt.  Does that focus the money in the best way?  Is the food truly nutritious?  Can it make an impact for a child who subsists on junk for all their other calories?

I'm not against realigning wealth.  But if your aim is equality of opportunity, regardless of childhood environment, it isn't enough on its own.   (And that's before you factor in genetic inheritance.)

[lambsy_uk]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

---

It could help some, if the money were used wisely.  But that relies on the care-givers choosing that route.

Money to individuals will never be the answer.  You need changes on a much wider level than that of the individual family unit.  And, to make real headway, the cost would be vast.  Plus any investment would be difficult to target.  All Infant School aged children getting a free lunch is a half-hearted attempt.  Does that focus the money in the best way?  Is the food truly nutritious?  Can it make an impact for a child who subsists on junk for all their other calories?

I'm not against realigning wealth.  But if your aim is equality of opportunity, regardless of childhood environment, it isn't enough on its own.   (And that's before you factor in genetic inheritance.)

---

I wouldn't want to realign wealth but I'd like to creat wealth, at least relative wealth rather than just take from the rich to give to the poor.

This could mean a whole lot of things such as jobs, education, training, health and welfare measures and so on, but many seem to think the first step is to take from the rich, I don't get it!

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

The first step is full employment.  Not zero hrs contracts and other get-out schemes, but everyone having the option of taking up a job paid at a living wage.  The greed of shareholders should never be allowed to hold back fair pay and employees should get a portion of company profits, either as a bonus scheme or within a pay rise.

[papko]

The first step is full employment.  Not zero hrs contracts and other get-out schemes, but everyone having the option of taking up a job paid at a living wage.  The greed of shareholders should never be allowed to hold back fair pay and employees should get a portion of company profits, either as a bonus scheme or within a pay rise.

 And when the companies fail , doi they get nothing ?

 thats the idea of being a shareholder , putting money aside and diversifying ones income streams , when they do well , you get nice dividends /higher share price , when you pick a bad one , then you lose , and never breathe a word about your loss .

 Sadly all the "poor people " i know are spinelss wasters , trapped in a never ending cycle of  watching TV , processed food and drink , and utter sloth .

the more they get done for them , the more they want done , 

personally all those long term dole families with 10 kids etc , i would pack themoff to the Falkland islands and give them a bag of spuds and a tent .

 It will be the making of them , 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

The first step is full employment.  Not zero hrs contracts and other get-out schemes, but everyone having the option of taking up a job paid at a living wage.  The greed of shareholders should never be allowed to hold back fair pay and employees should get a portion of company profits, either as a bonus scheme or within a pay rise.

---

I would agree with that principle - employees are as important to companies as shareholders BUT as Papko suggests if employees are rewarded in this way then they must also be willing to accept automatic paycuts when a company makes a loss.

[al**bear]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

"When in fact the reality is that the poor (Working as well as Not) got poorer "

The poor in the UK have not got poorer, they are definitely better off than they used to be!

---

Since the last election, the poor have taken a massive hit, they are way worse off than at the start of this present Government, on everything

and the Working poor are now a larger % of the workforce than ever and a lot worse off, more and more of them are now surviving on Benefits

BTW,

Universal Credit

The measure the Tories continue to use as a panacea that solves ALL the ills and shortfalls in the Benefit system is still a total train wreck, in fact the leading GURU brought in to takeover and rejig the whole project, has hardly been behind His desk. He has been on LONGTERM sick leave

The thing is a total failure, but that doen't stop Government officials using it as answer to things going wrong right now. When in fact it has only been brought in for the easiest new cases, in a couple of small trial areas. Still the DWP has been inundated with 'appeals' on the few UC awards handed out.

Just wait until they try and bring it in for existing benefit claimants

The latest wheeze, cobbled together by IDSs department is to, count Universal credit as a totally new project, under the rules and classification of Government projects by the Major Projects Authority (MPA) that who rates how systems are working. UC was that bad the MPA didn't have a low enough description for it. So the DWP and others, have made up a new 'reset' option, that lists UC as brand new, so not in statistical terms,  a total failure.

The head of the MPA was that embarrassed in front of the Home Affairs committee, He made a special point of telling them, that the MPA had absolutely nothing to do with this reclassification and it had in fact been handed down and implemented by Cabinet Officials.

So when IDS, McVey or anyone else says UC is now  stable , they are telling outright LIES

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

The first step is full employment.  Not zero hrs contracts and other get-out schemes, but everyone having the option of taking up a job paid at a living wage.  The greed of shareholders should never be allowed to hold back fair pay and employees should get a portion of company profits, either as a bonus scheme or within a pay rise.

---

I would agree with that principle - employees are as important to companies as shareholders BUT as Papko suggests if employees are rewarded in this way then they must also be willing to accept automatic paycuts when a company makes a loss.

---

Well ... I see where you are coming from, but I would say if the employee has put in the hrs and the labour, they should get paid for that regardless.  If as a result of their effort and time the company does well, then they should get extra.  In theory, some sort of ratio where the highest paid person in the company can only take home X times the lowest paid would seem fair, though in practice this would be hard to achieve or enforce.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@papko wrote:

 Sadly all the "poor people " i know are spinelss wasters , trapped in a never ending cycle of  watching TV , processed food and drink , and utter sloth .

the more they get done for them , the more they want done , 

---

There are many hard working poor. 

Of course, with any society that has a benefits system, you will always get "spineless wasters".   In some ways, they are the savvy ones - getting others to work and pay for their lives and the passing of their genes into the next generation.  We have brought that on ourselves to an extent and getting back to the idea that everyone pays their way through personal effort would take more than a generation to achieve (if it is possible at all).

But there are wealthy "spineless wasters" too.  Our society is not a meritocracy.  That is maybe what some find so unpalatable.