Wow. 25% of Americans have mental health problems. 5-10% of Japanese do. Living in an equal society is good for your mental health, while advanced capitalist societies will make you mentally ill. I knew this, vaguely knowing a little about 1970s psychiatry - the mavericks questioned why they should patch people up to cope in such a messed-up society, rather than pushing to develop a culture and economy which doesn't literally drive people mad.
Unequal countries lock far more people up: the USA locks up 0.5% of its population, which is huge, and the UK isn't far back. It isn't more crime, it's harsher punishment: 3 Californians were imprisoned for shoplifting. We also have nastier prisons: nice Scandinavians try to help criminals - Americans, British and Singaporeans brutalise their prisoners, leading to even worse outcomes. We fear each other more and empathise less (or in prime minister John Major's words, 'it's time to condemn a little more and understand a little less', which is one of the dumbest and most cynical things I've heard for decades.
We're on to inherited wealth. A witty aside uses David Cameron et al. to point out that your father's income predicts a son's wealth far better in unequal societies than equal ones: rich people hold on to their cash and make sure their kids get all the advantages. Cameron's father made millions in finance. David inherited millions, went to Eton (£40,000 per year) and got into an élite university, the classic springboard to further wealth and power. If your dad is a milkman, you won't start with an élite education, a big bank account, a deposit for a house, and the social networks which come with wealth. Unless you're in Scandinavia, where they've managed to arrange a society in which humble backgrounds don't automatically lead to a humble life. In Sweden, infant mortality is better for every class than England and Wales - and the percentage hardly wavers across social classes, whereas far more poor infants die than rich ones in England and Wales. Why? Better-educated parents spotting problems? Better-fed mothers and children? Pushier parents? Probably all of these reasons and more.
It's about time we just asked the Norwegians to invade.
Lots of good questions: whether it's possible to persuade ideologically-opposed people, and what the practical steps to a more equal society might be. Unsurprisingly, cracking down on tax avoidance and bonus culture, and asking the rich to pay more tax are top of the list. Also having more workers on boards of directors (as that notoriously poor country, Germany, does). More democracy, more mutuals, more co-operatives, better working and living conditions with less social segregation. Fewer line managers (Oh yes, that strikes a chord…)! Lots of attacks on the government's claims to 'fairness' while public services are being cut.
Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
A few disturbing facts
Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden: the richest 20% are 3-4 times richer than the poorest 20%. In the UK it's 7.9% and 8.5% for the US. Note that the former countries are richer, happier, calmer, and more equal. The differences would be even more extreme if we took the top and bottom 10%. In the US, average wages have actually decreased since the 1970s, while the rich have become massively richer.
How many members of Congress are millionaires? Almost all of them. 22 of the UK's 28-strong government Cabinet are multimillionaires: that's why you won't be seeing equality any time soon.
The US is off the scale for crime, infant mortality, murder, mental illness, teenage births, imprisonment and addiction (with the UK nearby) - the more equal countries, though relatively poorer, are right down on the scale. It's not average income - it's relative, or how the cash is distributed. The USA is hugely rich - but still locks up huge numbers of people (mostly black) and abandons millions to charitable healthcare and poor education because they're ideologically opposed to governments intervening in peoples' lives.
Here's an interesting one: in more unequal countries, people distrust each other more - only 15-25% of Americans and British trust their compatriots, whereas 65-70% of the Scandinavians trust each other, leading to stronger communities and less social decay. The same is true of the US states: Mississipians, Alabamans and Arkansans distrust each other (they also go to church more, vote Republican more and shoot each other more, which goes to show that liberals and lefties are just nicer people).
How many members of Congress are millionaires? Almost all of them. 22 of the UK's 28-strong government Cabinet are multimillionaires: that's why you won't be seeing equality any time soon.
The US is off the scale for crime, infant mortality, murder, mental illness, teenage births, imprisonment and addiction (with the UK nearby) - the more equal countries, though relatively poorer, are right down on the scale. It's not average income - it's relative, or how the cash is distributed. The USA is hugely rich - but still locks up huge numbers of people (mostly black) and abandons millions to charitable healthcare and poor education because they're ideologically opposed to governments intervening in peoples' lives.
Here's an interesting one: in more unequal countries, people distrust each other more - only 15-25% of Americans and British trust their compatriots, whereas 65-70% of the Scandinavians trust each other, leading to stronger communities and less social decay. The same is true of the US states: Mississipians, Alabamans and Arkansans distrust each other (they also go to church more, vote Republican more and shoot each other more, which goes to show that liberals and lefties are just nicer people).
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Lies, damn lies… and Tory Scum
The government has released a list of all the public servants earning more than £150,000, i.e. more than the Prime Minister.
The idea is to shame them into taking pay cuts, or at least not pursuing pay rises. Ok, you might say, it's wrong for a civil servant to earn so much money - some are on £275,000 per year, though I reckon running the NHS, for instance, is a hell of a job.
Well, up to a point. The trick the Tories have pulled is to make the comparison with the Prime Minister, despite successive PM's freezing or reducing their salaries every year to make themselves look good in front of the voters (and it's easy for Cameron - he's a multimillionaire).
I'm a supporter of CEOs earning no more than 10-15 times the wage of the lowest-paid employee. But why are we humiliating the civil servants? Let's look at Bob Diamond (£80 million, despite the bank losing massive amounts) or Bart Becht, who 'earned' £90 million last year, 1374 times that of the average Reckitt Benckiser employee. Do these gentlemen work harder for £90m than they would for £10m? I bet they don't pay much tax either… If you read The Spirit Level, it turns out that more equal companies and states are more successful, and that the rich benefit from equality too!
Despite this subtle attack on the state from the Tories, there are definitely some employees whose greed is blatant and unsustainable - it's weird that many of the highest paid work in the Ministry of Defence, whereas the Treasury only has 4 top earners.
My boss is a prime example. She's on £230,000. That's several tens of thousands more than the Prime Minister before he took a pay cut. Now it's £100,000 more than the Prime Minister. That's £240,000 for getting us a massive fine from the government, £240,000 for sacking 150 people to pay the fine, £230,000 for cutting courses and dumbing-down the degrees. £230,000 for failure.
Except, of course that by her lights, she's a success. She's negotiated a massive salary. The end. It's just a business, and success is a matter of individual enrichment.
The idea is to shame them into taking pay cuts, or at least not pursuing pay rises. Ok, you might say, it's wrong for a civil servant to earn so much money - some are on £275,000 per year, though I reckon running the NHS, for instance, is a hell of a job.
Well, up to a point. The trick the Tories have pulled is to make the comparison with the Prime Minister, despite successive PM's freezing or reducing their salaries every year to make themselves look good in front of the voters (and it's easy for Cameron - he's a multimillionaire).
I'm a supporter of CEOs earning no more than 10-15 times the wage of the lowest-paid employee. But why are we humiliating the civil servants? Let's look at Bob Diamond (£80 million, despite the bank losing massive amounts) or Bart Becht, who 'earned' £90 million last year, 1374 times that of the average Reckitt Benckiser employee. Do these gentlemen work harder for £90m than they would for £10m? I bet they don't pay much tax either… If you read The Spirit Level, it turns out that more equal companies and states are more successful, and that the rich benefit from equality too!
Despite this subtle attack on the state from the Tories, there are definitely some employees whose greed is blatant and unsustainable - it's weird that many of the highest paid work in the Ministry of Defence, whereas the Treasury only has 4 top earners.
My boss is a prime example. She's on £230,000. That's several tens of thousands more than the Prime Minister before he took a pay cut. Now it's £100,000 more than the Prime Minister. That's £240,000 for getting us a massive fine from the government, £240,000 for sacking 150 people to pay the fine, £230,000 for cutting courses and dumbing-down the degrees. £230,000 for failure.
Except, of course that by her lights, she's a success. She's negotiated a massive salary. The end. It's just a business, and success is a matter of individual enrichment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)