Did you ever see my reply to you "SHOULD I SPEND MONEY ON NIM HMMMM?!?!" post?

I teach in a comp in the best performing borough in the country. We have a number of grammar schools in the borough. I recently spoke to the Deputy Head of one of them to ask about entrance requirements for the school and he said it was rare for a kid to get a place there without having had a couple of years of private tuition, as they wouldn't score highly enough to get a place through the entrance exam. The public and private education system benefits the wealthiest in society, so there's no wonder that there are such social mobility issues.

Some people can overcome huge adversity to become wealthy; for the majority of the rich it's factors beyond their making that made their journey to the top much simpler.

Stopharage wrote:

I teach in a comp in the best performing borough in the country. We have a number of grammar schools in the borough. I recently spoke to the Deputy Head of one of them to ask about entrance requirements for the school and he said it was rare for a kid to get a place there without having had a couple of years of private tuition, as they wouldn't score highly enough to get a place through the entrance exam. The public and private education system benefits the wealthiest in society, so there's no wonder that there are such social mobility issues.

Some people can overcome huge adversity to become wealthy; for the majority of the rich it's factors beyond their making that made their journey to the top much simpler.

I won't lie. This is the only post in the entire thread that makes sense to me.

Moto70 wrote:

Brooks wrote:

While we're still at this and with no expectation of this being conclusive re: anything - how many of you are earning more or at least equal to what your breadwinning parent earned at your current age, adjusted for inflation etc.?

I can't be arsed to read everything else as I've only come home to get changed (been out with my Dad) and no, like many others my missus has to work (unlike my Mum at the time) and we don't own our own house (unlike my Mum and Dad at the time) so no, I'm not equal.

Actually I talked to Dad about this thread (without specifically mentioning it) and I said I was pissed off that he could buy his house and still have money to spare. He said he doesn't know what has gone wrong, he could have rented but to buy was only slightly more but it was nowhere near most of his wages whichever route he chose.

Keep spouting all you like but while I'm working and can't afford to buy a house (like my Dad did) we are almost certainly not working in the right direction...

Working a 9-5, with a wife at home looking after a kid, owning a house and still having spare cash when earning a relatively low wage to do that with is something long gone. House prices are INSANE these days, wages don't match, and the cost of a lot of other things has also gone up by a crazy amount. Basic living essentials are very expensive compared to 15-20 years ago; and I mean energy bills, petrol, food etc. Imagine what you could have earning £20k a year 15 years ago compared to now.

And that's without taking into account how goddamn easy it is to get into a shit ton of debt. I made mistakes with my money when I was 18-24ish and still pay for them. Fuck I could easily get hold of credit cards that I could rack up £50k plus on. And sure its about not doing it, but damn I shouldn't even be allowed to get into that position! At 18 I could get a CC with £2k limit, without really having to show I could pay it.

Tempy wrote:

Did you ever see my reply to you "SHOULD I SPEND MONEY ON NIM HMMMM?!?!" post?

Your what now to my huh?

Caught up with thread. Good for a few laughs, but society's not fixed yet so you fail.

EVERYTHING IS FINE

EVERYTHING IS FINE

Interview with economist Richard Reich, star of the very interesting looking documentary Inequality for All (described as An Inconvenient Truth for economics). Looks both at the upcoming film as well as the state of wealth inequality.

We have more people living in poverty who have jobs than those who don't, according to Oxfam. The average British citizen – the average – is three pay cheques away from destitution.

Ah, hello. I thought you'd given up on your argument and run away.

Been busy. It appears the debate has moved on.

There is inequality. There has always been inequality. Inequality is not a good thing. Whatever metrics you use to determine success: wealth, happiness, power etc there will always be people deemed to be more or less successful.

The argument here is whether the society we live in provides opportunity for those who deem themselves to be less successful (or who are deemed by other members to be less succesfull - although that could.be argued as being irrelevant) to become more successful.

Each individual strives to provide for themself, their family and those around them (typically in that order). Social care/benefits are an effort to provide the basic minimum requirements of being comfortable. It can be argued that this is currently not the case. There is an element of personal responsibility when it comes to assessing "success" relative to efforts. There is also an element of systemc inadequacy, in that the secondary or tertiary affects of the system currently in place in place, preventing or hindering those at the bottom from ever extricating themselves from their present situation. The system may also not distribute financial rewards in the correct proportions.

I suppose that, as animals we are driven to compete with each other. That is why there are individuals who work tirelessly to receive as much as they can. This applies to all fields of work.

The problem is how do you cap those metrics of success?

You are a monumentally stupid individual.

Equality = communism?

Bloody hell, Griff. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to have gone away for a day and come back almost a socialist.

As for how do you cap the metrics of success, there are a couple of options open, tax is the most obvious, the other is setting a maximum wage, perhaps as a multiple of the lowest/average wage of the other people in the company.