It’s growing: the gap between rich and poor, fat cats and workers,
in the UK and USA
Plenty of high powered executives will remind us that their own hard
work and talent needs to be suitably generously rewarded. Fewer step up
to the podium to brag that their profit-making talent is actually dependent
on less privileged workers being paid as little as 11
cents per hour.
So, let’s look at whether relative hard work and talent is really
being suitably rewarded.
The Chief Executive of Tesco was paid £5m
in 2005. In 2006 the average employee will be paid £11,594,
down from £12,713 a year ago. Bearing in mind the usual rational
for higher earnings, is it credible to argue that the Chief Exec is 430
times more industrious and qualified than the average Tesco employee?
Of course, Tesco executives are not alone in creating the wealth that
makes for soaring
incomes. But, the real threat to a company’s competitiveness,
they say, is not the fact that one super-exec can produce the same outputs
as 430 mere mortals - it is the fact that the least well paid workers
are forever
demanding more pay than they ought to, forcing companies to seek harder
workers willing to work for less.
Let’s assume for a moment that super-execs can really do the
work of 430 average folk. What a wonderful opportunity this represents.
By my calculations, the UK population need only nationalise all businesses
and put 85,000 super-execs to work on average wages to produce enough
savings to free the rest of us from the need to ever work again.
Alas, I fear the Chief Execs will resist being put to work purely in
the interest of others. Supermen they may be, but self-less they are not.
In the US, whilst the national average income per head has doubled
in real terms since the 60s, Chief Executive incomes have grown by a multiple
of 11. Meanwhile, those who depend on wages have gained little
or nothing. The graph below (right) helpfully shows the rising ratio of
the income of the richest fifth in society vs the poorest fifth in the
US since 1975.

Note that the rising ratio on the right almost exactly mirrors the steep
rise in Chief Executive incomes on the left.
Few economists would dispute that US society is becoming increasingly
unequal. National income is being redistributed away from the majority
earning the least to the privileged owners and controllers of capital.
Legislative policies authored by and for the super-rich have, over the
last 25 years, led to the systematic transfer of tax burden off the richest
5% onto working people.
President Bush makes no bones about whose interests he represents, hence
his statement
at a dinner fundraiser of the rich and wealthy… ‘"This
is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call
you the elites; I call you my base."
George Bush’s tax
cuts for the wealthiest 1% in society is just one example of this
cosy alliance between our leaders and those who frankly, already avoid
paying more tax than a patriot ought to.
Of course, this could only happen in the USA, right? Erhh, no. Actually
the size of the gap between the richest and poorest 20% of society has
been growing in the UK since the late 1970s almost mirroring the USA (graph
below). If you wonder how much privatisation and financial deregulation
have to do with this, look to Russia (right) where, since the population
were ‘liberated’ from the shackles of communism in 1990,
the rise in inequality has been acute.

Russia offers a timely warning of how the majority suffer when income
loses all relation to hard work and talent and simply becomes proportionate
to an already powerful person's access to capital and preparedness to
steal value from others.
If our power elite can't set an example, we must make an example of
them. One UN
report warns that, at the current rate, one third of the world's
population will be slum dwellers by 2030 living on $1 a day.
Ends | 15 Oct 2006 | The Leg
Related Graphs:

Graph: Male mortality rates in Russia (green) compared to Belarus (red).
Life expectancy for Russian men fell
from 64 to 58 years between 1991 & 1994! Contributing factors?
Sudden rapid privatisation producing unacceptably high levels of unemployment,
wealth inequality, insecurity and related drink and drug abuse. Belarus
wasn't in such a hurry to privatise. See Stuckler, King and McKee's analysis.

Graph: In afluent Western market democracies, no one is in danger of
dying of starvation. However, there remain significant problems. Where
the income gap between the richest and poorest 20% in a country or US
state is larger, the problems are exacerbated. The result is detrimental
not just to the poor, but to the vast majority of society.
The graphs published by Wilkinson and Pickett in The
Spirit Level, suggest that many problems - low social mobility, high
numbers in prison, low public trust, higher mental illness, drug use and
obesity - tend to be worse in less equal societies.
Question: Do these problems hinge on perceived relative human worth
as implied by relative rewards/income?
If so, 5 might just be the required magic number. Only when the top
fifth of earners decide they can make do with earning 5 times more than
the lowest paid 5th of earners (as in Finland, Sweden and Denmark) do
these problems diminish. Without pay restraint at the top end, the problems
persist.
Enter the 26 year old city trader of Liar's
Poker. On the day his salary (before bonus) rises to $60,000 he starts
to feel cheated. Why? Because he looks round and sees other traders being
paid much more. Then a colleague explains:
"You don't get rich in this business...you only attain new levels
of relative poverty."
Clearly, even the highest earners 'suffer' where top executive pay shows
no restraint.

Graph: Excessive
banker salaries a predictor of depression?
|
|