Why do only fools and horses work?

Anglo-Saxon countries are characterised by severe wage inequality and high working poverty. Typically there will be commentary about the use of minimum wages and how such wage protectionism can reduce such problems. Whilst we cannot deny that Anglo-Saxon countries have had relatively low minimum wages, we also know that such protection doesn't provide a significant mechanism to reduce poverty. So the question remains...

What is behind the Anglo-Saxon inequalities and how can it be 'improved'?

 

Ever consider the possibility not everyone shares the same goals? There is no 'magic bullet' to reduce poverty. You could give everybody on earth a million dollars and within six months, some people would be broke & living under bridges. Who are you to deny them that choice?

 

So you're saying that the higher poverty in Ango-Saxon countries is a choice?

 

In America, it's a choice. Not always, of course. But long term, there are plenty of people content to live 'below the poverty line' if it means they don't have to work very hard. Or get to do something they absolutely love (but doesn't pay) like 'starving artists'. I just get tired of hearing folks talk about poor people as if they're somehow 'substandard' human beings. It's very arrogant to want to 'fix' poor people. Especially in America.

Remember when Mitt Romney made that misstatement about poor people? He said they have 'safety nets?' Well, he may not have stated it very well, but it's still true. Nobody starves to death in this country unless they refuse to ask for help.

Maybe I've missed your point, Reiver? Please explain what Anglo-Saxon has to do with anything? What are you trying to say?

 

You're basically saying that Americans, compared to other developed nations, tend to be lazier. I find that an abhorrent stance. Why do you think other countries have higher self-employment rates? (Note: the point is that it isn't about some supply side limitation and therefore the standard right wing 'blame games' don't operate)

Its used in economic analysis to distinguish the poverty result from standard liberal and social democracies. Basically the inequalities experienced in the likes of Britain and the US cannot be understood with the standard analysis used to understand developed nations

 

See, there you go again. 'Lazier?' By whose standards? Gainful employment isn't everybody's cup of tea. In a free society, those who don't care for the 9 to 5 are free to pursue other means of survival. I know a guy who made a living hustling pool. Met a couple in Hawaii who live in a cave, get dishwashing jobs to save up money to quit working and enjoy paradise until it's time to go to work again.

And you pity these people?

Sounds like you should pay less attention to standard analysis and more attention to human nature. You can't design away poverty... no matter how smart you think you are.

 

I don't understand your Anglo-Saxon focus. Are you saying we can learn from Non Anglo-Saxon countries? Or that capitalism is reserved for white people??

 

Anglosaxon countries don't have the French style communistic arrogance. Also, historically, the size of Anglosaxon economies used to allow working people to decide how much to work for. With that said, that is all history. Now the above evolved into a monopolistic system that corners everyone out of resources, so the increased competition for the shrinking leftovers produces the working poor. Non-Anglosaxon countries have always had their communistic government controls over people's lives to make work a secondary dimension.

 

Is that your opinion? If not, what is that based on?

This is a list by ratio of top 10% / bottom 10%

93.9 Bolivia
87.2 Sierra Leone
69.2 Central African Republic
60.4 Colombia
59.4 Honduras
54.4 Haiti
49.9 Panama
46 Niger
43 Botswana
38.8 Paraguay
38.6 El Salvador
35.2 Ecuador
33.9 Guatemala
33.1 South Africa
31.6 Argentina
31 Nicaragua
26.2 Chile
26.1 Peru
25.3 Dominican Republic
25.1 Swaziland
23.8 Papua New Guinea
23.4 Costa Rica
22.1 Malaysia
21.6 Mexico
21.6 China
20.2 The Gambia
20.1 Uruguay
19.3 Burundi
19.2 Madagascar
19 Guinea-Bissau
18.8 Mozambique
18.8 Venezuela
18.6 Rwanda
17.8 Hong Kong
17.8 Nigeria
17.7 Singapore
17.3 Jamaica
17.2 Iran
16.6 Uganda
16.6 Côte d'Ivoire
15.9 United States
15.8 Nepal
15.7 Cameroon
15.5 Philippines
15.4 Georgia
15 Portugal
14.1 Ghana
13.8 United Kingdom
13.6 Kenya
13.4 Israel
13.4 Tunisia
12.9 Trinidad and Tobago
12.8 Liberia
12.8 Namibia
12.7 Russia
12.6 Thailand
12.5 Macedonia
12.5 Australia
12.5 Mali
12.4 New Zealand

 

We've got developed nations broadly separated into three categories: liberal democracy, social democracy and- because they are stand out with regards aspects such as income inequality (and therefore working poverty)- Anglo Saxon. We're therefore determining 'high poverty' through comparison of those types. Your comment, which is essentially a variation of the standard supply side attack, must therefore imply that the populations in the Anglo-Saxon economies are somehow less inclined to work. You're not going to be able to show that. Compare, for example, average working hours!

I haven't referred to the elimination of poverty. Here's the question again (which you haven't answered): What is behind the Anglo-Saxon inequalities and how can it be 'improved'?

Reference to human nature doesn't make sense as, to measure Anglo-Saxon inequalities, we have to compare it to other developed countries. Those social democrats may be a weird bunch, but I do believe they tend towards human!

 

Its how developed countries are distinguished: the "Anglo-Saxon" countries (typically UK, US, Canada and Australia) typically behave quite differently to the others, with a history of higher income inequality and poverty. Its not a value judgement, just a convenient tag reflecting historical links. Indeed, we have to be careful that we don't ignore important differences between those countries. The UK, for example, stands out somewhat with more extreme income inequality history and greater reliance on the welfare state to stabilise its economy.

 

There are no 'inequalities' -- only different strokes for different folks.

You're overthinking, Reiver. In free societies, people can choose how they want to live... some want to work hard for the almighty dollar, some don't.

There is no right or wrong... only different.

 

Again, you're simply ignoring the objective fact: Anglo-Saxon countries have higher income inequality. The question is "why?". You can't use human nature blurb, nor shallow reference to individualism (as those inequalities are also associated with class limitations). You don't seem to be able to come up with an explanation. Want to try again or just admit it?

 

I think your answer is in the title of the thread. For liberals, only fools and horses work. And then they whine because those fools and horses aren't giving them what they want.

 

This isn't an explanation. Why do the Anglo-Saxon countries have greater income inequality?

 

Why are you ignoring the list I provided?

If you want to make this a discussion of race / culture, anglo-saxon's are at best 3rd on the list of income inequalities.

You do seem to have a strong bit of self loathing. That is, after your loathing of everyone else...

 

I'm sorry. I forgot liberals do not realize that accumulation of wealth and working have a relationship.

 

Actually, we can design away (official) poverty, what we cannot do is design away simply being poor if a person chooses not to improve their money management skills in our money based markets.

 

It was irrelevant to the thread as you've confused yourself by referring to developing countries. This is about the variations between developed countries and the different forms of capitalism utilised in the literature.

Try something relevant! Why do you think the Anglo-Saxon countries, compared to the liberal and social democratic countries, have higher income inequality?

 

In our US case, it is a simple moral failure to bear true witness to our own laws, even with "under God" in our pledge of allegiance, from the McCarthy era.

 

Isn't that some sort of "maxim" from a class based line of reasoning.

 

Apology accepted. It would be nice though if you could try relevancy. Perhaps you think that Anglo-Saxon countries have been 'poorer' when it comes to skills provision? Perhaps there is some variation in deindustrialisation that has encouraged specific characteristics in the tertiary sector (similar to Britain's previous over-dependence on production with relatively low income inelasticity of demand)?

 

I would agree with you more, but alleged conservatives seem to believe that public policy decisions which don't solve our social dilemmas and merely deny and disparage individual liberty, doesn't affect the work and accumulation of wealth equation.

 

You're not interested in explanations... you're just looking to argue.

 

From one perspective, wealthier economies should have a greater sense of "noblesse oblige", simply because they can afford it.