When I was at college, an undisclosed number of years ago, my ever provocative sociology tutor posed this question to the class: "how much can one person 'earn'?" It came back into my mind this week when watching the second instalment of Jacques Peretti's powerful exploration of inequality The Super-Rich and Us. This question really does go to the heart of our current debate about the ever-widening gap between that top 1% and everybody else. It prompts a discussion about human value, and how pay scales, and wealth, correspond to the actual contribution to society people make through their work.
The comments made by Countess Bathurst, in The Super-Rich and Us, were both despairing and, as a consequence, rallying. I'll quote her verbatim: "I think that human nature, by human nature, will always be a little envious of those who have more than they do." She went on "I think there is also an element of, shall we say, not realising what is means to be somebody like us. You know we do work incredibly hard. I think people don't realise what a responsibility it is, they don't realise what a worry it can be."
She brazenly makes a number of troubling assertions. She starts by suggesting that criticising excessive wealth amounts to sour grapes - simple as that. Then she implies her income and wealth can be justified because of her hard work. Of course millions of people work hard but find themselves living in poverty. She finally proposes that the real injustice of inequality is people not understanding the burden wealth brings; as if facing deprivation was a lighter load to endure.
That link between hard graft and 'getting on' is being increasingly eroded, and it's fuelling the state of inequality we're in today. The truth is we can't all be really wealthy even if we all work really hard. This fictional story, that if only we work harder we will succeed, remains the glue which protects the status quo and vested interests. The death of deference and the democratisation of voice are two factors slowly combining to make possible a challenge to this British myth which stands on ever-shifting sands.
Housing is one area where there are signs of progress on this question of rewards and work. Last year the National Housing Federation published a report which cleverly relates what people in various jobs get paid and the rise in house prices. The analysis showed that properties in nearly two thirds of the capital's boroughs have 'earned' more than the average salary of a nurse in London. Basically homes are out-earning nurses, they're worth more. The policies of successive governments have devalued people and work, relative to assets.
The report says something about both the madness of our housing market and the issue of unearned wealth, especially for people who are already well-off. Why should people who are in the right place at the right time benefit from a huge windfall courtesy of overinflated property prices, at the expense of those left out in the cold? That same inequality of rewards happens in the world of work too. Labour and Liberal Democrat proposals for a Mansion Tax, whilst far from perfect, do at least speak to this housing injustice; to a direction of travel in which some people (richer people) are getting more out than they put in.
So, where does this leave big picture policy a few months from the general election? The Government's preferred narrative of trickle-down economics (perhaps more accurately described as "gush up" economics) - a process by which the British people stick their caps out and hope some loose change (in both senses of the word) falls their way - is a woeful response to inequality. Labour's proposals, whilst inadequate, engage much more closely with the challenge, for instance to raise the minimum wage. But, basically none of the main parties have yet lucidly analysed or addressed the crisis of work, worth and inequality.
We all play a part in creating the nation's wealth but a small few are increasingly taking home a bigger and bigger share of the fruit. This is causing a new, more deep rooted inequality, accompanied by nail-biting levels of insecurity, and a devaluing of work. Let us start by being honest about what one person can reasonably earn in one day. Inequality exists, in part, because some people are being paid more than it is possible to truly earn, whilst others are getting less than they deserve. We need to turn the pay scales of Britain on their head.
Comments