This is from IPPR's Economic Justice Commission Report:
What is so scary is the decline from the late 70s. Working people are being shafted.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I see this shows labour (i.e. workers’ – not the party’s) share of income dropping from 2/3 to a little over half in about 45 years. What about workers’ contribution (in work – that’s all they have to give): how has that changed. And the rest – the non-labour share of ‘income’. Where did that come from? How would it look if the graph were cumulative?
Why are there more questions than answers?
This is consistent with what the documentaries ‘The Flaw’ and ‘Inequality for All’ point out what has already been happening in the US economy and also a certain Thomas Picketty has pointed out at length. Remember him folks?
This is the wrong form capitalism – period.
Only socialism can save capitalism from itself. And us mere mortals from capitalism too – as currently practiced.
But here’s something I picked up listening to Radio 4 in the car.
Apparently measles is on the up in Europe and in Italy the rise in reported cases has been significant with 4 deaths. A woman was interviewed who was anti-vaccination in thinking and said that she resented that vaccination was made compulsory by the State. She said it was a matter of (wait for it) personal choice (Charles Buchanan is smiling in his casket as I write)!
Yep – choice as to whether you let your child contract measles or not (I have never heard of a parent inviting measles microbes to their child but you never know!) and it is also for some folk a matter of choice apparently to let your child pass the infection onto to others before it is diagnosed!! How considerate!
All the woman could say was ‘Well, there are downsides to vaccinations and they are risky in themselves’. Yeah – and?
There was even a section of a speech by an Italian politician saying that it was OK to make such choices – which I saw as pandering to unfounded concerns (thereby reinforcing them) in order to win a vote.
I mention this because I mean – what is going on in society at the moment? And here some of us are, trying to point out that wages are dropping, that banks, corporations, rent seekers and CEOs are out of control grabbing the profits of output, that States seem unwilling to look after their biggest asset – their people and that democracy itself is in peril and instead people want to exercise a choice that could lead to death for their oved ones and others.
It’s crazy. I admit that I cannot decode this sort of stuff. But I’ll try.
Is it because people are so disempowered that they decide to take control of what little they can?
Is it because neo-liberalism has succeeded in casting the State as a villain?
Is this a result of hyper-individualisation (thank you Adam Curtis) fuelled by the internet and choice theory?
If people are turning their backs on the State, then what are they walking towards? Is this what happens when a State abandons its people to market forces? That these people become ungovernable? And even worse, a threat?
You describe the conditions required for fascism to prosper
Ideal conditions for fascism?
Yes – indeed.
According to the graph, labour’s share of national income was way higher in the thirties. Presumably leaves out the income of those not employed?
Data was not as good then
But this was a depression
Have you noticed how good profits are in a depression?
Either fascism or anarchy. Either way, it ends in the destruction of society.
No society=jungle law. Might help the planet…humanity wiping itself out…now that’s the ultimate ecology!
Sorry, despair does funny things to logical thinking.
@ Pilgrim Slight Return
Pity you brought measles into your post because it’s a highly emotive, complex and controversial topic, which detracts from your core argument. If you’ve the time & patience, please read this – https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/24/dissolving-illusions-measles-vaccine.aspx.
It’s very difficult for laypeople to understand health issues which have become largely ‘owned’ by Big Pharma. (Not relevant here but a typical and topical example is the press release recently issued via the MSM by the American Heart Association regarding coconut oil – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_O8LqvuOw.
Just saying.
PSR – an afterthought. I apologise if I misread the point you were trying to make about the State’s responsibility. Confused.com!
Yes John D – understood.
I too caught the measles and the mumps (the latter which I recall was really uncomfortable). To my knowledge my children have had MMR with no ill effects.
My point was indeed about the anti-State attitude.
But then again if the State is acting as an enabler for big pharma, so can we expect a blow back: the suspicion put on big pharma will also be shared with State. They will incriminate each other. Hence the need for clear lines of role away from using a blanket market approach to everything.
One of the issues that is so hard to deal with (tease out) is how the principles of a movement (Neo-liberalism) that does not trust the State actually make a State less likely to be trusted when ‘the market’ gets too close to it and inculcates it.
Neo-liberalism is like a self-fulfilling prophecy in that sense. But few of its adherents are capable of dealing with that paradox.
I think I must be older than you Pilgrim. When I was a child parents had no problem taking their children to a house where measles was present. I, apparently was taken to a “measles party.” Big Pharma have changed the way people view illness in general and play heavily on parental fear. I personally know several Doctors who have not allowed their children or the children in their family to be vaccinated.
The link John D posted is worth reading. I make no claim to have the answer to this, it’s a terrible decision for parents to have to make, but like so many things in these modern times, the profit motive always rears it’s ugly head.
I recall ‘measles parties’
I caught it….
Had to be done
Along with mumps
Susan Faludi used the term ‘stiffed’ about 15 years ago. Even noting the demise of wages relies on the groaf-oaf work-ethic perspective that involves keeping the third world third and evading urgent green, sustainable, peaceful planet issues.
IF (and I admit this is a HUGE if), livings standards in the face of the change illustrated by this chart remained stable, or even improved, could this chart possibly be illustrating a good thing? If I work in a job and eventually build up a pot of savings large enough that I can afford to work part-time and supplement my income with savings interest, is that not a pretty good change in my life?
Now I would be the first to admit that the staggering rise in inequality since the 1970s has not been a good thing, is certainly not sustainable, and this chart is illustrative of part of this phenomenon.
But it doesn’t have to be. The introduction of, say, a Universal Basic Income, elimination of many thousands of jobs by automation, and removal of many other non-essential roles (bs jobs, we all know what they are), would lead to a similar downward sloping chart, but for different (and potentially welcome) reasons.
In my ideal world, so long as our safety-net was expanded and developed sufficiently, the line would eventually approach zero, and no one would be working for a living.
Remember, it is not work itself which has value, but the products and services which result. If there is a way to continue having those products and services, with fewer and fewer people having to work to supply them, that would be a good thing for civilisation. Indeed, civilisation itself is what happens when people do not have to spend most of their time ensuring they consume enough calories to survive. Civilisation = reduction in value of agricultural worker’s output. Imagine what we could achieve if most of us did not have to work for a living?
What is so good about people not working for a living?
People would be able to pursue their own interests, as many do now in retirement, providing their interests require only a modest financial outlay, or as some people lucky enough to be born wealthy do all their lives. I note many bands were formed while their members were on the dole as it enabled them to pursue their musical interests, many went on to earn their livings and some became very successful indeed. Work is not an end in itself, but enabling people to discover and pursue their interests may well lead to people finding themselves working really quite hard indeed. There’s more to work than the entirely artificial 9-5.
“What is so good about people not working for a living?”
Art ? That which we do for the joy of it rather than necessity.
Of course there would always be those who regard tax policy as an art form to be honed to perfection 🙂
It wouldn’t do if we were all t’syem.
I believe we are wrong to think that primitive life was a constant battle to eat. Hunter gatherers can make a living in very few hours a week, it’s people who ‘need’ mod cons who need to spend a long time working in order to pay for them and the overheads that enable their production.
Bill Kruse says:
” I note many bands were formed while their members were on the dole as it enabled them to pursue their musical interests, many went on to earn their livings and some became very successful indeed…..”….
…..and as per Howard Goodall’s piece which Richard posted a while back the music industry is a very big earner for the UK economy.
Resonates with this, that arrived on my radar just this morning…..
https://www.facebook.com/tombilyeu/videos/1392780817533625/?fref=mentions&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCfdk8ldRsrGxaBlx9JwXb3AXiKFn-o4GvS5K3iWIN3iSkbBPk8JhFsQnmpv_hA6q9n_-rsYCGRqNPquni33HAtzFMXEuMTtpltAoVo0k9ZHsev-bIKfSa497fU4vZRT3J_H8VBeHGzjHd-wKaYzbz9E7IPM9rtYgA_jBBL9fh0w4v-HhaD&__tn__=K-R
“…supplement my income with savings interest.”
Do please tell me where I can earn sufficient interest to supplement my pension which, apparently, is the second lowest of all the countries in the EU.
Willie John says:
“Do please tell me where I can earn sufficient interest to supplement my pension which, apparently, is the second lowest of all the countries in the EU.”
Ah! Now we get to the nub of the issue. It is a matter of words and the nuances of meaning. The rich have ‘interest’, the rest of us have mere ‘curiosity’.
This graph also makes the point of why we need to increase taxes on capital, to encourage people to work, rather than profit from the work of other.
On questions Frank: pop to ONS and see the claim unemployment is at 4% and then note the employment rate of people of working age is 75.6%. so one in four of us ain’t workin’ with a 4% unemployment rate. Nowt is what it seems on this gig.
archytas says:
“On questions Frank: pop to ONS and see the claim unemployment is at 4% and then note the employment rate of people of working age is 75.6%. so one in four of us ain’t workin’ with a 4% unemployment rate. Nowt is what it seems on this gig.”
Interesting to compare with Richard’s earlier comment relating to the thirties : “Data was not as good then. But this was a depression.”
and: “Have you noticed how good profits are in a depression?”
Funny that isn’t it ? Not funny ha ha, though.
Don’t forget to add in the numbers that are working but require in work benefits to survive.
Capitalism has performed miracles but is open to corruption and is being corrupted, we need to address this, but no way on earth is socialism the answer, anyone advocating this has surely no knowledge of history.
It’s painfully obvious to me that we live in an age of unholy alliance between the radical left and right, the left no longer stand for the poor, as Orwell himself said, they just hate the rich. The left have descended into pernicious identity politics, that the group trumps the individual, I only hear truth and common sense coming from the conservative right, they understand the importance of free speech this was canonical to the left in a by gone age.
There is so much to disagree with there
But if you think controlling the media so it presents a hegemonic view indicates a commitment to free speech you are seriously mistaken
As you may well be on much else
I’m completely mystified as to your assertion that a conservative view is hegemonic in the main stream media, when quite clearly it is not.
No party is advocating policy along a conservative axiom, every party is fully indoctrinated in the progressive ethos. Of course free speech is being attacked by both the corrupt capitalist elite and the backward ideological left, we have a cooperate global agenda that is pernicious in its attack on voices that do not conform. The ideological left attack free speech in our universities, their hegemonic progressive agenda that is systemic in the humanities and gender studies departments is creating young political activist based on an entirely false account of history.
This is the breeding ground for fascism, when you limit speech, you limit the ability to think, only the left do this and the main stream media ideologically is entirely left wing. I think you conflate the right with the extreme right who also play the identity politics game, the moderate right, where I now position myself after being majority left for .most of my life is where truth can be found.
No one, absolutely no one I hear emanating from the moderate right is not disgusted with the state of capitalism embodied in the west today, they are trying through freedom of speech to find the answers to inequality answers that will never ever be found in socialism, we have to harness individual ability, reward it but understand many through no fault of their own stack up at the bottom, no one has ever found a canonical rule to deal with this.
I could try to respond to this
But if you can think any of this you are on a different planet to the one I live on
Start here, and this is just the BBC
https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028
And your claim about university departments is just defamatory – of my right-wing colleagues for a start and my open-mindedness of the right of students to disagree secondly
One this web site I welcome informed comment, not utter drivel
Do this again and you will be deleted – whoich is not bias; it’s just an intolerance for nonsense
I wrote nothing that should be perceived as defamatory, I wrote nothing bad about your right wing colleagues.
After many years of being left wing and striving for fairness across society I have through my own personal struggle with life found that the majority of the left no longer stand for the poor they actually exacerbate many of the problems the poor have to deal with.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Society is best served when it’s socially conservative, economically capitalist, but has a left that is entirely focused on moderating the malevolence of capitalism.
I disagree
And you’re in the wrong place
I disagree with you, I’m in entirely the right place, I choose not to air my thoughts, and worries in an echo chamber, I’ve been reading your blog for around four years, and it is in my humble opinion and echo chamber, you do as you point out with proclivity, have the right to decide the context of your blog, I just believe there is no harm done by conversing with those opposing your beliefs.
I decide if you are in the wrong place
I have
And opinions you have just expressed in a comment I have deleted suggest I am right to do so.
Proton says:
“Capitalism has performed miracles […….. ] anyone advocating this has surely no knowledge of history.”
Reading of history tends to be very selective, I find.
Could you try and embody your comment.
Capitalism moderated by a competent left is the Goldilocks zone we in society ought to be striving for.
But politics is down stream of culture, problems begin when politics becomes culture.
“Working people are being shafted.”
When was that ever not the case, I wonder. (?)
An issue here is the growing number of retired people plus the fact that state pensions are linked in a way that means they rise at a rate above GDP growth.
This has to be paid for from somewhere.
It would be interesting to see the figures with that aspect removed.
So what are you proposing? Pensioner poverty to fund Brexit?
Oh , yes of course the changing demographic with a preponderance of retired folk came as such a surprise. Who could have predicted that ?
Margaret Thatcher’s advisors saw it coming when they shoved prospective pensioners into the clutches of the private sector pensions industry. Which had a field day. As did the luxury yacht manufacturers.
Now our pensions are reliant on the markets, and when the markets crash who is going to have any pension worth the name. And the Clever-buggers will start preaching the ‘investments can go down aswell as up’ mantra…..
God rot ’em.
Oh! I forgot there aren’t any gods are there ? Just the ‘Market’ and its ‘priesthood’ of all knowing, thieving charlatans.
Why do you think pensions have to be paid for from somewhere? What do you think money is?
No one actually lives off money
I’ve not been tempted to try, but I imagine it is deeply unnourishing
Good thing then that the next Labour government will do this: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/major-shake-employment-legislation-proposed
[…] I noted yesterday how the labour share of GDP (our national income) is falling. Here's a reason why, from the TUC this morning: […]
I know Piketty showed that this drop in labour’s share was due to a rise in capital’s share. But he never split out the land component. Do the figures exist to show how much of this increment has gone to landowners over this period when land values exploded in the UK? Is this information not important when it comes to formulating policy to redress what is clearly an unsustainable situation?
I think that this is possible – but not maybe very reliable
I realise that I’m mixing up income and wealth but, quoting from last week’s ONS “UK national balance sheet estimates”:
“The rise in UK net worth in 2016-2017 was mainly due to a £610 billion increase in the value of non-financial assets … Land was by far the largest contributor to the increase in net value, rising by £450 billion since 2016. [This is an increment of 9.1% over 12 months, a little above the annual average of 8.1% between 1995 and 2017] … Between 2017 and 2016, the UK net worth rose by 5.1% but if the growth of land is excluded then this goes down to just 0.9%”