The rich - poor gap
Discussion
trashbat said:
Justayellowbadge said:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Deposit on this would be the same as the very cheapest new car, a Dacha Sandero.
A comparative rip-off; you can buy some Liverpudlian housing stock for £1. Deposit on this would be the same as the very cheapest new car, a Dacha Sandero.
Do you suppose that the renting tenants of Dewsbury Road can afford to buy? I don't know, maybe they can.
trashbat said:
don't know what ordinary cars you buy
A house deposit is wealth. I didn't say it was risk-free (what is?) but it's not an opportunity afforded to those who live hand-to-mouth, and really the point is not where the divide lies, merely that it increases it.
Suppose instead that this wannabe landlord sets up a factory making some new widget, creating thousands of well paid jobs. That has the potential to narrow the gap between rich and poor, although of course it may not.
It's probably worth highlighting that some folk will never need a deposit for a roof over their heads. This is because they get housing for free. All down to the VAST taxes paid for by their generous, kind, 'wealthy' fellow countrymen.A house deposit is wealth. I didn't say it was risk-free (what is?) but it's not an opportunity afforded to those who live hand-to-mouth, and really the point is not where the divide lies, merely that it increases it.
Suppose instead that this wannabe landlord sets up a factory making some new widget, creating thousands of well paid jobs. That has the potential to narrow the gap between rich and poor, although of course it may not.
Justayellowbadge said:
Does having a pound immediately make them wealthy?
No, because it's only a valid proposition if you have a load of existing wealth to pour into refurbishing it (~£35k as per the article), and then only a viable revenue generating proposition if you can afford to live elsewhere afterwards, using yet more wealth. I assume the same sort of thing is true of your £30k advert.Even if it were possible to use the £1 opportunity to buy a house in an otherwise abandoned area, does it do anything to narrow the gap, or does it just tread water?
tomw2000 said:
It's probably worth highlighting that some folk will never need a deposit for a roof over their heads. This is because they get housing for free. All down to the VAST taxes paid for by their generous, kind, 'wealthy' fellow countrymen.
...the need for which would presumably be a product of the rich/poor gap, no?AA999 said:
I think its fair to say that incomes over £50,000 per year are very much considered rich. But how an individual chooses to spend their 'richness' to provide them with long term wealth is another issue I would have thought.
In a household, this also depends on the number of earners. 50k single earner income in the SE with a young child does not stretch that far.trashbat said:
turbobloke said:
If it matters, due to some real or imaginary threat of social unrest, this basically excuses unlawful behaviour predicated on jealousy. For the vast majority of people there are always going to be others earning more and increasing the wealth gap. It's just 'so what'.
Erm, what?I don't think you've understood what the gap is actually about.
trashbat said:
Landlords are a good example, although you can substitute in mortgage lender or property developer if you feel particularly aggrieved by it. Oversimplified, but you typically and inherently only become a landlord by having wealth, and then you use that wealth to make profit from those who have less wealth.
What you're talking about is the voluntary exchange of money for shelter and indoor living space with various amenities included. Providing rented accommodation isn't an act of charity, it's a trade. Any profit is the market value of the service minus the market value of factors used to provide it and represents the value created within the transaction. Profit is a good thing.trashbat said:
Scale that up to a whole system and society, and money flows from poor to rich without rich putting in any real effort. That's a widening wealth gap, not the fact that A earns X and B earns Y.
Scale it up, no need to scale anything, and whatever it is that B earns they pay some of it to A for rent. So what?The comment 'without any real effort' is nononsensical and can be ignored.
The person paying rent may be keeping down a good job in a particular area and may well see their own wealth increasing. The wealth increase of the landlord is irrelevant to them unless they have a problem with other people's income and wealth, which has already been mentioned, and is then based on envy (possibly dressed up as whatever passes for socialist egalitarian delusion) since it's literally none of their business.
Justayellowbadge said:
Many landlords start out with a deposit less than an ordinary car.
And of course, they take on no risk whatsoever, and you never hear of them going bust.
Yes indeed and basic enough but will it get through...And of course, they take on no risk whatsoever, and you never hear of them going bust.
trashbat said:
Suppose instead that this wannabe landlord sets up a factory making some new widget, creating thousands of well paid jobs. That has the potential to narrow the gap between rich and poor, although of course it may not.
...clearly not.Using the flexibility of rented accommodation to be housed in an area in which work becomes available may upskill the renter to a point where they can start their own business and provide jobs for others. Not necessarily a factory. There's no difference in terms of potential.
walm said:
You (trashbat) are mad!!
If not, then confused to put it mildly.Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 17th April 15:56
tomw2000 said:
trashbat said:
..the need for which would presumably be a product of the rich/poor gap, no?
I wouldn't presume that, no.Amazingly the bad decisions crew don't tend to get very far but do tend to blame everybody else, as we see on here almost daily.
turbobloke said:
avinalarf said:
I have no problem with some people earning more than me,what does concern me is the widening gap between the rich and poor.
How does that work? To illustrate my point let's keep this from getting personal and consider two earners, A and B.Keep lifestyle and outgoings as very similar or identical for these people A and B.
A earns more than B.
The wealth gap between A and B will increase purely because A earns more. It's inevitable.
How can there be a problem with the result but not the cause?
Apart from that, there's no acceptable universal definition of rich and poor in any case.
If the poor are getting wealthier, whatever poor means, it doesn't matter whether the rich are getting richer faster, except as a point of envy.
If it matters, due to some real or imaginary threat of social unrest, this basically excuses unlawful behaviour predicated on jealousy. For the vast majority of people there are always going to be others earning more and increasing the wealth gap. It's just 'so what'.
What's clear is that the income and wealth of other people is irrelevant to one subgroup in society, this is definitely the case as I'm in that subgroup and have read posts from other PHers saying the same, whereas what other people earn and possess gets another subgroup into a hyper-aggravated state.
The rage subgroup tends to contain socialists to one degree or another but that's another thread.
One does not have to be a socialist to be concerned about the widening gap between the "rich and "poor".
A successful society needs to reward hard work and endeavour commensurately and in a decent society cash reward should /need not be the sole arbiter of success.
I would prefer a society that spread wealth more evenly,for example,in a company that was successful more reward to the workers in that company and less for the shareholders.
You must know that we are subsidising the low pay of many working people through family tax credits etc. surely that cannot be right.
More to say but will leave it at this for fear of boring you.
Taking a snapshot of 'the wealth gap' is absurd. Over a generation anyone who isn't bone idle can move from the bottom 5% to the top 5%. The 'wealth gap' is in large part simply just a generation gap. Almost all of us start out in the bottom 1% with nought then over a lifetime accumulate net assets through work, investment and if you're 'lucky' later on inheritence. And guess what, we're working longer, living longer and healthier, accumulating wealth longer, having children later and bequeathing assets later... of course the gap is going to increase!
turbobloke said:
<words>
Sorry to dismiss such a lot of text in one sweeping gesture, but that was a big load of crap.I don't know why, but you seem determined to illustrate the gap as the difference between what two particular people earn. That's great, if society and the economy consists of you and I floating aimlessly and otherwise alone in empty space.
As it is, troubled for a moment by reality, a load of people with the wealth to buy up stock have a significant effect on supply and demand, and as you must be aware, in our dearly beloved model that affects the price of things. Since we don't have much option but to live under a roof of some kind (thanks, Maslow) that means that the rich with the supply have an influence over the poor with the demand, and if it's sufficiently systematic then a gap forms.
But no, you're not interested in that. The rich/poor gap is apparently an isolated affair of the difference between me and the next person, and noting the difference is envy. No such thing as society indeed!
In any system or market there are going to be winners and losers, it's inescapable.
Part of the problem is politicians exploiting the gap for their own ends.
Education is such that it does not prepare most people to become wealthy, it prepares them to slot into the current needs of the country.
A few people realise that being part of the herd is not what they want and make their choices using different criteria.
A "herd person" may work in IT and get a large mortgage and believe that as the price of his house increases he is getting richer.
The problem with this is....everyone else is doing the same. The prices of houses are governed by demand and the ability of lenders to lend. The ability to make a monthly payment is the key, that monthly payment currently consists of more principal than it has historically. In prior years the interest portion was much higher which had a moderating factor on house prices. (lendability, lower int rate means higher loan amount)
A non herd person may see what is occurring earlier enough and decide not to become part of that club.
That doesn't mean that they don't get a mortgage, it means they arrange their finances in such a way that all their income does not go to funding a non realisable asset and a late model car with the correct letter on the plate. That can come later. (and usually does)
Some people are going to hate me for this but....
Part of it is knowing how smart or stupid you are....
It's not a problem not being super smart, the problem is not being realistic about your abilities.
To think you are super smart but have no money and consider all the rich people to have attained wealth through luck is a recipe for a life of mediocrity.
Could be time to look at why those people have what you don't.
Taxing the rich more will not make you wealthier.
Taxing your employer more could mean you looking for a new position
Part of the problem is politicians exploiting the gap for their own ends.
Education is such that it does not prepare most people to become wealthy, it prepares them to slot into the current needs of the country.
A few people realise that being part of the herd is not what they want and make their choices using different criteria.
A "herd person" may work in IT and get a large mortgage and believe that as the price of his house increases he is getting richer.
The problem with this is....everyone else is doing the same. The prices of houses are governed by demand and the ability of lenders to lend. The ability to make a monthly payment is the key, that monthly payment currently consists of more principal than it has historically. In prior years the interest portion was much higher which had a moderating factor on house prices. (lendability, lower int rate means higher loan amount)
A non herd person may see what is occurring earlier enough and decide not to become part of that club.
That doesn't mean that they don't get a mortgage, it means they arrange their finances in such a way that all their income does not go to funding a non realisable asset and a late model car with the correct letter on the plate. That can come later. (and usually does)
Some people are going to hate me for this but....
Part of it is knowing how smart or stupid you are....
It's not a problem not being super smart, the problem is not being realistic about your abilities.
To think you are super smart but have no money and consider all the rich people to have attained wealth through luck is a recipe for a life of mediocrity.
Could be time to look at why those people have what you don't.
Taxing the rich more will not make you wealthier.
Taxing your employer more could mean you looking for a new position
avinalarf said:
I would prefer a society that spread wealth more evenly,for example,in a company that was successful more reward to the workers in that company and less for the shareholders.
So a company does badly they should expect the employees to work for free in order to maintain dividends for shareholders?avinalarf said:
turbobloke said:
avinalarf said:
I have no problem with some people earning more than me,what does concern me is the widening gap between the rich and poor.
How does that work? To illustrate my point let's keep this from getting personal and consider two earners, A and B.Keep lifestyle and outgoings as very similar or identical for these people A and B.
A earns more than B.
The wealth gap between A and B will increase purely because A earns more. It's inevitable.
How can there be a problem with the result but not the cause?
Apart from that, there's no acceptable universal definition of rich and poor in any case.
If the poor are getting wealthier, whatever poor means, it doesn't matter whether the rich are getting richer faster, except as a point of envy.
If it matters, due to some real or imaginary threat of social unrest, this basically excuses unlawful behaviour predicated on jealousy. For the vast majority of people there are always going to be others earning more and increasing the wealth gap. It's just 'so what'.
What's clear is that the income and wealth of other people is irrelevant to one subgroup in society, this is definitely the case as I'm in that subgroup and have read posts from other PHers saying the same, whereas what other people earn and possess gets another subgroup into a hyper-aggravated state.
The rage subgroup tends to contain socialists to one degree or another but that's another thread.
avinalarf said:
A successful society needs to reward hard work and endeavour commensurately and in a decent society cash reward should /need not be the sole arbiter of success.
And it isn't.However in terms of the rich-poor gap people almost always have in mind whether A is earning more than B, or is wealthier than them.
avinalarf said:
I would prefer a society that spread wealth more evenly,for example,in a company that was successful more reward to the workers in that company and less for the shareholders.
The devil is in the detail. What you describe happens in principle anyway. What needs to be considered is where the point is that putting in the considerable effort and taking the substantial risk of setting up in business become too onerous and these companies that can miraculously pay workers more money stop being set up while those in existence struggle to invest and develop - and possibly fail, as worldwide people aren't as deluded as some of the people who think a wealth gap is more important than whether the wider spectrum of people are moving into better positions. The gap between any two people is arbitrary depending on who is chosen, and it's irrelevant to people enjoying a better quality of life. Clearly if sonebody is envious of what another person earns or possesses then this will affect their quality of life but that's their problem. Others should not suffer because of this form of personal inadequacy.avinalarf said:
You must know that we are subsidising the low pay of many working people through family tax credits etc. surely that cannot be right.
It's not my preferred way of doing business either, possibly where we differ is where the responsibility lies for doing something about it.It's mostly down to individuals to make themselves employable and stay that way, unless they have a means of gaining income through enterprise of their own. The government and any company under the sun either cannot be relied on to do anything to help (government) or is not there to be a charity (business) so people need to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions rather than blame others or envy them.
it's the hourglass economy
US has been like this for quite a while and UK is not far behind. At one end you have a very wealthy elite and at the other end you have people permanently scrabbling for a bargain with a decreasing number of people in the middle - and one of the biggest problems is that being in paid employment is no longer a guaranteed escape route from the bottom
US has been like this for quite a while and UK is not far behind. At one end you have a very wealthy elite and at the other end you have people permanently scrabbling for a bargain with a decreasing number of people in the middle - and one of the biggest problems is that being in paid employment is no longer a guaranteed escape route from the bottom
jeff m2 said:
In any system or market there are going to be winners and losers, it's inescapable.
Part of the problem is politicians exploiting the gap for their own ends.
Yes there will always be votes in telling people it's somebody else's fault, that they are victims of society and that you will make them richer on the back of other people. Part of the problem is politicians exploiting the gap for their own ends.
Labour last tried this over a period of 13 years and failed in every way except one, which was to persuade enough people to vote Labour to get them re-elected twice. They increased poverty and wealth gaps very successfully, totally the opposite of what they claimed as their goal.
People will still vote for them
Mr Will said:
What about when A and B start from different places - A is born rich and B is born poor.
A coasts through life whereas B is a grafter who works harder than anyone else in an attempt to get ahead.
What should happen (IMHO) is that B is rewarded for his efforts and will one day equal or surpass A.
The problem comes if A's lower outgoings and greater assets allow him to continue to increase his wealth without effort at a rate that B can never match however hard he works. That is unfair (again IMHO)
'unfair' is a bit whiney but otherwise agreed.A coasts through life whereas B is a grafter who works harder than anyone else in an attempt to get ahead.
What should happen (IMHO) is that B is rewarded for his efforts and will one day equal or surpass A.
The problem comes if A's lower outgoings and greater assets allow him to continue to increase his wealth without effort at a rate that B can never match however hard he works. That is unfair (again IMHO)
Mr Will said:
and worse than that, it removes the incentive for B to work hard for the future.
Balls. Ignoring the shipping business he inherited, my neighbour, A, has probably made more money on his car collection than I will ever earn total in my entire life (double figures of 250's and 275's!) By your logic, B, thats me, has no incentive to ever work again; I'd actually argue the exact opposite is true.trashbat said:
Oversimplified, but you typically and inherently only become a landlord by having wealth
Coming up to age 30, I had pretty much just the clothes I stood up in (and a lot of tales starting "no s
t, there I was..............).Coming back to the real world, I worked my arse off. I bought some shares which paid off handsomely & used the money for a deposit on a rental house. More of the same & I now have a little collection of BTLs.
I don't think I'm the only one to work for what I have rather than inheriting it.
trashbat said:
you use that wealth to make profit from those who have less wealth.
Yes, but those people haven't taken the risks I have or made the sacrifices to get there that I have. You omit that tiny detail.trashbat said:
money flows from poor to rich without rich putting in any real effort.
When I've been on a roof at night in the pissing rain due to a leak, when I've given up a weekend break to fix an electrical problem that wouldn't wait, when I've juggled finances to make it work, when I've spent hours on bank paperwork & legal documents, your comment about little effort rings a bit hollow.If you think it's easy then step up & do it.
fblm said:
Mr Will said:
What about when A and B start from different places - A is born rich and B is born poor.
A coasts through life whereas B is a grafter who works harder than anyone else in an attempt to get ahead.
What should happen (IMHO) is that B is rewarded for his efforts and will one day equal or surpass A.
The problem comes if A's lower outgoings and greater assets allow him to continue to increase his wealth without effort at a rate that B can never match however hard he works. That is unfair (again IMHO)
'unfair' is a bit whiney but otherwise agreed.A coasts through life whereas B is a grafter who works harder than anyone else in an attempt to get ahead.
What should happen (IMHO) is that B is rewarded for his efforts and will one day equal or surpass A.
The problem comes if A's lower outgoings and greater assets allow him to continue to increase his wealth without effort at a rate that B can never match however hard he works. That is unfair (again IMHO)
fblm said:
Mr Will said:
and worse than that, it removes the incentive for B to work hard for the future.
Balls. Ignoring the shipping business he inherited, my neighbour, A, has probably made more money on his car collection than I will ever earn total in my entire life (double figures of 250's and 275's!) By your logic, B, thats me, has no incentive to ever work again; I'd actually argue the exact opposite is true.The incentive to work hard for the future isn't enough though, it needs to be smart work as well as hard work and involve a measure of well-judged risk taking, since the biggest rewards don't just flow from effort. The other two factors play a major role.
Spinning personal wheels on the tarmac of life consumes a lot of effort but goes nowhere.
Also if that incentive to work hard and smart etc is extrinsic rather than intrinsic it won't do much good long-term, certainly not as much.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff