The true wealth of the people!

Things have certainly become more modernized, but i'm not so sure you can say we're all 'richer'.
The system we have massively favours those at the top, at the expense of everyone else.
I've mentioned it before but this is a society which is designed to make the rich and powerful, more rich and powerful. Then those same people will tell you 'you can't change it'.

We have a society where Chief Executives get a 21% pay rise and nurses who perform admirable roles, work long hours, fly over to Africa and put themselves at risk to help others get a 1% pay rise.

A society where we focus all our attention and hate on people abusing the system at the bottom yet continue to allow tax evasion and tax avoidance at the top. In fact you even have some of the main culprits funding our main political parties.

We have a society which allows people such as Jonny Nash to donate money to the Tories and then get favourable healthcare legislation and a society where Bernie Eccelstone donated money to Blair, and was allowed to have cigarettes advertise at F1, even though it was 'banned' from all sports.

A society where corporations pay zero percent tax and then put their workers on zero hour contracts.
A society where a million use a food bank and bankers get huge bonuses.

We have people calling for disability benefits to be cut and as there's no money left and at the same time calling for taxes to be cut at the top and a society where we don't mind removing housing benefits sharply and throwing people onto the streets while at the same time shrieking of taxing a small amount on those who live in mansions.

We believe in social mobility, but this country is far from a meritocracy, if you're rich the chances were that you were born rich and if you're born poor, the chances are you'll stay poor. Yes some people climb the ladder, but they're few and far between and quite often, they pull the ladder up after themselves. Look at colleges such as Oxford and Cambridge. Overwhelmingly dominated by private school and public school kids from privileged backgrounds, these are the same guy who'll go on to be our politicians and the business leaders of the future.
We have a government full of millionaires, cutting public services and benefits and then having the audacity to claim 'we're all in this together'.


Look at the Tory and Labour front benches, how many went to Oxbridge? How many didn't?


This isn't a party partisan rant. Yes we've overall become wealthier as a society but that wealth is still firmly and almost exclusively enjoyed and controlled by a few.

I was sitting in my kitchen this afternoon, reading the papers and munching on a succulent clementine satsuma and it occurred to me how privileged I am, and indeed wealthy, compared to someone sitting in their kitchen in 1949.

In 1949, for the average working family, eating a satsuma was a wondrous treat, perhaps only done once a year; working class families often gave their children as their Christmas present a piece of fruit. For your average working man, a satsuma was an expensive indulgence, it would cost as much perhaps as much as a few packets of cigarettes (for comparison, imagine it cost 15 pounds in today's money)

On the other hand, today I can pick up a whole bag of clementines for a couple of pounds. Indeed, I can easily purchase more clementines than I care to eat, and it a very low price. That my fellow TSRians is true wealth; or rather, it's a true increase in wealth.

Another example is when my Mum first moved from Australia to the UK as an adult in her early 20s (she was born here, then the family moved to Australia), she could usually afford to make one international long-distance call home a month. It was astoundingly expensive, the lines were often fuzzy (they were passed over communications satellites) and they had to be short and sweet. Now, I can call home to my Mum, or anyone, on Skype, with full view of one another, for nothing. I call that a true increase in wealth / living standard.

If an average working man of the 1940s were to peer into my life today, he would think in some ways I live the life of a millionaire of his day. In fact, I can do and enjoy many things a millionaire of his day could not (my access to general open-source information, for example, exceeds that of any man in 1949 in terms of speed of provision and volume). The average person today is healthier, freer, longer lived, better clothed, better housed, better educated and safer.

When you look at many aspects of our lives today, our society and political structure (social democratic capitalism; a free market consensually saddled by a safety net and regulatory oversight) has delivered astounding increases in the wealth. The material comforts of the average person today would suggest that the aims of the politicians of decades ago were, on the whole, successful; they created a remarkable society, much more comfortable, tolerant, peaceful and free than 'ere it was. I do believe that inequality and wealth gaps are important, but it does bear thinking about the absolute increases in the material wealth and comfort of the ordinary person.

I say this to attempt to give some perspective to the people who moan that all politicians are completely corrupt and incompetent, that everything is awful and everyone is part of a conspiracy. In actual fact, the society the politicians of the 50s, 60s and 70s promised us (as far as the conditions of the average man, or average family) has been fulfilled. The important thing now is to recognise what a remarkable and precious society we have created, and ensure we can both conserve what we have now and continue to evolve in the way that has brought us such prosperity, safety, comfort and freedom.

I think your right OP. Despite the grievances we all have with the system from time to time, we have seen substantial increases in wealth over time. Today I could cover my needs for about a grand in Leeds so even with an average wage (around 2k per month,) I have plenty to spend on TV's and luxury clothes. Not to mention that over time many goods have indeed got cheaper. People complain about food but between 1980 and 2005 food prices in real terms fell a fair wack.

Personally I expect to die substantially more wealthy than my parents so to others I don't buy this lack of social mobility or not buying a house nonsense. Just buy up north.

What about in terms of purchasing houses, are you better off or worse off?

And in terms of weighting, what is more important, a home or a PS/2?

What about in terms of purchasing houses, are you better off or worse off?

And in terms of weighting, what is more important, a home or a PS/2?

I'm not convinced that your economics is sound. The 1949 fruit price could just be an anomaly derived from war shortages. Even back in the Garden of Eden, fruit was plentiful. In less developed economies fruits and naturally grown products are the cheapest thing to buy, and are usually cheaper than manufactured products like washing powder or cigarettes. If you go to a market in African or South American counties there will be plenty of fruit seller selling at very low prices.

Plus cigarettes have had substantial tax increases since 1949 so they are not a basis for comparison.

I would have hoped for better analytical skills to come out of the British education system.

Page 18 shows the historic drop in food prices.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315418/foodpocketbook-2013update-29may14.pdf

Anecdotally, I remmeber as a kid being timed on the telephone as it cost that much. The op is making some genuine points. Society is continually complaining, but often failing to reflect how far we've come.

Why is it so different for the working classes?

I remember the estate I grew up (mining community) very few people could afford cars. After thatcher ripped the heart out of it car ownership, life expectancy and foreign holidays went up.

Do you have any substantive viewpoint to offer? Or is it limited to, "I don't know why, but I don't like it"?

By the way, you're a UKIP supporter, right?

What exactly is your grievance against British society?

I was sitting in my kitchen this afternoon, reading the papers and munching on a succulent clementine satsuma and it occurred to me how privileged I am, and indeed wealthy, compared to someone sitting in their kitchen in 1949.

Nope.

I don't have any grievances against British society. You didn't talk about British society.

"The important thing now is to recognise what a remarkable and precious society we have created, and ensure we can both conserve what we have now and continue to evolve in the way that has brought us such prosperity, safety, comfort and freedom."

Your conclusion isn't applicable to the world. Only to the so called middle class and above. You make it sound like everything is fine. Look at me, I can buy a bag of satsumas and talk to my mum very easily. Life is better than ever guys. Yaaaaay...lol we need to protect this standard of living (even though most of it is at the expense of others)

Expense of what others?
The scenario described is across the board in pretty much all countries (those that aren't sigfering the ravages of war)

You could do wit reading global shift by Dickinson. He succinctly explains how the myth of globalization befitting the minority is actually rubbish. To date, everybody in the world has developed and improved.

Go on. Tell me which nation states or people are worse of in 2014 than they were in 1945?

Yes, technically you can say everyone's life has improved but to what extent has their life improved.

If a football club's position in the league improves they can still be relegated. lol 20th to 19th is an improvement. So your stupid decontextualized statement makes sense if you disregard the overall position of the football club after the improvement of their position in the league.

As I add context to your argument, it exposes the weaknesses of your statement since it is unfinished and missing relevant information.

I am aware that you will not be able to process what I have said since you are restricted by your narrow mindedness. Don't be offended. Just take it in. Understand what I am saying and you could start thinking in the same way I do.

I presume you may not acknowledge what I have said just because it doesn't fit with your method of analysis.

Your argument about many being from public schools is correct but nothing wrong in them attending Oxbridge (if we want our politicians to be academically intelligent)


Posted from TSR Mobile

There is nothing wrong with going to Oxford no, but there is something wrong when our government is full of the same group of friends who went to Eton (one of the richest schools in the country) and then went to Oxford (the most privileged university).

None of them have any 'real-life' experience. They were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and have been given every opportunity in life. They don't understand what it's like to grow up on a council estate without a dad, or what it's like to struggle to pay the bills. They are so out of touch.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to govern, but there has to be more of a mix, people from different backgrounds, different universities, heck why not some people who didn't even go to university?

So you can't say which People are worse off in 2014 that they were in 1946 through progress?

I feel better off. Cheapest mortgage rates in history.