It's been a slow couple of days in my head, hence the lack of posting. I've been trying to get back to my increasingly convoluted chronicle of the Space Squids, but that's still a few days away. And since all anybody seems to want to talk about is John Terry, there's not much to talk about out in teh interwebs.
So hurray for this horribly depressing report, sent to me by Chemie, regarding Britain's current level of inequality
Spoiler alert: there's loads of it.
In truth, I'm not sure there's a lot to be added to what's already there. Certainly, much of it is unsurprising: one's ethnic and economic background has a truly ridiculous impact on one's success in school, and hence on one's options in life. Finding statistical evidence for these trends is always valuable, of course, but this is most definitely something to file under "D'uh".
Reading through the article did remind me of something, though. It recalled the radio program I discussed in November that made the claim that Labour supporters traditionally focus on inequality of income, and liberals on inequality of wealth. It's not a position that can't be criticised, to be sure, but as I read through the link above, I did wonder to myself what I should be more bothered about: the fact that the the wealthiest 10% have 100 times what the poorest 10% do, or the fact that the poorest 10% have so little independently of anything else? Am I supposed to be looking at relative wealth, or absolute wealth? And should we be comparing wealth at all, rather than income?
This is why I don't talk very often about economic matters. I find it very difficult to see the links between strands. And since I regularly berate conservatives for not seeing such links either, I tend to keep my mouth shut about these things until such time as I can get into them properly (if I ever do).
So, what's worse? That a poor family has 1% of the worth of a rich one? Or that said worth, including possessions, is around nine grand or less?