Do we live in a Meritocracy?
Is it getting better or worse? Do you care if we do?
Discuss.
For what it is worth I think we try to be a meritocracy but fail.
I can just about reconcile that people who have been through the Public School system have an inbuilt confidence that I (for one) just don't have.
What I struggle with is when I see incompetent people constantly being employed at senior levels that they have previously failed at (or even sacked from). This is not exclusively aimed at those who have benefited from a Public School, partly because I don't know many, but my experience suggests that their is a class bias.
And yes I do have a chip on my shoulder about it.
Comments
-
No.5
-
I think it's better, a little.Cordoban Addick said:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/14/britain-meritocracy-graduate-earnings-social-mobility
Is it getting better or worse? Do you care if we do?
Discuss.
For what it is worth I think we try to be a meritocracy but fail.
I can just about reconcile that people who have been through the Public School system have an inbuilt confidence that I (for one) just don't have.
What I struggle with is when I see incompetent people constantly being employed at senior levels that they have previously failed at (or even sacked from). This is not exclusively aimed at those who have benefited from a Public School, partly because I don't know many, but my experience suggests that their is a class bias.
And yes I do have a chip on my shoulder about it.
On the one hand, the fact that The Guardian employed someone called Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, does on the surface, rather prove the point. They could have got someone competent to do it instead (but might not have got the same answer).
On the other hand, this article on the degrees that end up paying best, seems to indicate we do have a meritocracy.
telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/03/14/graduate-jobs-top-10-degree-subjects-by-lifetime-salary/medicine-and-dentistry/
I say that because it's difficult imagining the Tarquins and Rhiannons of the world actually doing much of that stuff.
0 -
So we should have equal opportunities and social mobility, although we discriminate against people called Rhiannon because their names suggests that they are independently educatedcafcfan said:
I think it's better, a little.Cordoban Addick said:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/14/britain-meritocracy-graduate-earnings-social-mobility
Is it getting better or worse? Do you care if we do?
Discuss.
For what it is worth I think we try to be a meritocracy but fail.
I can just about reconcile that people who have been through the Public School system have an inbuilt confidence that I (for one) just don't have.
What I struggle with is when I see incompetent people constantly being employed at senior levels that they have previously failed at (or even sacked from). This is not exclusively aimed at those who have benefited from a Public School, partly because I don't know many, but my experience suggests that their is a class bias.
And yes I do have a chip on my shoulder about it.
On the one hand, the fact that The Guardian employed someone called Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, does on the surface, rather prove the point. They could have got someone competent to do it instead (but might not have got the same answer).
On the other hand, this article on the degrees that end up paying best, seems to indicate we do have a meritocracy.
telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/03/14/graduate-jobs-top-10-degree-subjects-by-lifetime-salary/medicine-and-dentistry/
I say that because it's difficult imagining the Tarquins and Rhiannons of the world actually doing much of that stuff.1 -
I think it is easy to generalise about public schools.Cordoban Addick said:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/14/britain-meritocracy-graduate-earnings-social-mobility
Is it getting better or worse? Do you care if we do?
Discuss.
For what it is worth I think we try to be a meritocracy but fail.
I can just about reconcile that people who have been through the Public School system have an inbuilt confidence that I (for one) just don't have.
What I struggle with is when I see incompetent people constantly being employed at senior levels that they have previously failed at (or even sacked from). This is not exclusively aimed at those who have benefited from a Public School, partly because I don't know many, but my experience suggests that their is a class bias.
And yes I do have a chip on my shoulder about it.
I would agree that the 'successful' (by successful I mean those who were outstanding academically, on the sportsfield or musically etc) products of public schools, from those I have met anyway, can sometimes have the inbuilt confidence you describe.
However not all public schoolchildren are 'successful' at school and the weight of expectation emphasises and exaggerates their 'failures' so that, contrary to what you say, they actually lack confidence to their detriment because of the perception that they are 'failures' relative to their peers that they carry with them.
In a long working life I have encountered both types.1 -
To an extent, I think that those who work hardest to achieve something generally do better than those who just coast along. However, as I'm sure we've all seen as evident in our everyday lives, those with friends in high places have more doors open to them.
It's just a fact of life. "It's not what you know..."0 -
First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.0 -
And Tarquins, but only because they are otters that can't spell....wmcf123 said:
So we should have equal opportunities and social mobility, although we discriminate against people called Rhiannon because their names suggests that they are independently educatedcafcfan said:
I think it's better, a little.Cordoban Addick said:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/14/britain-meritocracy-graduate-earnings-social-mobility
Is it getting better or worse? Do you care if we do?
Discuss.
For what it is worth I think we try to be a meritocracy but fail.
I can just about reconcile that people who have been through the Public School system have an inbuilt confidence that I (for one) just don't have.
What I struggle with is when I see incompetent people constantly being employed at senior levels that they have previously failed at (or even sacked from). This is not exclusively aimed at those who have benefited from a Public School, partly because I don't know many, but my experience suggests that their is a class bias.
And yes I do have a chip on my shoulder about it.
On the one hand, the fact that The Guardian employed someone called Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, does on the surface, rather prove the point. They could have got someone competent to do it instead (but might not have got the same answer).
On the other hand, this article on the degrees that end up paying best, seems to indicate we do have a meritocracy.
telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/03/14/graduate-jobs-top-10-degree-subjects-by-lifetime-salary/medicine-and-dentistry/
I say that because it's difficult imagining the Tarquins and Rhiannons of the world actually doing much of that stuff.4 -
Why is it an advert for Grammar schools? What is the evidence for that.cafcnick1992 said:First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.0 -
The bit about Grammar schools seems to be fairly accepted, and Labour did attempt to prevent Grammar schools from expanding; even canvassing the Lib Dems for support. Unfortunately, even Conservative support for them seems to have gone though.Cordoban Addick said:
Why is it an advert for Grammar schools? What is the evidence for that.cafcnick1992 said:First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.
Ultimately this is a real shame, as the ability to attend a different school via sitting an entrance exam is incredibly more inclusive than having to pay to attend another one.0 -
Contemporary system is Moneyocracy .. If you've got lots you'll buy your children a good education and career, and you'll be able to shield and insulate them and yourself from the hoi polloi ..
nationality and race are becoming irrelevant for the mega rich, their network clubs just exploit the 99.9% who must work or otherwise struggle for a living ...
anyway, robots will be doing 90% of ALL work in some twenty years time, so the 'workers' will become irrelevant ..
the latter day Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Elon Musks (et al) of the world will be more powerful and relevant than governments, or rather they will assert more and more control over governments whichever 'nation' those governments purport to 'rule' ..
SOOOO one could argue that a type of 'meritocracy' is in place .. clever people making mega money .. BUT .. meritocracy soon transforms into Nouveau Aristocracy .. see above0 -
Sponsored links:
-
We are run by incompetent politicians many of whom went to public school. We are becoming increasingly unequal and there is less social mobility - we don't benefit from this as mediocrity often works its way to the top due to nepotism.
Britain like the US is increasingly becoming a 'winner takes all' society where short termism and self-interest dominate. We have an appalling attitude towards industry which leaves Britain overly dependent on foreign investment - the rate we're going at we'll soon have no assets left.5 -
The privileged and middle classes are everything that is wrong with this country, whereas the working-classes are honest, broad - minded, hard-working, selfless and not remotely self - pitying or irresponsible for their own actions.4
-
I see your point. There are good and bad in all types. However it's not the working classes who have been in charge of the country since the late seventies...Redskin said:The privileged and middle classes are everything that is wrong with this country, whereas the working-classes are honest, broad - minded, hard-working, selfless and not remotely self - pitying or irresponsible for their own actions.
0 -
No. We don't.0
-
As ever, whose merit?0
-
Both Thatcher and Major came from working- class backgrounds.Algarveaddick said:
I see your point. There are good and bad in all types. However it's not the working classes who have been in charge of the country since the late seventies...Redskin said:The privileged and middle classes are everything that is wrong with this country, whereas the working-classes are honest, broad - minded, hard-working, selfless and not remotely self - pitying or irresponsible for their own actions.
As for the Tories, you only have to look at the election thread on this forum to see how many of the working-classes voted in a public school toff and his chums for another term...
2 -
Grammar schools in theory may be a sound idea, but you now have a lot of parents who pay for private tutors to train their child to pass the 11+. Some of the grammar schools also still have the distance rule from the residential property to school (an extra criteria to passing the exam), so you then have the scenario in certain areas of parents buying a house near the school and bumping up property prices to unaffordable levels. Combine this with other parents generally not being switched on with how the system works, and the whole thing is suddenly not quite as inclusive as you'd think.LuckyReds said:
The bit about Grammar schools seems to be fairly accepted, and Labour did attempt to prevent Grammar schools from expanding; even canvassing the Lib Dems for support. Unfortunately, even Conservative support for them seems to have gone though.Cordoban Addick said:
Why is it an advert for Grammar schools? What is the evidence for that.cafcnick1992 said:First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.
Ultimately this is a real shame, as the ability to attend a different school via sitting an entrance exam is incredibly more inclusive than having to pay to attend another one.3 -
Not true. Anyone who lives anywhere can attend a grammar school. In fact the problem you described is that of comprehensive schools - the best ones are surrounded by homes that working class people cannot afford!EdgeleyAddick said:
Grammar schools in theory may be a sound idea, but you now have a lot of parents who pay for private tutors to train their child to pass the 11+. Some of the grammar schools also still have the distance rule from the residential property to school (an extra criteria to passing the exam), so you then have the scenario in certain areas of parents buying a house near the school and bumping up property prices to unaffordable levels. Combine this with other parents generally not being switched on with how the system works, and the whole thing is suddenly not quite as inclusive as you'd think.LuckyReds said:
The bit about Grammar schools seems to be fairly accepted, and Labour did attempt to prevent Grammar schools from expanding; even canvassing the Lib Dems for support. Unfortunately, even Conservative support for them seems to have gone though.Cordoban Addick said:
Why is it an advert for Grammar schools? What is the evidence for that.cafcnick1992 said:First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.
Ultimately this is a real shame, as the ability to attend a different school via sitting an entrance exam is incredibly more inclusive than having to pay to attend another one.
We talk about wanting a meritocracy - I suggest schools for those who work hard and I get criticised!!0 -
No, for example, if there are 200 places and 250 pass the exam then it's done on distance.cafcnick1992 said:
Not true. Anyone who lives anywhere can attend a grammar school. In fact the problem you described is that of comprehensive schools - the best ones are surrounded by homes that working class people cannot afford!EdgeleyAddick said:
Grammar schools in theory may be a sound idea, but you now have a lot of parents who pay for private tutors to train their child to pass the 11+. Some of the grammar schools also still have the distance rule from the residential property to school (an extra criteria to passing the exam), so you then have the scenario in certain areas of parents buying a house near the school and bumping up property prices to unaffordable levels. Combine this with other parents generally not being switched on with how the system works, and the whole thing is suddenly not quite as inclusive as you'd think.LuckyReds said:
The bit about Grammar schools seems to be fairly accepted, and Labour did attempt to prevent Grammar schools from expanding; even canvassing the Lib Dems for support. Unfortunately, even Conservative support for them seems to have gone though.Cordoban Addick said:
Why is it an advert for Grammar schools? What is the evidence for that.cafcnick1992 said:First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.
Ultimately this is a real shame, as the ability to attend a different school via sitting an entrance exam is incredibly more inclusive than having to pay to attend another one.
We talk about wanting a meritocracy - I suggest schools for those who work hard and I get criticised!!0 -
Sponsored links:
-
cafcnick1992 said:
Not true. Anyone who lives anywhere can attend a grammar school. In fact the problem you described is that of comprehensive schools - the best ones are surrounded by homes that working class people cannot afford!EdgeleyAddick said:
Grammar schools in theory may be a sound idea, but you now have a lot of parents who pay for private tutors to train their child to pass the 11+. Some of the grammar schools also still have the distance rule from the residential property to school (an extra criteria to passing the exam), so you then have the scenario in certain areas of parents buying a house near the school and bumping up property prices to unaffordable levels. Combine this with other parents generally not being switched on with how the system works, and the whole thing is suddenly not quite as inclusive as you'd think.LuckyReds said:
The bit about Grammar schools seems to be fairly accepted, and Labour did attempt to prevent Grammar schools from expanding; even canvassing the Lib Dems for support. Unfortunately, even Conservative support for them seems to have gone though.Cordoban Addick said:
Why is it an advert for Grammar schools? What is the evidence for that.cafcnick1992 said:First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.
Ultimately this is a real shame, as the ability to attend a different school via sitting an entrance exam is incredibly more inclusive than having to pay to attend another one.
We talk about wanting a meritocracy - I suggest schools for those who work hard and I get criticised!!
Asking for evidence is not criticising!1 -
I know that as it is the Guardian it will be instantly dismissed by some but they are reporting that Grammar schools do not help meritocracy http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/grammar-schools-social-mobility-deluded-thinking
The Tory supporting Independent thinks the same though.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/academies-increase-divisions-between-the-rich-and-poor-study-finds-segregation-made-worse-by-a-wider-8797105.html0 -
Those issues aren't really specific to Grammar schools - families that can afford private tutors are already at an advantage, and nearly every school has a catchment area as far as I know. (Even the primary school my girlfriend teaches in has to turn children away from reception due to this)EdgeleyAddick said:
Grammar schools in theory may be a sound idea, but you now have a lot of parents who pay for private tutors to train their child to pass the 11+. Some of the grammar schools also still have the distance rule from the residential property to school (an extra criteria to passing the exam), so you then have the scenario in certain areas of parents buying a house near the school and bumping up property prices to unaffordable levels. Combine this with other parents generally not being switched on with how the system works, and the whole thing is suddenly not quite as inclusive as you'd think.LuckyReds said:
The bit about Grammar schools seems to be fairly accepted, and Labour did attempt to prevent Grammar schools from expanding; even canvassing the Lib Dems for support. Unfortunately, even Conservative support for them seems to have gone though.Cordoban Addick said:
Why is it an advert for Grammar schools? What is the evidence for that.cafcnick1992 said:First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.
Ultimately this is a real shame, as the ability to attend a different school via sitting an entrance exam is incredibly more inclusive than having to pay to attend another one.
At the Grammar school I attended two of my close friends relied upon free school meals and subsidised/free coach travel too, this wasn't too rare either. The children largely reflected the area that they lived in - as you've noted regarding the catchment areas, this isn't surprising at all.
If the parents don't understand the selection process then that's simply worrying, as you would assume that their child's education would be important enough to do warrant research - not to mention, I'm under the impression that most primary schools give parents information on these issues. I suspect that should a parent not take the time to read that literature then the child needs more help than a good school, as that parents attitude is worrying and implies more about the level of support the child will get from their own family.
With that in mind, I really can't agree with you about how inclusive they are.0 -
I have a nature/nurture hypothesis about this which goes - we have increasingly become a meritocracy over several decades particularly from the 1960's. However what that means is that instead of peoples' class (environment) determining their outcome, their intelligence does instead (other characteristics too but intelligence is strongly correlated with material success). Genes explain roughly 50% of the variation in intelligence, so over time all those smart working class kids got the opportunity to improve themselves through a more meritocratic environment and took their 'intelligence genes' up into the middle and upper-middle social classes where they mated with people with similar genetic advantages producing the next generation of people likely to succeed. So all a meritocracy does is replace a stratified class system based on environmental factors with a stratified class system based on genetic factors. It doesn't in the long run increase mobility. On the basis of this argument you could say that people aren't successful because they go to private school, they go to private school because they are successful (or have the genetic inheritance that makes them more likely to be successful). Of course chance, vestigial environmental factors and increasingly wealth inequality all muddy the water (and I suspect may explain the 'same university, different outcome' finding) but I think the Guardian writer assumes that everyone is naturally born equal and in a real meritocracy origin would not be a determinant of destination, and I think that is a false assumption.2
-
The first argument is that there are children passing the 11+ exam because their parents can afford to pay private tutors to coach them to pass the exam.LuckyReds said:
Those issues aren't really specific to Grammar schools - families that can afford private tutors are already at an advantage, and nearly every school has a catchment area as far as I know. (Even the primary school my girlfriend teaches in has to turn children away from reception due to this)EdgeleyAddick said:
Grammar schools in theory may be a sound idea, but you now have a lot of parents who pay for private tutors to train their child to pass the 11+. Some of the grammar schools also still have the distance rule from the residential property to school (an extra criteria to passing the exam), so you then have the scenario in certain areas of parents buying a house near the school and bumping up property prices to unaffordable levels. Combine this with other parents generally not being switched on with how the system works, and the whole thing is suddenly not quite as inclusive as you'd think.LuckyReds said:
The bit about Grammar schools seems to be fairly accepted, and Labour did attempt to prevent Grammar schools from expanding; even canvassing the Lib Dems for support. Unfortunately, even Conservative support for them seems to have gone though.Cordoban Addick said:
Why is it an advert for Grammar schools? What is the evidence for that.cafcnick1992 said:First of all, this is an excellent advert for grammar schools which confusingly, the left despises.
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.
Ultimately this is a real shame, as the ability to attend a different school via sitting an entrance exam is incredibly more inclusive than having to pay to attend another one.
At the Grammar school I attended two of my close friends relied upon free school meals and subsidised/free coach travel too, this wasn't too rare either. The children largely reflected the area that they lived in - as you've noted regarding the catchment areas, this isn't surprising at all.
If the parents don't understand the selection process then that's simply worrying, as you would assume that their child's education would be important enough to do warrant research - not to mention, I'm under the impression that most primary schools give parents information on these issues. I suspect that should a parent not take the time to read that literature then the child needs more help than a good school, as that parents attitude is worrying and implies more about the level of support the child will get from their own family.
With that in mind, I really can't agree with you about how inclusive they are.
The second, slightly more questionable, argument is that property prices are increasing around a number of grammar schools because there are more of the middle classes paying for their children to be privately trained in order to pass the 11+ and so the grammar schools themselves are having to discriminate on distance.
As for parents being "given information" and "taking time to read...literature" - well you and me would of course do this, but sadly I have to say there are some out there who would not.0 -
-
No.0
-
In my lifetime there has been a marked change in the social mobility of the working class getting access to the middle management jobs that used to be the preserve of the "middle class". In that sense we are far more a meritocracy than ever in the past.
if we are talking about the gap between the super rich and the rest it's not a problem that is think is solved by targeting social mobility. The gap is down to the having access to already created wealth, not through being able to create it because of the school you went to. Access to the sort of wealth that is material is not through a well paid job, but being admitted to a closed shop family fortune. That fortune will likely be tied up in ownership of businesses. Like it or not, you can't re-distribute that wealth as cash payouts without breaking up the business that provides jobs and economic activity
It's existing wealth accumulated over generations and tied up n businesses that sends most children to Eton and Oxford which then gives them access to the top jobs in professions and so a higher income. You can no more blamed for being income rich as you can for being income poor. But the income gap between working individuals is not the issue, the issue is the wealth gap which is all about asset ownership, not salary differential. Going to Eton and Oxford might make you well off, but it does not guarantee you will be super rich. You are already likely to be in the super rich closed shop of your family. Is there any evidence that working class graduates from Oxford doing the same job as those from wealthy families are lower paid - I doubt it.
Only a minority of the super rich get that rich from a salary, most are business owners or children just spending the family fortune.
If you are pulled out of the gutter and sent to Eton and Oxford you might get a well paid job but you do not suddenly get admitted to share in a family business or property empire. Surely the point is whether such an individual should be unhappy seeing the CEO of a corporate giant earning £100m and him only earning £200k a year. Should he be unhappy because a Guardian journalist says it's not fair?
I think the focus should be on the level of low wages employers are able to justify compared to the high wages of senior managers and directors within companies. That is where a realistic re-distribution of wealth is achievable.
Wealth is easily perceived as cash when in fact it is paper value which if tied up in economic activity it can't be just siphoned off and handed out. In some ways it's irrelevant whether wealth is shared between 1m individuals or 100m individuals, it's about ensuring that the assets representing that wealth are used to benefit as many people as possible with economic activity providing well paid jobs.
5 -
Are you saying that the working classes have been in charge of the country for the past 36 years then?Redskin said:
Both Thatcher and Major came from working- class backgrounds.Algarveaddick said:
I see your point. There are good and bad in all types. However it's not the working classes who have been in charge of the country since the late seventies...Redskin said:The privileged and middle classes are everything that is wrong with this country, whereas the working-classes are honest, broad - minded, hard-working, selfless and not remotely self - pitying or irresponsible for their own actions.
As for the Tories, you only have to look at the election thread on this forum to see how many of the working-classes voted in a public school toff and his chums for another term...1 -
I think they are both all to rare examples of a meritocracy working but I do not think either of them was working class.Algarveaddick said:
Are you saying that the working classes have been in charge of the country for the past 36 years then?Redskin said:
Both Thatcher and Major came from working- class backgrounds.Algarveaddick said:
I see your point. There are good and bad in all types. However it's not the working classes who have been in charge of the country since the late seventies...Redskin said:The privileged and middle classes are everything that is wrong with this country, whereas the working-classes are honest, broad - minded, hard-working, selfless and not remotely self - pitying or irresponsible for their own actions.
As for the Tories, you only have to look at the election thread on this forum to see how many of the working-classes voted in a public school toff and his chums for another term...
Unfortunately I believe that the decline of meritocracy in the UK began with MTs policies and not enough enough was done to reverse the decline under Major, Blair and Brown. Things have declined sharply under Cameron and Clegg but (like a lot of things) it plays out over decades so we might not 'notice' how bad it has got for a while.0
