« On wage ratio policies | Main | On defences and attacks on economics »

January 12, 2017


Dave Timoney

Michael O'Connor also made the point that a disproportionate increase in poorer households can paradoxically result in narrowing inequality between the top and bottom quintiles, essentially because the top 5th expands to include more households that were previously in the 4th.

See: https://medium.com/@StrongerInNos/more-or-less-equal-c6c16fb533f5#.8xpvg15li

What we should also ask of statistics is why they are presented in a particular way, given that this is potentially subject to ideological bias - e.g. the occlusion of the top 1% by using quintiles instead of centiles.


The greatest variation is within the top percentile (a finer grained measure is required).

Apparently £140K will get you into the top 1%, however Martin Sorrel of WPP remuneration of £70 millions or £14 million for the head of BP.



It may be an outlier but £70 million represents 1444 times the average WPP employee salary.

Statistics embody value judgments (Facts are no enough), in the selection, presentation and assumptions.

Blind stateist policies are resistant to gaming.
A cap on income from any source is much harder to avoid than more complex policies.

Wilt Chamberlain playing in a public park is unlikely to accumulate $250,000. He is the beneficiary of a winner take all system where the broadcast media, brings his performance to the attention of a large percentage of the population. It is society that provides the infrastructure and should not be expected to contribute further.

The status quo involves controlled access to the performance both physically and electronically, with copyright providing a (absolute and exclusive) monopoly.

Singing in the shower (at home), no matter how good, will not reach an audience beyond your immediate family. D2 fails because of the social expectation of payment for watching a televised performance, as currently required by copyright.

Salary is a reflection of status and power.


The Guardian has an analysis of the figures:

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies said 20 years ago only one in 20 men aged 25 to 55 worked part-time with low hourly wages. Today one in five of this group works part-time.

Meanwhile the proportion of middle and high–wage men working part-time remains low at less than 1 in 20, which the thinktank said showed that earnings inequality among men had risen significantly over a single generation.

Jonathan Cribb, an IFS economist, said: "The number of low-wage men working part time has increased sharply over the past 20 years. To understand the drivers of inequality in the UK it is vital to understand the growing association between low hourly wages and low hours of work among men.""

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad