That inequality report

Ooooh, there\’s lot\’s of fun stuff in here.

Figure 2.6 (a) for example.

After we\’ve adjusted for inflation (ie, set everything in 2008 pounds) we find that from 1968 to 2008, for men working full time wages for the have (arrived at by eyeballing the graph):

a) Tenth percentile risen by some 50%, from £200 a week to £300 a week.

b) For the median, risen by over 50% from £300 to £550 ish.

c) Top 10%, risen by over 100%.

So, for men working full time we have definitive proof: the poor have not been getting poorer. The poor have simply been getting rich more slowly.

From women\’s wages the results for the tenth percentile seem even better: around and about a doubling.

Figure 2.7 shows us something very similar to the Piketty and Saetz work on US incomes over similar periods. The huge growth at the top has been concentrated in the top 1%, even more so in the top 0.5% (and P&S shows even futher, the top 0.1% and even 0.01%.). This is presumably globalisation in action. (They have several interesting pages about this actually, although fail to note the globalisation issue.)

Oh, and, yes, as with the earlier posts, they do indeed deliberately fail to include State pensions in determining wealth at retirement age.

1 thought on “That inequality report”

  1. There’s an interesting posting by the “city unslicker” at [email protected] concerning what the report says, and, more ot the point, what it doesn’t say… There’s no mention whatsoever of the effect that imigration and emigration have by skewing the figures. He suggests that at the same time that we’ve imported large numbers of unskilled / unemployable imigrants, we’ve had an exodus of the “moderately rich” – which has unbalanced the figures. In general, very rich imigrants don’t get into the figures as they’re classed as “non doms” so the net effect is to shove the median and average down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *