Extreme Wealth Inequality


eat the rich



Unemployment benefits don’t remotely cover basic life costs for most people in society, apart from those already at the bottom, for whom it probably is a profit.

The costs of giving people a new education are not remotely limited to teaching itself. Most of the costs are related to letting them continue their life (eg. in the same house)


The minimum wage for an 18 yr old is lower than that for a 25 yr old doing exactly the same thing. Age related pay I don’t really know how to explain that more.

Nice graph. I try my best to reply relevantly, if you dont understand how a point is relevant please ask me to go into greater detail on that rather than trying to put me down.

True although I suspect nobody gets unemployment benefit alone. May I suggest unemployment benefit becomes tapered then? When you are 1st made unemployed it starts at 70% (random figure and am open to improvements) of previous average wages and falls over time to an agreed limit.
Yes it might cost more short term but will give the person concerned more stability to concentrate on reskilling rather than immediately moving house.


There are multiple ways to look at it. You can say that because more equality correlates with more growth we should artificially enhance equality. You can also say that more growth leads to more equality. I see it as a cycle. At the beginning of a profitable ideas’ life, many will invest, some will lose, and some will strike it rich. Then rich people will buy the idea, eventually making it affordable. At that point the general public can benefit. It is only natural that few are enormously successful. They enable success and access to affordable amenities for everyone.


Yes, because as we know, everyone follows laws, societal discrimination doesn’t exist and all-in-all all human beings, especially employers, are good-at-heart people who want the best for you.

Tell me, which teletubbies port did you come out from?

But you have completely and deliberately avoided answering my point, instead focusing on a specific randomly-mentioned example.

Can’t find any statistics on this but either way as far as I am aware it is not possible to get the full unemployment benefit, or even most of it, if you live with someone else. A total of 775.5 thousand people have claimed the unemployment benefit at some point during 2016, so it’s certainly not a small number.

Besides, how many partners out there would be happy to upkeep a house and children on a single income while their SO goes away for education for years?

Sure but that’s extremely expensive. Think about an unemployed stockbroker - that’s 70 000 down the pan for the government.

Wage insurance would fit better here, but would a government ever be brave enough to make it mandatory?

I agree but you also have to remember that most people in the UK don’t exactly live with 30% ‘disposable’ income, more so living paycheck to paycheck. Any drop in income for most people, keeping in mind half of this country has less than 100 pounds of savings, will result in a significant distruption to life.

It is of course better than the current system for the receiver … but that’s a different matter.

There is no real solution I have in mind. Wage insurance, tax credits for re-entering education/training etc… (as in reduction of tax, not a benefit like working tax credits)


Employers have to follow employment law. And they do, so an 18yr working in Primark (and many other places) earns less than a 25yr ok. That is discrimination and should be changed in my opinion. It’s strange but I agree with equal pay for equal work.

Please stick to being nice; I always try to.[quote=“Cameronism, post:25, topic:111533”]
Besides, how many partners out there would be happy to upkeep a house and children on a single income while their SO goes away for education for years?
They wouldn’t have to, I’m not suggesting education living away, many courses are local and probably take less time per week than full time work so on that level the SO shouldn’t worry. As to paying more in upkeep whilst their partner is unemployed that’s kinda a 2 person social insurance as both would do it for the other.

That’s a poorly paid stockbroker. Stobroker interns are on 52k… but yes it would have higher initial costs than the current system, highly paid people often find employment sooner though.[quote=“Cameronism, post:25, topic:111533”]
Wage insurance would fit better here, but would a government ever be brave enough to make it mandatory?

Absolutely agree I hadn’t thought about that. Many better off already have it (it’s a requirement for some mortgages) but making it a legal obligation would be sensible in the same way as pensions. Good luck to any government that wants to bring it in.

True but the government can never solve that issue entirely as it would create a free rider issue. I would say all advice I’ve been given (school/uni I’m only 22) is that before you invest money you should always have 3 months expenditure as a “rainy day fund” I’ve worked multiple jobs before and saving isn’t impossible.


Murderers also have to follow law, but they don’t.

Law =/= Reality.

If you are seen as too old to do a job on CV or in person, you simply won’t be accepted in many businesses. The law is irrelevant. You can’t prove it was age discrimination.

So someone who has worked in the role for 8 years should earn the same as someone who joined 3 months ago doing the same work?

The average stockbroker earnt £116,104 in 2015.

Think you might be thinking of Caprio in a certain film.

Woah there, where did you get that from? In the US in dollars maybe.

35-40k max entry-level

Without full costs of settling down (real rent, taking on a car) of course it isn’t.


That is a very cynical view and Primark certainly does employ people above 25, can’t say for others.[quote=“Cameronism, post:27, topic:111533”]
So someone who has worked in the role for 8 years should earn the same as someone who joined 3 months ago doing the same work?

Absolutely! So I believe pay increases should be given based on performance rather than seniority. You shouldn’t get a free lunch just because you’ve worked longer.

So over 150% of 70k hence 70k is poor for a stockbroker.
Ahh I see my issue I was working on 70k salary you were doing cost to gov yeah fair you are right.

Um my uni coursemates? Morgan Stanley trading desk interns start on £52k. credit agricole, Goldman, deutshe etc just over £45k-£50k. That’s UK, London based interns. Every year my uni sends 10-20 people to do those internships and I’m not even in a top 5 uk uni.

I pay £800 month rent and own a car. Your point? I argue saving is possible and I am for a house in ~5 years (want it before I’m 30 :stuck_out_tongue: )


How many middle-aged people do they employ? Obese people? Blind people?

Undesirability exists, whether it’s illegal or not.

I mean apart from the fact that you want to flip the corporate world on it’s head in the biggest revolution to employment since the Industrial Revolution, you as an employer would face an outwordly labour turnover if you want to force mediocre workers with no amibition to take year-on-year real earnings losses. Even McDonalds gives a flat non-performance based pay rise year-on-year.

And us here in the West are quite heavily meritocratic compared to countries like Japan and South Korea where pay packets are based on seniority within the firm, with age experience even penetrating up the role and responsibility hierarchy.


Glassdoor.co.uk says 40k dead on.[quote=“josho, post:28, topic:111533”]
credit agricole, deutshe

I refuse to believe these two are anywhere near 50k, especially the former.

Are you by any chance using summer intern salaries and extending them to a hypothetical full-year working time?

Then that’s not really a job, it’s a mere internship, which I assume is a third-year one. They are always offered bumper salaries and always will be. It’s a job marketing scheme aimed at retention. I thought you meant an entry-level internship after you leave university and aim to make a career.

Which one?

Fair enough.


Some middle age, less obese and blind but that’s not age related.[quote=“Cameronism, post:29, topic:111533”]
Even McDonalds gives a flat non-performance based pay rise year-on-year.

Can’t say for McDonald’s but at 2 supermarkets, a theatre and a bar (my previous jobs) pay has not been based on seniority but all on the same level get same pay so not to revolutionary ;)[quote=“Cameronism, post:29, topic:111533”]
Other than my friends contracts which are classified I’m afraid, don’t worry I’m as jealous as the next person!

Nope all are 10-12 month internships. I should add they are in the minority. The median internship pay at my uni is £20.6k the modal is £18k and less than 10% get the hyper competitive stockmarket roles.
I didn’t realise those were offered bumper pay for retention reasons but does make sense, still it’s not bad.



Lucky stockbrokers aside though saving generally is possible- I managed by working part time while at uni. On the off chance that isn’t, income protection insurance for me would cost £26 a month. That is less than the cost of a night out. Could the government afford that tab for everyone? I don’t know. But for individuals it is not hard.


So you’re telling me you had the same compensation as a dude who worked 15 years in the same position?


lmao this is something only someone who is part of the “haves” of society could think

what kind of miserable cuck would live in a dilapidated hovel with no prospects of personal prosperity or upward mobility, and, when staring up at the lights of a magnanimous city not burn with bitter rage at their fate, a rage irreconcilable with promises that the current order of things is best for economic growth?

Did the barbarians sit back and think “Hey, Rome is creating tons of unprecedented economic/civilizational growth, we should just sit out in the cold and turn ourselves over to the dustbin of history.”

No, they rolled the dice and grasped for destiny.


Yes that is exactly what I’m telling you. I had the same compensation (20p over minimum wage) as every other member of staff at my level. So right now there is a 17 yr old girl who is earning the same hourly rate as a 50 odd yr old that has been there for at least 8 years. Because we get paid equal pay for equal work. Honestly that is how most low-wage jobs work in the UK. It was the same in my previous bar job. At the supermarkets you got a 30p pay rise after 6 months but then all other pay rises are on an annual basis, so after 6 months I was on the same pay as people working for 20+ years. The 6 months is to differentiate between seasonal and full time staff.

Is that different to your experience? Have you worked in places where people are paid higher hourly rates based purely on length of time worked? If so can I ask where?


How bourgeois of you.

Decadent capitalist.


> implying the working classes shouldn’t live in “decadent” luxury


> luxury
> communism

Pick one.