Is Britain becoming more meritocratic than America?(economist.com)
economist.com
Is Britain becoming more meritocratic than America?
https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/08/07/is-britain-becoming-more-meritocratic-than-america
74 comments
If Britain were meritocratic the cabinet wouldn't be made out of people who've failed upwards.
> In Britain, it is politically impossible to be prime minister and send your children to the equivalent of a private high school.
They are afforded some privacy, but all of Boris Johnson's "legitimate" children went to private schools as far as I can tell.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1141456/Boris-johnso... (sorry it's the sexpress, but this is fundamentally prurient)
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/08/01/how-many-children-does... "unconfirmed" child
> In Britain, it is politically impossible to be prime minister and send your children to the equivalent of a private high school.
They are afforded some privacy, but all of Boris Johnson's "legitimate" children went to private schools as far as I can tell.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1141456/Boris-johnso... (sorry it's the sexpress, but this is fundamentally prurient)
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/08/01/how-many-children-does... "unconfirmed" child
How is running for election, and then being elected, considered 'failing upwards'?
The people that won those elections are poor performers, bad strategists and often abdicate their responsibilities as leaders. If they were born poorer or lower class, they would not be where they are now.
They win elections with media support, even when taking opposite stances day to day because the people that own and run those media companies... Went to school with them.
It's like a big club, and most of us ain't in it.
But if you are in it, you can be stupid, lazy, incompetent or even outright evil and still succeed, aka, fail upwards.
They win elections with media support, even when taking opposite stances day to day because the people that own and run those media companies... Went to school with them.
It's like a big club, and most of us ain't in it.
But if you are in it, you can be stupid, lazy, incompetent or even outright evil and still succeed, aka, fail upwards.
That only requires they are more popular than the opposition, not that they are popular in an absolute sense, let alone that they are competent at their briefs. The main UK opposition party is… “meh”, in every regard that matters for electoral success.
In the last few weeks the UK press has been running stories about supermarket shelves being empty and a general collapse of the domestic logistics system; while the articles split blame for this between Brexit and the self-isolation requirements created during the pandemic, in both cases the buck stops with the government.
There have been other substantial indicators of incompetence at least since Johnson took office.
Despite this, the government has generally been ahead in the polls.
In the last few weeks the UK press has been running stories about supermarket shelves being empty and a general collapse of the domestic logistics system; while the articles split blame for this between Brexit and the self-isolation requirements created during the pandemic, in both cases the buck stops with the government.
There have been other substantial indicators of incompetence at least since Johnson took office.
Despite this, the government has generally been ahead in the polls.
You don’t get elected to the cabinet
this is specifically about the cabinet.
They have been chosen because they are mostly either stupid, or loyal.
Patel is the only one there because she's a leadership threat (as shes the only one more obviously authoritarian and populist than Johnson)
They have been chosen because they are mostly either stupid, or loyal.
Patel is the only one there because she's a leadership threat (as shes the only one more obviously authoritarian and populist than Johnson)
Uncle Rupert doesn’t let his favourite nieces and nephews fall too far.
I had specific incidents in mind. Boris Johnson has been sacked, twice, for dishonesty: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-13...
> Johnson was hired by the Times through family connections, and fired for a front-page fabrication within months – on his very first front page story
> In November 2004, Boris Johnson was a shadow arts minister under Michael Howard, Conservative Vice-Chair, and editor of the Spectator – when it was reported in multiple tabloids that he had a years-long affair with one of the magazine’s columnists, which had resulted in two terminated pregnancies.
> Johnson publicly stated the allegations were untrue, calling them an “inverted pyramid of piffle”, and made the same assurances they were false to Michael Howard. When proof of the allegations was presented, Howard asked Johnson to resign, only for him to refuse and therefore be fired for dishonesty, for the second time in his career.
[sidebar: I'd forgotten that Michael Howard was editor of the Spectator. It's basically the official opinion journal of the Tory party]
Grant Shapps is another one with a significant career of failures; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/revealed-gr... he ran a spammy business under a false name.
He's also got previous for cryptocurrency bribery https://www.ft.com/content/cd8f78f8-2850-3109-b577-269eedb1e... and a bullying scandal that involved the suicide of a young activist https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grant-shapps-...
Gavin Williamson is a fairly minor offender; his only previous sacking was for leaks, and everybody leaks all the time https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126974
More broadly, the UK has a whole category of unelected legislators - the House Of Lords - who are political appointees, sometimes with money changing hands, who are not accountable to the electorate and cannot be removed. Can't get less meritocratic than that while still being a democracy.
> Johnson was hired by the Times through family connections, and fired for a front-page fabrication within months – on his very first front page story
> In November 2004, Boris Johnson was a shadow arts minister under Michael Howard, Conservative Vice-Chair, and editor of the Spectator – when it was reported in multiple tabloids that he had a years-long affair with one of the magazine’s columnists, which had resulted in two terminated pregnancies.
> Johnson publicly stated the allegations were untrue, calling them an “inverted pyramid of piffle”, and made the same assurances they were false to Michael Howard. When proof of the allegations was presented, Howard asked Johnson to resign, only for him to refuse and therefore be fired for dishonesty, for the second time in his career.
[sidebar: I'd forgotten that Michael Howard was editor of the Spectator. It's basically the official opinion journal of the Tory party]
Grant Shapps is another one with a significant career of failures; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/revealed-gr... he ran a spammy business under a false name.
He's also got previous for cryptocurrency bribery https://www.ft.com/content/cd8f78f8-2850-3109-b577-269eedb1e... and a bullying scandal that involved the suicide of a young activist https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grant-shapps-...
Gavin Williamson is a fairly minor offender; his only previous sacking was for leaks, and everybody leaks all the time https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126974
More broadly, the UK has a whole category of unelected legislators - the House Of Lords - who are political appointees, sometimes with money changing hands, who are not accountable to the electorate and cannot be removed. Can't get less meritocratic than that while still being a democracy.
OP’s suggestion is that Britain is more meritocratic than the USA, so I think your point can coexist with theirs.
[deleted]
> In Britain, it is politically impossible to be prime minister and send your children to the equivalent of a private high school
Whoever wrote this is being a little disingenuous. The pipeline from a handful of private schools to the upper echelons of power (via Oxbridge) in the UK is very well known. The fact that the press wouldn't let the PM away with sending their kids to Eton or Harrow doesn't really change this or make the country more meritocratic, it just means we all pretend they're just like the rest of us for a few years.
Whoever wrote this is being a little disingenuous. The pipeline from a handful of private schools to the upper echelons of power (via Oxbridge) in the UK is very well known. The fact that the press wouldn't let the PM away with sending their kids to Eton or Harrow doesn't really change this or make the country more meritocratic, it just means we all pretend they're just like the rest of us for a few years.
Of course. But it is a significant data point in describing the culture divide between the UK and the US.
The whole topic deserves an entire book. Even then, the answer "who is the most meritocratic" won't receive a straight answer. The point that British culture does not allow the prime minister to send their children to fancy schools is a meaningful one to make, among many others.
It puts the UK closer to the Scandinavian/Northern European countries and the USA closer to less-than-democratic countries (MENA, Africa, Russia, China) on this particular axis.
The whole topic deserves an entire book. Even then, the answer "who is the most meritocratic" won't receive a straight answer. The point that British culture does not allow the prime minister to send their children to fancy schools is a meaningful one to make, among many others.
It puts the UK closer to the Scandinavian/Northern European countries and the USA closer to less-than-democratic countries (MENA, Africa, Russia, China) on this particular axis.
It’s certainly an interesting wee fact but I don’t think it says anything about whether the UK should be considered more or less meritocratic. I think it’s a fig leaf where we get to pretend we are a super progressive country that is smashing its class system, while doing very little to that effect.
To be clear - I don’t care where David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris et al send their kids to school. I care that such schools exist effectively to officially stamp you as a member of the upper class.
Edit: I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m annoyed with you or the original commenter! I have some strong feelings about this but I am aware that you didn’t create this system, that you are not standing up for it or trying to protect it. We’re just having a discussion and as you say it really deserves an entire book
To be clear - I don’t care where David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris et al send their kids to school. I care that such schools exist effectively to officially stamp you as a member of the upper class.
Edit: I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m annoyed with you or the original commenter! I have some strong feelings about this but I am aware that you didn’t create this system, that you are not standing up for it or trying to protect it. We’re just having a discussion and as you say it really deserves an entire book
That's because London has a very good tube system, such is completely absent in the US. Except maybe NYC. Attributing preference for the tube to some sort of moral humility is a stretch.
The quality of the Tube and the bus system is dependent on rich and poor people using it though, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
> The US has a sort of Andy Warhol style egalitarianism of "a coke is a coke and rich and poor alike drink it" going on but not much else.
I think this is the key bit and that's really well put.
I think this is the key bit and that's really well put.
Water is far better for you than a coke any day.
It's like one of the most wide-known facts about Warren Buffet is that he likes fast food and coke and even bought himself a diner. Or that Bill Gates drinks (or drank at some point) at least one can of coke a day. So cute, so down to earth! See, they're just like us!
Frankly, this seems like a weird argument.
By analogy, should not all British politicians also only eat food provided by government food stamps?
By analogy, should not all British politicians also only eat food provided by government food stamps?
> Social mobility stagnated in both countries as the winners from the Thatcher and Reagan revolutions consolidated their gains. But Britain is trying much harder than America to get it going once again. A combination of British angst and American complacency may be the beginning of a great reversal: Britain is becoming more meritocratic, even as America becomes less so.
Doesn't matter. Britain does not have better economic mobility for the middle class. This article offers nothing of substance.
Wages have diverged further from assets (namely real estate) in the UK than in the US.
Tuitions have been going up. The quality of the healthcare system has declined.
In fact it could be argued Britain is less meritocratic, because the system holds back the working class and wage earners far more than the United States. You're taxed at excessive levels, while real estate is extraordinarily expensive.
The economic systems are the same. Just as the rest of the world you're rewarded for the assets you hold. Not the "work" you do.
For many years house prices in London increased faster than the median salary.
You made more holding real estate than working.
The United States need to fix its healthcare system immediately. It's too far drawn out and a major strain the entire economy. Then it needs to invest in infrastructure. Then reorganize its institutions, the judicial system, etc.
Doesn't matter. Britain does not have better economic mobility for the middle class. This article offers nothing of substance.
Wages have diverged further from assets (namely real estate) in the UK than in the US.
Tuitions have been going up. The quality of the healthcare system has declined.
In fact it could be argued Britain is less meritocratic, because the system holds back the working class and wage earners far more than the United States. You're taxed at excessive levels, while real estate is extraordinarily expensive.
The economic systems are the same. Just as the rest of the world you're rewarded for the assets you hold. Not the "work" you do.
For many years house prices in London increased faster than the median salary.
You made more holding real estate than working.
The United States need to fix its healthcare system immediately. It's too far drawn out and a major strain the entire economy. Then it needs to invest in infrastructure. Then reorganize its institutions, the judicial system, etc.
> Britain does not have better economic mobility for the middle class. This article offers nothing of substance.
I think that is not the case. The middle classes in the USA have been hollowed out, mostly down to decreasing wage and increasing costs of healthcare, property and education.
The UK only has one of those problems: property costs.
University is funded by an (unfair) tax, which is transparently aimed at the middle income earner. We are fixated on calling it a loan, when its not. Unlike the USA its not going to bankrupt you.
Healthcare is funded by taxation, and is for the average person significantly more comprehensive than the USA.
In the UK, if you are middle class, then you are most likely alright. if you are working class, then you're fucked, because your jobs don't matter, and the safety net that once existed acts as a 100% tax for single mums with jobs (universal credit).
I think that is not the case. The middle classes in the USA have been hollowed out, mostly down to decreasing wage and increasing costs of healthcare, property and education.
The UK only has one of those problems: property costs.
University is funded by an (unfair) tax, which is transparently aimed at the middle income earner. We are fixated on calling it a loan, when its not. Unlike the USA its not going to bankrupt you.
Healthcare is funded by taxation, and is for the average person significantly more comprehensive than the USA.
In the UK, if you are middle class, then you are most likely alright. if you are working class, then you're fucked, because your jobs don't matter, and the safety net that once existed acts as a 100% tax for single mums with jobs (universal credit).
> The UK only has one of those problems: property costs.
University education in UK (sans Scotland) has gone from zero to GDP 9k a year in fees, the average debt per student is GDP 35k. I know that this quantity and the associated conditions for Americans, or London IT people, sounds like a joke. But AFAIK the average pre-tax graduate job salaries in about GDP 24k.
University education in UK (sans Scotland) has gone from zero to GDP 9k a year in fees, the average debt per student is GDP 35k. I know that this quantity and the associated conditions for Americans, or London IT people, sounds like a joke. But AFAIK the average pre-tax graduate job salaries in about GDP 24k.
Too late cannot edit. Where I put GDP, please read GBP.
The £9k a year figure is mostly smoke and mirrors though. All British citizens are eligible for a tuition "loan" that covers it. That "loan" (and the maintenance loan too) is the equivalent of a graduate tax, as it's a percentage (9% for the current lot of students) charged on income made past a certain amount (above £25,000 for this lot). The loan is wiped 30 years after graduation (this what will happen for the majority of students).
I get that its sold as a "loan"
but its not. Its a ~9% tax that only kicks in after ~25k and disappears at 55(or thereabouts)
the American system are actual loans at commercial rates and terms[1]. apart from you can't bankrupt your self out of them.
[1]well its more complex.
but its not. Its a ~9% tax that only kicks in after ~25k and disappears at 55(or thereabouts)
the American system are actual loans at commercial rates and terms[1]. apart from you can't bankrupt your self out of them.
[1]well its more complex.
Well, overall amount of money made from real estate appreciation is still exceedingly tiny compared to the overall amount made in wages right? And, ownership of residential real estate is extremely egalitarian - distributed not just more evenly than ownership of financial assets, but even more evenly than wages (for the simple reason that the richer the person is, the smaller fraction of their income they spend on housing, housing is a struggle for the poor but not for the rich).
Yes, this comment is just one long series of distribution fallacies.
Take, for example, the cost of university education. In 1990, c. <=10% when to "free" university, this generation, 55% do; paying c. £35k to do so (1x the median salary).
What are we to conclude from this? That the "middle class" is being ripped off? Or that a massive amount of the population has entered the middle/lower-middle class via university that would have otherwise not been there.
This likewise applies to basically all these points. The logic is, "I identify with a 5%er middle class person of the 80s, and I DONT GET WHAT THEY GOT!!" -- despite, now, actually being part of the 55% of the country which has /much/ of "what they had" (-- due to massive wealth increases).
Take, for example, the cost of university education. In 1990, c. <=10% when to "free" university, this generation, 55% do; paying c. £35k to do so (1x the median salary).
What are we to conclude from this? That the "middle class" is being ripped off? Or that a massive amount of the population has entered the middle/lower-middle class via university that would have otherwise not been there.
This likewise applies to basically all these points. The logic is, "I identify with a 5%er middle class person of the 80s, and I DONT GET WHAT THEY GOT!!" -- despite, now, actually being part of the 55% of the country which has /much/ of "what they had" (-- due to massive wealth increases).
You mean they believed the fake crap US media brainwashed them to believe on how life works, while turning them to irrational actors which are easy to take advantage of.
I can understand their rage, even if it seems silly, they've been lied to their entire life, for profit. So yeah, their angry about reality, because they still they believe the lies.
I can understand their rage, even if it seems silly, they've been lied to their entire life, for profit. So yeah, their angry about reality, because they still they believe the lies.
>Well, overall amount of money made from real estate appreciation is still exceedingly tiny compared to the overall amount made in wages right? And, ownership of residential real estate is extremely egalitarian
No. Literally none of that is true.
No. Literally none of that is true.
well its more nuanced than that.
If you had a right to buy house, (a house built and rented for low income workers by the local governemnt) then you would have benefited equally in the property boom: ie bought your house at a discount in the 90s/00s and now its worth 10-50x what it was before. Unlike in the US where "projects" are still worth shit all, it is quite egalitarian.
Mortgages don't take into account your race in the UK, unlike the states.
Once you _own_ a property, its price rises uniformly, so in that sense it is.
However access to owning a property is not egalitarian.
Property is ~10x the average wage, and new builds are low quality, poorly built and more expensive. There are no incentives to change any of this yet.
If you had a right to buy house, (a house built and rented for low income workers by the local governemnt) then you would have benefited equally in the property boom: ie bought your house at a discount in the 90s/00s and now its worth 10-50x what it was before. Unlike in the US where "projects" are still worth shit all, it is quite egalitarian.
Mortgages don't take into account your race in the UK, unlike the states.
Once you _own_ a property, its price rises uniformly, so in that sense it is.
However access to owning a property is not egalitarian.
Property is ~10x the average wage, and new builds are low quality, poorly built and more expensive. There are no incentives to change any of this yet.
Well, what is the total value of all real estate in the UK now?
What it was 20 years ago?
What is the nominal GDP now and what it was 20 years ago?
Divide these two fractions by one another and get a power of 0.05 - and multiplied by the current value of all real estate, this is what real estate owners make per year.
Now divide to the current nominal GDP and get the fraction.
I will be VERY surprised if it turns out over 10%. Most probably much lower. And i even forgot annual maintenance and immovable property tax, and the fact that older dwellings deprecate vs new ones.
Overall, society wide, return from ALL kinds of capital - financial and non-financial - combined is dwarfed by wage income.
I also wonder why people keep complaining on the rising house prices while no one ever complains on the rising stocks. Aren't these the same? Except stocks are rising faster on average, "rents" (dividend yield) on them is almost as high now as on the houses, ownership of them is not taxed, they don't need any maintenances, and are infinitely liquid. The only downside is that if they dip, they usually dip deeper than houses, but on the interval on which it makes sense owning the house (20+ years), this isn't the case already.
Overall, society wide, return from ALL kinds of capital - financial and non-financial - combined is dwarfed by wage income.
I also wonder why people keep complaining on the rising house prices while no one ever complains on the rising stocks. Aren't these the same? Except stocks are rising faster on average, "rents" (dividend yield) on them is almost as high now as on the houses, ownership of them is not taxed, they don't need any maintenances, and are infinitely liquid. The only downside is that if they dip, they usually dip deeper than houses, but on the interval on which it makes sense owning the house (20+ years), this isn't the case already.
>I also wonder why people keep complaining on the rising house prices while no one ever complains on the rising stocks.
I complain. It's symptomatic of the same thing - earned income is an ever smaller share of the economy.
People who work for a living make less / GDP every year and the difference gets channeled upwards either through rent or dividends. It wont end well.
I complain. It's symptomatic of the same thing - earned income is an ever smaller share of the economy.
People who work for a living make less / GDP every year and the difference gets channeled upwards either through rent or dividends. It wont end well.
mmm why? not really. stocks have been giving on average same returns - a bit shy of 10% before taxes - since inception. and proportion of earned income stays more or less the same.
Is anyone going to do the sums? Just throwing instructions around and saying "VERY surprised if it turns out over 10%" doesn't really cut it.
https://www.savills.co.uk/insight-and-opinion/savills-news/2...
that's results at a glance: all residential real estate made it's owners 2743B pounds in 10 years, or about 15% of the GDP in the same period.
that's results at a glance: all residential real estate made it's owners 2743B pounds in 10 years, or about 15% of the GDP in the same period.
> For many years house prices in London increased faster than the median salary.
The solution is to try and get out of London. Unless you're ultra wealthy, buying a house there is just a pipe dream. Things like remote working from countryside towns may tip the scales in the right direction again.
The solution is to try and get out of London. Unless you're ultra wealthy, buying a house there is just a pipe dream. Things like remote working from countryside towns may tip the scales in the right direction again.
If you can't find work -> go to London, there are tons of jobs.
If you can't afford property -> what you really need to do is leave London.
It's a never ending cycle.
We used to build council housing to fix this "not enough homes" problem but councils lost all their power and money under thatcher.
If you can't afford property -> what you really need to do is leave London.
It's a never ending cycle.
We used to build council housing to fix this "not enough homes" problem but councils lost all their power and money under thatcher.
Nonsense. Most of the well paying jobs are clustered in the South East and London. Few jobs are fully remote: you still need to be able commute in a somewhat reasonable time. Housing demand is concentrated in London and the commuter belt, but it’s better to accept insane prices than not have a good income. Your solution only applies to a handful of full-remote workers, local service workers (doctors, teachers, etc) and retirees.
I would like to see the government cease inflating the housing market at the expense of salaried workers. Do it gradually so pension funds have time to adjust.
I would like to see the government cease inflating the housing market at the expense of salaried workers. Do it gradually so pension funds have time to adjust.
This may be true north of the M4, but in the south west of England things are even more out of whack. The average salary in Bath (used as an example because it’s the last place in the UK I lived), for example, does not come close to allowing even tech workers to buy a house by normal mortgage lending parameters.
[deleted]
> You're taxed at excessive levels
I agree with much of the rest of your post, but the UK doesn’t have particularly high taxes. If you compare take home pay in typical scenarios, the differences between the US and UK are not huge.
I agree with much of the rest of your post, but the UK doesn’t have particularly high taxes. If you compare take home pay in typical scenarios, the differences between the US and UK are not huge.
This doesn't sound right. A full analysis would be quite complex and time consuming but the UK seems much higher to me from checking some quick online calculators and comparing it to California let alone a state with lower or no state income tax. And keep in mind that in the UK you also contribute around 12% to National Insurance on top of the existing tax rates (https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates).
This is a calculator for take-home pay in the UK - https://listentotaxman.com/. Maybe some US people can share how it compares to the taxes they pay.
This is a calculator for take-home pay in the UK - https://listentotaxman.com/. Maybe some US people can share how it compares to the taxes they pay.
The UK tax calculator you linked to includes NI. I’ve worked in both countries (DC and MA in the US) and the percentage of my pay that I kept was about the same as in the UK - especially if you include health insurance in the equation.
Yes, like I said - it calculates take-home pay.
I specifically mentioned NI because it's easy to forget about it if you only look up the tax brackets.
I specifically mentioned NI because it's easy to forget about it if you only look up the tax brackets.
There's not much difference with California, as far as I can see. I used https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#uV2Hg... to compare a $100,000 salary in California to £80,000 in the UK. You get to keep approximately 70% of your pay in both cases (and that's ignoring health insurance costs).
Taxes are a bit higher in the UK, especially once you get up to higher pay brackets. However, there seems to be a persistent myth on HN that the UK has much higher taxes than the US. (Perhaps it just gets lumped in with the rest of Europe in people's minds?)
Another poster mentions VAT. It's worth noting that unlike with a sales tax, VAT does not apply to every purchase. But certainly it does make some things more expensive in the UK than in the US.
Taxes are a bit higher in the UK, especially once you get up to higher pay brackets. However, there seems to be a persistent myth on HN that the UK has much higher taxes than the US. (Perhaps it just gets lumped in with the rest of Europe in people's minds?)
Another poster mentions VAT. It's worth noting that unlike with a sales tax, VAT does not apply to every purchase. But certainly it does make some things more expensive in the UK than in the US.
> and that's ignoring health insurance costs
which is a huge chunk of change in the US to get comprehensive cover similar to the UK which is included in general taxation.
which is a huge chunk of change in the US to get comprehensive cover similar to the UK which is included in general taxation.
I've worked in both and most taxes in NYC were higher than London, but VAT means its probably the same. The biggest difference is in the US you get very little for it except 13 aircraft carriers where the UK you get a decent safety net and free healthcare.
Its very complicated * Property taxes in many states of the USA are so high most of the world are shocked when they hear about them * I didn't even pay NYC city tax which pushes income taxes over 50% in top brackets * VAT in UK is much higher than the random sales taxes in the US. * There are two UK National Insurance taxes - there is one the employer pays that most people dont even know about
Its very complicated * Property taxes in many states of the USA are so high most of the world are shocked when they hear about them * I didn't even pay NYC city tax which pushes income taxes over 50% in top brackets * VAT in UK is much higher than the random sales taxes in the US. * There are two UK National Insurance taxes - there is one the employer pays that most people dont even know about
Education and healthcare in the US have one thing in common - the US government has gotten heavily involved in them trying to reduce its cost, and the result is those costs rise ever higher. You can trace the beginning of that acceleration in costs to when the government got involved.
Think about industries in the US with pretty much zero government involvement - like software. Software is essentially free.
Maybe the problems are caused by government involvement, and more such involvement is not the answer.
Think about industries in the US with pretty much zero government involvement - like software. Software is essentially free.
Maybe the problems are caused by government involvement, and more such involvement is not the answer.
Aside from raw economics, and anecdotally (based mainly on sites like notalwaysright), the employment conditions - including holiday allowance - and servile levels of deference to customers that are demanded in lower ranking jobs make America seem almost feudal in comparison to the UK, and certainly to Europe
The Queen owns 6.6 billion acres of land, and they work hard to preserve the status quo with the help of exemptions to public scrutiny laws. A rather large elephant in the room when it comes to issues of class and meritocracy.
There are 36 billion acres of land on the planet, there is no way the Queen owns 1/6th of it.
More details here: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/15996/does-quee...
More details here: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/15996/does-quee...
Thanks for clarifying. I hadn’t thought to check that figure. Looks to be 2.5 billion ‘in name only’.
People should also look into the crown estate which is worth billions and the Royals directly receive 25% of the income. I think the spirit of the original point still stands.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-crown-estate-the-mysterious-proper...
People should also look into the crown estate which is worth billions and the Royals directly receive 25% of the income. I think the spirit of the original point still stands.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-crown-estate-the-mysterious-proper...
That’s interesting, but it only applies to the Crown Estate organisation particular to the UK, so only 0.06 billion acres. The other organisations linked to the Crown are separate legal bodies with other rules (and often just equivalent to the national government).
No, the Crown does. Liz Windsor’s personal wealth is (probably) closer to £300m
I'd expect a more meritocratic society would be a more equal society wealth wise. Looking at inequality in the UK vs USA - such as the share of personal wealth for the top 1% - seems to support the article:
https://wid.world
That data appears to show that the increase in inequality in the UK since the 1980s has been modest compared to the USA.
https://wid.world
That data appears to show that the increase in inequality in the UK since the 1980s has been modest compared to the USA.
This reads like the ramblings of an insane person.
Like, meritocracy is obviously a lie, then you have far more entrenched class system (and how readily it is accepted by the “lower” classes), next is the fact that the current ruling party got 25% of its funding since Boris took over from 10 people, desperate to foist policy that benefits them, while being detrimental to the vast majority of UK citizens.
The UK is largely shaped by the ossified class structure developed in past decades, and the US is desperately trying to follow in it’s footsteps.
It’s just the natural conclusion of egotism as a guiding principle for a society…
Like, meritocracy is obviously a lie, then you have far more entrenched class system (and how readily it is accepted by the “lower” classes), next is the fact that the current ruling party got 25% of its funding since Boris took over from 10 people, desperate to foist policy that benefits them, while being detrimental to the vast majority of UK citizens.
The UK is largely shaped by the ossified class structure developed in past decades, and the US is desperately trying to follow in it’s footsteps.
It’s just the natural conclusion of egotism as a guiding principle for a society…
In some aspects I'd agree, though the drive by some companies to be seen to have some perfect gender balance, has seen meritocracy take a second seat.
Sometime ago I read an article that described how the northern "dialect" of the English language becomes hurdle for upwards mobility in the UK. So, to some level there is still friction. And here I am talking about native northern English speakers.
Yes that was very much the case, less so these days but dare say in some circles it still plays out akin to which school you attended etc etc.
One sign of change though would be accents in adverts and what is being advertised. That I have noticed a change over the decades for the better. Certainly moved on from the days in which everybody was to speak BBC English and best covered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSOh8FEr-1c and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-north-england-...
One sign of change though would be accents in adverts and what is being advertised. That I have noticed a change over the decades for the better. Certainly moved on from the days in which everybody was to speak BBC English and best covered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSOh8FEr-1c and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-north-england-...
"The American myth of meritocracy allows them to attribute their position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system. At least posh people in England have the decency to feel guilty.In Britain, it is politically impossible to be prime minister and send your children to the equivalent of a private high school. Even Old Etonian David Cameron couldn’t do it. In the United States, the most liberal politician can pay for a lavish education in the private sector. Some of my most progressive friends send their children to $30,000-a-year high schools. The surprise is not that they do it. It is that they do it without so much as a murmur of moral disquiet."
The US has a sort of Andy Warhol style egalitarianism of "a coke is a coke and rich and poor alike drink it" going on but not much else. In the US progressive tech workers live in secluded suburbs, in London you see the poshest banker taking the tube without much concern. Exception in the US is maybe only NYC.