My tory friend says there is no such thing as equality... discuss.

[malificent7]

Im a socialist btw to a certain point. I do get that a nurse shoyld get paid as much as a doctor and a TA shouldnt get psid as much as teacher.
It's the vast inequalities that bug me. I dont think that how hard you work mirrors how much you earn. I think wealth buys a good education which isnt fair. What do you all rekon? Also

In answer to your original question there is no such thing as equality I think that statement is true but not right. Society will never be equal because from the moment a child is born some are starting on the back foot compared to other babies so they are already unequal. The definition of equality is "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities". That is extremely hard to achieve in any society no matter how hard some try because the starting point is not equal. Some are born into poverty others into great wealth and then you get everything in between before you even bring race, gender, faith, nationality and so on into it. What we need to strive for is equity.

What can help is society recognising that some people through no fault of their own have a harder struggle than others and need more support and more intervention to ensure they can be equal to others and when I say equal I don't mean the same but true equality of opportunity despite where they started in life. Unfortunately society now views this is as handouts and these people as lazy and so on. The rhetoric that if you work hard you will be successful is simply not true and is assuming everyone starts at the same place which they do not but this mindset benefits the already wealthy because it absolves them from helping others less fortunate if they believe (wrongly) that those only need to work hard to get the same wealth and it is their fault that they don't have this wealth. I think the pic below illustrates my point well

i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png?resize=900%2C675

Grammar school thing someone said about a two parent household sounds like rubbish to. I live in a grammar area, dh and his sister went grammar, single parent, rented property quite poor. Lots of his friends parents from grammar school were divorced and hardly well off either. It was just about passing the 11 plus and even the kids that passed but couldn't get in due to over subscription got put into and grammar stream in the local comprehensives.

Equality does exist, but certainly not at the moment. To say there is no such thing at all, just goes to show how the Tories lack a progressive attitude. They measure success by wealth and not how equal and happy people feel.

The attitude is 'if you don't have it, pull your socks up and get it, and stop whinging', ignoring the fact that it is easier for some classes to progress than others.

It is no wonder the UK has some of the most unhappy children in Europe.

I think inequality's really a red herring in this debate. As PPs have said, there will always be inequality (at least in a society where money exists and people have some freedom about how to spend it). However, it's much easier to be relaxed about the ridiculous amounts of money footballers get paid if you have enough that you aren't worrying about money every day, than if you're having to use a foodbank to feed your children. I think what matters more is making sure that even the poorest people in society have enough for a decent standard of living.

The UBI experiments are really interesting. I hope that can be made to work - which is mostly a question of whether the sums add up, I think. In one sense it's not so different from a social security system, but the cultural change we might get from making it be fine to choose not to work, or to work less than full time, could be really positive. For example, it's just silly that in some cases families would like to do more of the hands-on caring of their children or elderly relatives, but can't, because they can't make ends meet without working too many hours to make the caring possible.

There will always be difficulties - e.g. I think the argument for giving money not foodstamps is compelling, but there will always be people who, for a variety of sometimes complex reasons, can't manage with even what looks like a reasonable amount of money and still be able to afford food. Even UBI wouldn't make that go away.

I think we can and should be able to get to a point where almost everyone can get by reasonably comfortably on what they have, though. To do that we'll certainly have to raise taxes on the rich which will tend to reduce inequality - but I think we should see that as a consequence of what we do for a good aim, not as an aim in itself.

For lots of analysis on inequality it's interesting to read a pair of books in parallel: The Spirit Level and The Spirit Level Delusion.

Really good female footballers are much rarer and paid vastly less.

Do you really need an explanation as to why male footballers are paid more than female footballers?

I realise the thread is about economic equality but the question is rather more open and I'm going to add in my five cents worth. Equality is an unreal ideal for the very obvious reason that we are no tall born the same...if we were believe me I would not choose to be short and fat!

I am a parent and foster carer and my children are all different...my birth children are massively different in so many ways, one academic and driven, one who does 'just enough work' but is very practical. My foster son had the world's crappest start...where is the equality in that...unless all children are born to identical parents some children are always going to have an advantage. I am not talking material advantage I am talking parents who prioritise their children and others who prioritise drinking and smoking...I live in a deprived inner city area and have seen way too many of these children which is what led me to start fostering.

I am totally in favour of everyone having equal opportunities...both my parents benefited from grammar schools my mum in particular came from a very poor background. I think schools are a massively important way to improve equality of opportunity which is all that anyone can have. The present system of far too many inadequate schools is scary...when my eldest child was looking at high schools the head of the local secondary school...that she would be automatically allocated said the school couldn't cope with her because she was too bright...that appalled me. She went to another inner city school and got a place at Oxford, so she is bright.

I agree with the arguments about gender inequality...the problems of disabled people getting employment also need to be addressed.

These are problems that go way beyond part politics and and much more important than a cheap jibe against one political party or another....spouting slogans is easy actually pushing for change is hard and actually involves people making adult decisions.

Sorry for the essay.

Equality is certainly unlikely in our current cultural and economic climate. It's something I think about because my mum went to a grammar school in the late 1940s (made her own uniform!!) and despite being made by her parents to leave at 15 she got O levels and did really well, despite being from a very poor, illiterate family. I went to the same school, and it absolutely transformed me. I know this is anecdote, but in a generation one outstanding school changed my family. Now, my son is at private school (because I was lucky/well educated/ good at what I do) and as someone who is quite left of centre politically I struggle with this, but I want him to like school, to be respected for being clever rather than bullied, and the state schools round here don't seem likely to provide that kind of atmosphere. So I know that I'm contributing to inequality...but then, I benefited from my education and have a job where I can do some good in the world, and I hope the same is true for DS.
OTOH, I'd quite like to wipe out capitalism and start all over again... (idealist).

I agree to some extent. It's only when policies are brought in and highly unethical actions are taken to ensure that the inequality remains entrenched that I have very serious problems with. Miserable people do miserable things..

I don't think opportunities are always about money...often it's about being in the right place at the right time, being clever enough to play the system, or family culture. Often some families have money, but spend it on rubbish, rather than ploughing it into children's future. So I don't think it's as easy as just slating those who are currently well off, often they have what they have due to hard work too, or through just making sensible decisions along the way. Anyway, I would have thought the majority of children have access to a good education these days.

What I am trying to say is some people have different priorities to how they spend the money.
DD has the same money coming in as others at her college. DD works 3 jobs the others get their money as some sort of government scheme based on their families income.

DD doesn't drink or smoke and when there is a party the rest are spending £30-40 on bottles of vodka etc. DD takes a bottle of cola for £1.25 or less if she can find a voucher.

It is about how you spend what little money you have that makes a difference.

DH & I both went to grammar schools & we both lived in council houses. I lived in a particularly rough area in a council maisonette. Grammar school admission was purely by passing the 11plus

The fact is you lived in a rough area there wasn't any need to discriminate as everyone in your primary also lived in the same area under similar circumstances. But when you were from a posher area and there was a mix of council and bought homes then you had a HT discriminating. I cant believe that someone who gets 95%+ in every exam suddenly fails their 11+ yet someone who can barely read and write passes.

Wealth has more to do with luck than it does hard work

I would agree with those who say that inequality (in terms of outcomes and also opportunity) will always be impossible. From day one, the children of better-off homes will have advantages that push them forward.

I read about an interesting study recently in the US about applicants to law firms. For men (but not for women) almost identical CVs were submitted to law firms. However, there were subtle differences. If you were on the sailing or polo team, you were 13 times more likely to be called for interview than whether you listed your hobbies as country music or football. In total, the number of people that got called for interview were 16.25% for upper class males and 1.28% for lower class males. For females it was 3.8% and 6.3% for upper and lower class females respectively. So men, and upper class men are for more likely, with the same qualifications to get jobs in law firms in this study (I would assume the same is true for many other prestigious professions).

hbr.org/2016/12/research-how-subtle-class-cues-can-backfire-on-your-resume

So, although I think equality is impossible, the key is to be continually striving against what I think is unfortunately human nature.

Sorry, in my article above, I meant to say subtle class differences worked for males, but not for females (could do with an edit function).

Even within the same class/environment there is not perfect equality.

I have twins. Raised with the same advantages and disadvantages in the same environment at the same time.

They have different abilities, aptitudes, interests which will no doubt fuel what they do with their lives and how much money they make.

Of course there will always be inequalities, but billionnaires are not millions of times more valuable to society than everyone else. Once inequalities get beyond a certain point, it's all to do with power, influence and control and very little to do with inevitable differences between human beings. Capitalism only recognises one type of value, it needs controls, checks and balances to stop it just being an opportunity to exercise an abuse of power. Huge inequalities in a society are a sign of something going badly wrong, imo.

wealth has more to do with luck than it does hard work

Sometimes yes, but often the harder a person works the luckier they get!

Once inequalities get beyond a certain point, it's all to do with power, influence and control and very little to do with inevitable differences between human beings.

I agree and the ardent capitalists I know despair at this grotesque gap.

Leave aside teachers and doctors for the moment. They are paid out of the public purse, which makes them a slightly more complicated topic. Essentially what we pay them is down to how much we are willing to pay them and how much we value them as a society.

As for the rest, the key point is that we live in a capitalist society. By and large employers pay what they can get away with. Employers want to maximise their profit, so if there is a large supply of people available for unskilled work, they will pay as little as they can for that work. They recognise that they have to pay more for skilled and highly skilled employees, so they do so - though if they can do without, they will do so. Large technology companies such as Amazon and Apple manage with very few employees, and increasingly jobs that previously required skilled labour are automated.

In a free market economy, the only way you can really reduce inequality is through things like a minimum wage, legal protection for workers (e.g. not just being able to sack people at whim) and top-up benefits from the state.

My parents both came from poor rural backgrounds. Both were bright, passed the 11+, went to grammar schools, got into university (fees paid by government, maintenance grants paid living costs) and subsequently went into professional /business careers.

Their standard of living is higher than that of their parents.Education transformed their prospects.

Grammar schools DO effect social mobility. In NI the schooling system is far from perfect but we have no private schools because we kept the 11+. It is still very possible to get into university from a poor background. However, now there are further factors that create inequality, that my parents did not have to contend with, such as tuition fees and an insecure job market (including several industries where lengthy unpaid placements are a prerequisite to getting a job).

Hard work doesn't mirror how much you earn. I agree with that. Some people are just more intelligent than others and have skills that others don't. It's always been the case. I'm not sure what the issue is?

I have no idea why people think that financially people should have equality when there isn't equality in any other aspects of people lives.

You could be short, ugly, overweight and not very intelligent but due to hard work you are able to find a way of making a lot of money and everyone else think it is justified to take that away from you.

I think our benefit system might work against us.
It is assumed that your DCs will leave home when they get older - or when you want them out of the house. And that happens, or used to happen, in the UK, your DCs left home and got social housing if homeless.
In other European countries children stayed in the family home until they married or left to work elsewhere. Knowing that your DCs are with you until they can stand on their own feet is an incentive to ensure they are well educated and can provide for themselves. If you know the state will step in and your DCs have the right to a home you will be less committed to their future.
Just something I wonder about - unintended consequences. And you can end up with an underclass of neets.