To think the system’s set up so the rich get richer and the poor get screwed?

[ThatGreenBear]

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how society is structured, and it feels like no matter how hard some people work, they’re always struggling, while others just seem to get wealthier with minimal effort. Whether it’s the tax system, housing market, or even access to education and opportunities, everything seems stacked in favor of those who already have money and power.

AIBU to think that the system is rigged to keep the wealthy at the top while making it incredibly hard for the rest of us to get ahead? Or is this just how life works and we should all just accept it? I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on whether the playing field is as unfair as it seems, or if it’s possible for anyone to get ahead with enough hard work.

Of course this is the case and since 2008, the rich have broken the social contract we had where they pretended this isn't the case.

Once supermarkets for instance competed for consumers on price. They made profits by exploiting farmers and maximising the number of customers they had because they had the cheapest food but more recently they have realised they can as they are so large charge high prices, exploit farmers and consumers and increase profits.

What was predicted would happen when big stores came in and sold food at a loss wiping out smaller shops has happened. Competition was reduced and now everyone is worse off than except the big stores.

But it was never reasonable that Susan on a low income would buy baked beans from her local shop for 28p a tin rather than from Tesco at 8p a tin and now the local shop is gone and Tesco sell baked beans at 55p a tin.

More and more the rich are clear that the ordinary person doesn't matter, they encourage infighting between them while they walk away increasingly openly with the wealth that is generated by the poor.

What is the answer? Political change but the infighting creates such bitterness and division as high rate taxpayer Sophie resents the benefit bill as she feels stretched and overworked and minimum wage Robyn can't imagine what 60k a year Sophie is complaining about and they politically split while ignoring that a fairer society would benefit both of them and they aren't actually on different sides at all and the rich are profiting of both of them

That's a tiny proportion of the wealthy though, probably under 1%.

Hardly anyone owned property before 1900.

I find it endlessly entertaining that rich apologists for the status quo always bring up the most wonderful comparisons.

1900 marks the last of the last gilded age, the last of the last great age of the original liberal economics under the Victorian empire, the forerunner of neoliberalism. The super rich of the time had had 200 -300 years of it then to consolidate the wealth: wealth that was built on the serfdom of the British people working down the mines and living in squalor.

No, we will not go back to that!

Why not go back to before enclosure, when no one owned property because it was widely understood, as it still is in many parts of the world, that no one - but no one - can ‘own’ land and there were strong systems of unwritten customs and rights that governed use??

The other favoured comparison is North Korea. My question to that has always been, how would we know if we were in North Korea? The post war social contracts and belief in free flow of accurate information is certainly breaking down. Proper news media died in the 80s in favour of infotainment and foreign ownership. The promise of the WWW has been sold off. Propaganda - or if you really prefer the term, ‘social media management’ - is everywhere.

As I have just said on another post, it's called the Matthew principle named for the passage in St. Matthew's gospel which says, " to them that hath shall be given more, and from them that hath not shall be taken away even that which they hath." Jesus was not saying it was right, he was saying that it will always happen.
It is a universal principle of every society that there has ever been. It is best to accept that there will always be some people who have more money than you. This doesn't stop you from making the most of what you have and leading the best life you can. Riches come in many forms not just money.
On the spurious trope that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer - it is simply not the case - as the rich get richer so do the poor. Even the poor today have material goods to an extent unheard of in previous generations. I can't imagine any of the poor in Victorian England being able to afford the equivalent of a mobile phone, television and games console that are the standard furniture of most homes in this country whether rich or poor.

"Why not go back to before enclosure, when no one owned property because it was widely understood, as it still is in many parts of the world, that no one - but no one - can ‘own’ land and there were strong systems of unwritten customs and rights that governed use?"

I think you have an rather rose-tinted view of the past. You are right that the peasants who farmed the land didn't own it, but someone did. All land was held by the nobility in a complicated feudal system imposed by the Normans at the conquest. Long before Elizebethan enclosures.

There were rich people in communist Russia too. There is inequality in communist China. Inequality is not the prerogative of capitalism: it is a universal fact of human society.

Oh yes, this old chestnut.

Anyone can be an entrepreneur and if not, you’re lazy.

People are good at different things. Maybe people like you need to get that message.

Very true.

Labour introduced tuition fees and also raised them by just over 2%. However it was then the lib dem and conservative coalition who tripled them. Incidentally, universities have huge issues at the moment and lots of redundancies because there's a cap on tuition fees and they haven't got enough money coming in. They survive purely because they can charge international students more.

UK society has developed a massive victim complex and an inability to take responsibility for choices made. Productivity and tenacity in the UK is terrible. It’s so tiresome listening to people whinge and moan all the time.

It is easier to make money when you have some spare. If you are living pay cheque to pay cheque there is no additional for allowing your money to work for it’s self. Things can change however I have never been in the position before to seriously invest but when Trump recently tanked the stock market I was able to convert my cash savings into investments and have since doubled the money I invested.

Finances can change it can just take longer for some than others

So many people have worked really hard and got good jobs, yet they are only comfortable. Many more people work really hard in full time jobs and are struggling, needing some benefits.
Everyone working should be comfortable. Maybe you can’t afford a big house on minimum wage jobs but why should you not be able to afford a small house of your own and bring up a family?

Fitting reference there as wealth inequality in the UK is now at levels last seen in the Victorian era- this is not progress, it wasn't at these levels a generation ago so it is not 'spurious trope', it is a fact that the rich have got richer whilst the poor have got poorer!

13 years of education should make you capable of a decent job.
if a millionaire puts his million in the bank at 4% interest he’ll earn 40,000 a year with no work - multiply it up and we can see where their comfortable life is from. Then there is hedge fund managers who make profits by betting on shares going down - lucrative but I can’t really see where their profits come from (?banks)- the majority of people are not in those groups and would struggle to get in them.

A lot depends on where we live. Housing costs are one of the biggest variables. Two average salaries will provide a good standard of living for a family in many parts of the UK. Unless one is a high earner, two incomes have been necessary for most families since I was a young mum in the 1970s.

Depends what you mean by rich. Yes it’s not possible for most to be one very rich. It is possible for many in the UK to become comfortable however and hard work does come into it, and also the choices people make. I think the playing field has been leveled somewhat for the working and middle classes but not the upper middle or super rich. In the UK we generally have good state education, access to free learning resources outside of school, access to higher education and adult education. Health care an ok standard free to all. It’s then the choices people make around those, do they work hard and take advantage of the education resources in and out of school, do they career plan, do they choose to go to university or get an apprenticeship or sit around for a couple of years not doing much, work long hours in the early stages of a career to get ahead, have children younger and work part time or not at all, live in an area they can’t afford, save money or spend it traveling, number of kids.

Unless one is a high earner, two incomes have been necessary for most families since I was a young mum in the 1970s.

I was born in the 80s & that's not my experience at all. The vast majority of my neighbours, school friends only had one parent working. And the majority of us had family homes and at least 2 dc.

It probably depends where you were in the country and the lifestyle parents wanted. I was also born in the 80s and both of my parents worked aswell and most of my friends had 2 parents that worked too. I would say most of us grew up comfortably but not rich (state school, one abroad holiday a year, two owned but old cars, normal sized family house owned with mortgage).

One of my parents could have chosen not to work but we wouldn’t have had holidays, afford to run 2 cars, probably would have rented or had a smaller house, wouldn’t have had the days out or experiences. Very similar to the choices of many now.

Grew up in London although it was very different then to how it is now. Annual holiday, 2nd hand car. My mum did get back into work but after a decade ish out.

Same for my DH who grew up in another part of London.

Imagine being able to buy a London family home on one teachers salary now in your late 20s!

You are talking about relative wealth. I am talking about absolute wealth. Even very poor people today have far more money and material goods than people of previous generations.

@IShouldNotCoco , I didn’t say people are lazy but they may not have been encouraged to think in a way that would help them get on or they may be risk averse which I get because he who dares sometimes wins and sometimes loses. Some people may prefer to be led than be a leader. All are valid choices but they ARE a choice. Every person will have their own talents, the trick is making the most of them.
Not everyone will become super wealthy but we shouldn’t be telling our children that there is a ceiling to their ambitions either.

We had one car, mainly holidayed with relatives. We did have a decent sized house, in a nice area, days out, trips to London, etc. No inheritance or financial help, our parents were renters. Giving the DC opportunities that we, who left school at 15, hadn’t had, was our priority. We couldn’t have done it on one wage.

This is why it needs to change bottom-up, because they won't let you change things top-down. Politicians and big companies are complicit in keeping the plebs down. They aren't even very bothered about providing the bread and circuses any longer.

E.g. workers co-ops (including grocery shops), housing co-ops, community energy schemes, community growing projects, repair & bike cafes, etc.

These are examples of things you and your community can do to make things more equal. I'm sure there are many more.