This has been the aim all along

You know that idea that inequality is the grand terror? That the good society - even The Good Society - is one ruled by economic equality? This is what that means:

There have been lots of different explanations offered for why almost a million 16 to 24-year-olds are neither working, training nor studying. But as one expert told a House of Lords committee this week, there is a far simpler explanation: it is not worth the hassle of getting out of bed for less than £40,000.

That might be a little excessive as a claim but not wholly:

Although it might come as a surprise to some of the people on the Lords committee, most people work just to make money. Many teenagers and 20-somethings have worked out for themselves that the UK’s welfare and tax system has become so bloated and inefficient that getting a job hardly pays any more. They are just making a rational choice.

We have defined poverty as less than 60% of median income. The minimum wage should be - in order to avoid “low pay” - 66% of median income. The costs of paying for all of this mean that the taxation of above median incomes has to be swingeing.

The end result of this is that for many there’s no great life difference between working and not working. So, rationally, people don’t work.

This is not an error, a mistake. This is the plan all along. That society of greater economic equality means this outcome. If benefits are to keep you out of poverty - defined as that close to average wage - then by definition benefits will be not far off the income of that average wage. That’s just what it means.

Thus, obviously enough, a society that doesn’t grow, doesn’t get anywhere, as large portions of that society aren’t working. This is what equality wreaks.

Now that we’re all looking at what this does mean are we happy with the outcome? Perhaps, in fact, economic equality is not a useful end goal? Even, we should be aiming for markedly less such equality in order to have a bit of vibrancy back?

Tim Worstall