Too many modern feminists cite incorrect pay gap figures and demonise male employers in their weak attempt to prove that workplace sexism is alive and thriving in Britain. But this is simply not the case.
British women in full-time work between the ages of 22-39 are now paid, on average, 1.1% more than their male counterparts; it is not inherit sexism that is holding women back from greater achievement, but rather the traditional roles that society still demands of women – expecting them to be mothers and wives regardless of their career ambitions, while providing little support along the way.
The arbitrary demands made by feminists for shortlists, quotas and for salaries to be made public result in gender-baiting at its worst, and do nothing to address the real roots of sexism that still have grips in British society.
Employers seem to be giving women an equal and fair shot at having a career; now is the time to turn to our attention to the private sphere, where women need to be supported and treated fairly, regardless of their career decisions.
Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Dr Eamonn Butler, was quoted in a BBC News article on milk industry subsidies:
But Eamonn Butler, from free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute, said the industry was in need of modernisation.
"If you simply subsidise this industry, then all that happens is that older, outdated practices continue and new efficient practices don't get a start," he said.
"That's very bad for everybody - it's bad for taxpayers and it's bad for consumers."
The Adam Smith Institute's comments on Oxfam's inequality report were referenced in Allister Heath's article in The Daily Telegraph:
Absurd? Of course, but that is the methodology used in most reports on global wealth inequality. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, it makes no sense to look at net wealth without also examining the incomes people are likely to earn in future from wages, investments and pensions. The shock and oft-cited statistics about the share of total wealth owned by the richest are based on such misleading net wealth figures. If gross wealth were used, or if adjustments were made for disposable income and living standards, the picture would look significantly less unequal. The bottom 80pc may statistically own just 5.5pc of the world’s net wealth, but that is because they have mortgages. They control far more of the world’s assets than such numbers suggest.
Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, Ben Southwood, debated Oxfam’s latest inequality report – which found that the richest 1 per cent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent in 2014 - on Sky News and STV's Scotland Tonight. From Sky News:
From STV's Scotland Tonight:
Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Dr Eamonn Butler, highlights the problems with Oxfam’s latest inequality report – which found that the richest 1 per cent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent in 2014 – on Channel 4 News. Watch the clip here. (Starts 2:30)
Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, Ben Southwood, debated Oxfam’s latest inequality report – which found that the richest 1 per cent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent in 2014 - on BBC World News.
Comments from the Adam Smith Institute's Head of Research Ben Southwood on Oxfam's inequality report – featured in two articles in The International Business Times.
Oxfam's report into global inequality is "very misleading" and uses an over simplistic methodology, according to the Adam Smith Institute.
Ben Southwood, head of research at the right-leaning thinktank, told IBTimes UK that the research, which claimed by 2016 the richest 1% of people in the world will own over 50% of its wealth, painted a different picture to what is actually happening.
The researcher said by using a measure of net wealth the Oxfam study failed to capture all assets, citing human capital as a missing one.
Instead the focus should be on the bottom and what policies can best lift people out of the kinds of absolute poverty seen in parts of Africa, where some people cannot afford to house or feed themselves.
Ben Southwood, head of research at libertarian thinktank the Adam Smith Institute, said of the Oxfam report that it is "not clear why we should care all that much about rising global wealth inequality, when it has come with unprecedented declines in global poverty".
"Hundreds of millions have escaped penury in India and China, but it is not just there where global living standards have been rising — African poverty fell 38% between 1990 and 2011," he said.
Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, Ben Southwood, debated Oxfam's latest inequality report - which found that the richest 1 per cent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent in 2014 - on BBC Radio Scotland. Listen to the interview here. (Starts 39:25)
Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, Tim Worstall, highlights the problems with Oxfam's inequality report in CityAM:
Oxfam tells us that global wealth inequality is increasing, as the world’s 80 richest people are approaching the same cumulative wealth as the entire bottom 50 per cent of the planet. In fact, the top 1 per cent is about to end up with 50 per cent of everything. This is just terrible, of course, and something must be done. Or perhaps we could just read the economic literature on the subject, where we’ll find out that this is entirely normal.
Since it’s possible to have negative wealth, any wealth distribution will always be hugely uneven (a new graduate with student loans is likely to have negative wealth, for example). And as those doughty researchers (Piketty and friends) tell us, the bottom 50 per cent of the people are always going to have between not very much and very little wealth. That’s just the nature of things. Indeed, we might suggest that Oxfam read its own report. For on page two, it points out that global wealth inequality is reaching the astounding levels of the year 2000. That is, the recent rise in that top 1 per cent share of wealth is really just the recovery back to normality from the recent recessionary travails.
Yet Oxfam also claims, without any real evidence, that excessive inequality hampers economic growth. It suggests that, since we want that economic pie to be as large as possible, we should tax wealth and capital. The problem is that all taxes destroy some economic activity, shrinking that pie. And different taxes do so differently. We also know that capital and wealth taxes destroy more of the pie than almost any others (other than that Robin Hood Tax Oxfam also supported). So the argument is that we must shrink the economic pie in order to stop inequality shrinking it. This has shades of having to destroy the village so as to save it.
Communications Manager at the Adam Smith Institute, Kate Andrews, discusses the possibility of Mitt Romney making a third bid for the White House, other Republican favourites likely to run in 2016, and Hilary Clinton's role in their campaigns thus far on Sky News.