It takes courage to write as you have in our capitalist society.Bravo.
The solution that immediately comes to mind is to have relativity of wages where the maximum wage is limited to 20 times the minimum wage.
The long term solution is to mandate that wealth and tax records be in the public domain.
The consequences would be awesome.

The widening disconnection between parliamentary democracy and economic democracy is articulated very clearly in this excellent article.

Perhaps we will continue with this blatant hypocrisy of Australian eqalitarianism until we introduce a 'reform' whereby those who are poor get multiple votes and those who are rich are pegged at a single vote. I can see it now: ten votes for the homeless and isolated communities; seven votes for pensioners; five votes for the unemployed; three votes for low-income renters; and so on. Maybe then politicians would have incentives to examine economic interests in harmony with political interests.

Dream on Frank!

For heaven’s sake, get over the ‘wealthiest 200 Australians’. They are nothing.

The difference in incomes in Australia is part of the free-enterprise system. I have always been on the lower end of the scale, but I say good luck to the wealthy who, generally, have a lot more pressure and worry than I have.

All this harping on ‘distribution of wealth’ is pure Communist claptrap; and we know what life under that failed system is like.

“Should this gulf between rich and poor be a matter of public concern?” asks the author.

Definitely not! Major economic inequalities may very well “impede the development of a contented society”, as this undoubtedly well-paid academic claims; but only because of envy and the belief held by our ‘poorer’ citizens that wealth is achieved by luck, not hard work –and that those inheriting wealth have no right do so.

“If people’s perception of their happiness is judged according to what they have relative to others, then economic inequality is a recipe for widespread and permanent social discontent”, is another example of sheer pottiness from the author.

If people judge their happiness by how much money they have in relation to how much others have, there is absolutely no hope at all for them. Stilwell then, more or less, concedes this, but still insists that these losers rate more “societal attention”!

This article could be considered absolute rubbish, apart from the content of the past paragraph, which clearly shows that Stilwell’s “different vision” for Australian society makes him a person to be treated with suspicion and disdain. His vision is more appropriate to the old Soviet Union

Those who think that it's perfectly okay in our free enterprise system that the head of Macquarie Bank should earn many times more than a paramedic should have the banker try to resucitate them in an emergency.

Seriously, it is a scandal that ambos, nurses and doctors (ie: those who save lives) are paid way less than, say, the heads of mining corporations. And in case you haven't noticed, it's the miners that generate the wealth. You know, the people who actually dig the stuff of the ground (or blow it out of the ground these days).

In America there is a more serious situation where around 30 percent of the workforce are on the minimum wage. They work hard in places like retail stores, aged care facilities and cleaning. But their wages and hours trap them in poverty. Many are actually homeless and still hold down full-time jobs (Barbara Ehrenreich's excellent work Nickel and Dimed is good reading on this - see www.barbaraehrenreich.com).

Corporate America is effectively bludging off these underpaid but essential workers. And with "WorkChoices" (which nobody voted for) it may be a case that what Ehrenreich found is our future.

Btw, drug dealing is in the spirit of free enterprise but strangely Little Johnnie turns all communist when it comes to that.

The poorest in this country are among the wealthiest in the world. Naked you come into the world and naked you go out, blessed be the name of the LORD. Why waste our time on this useless analaysis. Let Christ change your heart and be generous to the poor. Why play the politics of envy? Most lotto winners lose their fortune because they have not the maturity to handle money. Poverty in this country is more a spiritual condition than a physical one. No one is rich once they die unless of course they are in Christ.

fdixit:

Your "solution" is a guarantee of mediocrity. While income isn't the only reason why you live in a country, your "solution" would drive the most capable away. Why would someone who could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in places like continental europe, asia or other parts of the world stay here if their income is limited as you suggest? The result of this would be an even bigger brian drain and a considerable dumbing down of the country, not to mention the loss of management and other skills. Is that what you want?

As a concept, egalitarianism is a nice idea, however it will never really exist. As long as the concept of wealth exists (both in monetary terms and asset terms), then there will be people who have different capacities. Note that this is different to "one person, one vote".

So how do you manage the disparity? In reality, I don't think you can. While people choose to work harder, more than 1 job, be willing to accept more dangerous, more stressful jobs or jobs which have a greater intellectual or physical requirements (or both), then people will be paid more and so the disparity will exist. Conversely, those who choose not to do these jobs will be paid less. The socialist ideal where this doesn't occur won't happen in Australia any time soon, thank god.

Nurses are some of the hardest working people I know and their skills mean that patients live rather than die. The fact that they are paid less than someone whose job doesn't involve saving lives (such as government ministers) is outrageous. Sure, they could go into more lucrative professions and many of them are. But what happens? A shortage of personnel in an essential area.

As for mediocrity, the free market rewarded mediocrities like Rodney Adler and Ray Williams. Now they are serving time at Her Majesty's pleasure. Perhaps they are an example of "market correction" - except that the market didn't correct them. The criminal justice system had to step in.

As I said earlier, it is disgusting that people working in essential services are paid a pittance compared with parasites who bludge off low-paid workers.

DavidJS,

I certainly agree that people like nurses and doctors are undervalued in the current climate. I would certainly like to see their services revalued up, and significantly too.

However this isn't demonstrative of a systemic failure.

Neither is Adler/williams. You're right that the judiciary needed to step in, but then, no one is suggesting a completely unregulated or unpoliced system. It's entirely right that they spend time behind bars.

i would guess mr stilwell makes a good living by telling us what we can see by reading the newspaper. when it comes to overpaid, we can start there.

this is laughable. incomes aren't a fruitful matter of public discussion. joe subject has no input on anyone's income but (maybe) his own. he has no input on anything actually. this political sheep station has the usual amount of chatterati, because primates talk even when they are sheep. but sheep primates can't actually do anything, their talk is always just gossip.

before you pontificate on what needs to be done, you should have some suggestions on how to do it. otherwise, you're just a chatterer, even if you've managed to get paid for your empty words.

Hmmmm? the heat is going out of these pages.

Any way Yes - Australians should be concerned about the growing gulf between the haves, the have yachts and the have bugger alls.

Will we do anything about it? Unlikely.

We are intrinsically acquisitive - stuff is what we yearn for - it sets us apart from everybody else.

We are smug and it will be our undoing - and then we will complain endlessly about how the masses are ungrateful when they rise up - and so it goes.

BN
If my so;ution were adopted on a world basis where would those who want an obscene wage migrate to?

The vast majority of Australians are decidedly 'middle class', based on home ownership and compulsory superannuation.

The 2006 Census reveals that of the 7.5 million private dwellings counted, 65% were fully owned or being purchased, only slightly lower than in 2001 (66%).

This change was driven by a large decrease in the proportion of occupied private dwellings that were fully owned.

As Professor Stilwell says "The households in the top fifth of the wealth distribution increased their wealth by an average of around $250,000 in the ten years to 2004 (two-thirds of which resulted from gains in the real estate market),

Wealth distribution is distorted by the uneven escalation of value depending on location and besides, house value does not necessarily reflect well-being.

The equivalent house worth say $250,000 in a large provincial town would bring over $1m. in parts of Sydney, Perth or Melbourne. However, arguably, the lifestyle in the town would be happier and healthier than that in the large city.

Undoubtedly there are pockets of poverty mainly among single parent households and unemployed.
Undoubtedly there are pockets of obscene personal wealth.

But I don't see how reducing the wealth of the top 200 assists the poor.

If Professor Stilwell is correct, that there is "a widespread preference for increased social spending, even a willingness to pay the necessary taxes to fund it", I'm certain Kevin Rudd would embrace such a policy (the increased taxation part I mean) to cement an election victory.

Somehow I don't think he will.

We need some creative thinking. There are some givens. One of these is that you need differential reward for skills and effort so that total wealth can be maximized. But in our system there are many inequities and inbalances, for example those who are skilled in moving a decimal point in the right direction at the right time are hailed as financial geniuses and given huge rewards. Those who are skilled in inserting a drip in the right place at the right time are valued, but only at a fraction of the reward. I think we have to live with this. Artifices to control our capitalistic system could well throw out the benefits: we could all be equal but all enjoying a smaller, though fairer, slice of a much reduced pie. What we need, I think, is an elevation of other motives to productivity and contribution. Why not publish in the newspapers each year a list of those who have paid the highest percentage contributions to income tax? Oh, how I wish there were some calculus of contributions to public good. Then teachers, nurses, garbage contractors, scientists, and good honest toilers might be recognised.

Are we ever going to be free of this cryptomarxist tosh about rich and poor? If Bill Gates decided to become a resident of Australia, the country would benefit enormously from all the taxes he would have to pay, but the gap between rich and poor would widen considerably. As some people will have nothing whatever you do, the only way to achieve equality would be for all of us to be destitute. Remember that envy is one of the most deadly of the deadly sins, and should be vigorously avoided.

I agree with those who say that a disparity in earnings is simply an indication of our capitalist system.

As someone posted: we are a predominantly middle-class society. I personally couldn't give a rats about the disparity between this majority and the minority of the obscenely wealthy.

Its the disparity between the obscenely poor and the middle class majority that I think we should be more concerned about. I use the word "obscenely" deliberately because its a pretty good description of the plight of a growing section of the population - who are not bludgers, druggies, immoral or no-hopers - who don't have enough to eat, who can't afford dental or medical care, who face homelessness every month and who are consistently disregarded in terms of our societal make up.

There have been articles posted in this forum bringing attention to this growing sector, but lulled by the assertion that unemployment figures are at an all-time low, the ever-increasing numbers of such people don't seem to impinge very much on the national consciousness.

Fdixit “The solution that immediately comes to mind is to have relativity of wages where the maximum wage is limited to 20 times the minimum wage.”

Why?

What incentive does this give to those who freely choose to work longer hours in riskier pursuits, which generate the base incomes on which taxes are levied? What incentive to really “work” is there for the indolent, who I can only presume, would automatically receive the “minimum wage”?

The problem with things which “immediately come to mind” is they lack the benefit of considered analysis.

I saw a tv show recently where a 37 year old (looked 57) drug dependent hopeless soul was pleading with a magistrate regarding 30 odd counts of shoplifting, to be imprisoned so she could rehabilitate from her drug addicted “lifestyle”.
I guess, she would be among those who are in that lowest 20% and among those who the author would seek to share in some “egalitarian distribution of wealth”. Should she automatically receive the “minimum” wage?

How much more a “share” of the fruits of the Australian economy should I receive for not being a hopeless, uneducated, prostituting and shoplifting junkie?

The more government intercedes in the process of wealth generation, the more it reduces the discretionary incentive of those who create opportunities for the poorer and less enabled.

When government tries to “creatively” engineer wealth distribution through employment schemes and nationalised industry, a host of sheltered workshops, ultimately run for the benefit of militant unionists, mushroom up to suck the financing ability out of venture capital markets, becoming the host to parasitic and entrench restrictive work practices (UK Labour policy 1945-1979).

If “equitable wealth distribution “really generated such wonderous benefits as suggested by statements like

“Major economic inequalities impede the development of a contented society. If people’s perception of their happiness is judged according to what they have relative to others, then economic inequality is a recipe for widespread and permanent social discontent.”

then, why does increasing taxation have a -.3187 correlation to “happiness” (nationmaster.com tax as % GDP versus national Life Satisfaction index)?

“If people’s perception of their happiness is judged according to what they have relative to others, then economic inequality is a recipe for widespread and permanent social discontent”, is another example of sheer pottiness from the author.

Yeah right Leigh!

Well, you and Col can opt for either a civil or very UN-civil society: what will it be?

Leigh

You haven't had a dangerous thought for decades. More important, you haven't had a thought for anyone in poverty or other disadvantage.

Wrap yourself up in your blanket of apathy and go back to the sleep of complacency.

Thankfully fdixit, countries normally don't collectively put policies in like this (there are exceptions, of course). And the notion that any country would actually do this should brand that country as a laughing stock.

Col Rouge has summed it up well. I suggest that if you want an idea of what would happen if these policies like these are enacted on a widespread scale, have a read of "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It's a very unpleasant read...

As a matter of fact I did start to read Atlas Shrugged but did not finish it as I found it too obnoxious.
The plain facts are that we are social beings, and massive inequalities in society lead to tragedy.
Just ask Louis XV1 or Czar Nicholas 2.

You don't redistribute wealth by increasing taxes.More taxes just means bigger Govt and less productivity.We will all just end up in the poor house with Frank's solutions.

Bill Gates would find it easy not to pay taxes in Australia. Kerry Packer found the Australian Government's ATO a joke to the day of his death.

He flaunted the fact that he managed never to pay a cent in tax in his entire life. Further to that, he boasted and gloated that none of his rich friends ever payed tax either.

He hated the arts and loathed Government interference in his private life. Hated the arts and culture, especially the opera.

Some-one had a great laugh when he had a State funeral. Tax payers paid for Kerry Packers funeral. The Government interfered, took the bill, and the funeral was at the Sydney Opera House to see the beast leave the world.

Economists in this country have a perverse sense of humour and if you believe them, see a Doctor. Unless it is unsafe to do so, they may be another bloody terrorist with a map of the airport on the wall. What a stupid country this is turning into. That is, in this Howardesque stage of history.

HG Wells made some horrific predictions on the fate of humanity in the novel "the time machine". The possibility that in an environmental catastrophe, the predator humans and the victim humans evolve into seperate species and one feasts canibalistically on the other.

This is a dramic symbolic idea, but a potent statement of the division of humanity causing 2 seperate worlds: the rich preditors and the poor victims: the cattle. DEMOS already calls us useless primate sheep in his patronising jibberish from his ivory tower. I wonder if he is still human? HG Wells would probably say: not.

fdixit

Whether you found Atlas Shrugged obnoxious or not doesn't detract from the message in the book, even taking into account the spin placed in the story by the author. If you remove property rights, if you deny people who excell the ability to prosper (via your proposed income ceilings) then you're dooming us to a tragedy which leaves the figures you've mentioned a long way behind.

There is no doubt that you're right in that most people are social creatures. But that doesn't mean that economic egalitarianism is anything other than a pipe dream.

Australians are not poor. If you want 'poor' then look elsewhere. The "Aussie Battler" and the "working class family" are myths. There are people who have overcommitted themselves on the type of lifestyle they believe they need to lead. Go for a smaller house, smaller car (or no car at all), quit smoking, quit the booze and a few other non-essentials that we have been led to believe are essential and most people could live more than comfortably on their wages, save a bit and lead a healthier lifestyle.
We are being led to believe we are poor. It suits both sides of politics, the union movement and the retail industry.

BN
I congratulate you on the way you have twisted my words.
Where have I denied poeple property rights? I believe in property rights but not in absolute property rights.There is a difference.
Where have I denied people who excel the right to prosper? Reread my original statement, I have limited wages to a factor of 20 over the minimum wage.
Let's spell this out.The min wage is, approximately, $700pw. So the max wage would be $14 000pw. Is anyone on $14Kpw not allowed to prosper? Anyone on $14Kpw who leaves that job for more money would do so out of greed and not need. Name me any greedy person who has been a benefit to society.

Sowat “Well, you and Col can opt for either a civil or very UN-civil society: what will it be?”

I will opt for the society which leaves the individual to decide to be civil or un-civil and to reap either the benefits or the consequences of their abundance or lack of civility. That is an infinitely superior solution to some form of soulless socialism where we are forced into a submission to the common mindset (eg clockwork orange).

Thanks BN

Fdixit, “Just ask Louis XV1 or Czar Nicholas 2.”

I would suggest the good citizens who observed the demise of both those individuals would say that Robespierre’s and Stalin's “terrors” were both leaps backwards in terms of the tangible and practical merits of social welfare reform.

As for “Name me any greedy person who has been a benefit to society.”

I see greedy people (the small minded) all the time, I also see the morally bankrupt (alot bureaucrats and civil servants), the intellectually barren (a lot of tenured academics in that bucket) they all, in some way, rely on the largesse of a society which does not push them to excel.

I also see people who are driven by a desire to be their best. They believe they know best for themselves and are prepared to risk their future in that singular belief.

However, that the “individually and creatively successful” might generate greater personal wealth is a consequence of their action, not its motive.

Removing the common opportunity to excel will merely stunt society. I read the synopsis of “Atlas Shrugged”, Ayn Rands book would be right on the money.

Removing creative individuals from society leaves a "population of the tasteless", condemned to equality through mediocrity.

Which really does describe the best possible outcomes of "egalitarian socialism", suggested by Frank Stillwell and supported by some of the obviously "less gifted" posters here in just 3 words (equality through mediocrity).

Col Rouge
I agree with your observation that Robespierre and Stalin were worse than their predecessors, but that only confirms my original point that an unjust society leads to tragedy.
Had Louis XVI and Nicholas addressed the problems plaguing their societies Robes and Stalin would never have been heard of.

fdixit,

The comments about property rights and prosperity were particularly relevent given your statement that you found Atlas Shrugged offensive. The book, particularly in later parts, deals in the conseqences of removing those things - very unpleasant.

But particular to your statements on income, why should someone who has educated themselves, or has skills that are in great demand, or who is willing to bear the responsibilty of making million or billion dollar decisions be limited in their income? Why should someone who generates income for their staff and shareholders have their income limited? Because there are some who are jealous? That's not a good reason to me.

Col Rouge said it perfectly:

"Removing the common opportunity to excel will merely stunt society. "

One of the many messages from Atlas Shrugged

The problem is not the size of the gap between the richest and the poorest, but the opportunities that the poorest have. If the people on the bottom rung have enough, what does it matter how much the people on the top rung have?

What does it mean to have enough? Enough to eat, a decent place to live, access to affordable, good quality health and education services. After that, everyone must make their own way in life. Inequality of outcomes is not the problem: absence of opportunities is.

If inequity is not a problem then model states are places like Brazil, Mexico or South Africa. Personally, I'd rather live in a more equitable place like Australia. Infact, many people in Mexico are fleeing their country because they cannot get even basic jobs and are trying their luck in the US. A large number of Filipinos are chancing it in the Middle East because they are desperate for work. And women in Eastern Europe end up in brothels in the Netherlands thanks to poverty at home. Inequity as well tyrannical governments causes a refugee problem.

Australia is obviously not at the stage of Mexico. But if we reach the stage where having a job is not a way out of poverty or even homelessness (as is the case for many in the US), then we will see undesirable social outcomes.

Ian “the opportunities that the poorest have.”

The problem with measuring anything on the basis of “opportunities” is that “opportunities” are like “potentials”.

As we all know you can place the same “opportunities” in front of any two almost identical people (being the same background, upbringing and social standing etc) between the ages of say three and ninety and you will get two different outcomes. Why ?

Because one will leverage or realise more of their “potential” than the other.

Fact, “opportunities” are only exist and can be seized by those who have worked a little way up Maslow’s pyramid, never at its lowest level.

“Satisfaction of basic needs” will never ever generate “opportunity” anymore than “subsistence farming” will ever produce a “cash crop”.

Every weasel faced socialist politician goes to the electorate and proclaims their commitment to such “subsistence standards”.

KRudd and his “vegetable price committee” election policy being a case in point.

We all remember the wage and price commissions of the 1970s. I certainly remember when some crappy committee declared how much I was allowed to earn, based on what was good for the country (UK).

I vote based on a very simple philosophy, my ballot for the nominee who is most likely to leave me alone to make my own choices, assess my own risks and make my own mistakes.

Why? Because I know that will give me a far better long term outcome than some socialist who wants to make my choices and charge me taxes to take risks and make the mistakes in my name

Could somebody please describe these poor huddling masses. These people on minimum wage jobs. Where are they and who are they, and most importantly, why are they there?

If you take out the handicapped, and those obliged to help them (all of whom I think most on this list would agree should be given assistance) who's left?

It seems to me most people who are on minimum wage are either young people on their first job, those who are uneducated, and those who for some reason, don't try for something better.

Well the young are in transition and there is no reason why anyone should be concerned that they start at the bottom because they shouldn't stay there unless they fall into the latter two categories. As for these later categories, they can overcome those if they choose to.

People who don't even have jobs. Who are they? Please someone describe them. Apart from the handicapped and their carers, who amongst these people isn't largely responsible for their own condition?

Rather than talking about the perceived problems of the gap between rich and poor, isn't it more productive to tell people that the attainment of affluence beyond a certain 'reasonable' level of wealth (as difficult as it may be to define what that level may be) must be factored into their lives? If people aren't happy knowing that their neighbours have more money than them, surely it's better for them to modify their attitude than somehow take some of the neighbours' affluence away from them (which to me is an attack on their fundamental rights)?