Tag Archives: Economic inequality

Britain, Government, Health, Research, Society

UK health inequality…

LIFE EXPECTANCY & THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR

Publication of life expectancy figures this week reveals a population living longer, healthier, and according to some analysts, happier lives. The persistent and alarming gap, however, in life expectancy between those at the top and bottom is largely obscured.

Broadly, health has improved, but much at the same rate as it has for over 100 years. Analysis by the Equality Trust, though, has found that in the last 20 years alone, the gap in life expectancy for those in different local authority areas has increased 41 per cent for men, and an astonishing 73 per cent for women.

East Dorset has been declared as the Local Authority with the highest male life expectancy, with men there now expecting to live almost a decade (8.9 years) longer than those in Blackpool, the authority with the lowest life expectancy. The gap is just as striking for women. Those in Purbeck live over 7 years longer than those in Manchester, and there is now a dramatic 18 year difference in ‘healthy life expectancy’ between women living in Richmond (72 years) and Tower Hamlets (54 years).

The reasons for widening health inequalities are complex, but one contributing factor is the huge growth in economic inequality in the UK over the past 30 years.

A well-established social gradient exists for life expectancy and health, with poorer people experiencing worse health than the affluent. A growing body of research suggests that this is because socio-economic inequality is itself a root cause of health inequalities. In short, due to the unequal distribution of income, wealth and power, the wealthy are able to protect and improve their health; the poor are not.

Economic inequality in the UK has grown monumentally since the early 1980s. The richest 10 per cent of households now own 40 per cent of the UK’s wealth. This equates to being 850 times the wealth of the bottom 10 per cent. If income distribution was the same as it was in 1977, the bottom fifth would be £2,000 a year better off and the top fifth £8,000 less. Given this growth in economic inequality, it should not be unsurprising to see a similar growth in inequality in health outcomes. A recent report from Health Scotland argues that the only way to reduce the social gradient in health is to reduce inequality in income and wealth.

Yet, it is not only those at the bottom who should be concerned with widening inequality – it is something that could affect everyone. The socio-economic observations are important to note. Most developed countries enjoy a similar rate of improvement in life expectancy regardless of their rates of economic growth. But, when inequality increases, improvements in health are a little slower (and when it decreases they are a little faster). In the event of a really catastrophic change in inequality occurring this can push health improvements into reverse. This happened in some Eastern European countries following the social and political upheavals of the early 1990s. In these countries life expectancy dropped dramatically, with some still not having made up for the lost ground more than 20 years later.

The complex nature of health inequality poses a number of specific challenges for policy makers. For example, how can government possibly calculate a fair and reasonable retirement age when there are such wide fluctuations in life expectancy in different areas?

There is a real danger that the Coalition Government in the UK will sweep under the carpet the damaging effects of growing disparities in health. A recent Office for National Statistics consultation in response to budget cuts has proposed that statistics on health inequalities no longer be collected. If this proposal is accepted this would create an almost insurmountable barrier to those wishing to identify and address health problems.

Further analysis shows that economic inequality is not only just a health issue. More unequal societies, for instance, are more likely to experience poorer literacy rates, a higher incidence of drug addiction, greater levels of violence and a myriad of other social ills. In the last few days government advisers have called for measures to reduce inequality in order to reduce child poverty and in the removal of barriers to social mobility. Such measures would allow more people to live longer, healthier and more productive lives.

If we want a healthier society the Government must start taking steps now to reduce the UK’s dangerous and corrosively high levels of economic inequality.

Standard
Economic, Technology

Technology and the erosion of labour…

Over the past few decades income inequality in America has exploded, but there is considerable disagreement about the cause of the shift. Are impersonal forces like globalisation and technological development to blame, or is it to do with policies designed to disproportionately benefit the rich?

A recently published study by Tali Kristal, an Israeli sociologist, says that the overall share of income by the labour workforce is declining because workers are losing the power to fight for their own interests.

Ms Kristal found that the biggest inequality spikes have occurred within industries where unions have traditionally held a lot of influence – within manufacturing, transportation, and, to a lesser extent, construction. That’s partly due to the labour movement as a whole witnessing its power sharply declining since the mid-twentieth century, but Kristal has also identified another factor which she calls ‘class-biased technological change.’

Technological development is not apolitical or self-directed, she says. New tools are always made by human beings, and those humans have their own political influences and agendas. Institutions that fund technological development also tend to have a particular motive, whether it’s winning a war, curing a disease, or increasing corporate profits. Class-biased technological change simply means the sort of development which “favours capitalists and high-skilled workers while eroding most rank-and-file workers’ bargaining power”, according to Ms Kristal.

A good example of class-biased technological change is various kinds of factory automation, which can render some manufacturing jobs obsolete. But Kristal also highlights new workplace monitoring tools and increasingly sophisticated workplace control strategies, which have given managers unprecedented levels of power to use more legal and illegal anti-union tactics, such as the illegal discharge of union activists, surveillance of union leaders, captive-audience meetings with top management, and an entrenched refusal to negotiate collective agreements.

Tali Kristal does not mention Frederick Winslow Taylor in her paper, but his ghost haunts the margins. At the turn of the twentieth century, Taylor became one of history’s first professional management consultants, explicitly advising factory owners on how they could break the power of their employees’ craft unions. Nowadays, Americans tend to regard Taylor’s most influential innovations – such as the assembly line and the role of the middle manager – as benign improvements to efficiency. The assembly line, though, was designed in part to take control over the speed of production out of the hands of workers and into the hands of management.

If Kristal’s study is to be believed, Taylorism is alive and well in the United States. Fittingly, America is now experiencing levels of inequality last seen during the lifetime of its inventor.

Standard