03.02.2000

Social trends

Never had it so good?

This year's publication of Social trends is somewhat special, insofar as the office of statistics has, probably at the behest of the government, decided to look at changes over the last 100 years. It carries a foreword by professor A Halsey of Oxford University, very much a social democrat of the old school. The main point of the commentary and of the collection of statistics is to impress upon us how much things have improved since the 19th century - while conceding of course that there is room for further improvement.

It is sometimes argued that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. I am not of that persuasion, although it is true that there are problems in statistical interpretation. My main interest in these particular statistics is that of establishing a figure around which to base our campaign for a minimum wage. I have previously argued for £300 per week per adult as the necessary income for the reproduction of the working class at the level of health and particular culture that pertains in this day and age (see Weekly Worker April 8 1999).

There are, however, other questions raised by this review of the last 100 years. Has income distribution changed, both absolutely and relatively? Is the class composition of Britain different and in what way?

Let us take first the question of income changes. Social trends states that there has been a 4.5-fold increase in gross income. The problem is - what on earth does this mean? Obviously, everyone knows inflation has taken place in Britain and it is normally estimated at about 40-fold for the period in question. So a typical wage of £2 to £2.50 in 1900 would be the equivalent of £100 in modern values. You could, it is true, make an equally strong case for an 80-fold estimate of inflation. However, allowing for auxiliary benefits that were not available 100 years ago, that would still produce the same approximate rise in standard of living.

In fact inflation cannot be accurately measured over a long period of time in any meaningful way. After all, how much would a television have cost you in 1900? Once such questions are posed, it makes no sense to compare the cost of living now and then. For example, if we take products such as steel or grain then we find that for these particular commodities inflation was much lower than even the official 40-fold figure. But you would not be measuring the same thing. Grain now is not the same as grain at the beginning of the 20th century. And steel means a multitude of different things today.

Still more important is the question of necessary expenditure. In 1900 very few workers would have to use public transport to travel to their workplace - though when they did there were often special fares for 'workingmen' (a much smaller proportion of women worked than is the case 100 years later). Nowadays, long travel is necessary and frequently a car is a requirement.

As a result a workman's wage in 1900 - at least if he was semi-skilled - was generally sufficient to support his wife and a much larger family than today. Now anyone will tell you that it is virtually impossible for a family to survive through the sale of one person's labour power alone. In consequence, both partners generally work and there are far fewer children per couple. Clearly there are grounds for stating that this situation represents not an improvement in the income of workers relative to what they require to reproduce themselves, but actually a deterioration.

The survey suggests that, although the income of the 90th percentile is 20 times greater than that of the 10th percentile, there is only a 4:1 income gradation after all taxes and subsidies are taken into account. Again we have a problem with this. The mere fact of having a large income implies the ability to live more cheaply. Those on low incomes frequently have to rely on the corner shop, paying up to 50% more than those who are able to use their car to shop at the hypermarket. The ability to buy rather than rent a house hugely reduces running costs, effectively providing untaxed income equivalent to the rent. Similarly the ability to take advantage of bulk sales, to use the company car or telephone, and the dozens of other extras that the high wage-earner enjoys, mean that the bare statistics simply do not reflect reality.

I would not, of course, suggest that the poor are unable to make use of hidden extras as well. But, since the average annual income of the lowest 10 percent is, before taxes, etc, just £2,520, they clearly have much less scope. The higher your income, the more likely you are to benefit from the unpaid help of family, friends and acquaintances, such as in the provision of housing, the use of a car, holidays abroad, extra tuition for children, etc, etc. Such items are not taken into account in Social trends.

Another area that the study highlights is the continuing disparity of wealth, which is vastly greater than that for income. The top one percent of the population holds 27% of all marketable wealth, while the top 25% holds 82% of all marketable wealth. This appears to show a considerable improvement from the beginning of the last century. However, wealth is frequently no longer held in a marketable form. Pensions, for instance, are not included, and this makes a considerable difference. Moreover, in 1900 family wealth was usually held in the name of just one individual, whereas now legal ownership tends to be shared out among family members, resulting in an apparently more even distribution.

This year's Social trends throws up a number of other interesting statistics, as is the case with every issue. One I came across showed that air pollution has been decreasing markedly over the last 30 years. My recollections of even the 1950s are that the improvement in this respect since 1970 is nothing by comparison with the improvements between the 40s and the 60s. The 'good old days' of inefficiency and low productivity, when labour was intensive and millions were domestic servants, were not times of clean air and low pollution, as many believe.

Lastly, Halsey ludicrously suggests that the working class has all but disappeared, basing this assertion on the large increase in white collar workers (in which category he includes shopworkers). Apparently the call centre worker or computer operator belongs to a different social class from the gas fitter, telephone engineer or motor mechanic. In reality Britain's working class is many times larger and much more homogeneous than in 1900. However, today's very poorest section of the population does not consist of workers, but the old, the sick, the mentally disturbed and socially disrupted, a section which Halsey claims is bigger now than in the 1900s.