Hacker News Reader

Comment by fragsworth | Hacker News Reader

Wealth inequality changed drastically between 1900 and now. According to the graph, in 1901, the U.K.'s top 1% controlled 73.8% of the nation's wealth. Today it's about 20%.

I wonder what factors caused that change. Wars and emigration maybe have something to do with it?

View on HN

Many things, from the Liberal government's new taxes on landed wealth in the 1910s, to the advent of democratic socialism and universal healthcare after the Labour party's victory in the 1945 election, to the 'Long Boom' of economic growth that the whole capitalist world experienced from the end of WW2 up to the 1970s.

Data like these are interesting, but you still need the deep historical context to make sense of what it all means. Of course, for the overall big picture, you couldn't do better than Thomas Piketty's _Capital in the Twenty-First Century_.

The biggest factor is probably inheritance tax and the slow fade of the aristocracy.

There may also be a "hidden wealth" effect as people move it offshore; is someone domiciled in the Cayman Islands who lives in the UK for <6mo a year part of the "UK" graph?

Major factors:

In 1900 there were almost no taxes - A lot of taxation is not just for 'services' - it's distributional. So there's that.

Literacy, voting, emancipation - this to me is the biggest in the long run. People have skills, professions, they can create/read contracts, everyone can hire a lawyer, there is rule of law. There's much dynamism and much ado. In 1900 almost all of us lived on farms. The economy is way more diversified now.

Labour Unions - just started real power about then. Also maybe an awakening in business: Ford paid his staff a lot more so they could actually buy Model T's. There's some deep insight there.

Mass Media - radio, TV, internet. Information equalizers.

Gender Equality - female workforce participation exploded during the war and I think peaked about 20 years ago. This is a massive shift in economic outcomes.

Teddy Roosevelt - he broke up 40 (!!!) monopolies. Wow. Think about that. Basically, America was possibly taken over by corporate cabals who, in a less diversified economy could control everything. This was I think a huge thing. And though we can think of G, FB etc as monopolies, I don't think they have quite the relative strength. I'm still more worried about Wallmart and Amazon ...

The wealth is hiding behind foundations and non profits controlled by the true wealthy families, that is how. And that wealth doesn't necessary translate to 'luxury' aspect of being wealthy (aka the "how many yachts are enough?") but most certainly does afford the "wealth is power" aspect.

The OP's section on "methodology" touches on "lack of transparency".

Another big factor is growth. There is vastly more real wealth and productivity now, and much of it only makes sense if it's in the hands of the people.

I know that during and after WW2, USA enacted significant anti-trust legislation that broke up and prevented the formation of monopolies, while at the same time allowing for the widespread adoption of worker unions. Taxes were also higher at this time. Did similar legislation occur in the UK during that time period?

The WWI and heavy taxation took a major bite out of the old UK aristocracy.

Are we looking at the same graph? The same tool is showing me they were ~20% in 1920, and doesn't have data for earlier.

You're looking at income, not wealth

Reply on news.ycombinator.com