On Inequality

They asked for anyone with questions to state their Name and Union. This was an introduction to the new President of the ACTU and a session on Inequality. I didn't ask a question, but those comfortable with this convention did, eg, "[Name], CPSU Retired". It amused me. As did the ongoing convention within the Union movement of using the term "Comrade". It jangles to my ear and dates the movement but it's obviously a tradition of note for those within. But those are trivial issues. The main matters were to meet Michele O'Neil, the new ACTU President (of one week) and inequality. I warmed to her. She smiles easily; she speaks well and with conviction; she has a Canberra connection and friends (lived here 15 years from age 8). She talked of her time representing the Textile and Clothing workers, well known for their poor treatment - working from home; paid low or under-minimum wage; no conditions or paid leave; poor treatment - and of their Union's response. And interestingly, of the similarity of their plight and the nature of the current gig economy. Then on to the session on Inequality. The chair spoke very strongly and deeply personally of her experiences (from Iran, including the death of her father while medicines were not available due to sanctions). Then Emma Dawson of Per Capita think tank on relevant stats and John Falzon (CEO of St Vinnie's) on listening to the people, inequality as "not an accident" and the secret weapon of "solidarity". Michele reprised some of her earlier introduction and added more on wage theft, homelessness, working poverty and responses: structural change and a rebalance of power for workers through winning the argument with the public and government. There were questions on economic mobility, UBI (not popular with this group), the Union movement, engaging young people, CDP, benefits of work. I could only agree about the core issue of inequality (not alone there) and warm to social democratic responses. I could accept this is a time of transition in technology (I add, end-times for climate) so ructions are inevitable. I can easily question the unbalanced approaches to capital(-ism) and individuality and worry of our politics and its influences and distribution of power in society. But at the same time, I'm in two minds that the traditional Union movement is the response. But then, the Greens can be pretty blind to class and there's lots of self-serving wealth out there to unduly influence politics and a very limited media to inform us. So the Unions may remain our best path. However it happens, it's clear we need change, massive and quick. So best of luck to Michele and John and Emma ... and us.

Michele O'Neil, Emma Dawson and John Falzon spoke at an Inequality forum organised by the CPSU.

Focussing on the absolute

Martin Ravallion returned to ANU for a public lecture. He's now a professor at Georgetown University and has been Director of the World Bank's research department. He was speaking at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy. All indicative of a worthy and informed discussion on the topic, Global inequality : are the world's poor being left behind. It was certainly worthy, even important, but not quite what we expected. MR considered traditional assessments of poverty that show major reductions in the number of people below the poverty line in developing countries. The statistical technique is the Counting approach but this aggregates and misses the poor who remain at the poverty line. MR has developed (very recently, it seems, so this lecture was significant) an alternative approach that he called a Rawlsian approach and that measures whether the consumption floor is rising, so the poorest are rising. This is absolute, not relative, inequality. He quoted Ban Ki-Moon and Gandhi's talisman and IFRI and ILO which also highlight the poorest, and he observed that economists consistently utilise and perhaps see no issue with the more averaged counting method. He's now matching his approach against relevant data for countries to further investigate its effectiveness. And here is the approach (if I copied correctly): probability of number at or near the consumption floor is expressed by E(ymin/y) where (?) y(1*-SPG/PG). As I said, not your average public lecture. The questions were a mix of academic and public and perhaps expanded on the real socio-political implications. There's a biological floor where the poorest die, but this is not the consumption floor in most countries, including developing countries. The poverty level in China has recently been raised from $US1pd to $US2pd; the poverty level in USA is $US13pd; the international poverty level was determined in 2015 as $US1.25pd. All this is not a function of capitalism but of the effectiveness of social policy through social safety net schemes, although approaches to these may coincide in different countries. Social safety nets are increasingly widespread, including in developing countries, but often don't raise the consumption level of the very poorest. The role of colonialism is significant but often exaggerated. Foreign aid can be workfair (?) programs or cash transfers and the better option is not obvious and depends on circumstances. I guess his final message would be: don't focus on the floor alone, but don't ignore it. So, more mathematical, more theoretical, more narrowly focussed than most public lectures, but worthy and informative.

Dr Martin Ravallion spoke at the ANU on global inequality.

No-one left behind? / Martin Ravallion, 12 Jan 2015 Essentially this presentation without the formula