Income inequality

[Professor Polonsky]

In a previous thread we had, I brought up the issue of gross income equality, and enwiabe said

This brings it to a debate on socialism vs. capitalism. If you'd like to have that debate, could you start a new thread for it?

Now, here's the deal. Admittedly, I personally straddle the line between 'actual' socialism (an economy in which the government/worker syndicates are the main actors, corporations being run for the good of everyone and not for-profit, et cetera) and social democracy (think Labor, or the Swedish model). There is a bit of room in the middle - probably most of the West pre-Reagan and Thatcher.

If I say I'm a socialist, a lot of people would think that I support exact financial equality with everyone, and then proceed to challenge me with the incentive problem. If you check any definition of socialism, it actually almost never guarantees equal distribution of wealth - it asks for a fair one.

Don't get me wrong, we don't need some grand socialist revolution for a fair wealth distribution. The problem is that what we have now clearly is not a fair distribution of the wealth. I have no qualms with a doctor or a lawyer earning a six-figure salary - in fact, under my ideal system, they'd probably earn more. The problem is the mega-rich, the minute segment of our population which hold an immense amount of wealth - soon enough, they'd own the majority of it.

This video just came out recently, and it perfectly illustrates my point. You really have to watch it.

[Professor Polonsky]

By the way, if you think the situation is drastically different in Australia, you're wrong. While the bottom 60% or so (the first three quintiles) are doing somewhat better, the overall picture is roughly the same.

[TheManG]

Just a quick comment but isn't this pretty blatantly apparent in our society today?

(Yes, another thing on schools... )

I do read statistics on schools, and judging from the 'MySchool' website, it can be plainly seen that the 'top tier' end private schools, or even the best public schools in the state, are basically a segregation of the higher socio-economical families/individuals within the state.

(If you don't believe me, just search up any school that is ranked 100+. Select Entry Schools do not have such statistics)

Now if we were to look at the courses that these schools blatantly advertise, more often than not, students from these 'top tier' schools end up in Law, Dentistry or Medicine. So factor in that there are hypothetically 300 places in University X's Medicine course. Clearly with the way medicine is perceived in society, this course will be in high demand. Going anecdotal here but IIRC, MHS had around 25+ students get into Medicine at a certain university. So we have 275~ places left. However, that was just one school, and a very fine school indeed, but look at the other top tier end schools, and we can clearly see that, on average, they are able to have 10+ students get into medicine. So with just 30 'good' schools, the quota of places will have filled up. This is purely anecdotal but I know of only 2 individuals in medicine who came from quite 'terrible' public schools. They clearly represent a minority. This is clearly an exaggeration, as some 'top tier' schools may have only 1 student get into medicine or none at all. My main points are that it is pretty obvious that segregation is happening all over again and that the majority of individuals, within Medicine, have come from quite good schools (Private or Select Entry).

You could say it is attributed to the environment at those schools but even then, would we ever know how many individuals from dis-advantaged backgrounds want to truly do Medicine but didn't quite make the cut, either due to their UMAT or ATAR? Clearly if they were dis-advantaged beyond means that were not within their control, either financially or family related issues, shouldn't universities take all this into account?

Statistically speaking, and if you want sources (i.e MySchool website and Schools' issuing post-graduate destinations, I'll dig some up) I'll post later today, these schools cost on average $1,000 for Select, $20,000 to $30,000 for private schools. Clearly this is a 'small price' to pay, considering you do, realistically, have a high'er' chance of getting into medicine, (I should just say Health Sciences, which would encompass Medicine, Dentistry, Physiotherapy etc...). Realistically though, these schools are 'select entry' in the sense that the individuals who attend such schools have come from quite affluent families.

Note: I am not undermining such schools in anyway. In fact, I have the utmost respect for them. If, what I say is indeed true, you would think that Medicine Schools' around Australia would have identified this 'issue' and, if possible, just provide some sort of 'leniency' in regards to accepting students from very dis-advantaged backgrounds.

If any Medicine students want to refute anything within my post, please do.

(I will add more later tonight. )

(Note: But I should add that if we look at the students' who are offered a National Scholarship from the UoM, we can clearly see that they go to some of the best schools in this state. Also, this scholarship provides them with a HECs-Free course and Monies. I personally know of a few individuals who come from financially dis-advantaged backgrounds and are strugging to find ways pay for their HECs debt and even then, they are in a course that doesn't ensure many career oppurtunities. Is this scholarship money well spent? If you retort with the fact that they 'earnt' it then maybe you should look at these schools and jump on MySchool to see the socio-economical environment that they were subjected to. More often than not, these top schools are comprised of families who belong in the top 89-90% of 'high' middle class to high class.

[Professor Polonsky]

Well, there is a provision in SEAS for students from underepresented schools, as well as low socioeconomic background et cetera. I don't think there quite exists equal opportunity for people in the public and private school systems, and we had a rather lengthy discussion on that.

The issue I was trying to raise was more your extremely high-earning class, which I don't think the majority of are your common doctors or lawyers.

[mark_alec]

I personally know of a few individuals who come from financially dis-advantaged backgrounds and are strugging to find ways pay for their HECs debt and even then, they are in a course that doesn't ensure many career oppurtunities.

Why should anyone struggle to pay off HECS? It is effectively a low-interest loan that you only need to repay once your income reaches a certain level. And it is their choice to pursue a university course without many career opportunities.

[Professor Polonsky]

A HECS debt can be a financial burden - it's like paying much more tax. But surely, it's better than having to pay a loan with interest, or worse, upfront.

Can we stay on topic