"In real terms, there is a greater disparity of earnings between the very rich and the very poor"
About this Quote
Mount points to the hard arithmetic of inequality. By saying "in real terms", he strips away the fog of inflation and nominal pay rises to focus on purchasing power. The claim is that, once you adjust for what money can actually buy, the distance between the highest earners and those at the bottom has widened. It is not a matter of perception or rhetoric, but of lived capacity: the ability to afford housing, healthcare, education, and time.
Coming from Ferdinand Mount, a British conservative writer and former head of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, the line carries a particular charge. He has long examined how meritocratic promises have collided with the realities of the modern economy, arguing in books like The New Few that Britain has drifted toward an oligarchic structure. His observation registers a tension inside contemporary conservatism: market dynamism has delivered growth and innovation, yet much of the income surge has accrued at the top while median earnings have stagnated.
Earnings disparity, as opposed to wealth disparity, zeros in on what people receive from work. The forces behind the widening gap are familiar: the decline of unions and collective bargaining; the globalization of labor and capital; technological change that rewards specialized skills and capital ownership over routine work; the rise of superstar markets and winner-take-all pay; executive compensation structures tied to stock markets; and tax and regulatory choices that magnify top-end gains. Meanwhile, basic costs have risen fastest in non-discretionary areas like housing and childcare, so a modest paycheck stretches less each year.
Mount’s point is diagnostic rather than envious. A democracy depends on the sense that effort translates into security and opportunity. When the earnings chasm grows, mobility falters, trust erodes, and politics polarizes. The line invites a practical question: how to renew dynamism without resigning ourselves to an economy in which the returns to talent and capital soar while the returns to ordinary work stall.
Coming from Ferdinand Mount, a British conservative writer and former head of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, the line carries a particular charge. He has long examined how meritocratic promises have collided with the realities of the modern economy, arguing in books like The New Few that Britain has drifted toward an oligarchic structure. His observation registers a tension inside contemporary conservatism: market dynamism has delivered growth and innovation, yet much of the income surge has accrued at the top while median earnings have stagnated.
Earnings disparity, as opposed to wealth disparity, zeros in on what people receive from work. The forces behind the widening gap are familiar: the decline of unions and collective bargaining; the globalization of labor and capital; technological change that rewards specialized skills and capital ownership over routine work; the rise of superstar markets and winner-take-all pay; executive compensation structures tied to stock markets; and tax and regulatory choices that magnify top-end gains. Meanwhile, basic costs have risen fastest in non-discretionary areas like housing and childcare, so a modest paycheck stretches less each year.
Mount’s point is diagnostic rather than envious. A democracy depends on the sense that effort translates into security and opportunity. When the earnings chasm grows, mobility falters, trust erodes, and politics polarizes. The line invites a practical question: how to renew dynamism without resigning ourselves to an economy in which the returns to talent and capital soar while the returns to ordinary work stall.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|
More Quotes by Ferdinand
Add to List
