Who ate all the pie?

The impact of rising pay inequality will be felt throughout the UK economy.

You probably won't be too surprised to hear that for a long time many workers have been receiving an ever smaller portion of the fruits of economic growth. But if we are to properly understand the 'trickle-up' tendencies of British capitalism we need to not only register the depressing headline but get under the surface of what brought it about.

A new report out today does exactly that: it shows that there has been a sharp fall in the share of GDP going to those in work on below average earnings at the same time as the highest earners have received an ever larger share of the national economic pie. This is not just about stagnant wages over recent years - though that has made matters worse. This runs deeper. Over a generation the wages of the bottom half of the working population have shrunk to 10 per cent of GDP, whist the top 1 per cent have seen a 50 per cent increase in their share.


Source: Resolution Foundation 2011

So far, so predictable, you may think. But the explanation of this challenges some popular assumptions. One view, firmly held by some on the left, is that the long-term decline in wages as a share of GDP is simply the flipside of more of our national income taking the form of corporate profit. There is some truth in this - it is estimated that it accounts for around 10 per cent of the long-term wage squeeze experienced by the bottom half of earners - but this is not nearly as much many people think. (And the share of 'profit' in national accounts is if anything over-stated as it also reflects payments to the growing army of the self-employed - which isn't really what most people think of 'capital').

Another view, more often heard from those on the right and from business, is that workers' wages have been under pressure because of rising burdens on employers, such as higher national insurance contributions, which have borne down on pay. These costs have certainly risen. But again, this can be overstated: it accounts for an estimated 15 per cent of the reduced share of GDP paid out in wages to those on below average earnings.

A more predictable, and potent, explanation of why the bottom half of workers have been losing out involves rising pay inequality: of the total sum paid out in wages, a far greater share is now going to the top half of earners than used to be the case -- and within the top half, it is the top 10 per cent that have done best, and within the top 10 per cent it is the richest 1 per cent who have really cleaned up. Not surprisingly if we focus on changes in wages since the late 1990s then the role of the finance sector is key, with a staggering proportion of all of the gains to the top 10 per cent of earners in Britain flowing to a small number of people in that sector.


Source: Resolution Foundation 2011

Take a longer view of pay inequality, going back to the 1970s, and a slightly different picture emerges. Part of the increase reflects the fact that jobs have gravitated over time from relatively 'equal' sectors like manufacturing into 'unequal' sectors like finance. But the bigger story is that almost all sectors have contributed to the rise in pay inequality: we can't pin it all on bankers. Regardless of where you work, the gap between the top and bottom is likely to have grown.

Shining a light on these trends helps focus minds on the long-term prospects for low-to-middle earners within our economy. Of course, some will just shrug their shoulders at all this. For them, growing economic inequality amongst the working population is simply what happens in advanced market economies - get over it. But many economists - and not just those on the left - are increasingly unsettled about where all this is headed. After all, you don't exactly have to be a class warrior (or even a social democrat) to believe that a country in which the wage share of the bottom half of earners is constantly falling is likely to be an increasingly volatile one: both in the economic sense, as ever more people consume all they earn, fail to save for the future, and rely on debt to try and ensure their living standards rise in line with the wider economy. And volatile in a wider political sense too. If a generation grows up believing that there is likely to be little personal gain from economic growth then they may not think the policies (and parties) that advocate the measures that generate higher prosperity are desirable or even legitimate.

Equally, you don't have to be a free-market fundamentalist to question the feasibility of the state doing ever more to compensate for escalating wage inequality through more redistributive tax and benefit policies. My own view is that there is very little prospect of the next Labour government -- or any other government for that matter - doing much more to reduce inequality via redistributive tax and benefit policies than was the case prior to 2010. This means that those who worry about inequalities in long-term living standards need to shift from a narrow focus on tax and benefit policies to the much thornier issues of achieving rising real wages and employment rates.

Anyone who claims to want a rising-tide economy, in which the gains from growth are widely shared, must recognise that this can't mean the bottom half of wage-earners being left with an ever smaller slice of the pie. Whatever tomorrow's much anticipated GDP figures turn out to be, this is the real economic question of our times. Business as usual won't do.

Gavin Kelly is chief executive of the Resolution Foundation.

Gavin Kelly is a former adviser to Downing Street and the Treasury. He tweets @GavinJKelly1.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.