Why nobody wants to admit they're part of the 1 per cent

A culture of secrecy over executive pay is holding back attempts to tackle inequality.

Last week another public figure, the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, had his two penn'orth on top executive pay, decrying the excesses of the financial sector as unfair and bad for society. But for all the air time given to the issue of levels of pay, discussing how much we are paid remains a social taboo - a subject best avoided in polite circles.

It raises the question - how do we address the thorny issues of high levels of pay amongst elite groups in society and income inequality, if we do not know how high earners themselves think about their pay and its effect on society? Changing behaviour is always tough, but in this case will be particularly difficult without a better understanding of how high earners see the world and their place in it.

To shed more light on this, the High Pay Commission, an independent inquiry into top pay in the private sector, commissioned Ipsos MORI to talk to a group of top earners - people in the top 1 per cent of the UK's income distribution.

The research shows that the taboo around discussing your pay inhibits rational debate on the subject and distorts the way top earners see their salaries.

First, hardly anyone who took part in the study considered themselves to be rich. High earners feel closer to the "squeezed middle" than the "super rich". They considered that their costs of living were too high for them to be more than "comfortably off". For them, "rich" means Bill Gates rich - having too much to be realistically able to spend.

Transparency around pay is not a cultural norm in the UK. There is a culture of secrecy over pay for many high earners. Some have little basis for comparison, aside from occasional conversations with headhunters. And the more senior they get, the more difficult it is to discuss pay.

They are not immune to the current media commentary on pay and discussions of bankers' bonuses. Compared to a similar sample of high earners in 2008, these high earners are more thoughtful about the way society values them and less likely to claim that they deserve their pay purely through their own hard work and skills.

So, satisfaction with pay is based on a sense of entitlement - if that is what the industry pays, that is what I should be getting. They do not justify their high pay by claiming that they work harder than everyone else or have more specialist skills. Some told us that they bring value to their companies which exceed their salary cost. But at the same time, they acknowledge that an individual's contribution to corporate success is hard to quantify and so pay does not always reflect individual performance.

Instead, the people who are paid most are those who are best at pay negotiations and "selling" themselves effectively.

Overall, they recognise that there is income inequality and they are to a great extent fortunate to earn what they do. They feel some industries simply pay high and there is a hefty dose of luck involved.

Here lies the tricky issue. High earners believe high pay is an institutional, global and systemic phenomenon. They also mention a number of social benefits coming from having high earners in our midst - for example, they believe in the trickle-down effect of high salaries to the rest of society.

There may be potential to communicate with high earners about changing the way society values different incomes, but they do not have faith that any local interventions around equalising pay would work.

Those in the City felt that asking the City in particular to behave differently is unlikely to work - as it only answers to its own rules.

So where does this leave public policy on the issue?

In a world where high earners do not talk about their pay and underestimate how close to the top they are, something is needed to get high earners out of their "bubble" - to take high pay out of the shadows and make it clear how different the top 1 per cent are from the other 99 per cent.

Ministers have urged companies to publish salaries voluntarily. It seems unlikely that many companies will accept the invitation. But however it is achieved, greater transparency about salaries might help high earners themselves understand the challenges of income inequality - and get on board with an agenda to reduce it.

Sarah Castell is Head of Qualitative Methods at Ipsos MORI

Getty
Show Hide image

The SNP thinks it knows how to kill hard Brexit

The Supreme Court ruled MPs must have a say in triggering Article 50. But the opposition must unite to succeed. 

For a few minutes on Tuesday morning, the crowd in the Supreme Court listened as the verdict was read out. Parliament must have the right to authorise the triggering of Article 50. The devolved nations would not get a veto. 

There was a moment of silence. And then the opponents of hard Brexit hit the phones. 

For the Scottish government, the pro-Remain members of the Welsh Assembly and Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, the victory was bittersweet. 

The ruling prompted Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to ask: “Is it better that we take our future into our own hands?”

Ever the pragmatist, though, Sturgeon has simultaneously released her Westminster attack dogs. 

Within minutes of the ruling, the SNP had vowed to put forward 50 amendments (see what they did there) to UK government legislation before Article 50 is enacted. 

This includes the demand for a Brexit white paper – shared by MPs from all parties – to a clause designed to prevent the UK reverting to World Trade Organisation rules if a deal is not agreed. 

But with Labour planning to approve the triggering of Article 50, can the SNP cause havoc with the government’s plans, or will it simply be a chorus of disapproval in the rest of Parliament’s ear?

The SNP can expect some support. Individual SNP MPs have already successfully worked with Labour MPs on issues such as benefit cuts. Pro-Remain Labour backbenchers opposed to Article 50 will not rule out “holding hands with the devil to cross the bridge”, as one insider put it. The sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas, will consider backing SNP amendments she agrees with as well as tabling her own. 

But meanwhile, other opposition parties are seeking their own amendments. Jeremy Corbyn said Labour will seek amendments to stop the Conservatives turning the UK “into a bargain basement tax haven” and is demanding tariff-free access to the EU. 

Separately, the Liberal Democrats are seeking three main amendments – single market membership, rights for EU nationals and a referendum on the deal, which is a “red line”.

Meanwhile, pro-Remain Tory backbenchers are watching their leadership closely to decide how far to stray from the party line. 

But if the Article 50 ruling has woken Parliament up, the initial reaction has been chaotic rather than collaborative. Despite the Lib Dems’ position as the most UK-wide anti-Brexit voice, neither the SNP nor Labour managed to co-ordinate with them. 

Indeed, the Lib Dems look set to vote against Labour’s tariff-free amendment on the grounds it is not good enough, while expecting Labour to vote against their demand of membership of the single market. 

The question for all opposition parties is whether they can find enough amendments to agree on to force the government onto the defensive. Otherwise, this defeat for the government is hardly a defeat at all. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.