Is predistribution or redistribution the best way forward?

Economies built around poverty wages and huge corporate surpluses are unsustainable. Relying on extra redistribution will not provide the correction needed.

Is 'predistribution' as championed by Ed Miliband, or old fashioned 'redistribution' as favoured, if stealthily, by Labour from 1997, the best way to create greater equality? An article by the American academic Lane Kenworthy in Juncture argues that because of the obstacles to securing a narrower gap in market incomes, we need to stick with redistribution. 

The most important element of the predistribution debate is how to tackle the problem of shrinking earnings. The share of national output going to wages has fallen from an average of 59% in the two post-war decades to 53% today, with most of the fall borne by low earners. Britain is an economy where both profits and low pay have been booming.

The spread of low pay has capped opportunities, boosted in-work poverty, weakened the incentive to work and increased the cost of income support. Kenworthy argues that reversing the earnings squeeze will be hard: the UK will continue to hemorrhage better-paid manufacturing jobs and there is limited scope for raising the minimum wage. Instead he calls for more generous tax credits to boost take-home pay.

So is this the best way forward? In 2011/12 aggregate wages in the UK stood at £835bn. This is £85bn less than if the wage share had held its 1979 level. Much of the debate about predistribution is about how much of this £85bn shortfall or 'wage-gap' could be restored.

A recent study looked at the potential impact of four ‘predistribution` style measures. It found that a modest 40 pence boost to the minimum wage and policies that halved the numbers earning less than the living wage would, by raising the wage floor, together add around £4bn to the aggregate wage bill, closing about 4.5% of the ‘wage-gap`.

A much more significant impact would come from strengthening labour’s bargaining power which has slumped to one of the weakest amongst rich nations. A doubling of the proportion covered by collective bargaining - bringing Britain closer to the European average - would significantly boost low and middle earnings, adding some £13bn to the wage pool and closing 16% of the gap.

The other most significant measure would be a cut in unemployment. Because tight labour markets are associated with higher wage growth, a rise in employment would boost the wage pool by a further £4bn. Together, these four policies would close around a quarter of the wage-gap, adding over £20bn to aggregate wages. Not huge, but a good start.

So is such a package feasible? The increase in the minimum wage would merely restore its real level to that of 2008. A phased halving of the number below the living wage could be achieved without significant job losses or increased costs. Indeed, living wage companies enjoy improved retention and lower recruitment costs.

Moreover, relying on extra redistribution would also face its own constraints. While Labour from 1997 embraced a strategy of 'stealth redistribution' the policy had run out of steam before 2010. The cost of welfare is increasingly born by middle income groups, helping to harden public attitudes towards benefits. Without reforms that tackle the explosion of tax avoidance and create a more progressive tax system, a further boost tax credits would do little to secure redistribution from the top.

There is a further critical argument for predistribution: restoring economic sanity depends on rebalancing the output of the economy in favour of wages. According to economic orthodoxy, the wages to profits shift should have improved economic health. Instead, it has brought highly damaging distortions, fracturing demand, promoting debt-fuelled consumption and raising economic risk. As profits boomed, private investment plunged. Cheap labour is also a disincentive to raise productivity, and has helped turn the UK into today’s low value-added and low-skilled economy.

According to the International Labour Organisation, nearly all large economies are ‘wage-led’ not ‘profit-led`. That is, they experience slower growth when an excessive share of output is colonised by profits.

The growing imbalance between wages and profits has, arguably, also helped prolong the crisis. While living standards have been falling across rich nations, and wage-based consumption has slumped, corporate profitability has reached new heights. The result – a global economy awash with spare capital. Instead of delivering a sustained recovery, renewing infrastructure and creating jobs, this record mountain of corporate cash reserves is lying idle – 'dead money' according to Mark Carney.

There is now a growing consensus that economies built around poverty wages and huge corporate surpluses are unsustainable, that we need a new economic model that gradually returns the wageshare closer to its post-war level with big firms devoting more of their profits to pay. Despite this, the gap between wage and output growth across rich nations - the primary explanation for falling wage shares - has risen sharply through the crisis. Kenworthy argues that this widening gap is likely to be the 'new normal' rather than a temporary aberration. If so, it will have profound economic and social implications. The signs are that, even at this early stage of recovery, stalled living standards and the growing mountain of idle money are sowing the seeds of the next crisis. 

Consumer credit levels are rising at the fastest rate since 2008 while there are signs of bubbles in house prices and company valuations. As recovery gathers pace, global cash surpluses will be used to finance business activity that raises economic risk. Private equity giants are sitting on billions of 'dry powder' waiting for takeover opportunities.

If we are in a new norm, it is unsustainable. The status quo will end in another crisis. Relying on extra redistribution will not provide the correction needed. Sustainability requires a more proportionate sharing of the cake with wage rises matching output growth. That means making predistribution work. 

Stewart Lansley is the author of The Cost of Inequality and with Howard Reed, How to Boost the Wage Share.

Ed Miliband speaks during a Q&A with party members at the Labour conference in Brighton last month. Photograph: Getty Images.
John Moore
Show Hide image

The man who created the fake Tube sign explains why he did it

"We need to consider the fact that fake news isn't always fake news at the source," says John Moore.

"I wrote that at 8 o'clock on the evening and before midday the next day it had been read out in the Houses of Parliament."

John Moore, a 44-year-old doctor from Windsor, is describing the whirlwind process by which his social media response to Wednesday's Westminster attack became national news.

Moore used a Tube-sign generator on the evening after the attack to create a sign on a TfL Service Announcement board that read: "All terrorists are politely reminded that THIS IS LONDON and whatever you do to us we will drink tea and jolly well carry on thank you." Within three hours, it had just fifty shares. By the morning, it had accumulated 200. Yet by the afternoon, over 30,000 people had shared Moore's post, which was then read aloud on BBC Radio 4 and called a "wonderful tribute" by prime minister Theresa May, who at the time believed it was a genuine Underground sign. 

"I think you have to be very mindful of how powerful the internet is," says Moore, whose viral post was quickly debunked by social media users and then national newspapers such as the Guardian and the Sun. On Thursday, the online world split into two camps: those spreading the word that the sign was "fake news" and urging people not to share it, and those who said that it didn't matter that it was fake - the sentiment was what was important. 

Moore agrees with the latter camp. "I never claimed it was a real tube sign, I never claimed that at all," he says. "In my opinion the only fake news about that sign is that it has been reported as fake news. It was literally just how I was feeling at the time."

Moore was motivated to create and post the sign when he was struck by the "very British response" to the Westminster attack. "There was no sort of knee-jerk Islamaphobia, there was no dramatisation, it was all pretty much, I thought, very calm reporting," he says. "So my initial thought at the time was just a bit of pride in how London had reacted really." Though he saw other, real Tube signs online, he wanted to create his own in order to create a tribute that specifically epitomised the "very London" response. 

Yet though Moore insists he never claimed the sign was real, his caption on the image - which now has 100,800 shares - is arguably misleading. "Quintessentially British..." Moore wrote on his Facebook post, and agrees now that this was ambiguous. "It was meant to relate to the reaction that I saw in London in that day which I just thought was very calm and measured. What the sign was trying to do was capture the spirit I'd seen, so that's what I was actually talking about."

Not only did Moore not mean to mislead, he is actually shocked that anyone thought the sign was real. 

"I'm reasonably digitally savvy and I was extremely shocked that anyone thought it was real," he says, explaining that he thought everyone would be able to spot a fake after a "You ain't no muslim bruv" sign went viral after the Leytonstone Tube attack in 2015. "I thought this is an internet meme that people know isn't true and it's fine to do because this is a digital thing in a digital world."

Yet despite his intentions, Moore's sign has become the centre of debate about whether "nice" fake news is as problematic as that which was notoriously spread during the 2016 United States Presidential elections. Though Moore can understand this perspective, he ultimately feels as though the sentiment behind the sign makes it acceptable. 

"I use the word fake in inverted commas because I think fake implies the intention to deceive and there wasn't [any]... I think if the sentiment is ok then I think it is ok. I think if you were trying to be divisive and you were trying to stir up controversy or influence people's behaviour then perhaps I wouldn't have chosen that forum but I think when you're only expressing your own emotion, I think it's ok.

"The fact that it became so-called fake news was down to other people's interpretation and not down to the actual intention... So in many interesting ways you can see that fake news doesn't even have to originate from the source of the news."

Though Moore was initially "extremely shocked" at the reponse to his post, he says that on reflection he is "pretty proud". 

"I'm glad that other people, even the powers that be, found it an appropriate phrase to use," he says. "I also think social media is often denigrated as a source of evil and bad things in the world, but on occasion I think it can be used for very positive things. I think the vast majority of people who shared my post and liked my post have actually found the phrase and the sentiment useful to them, so I think we have to give social media a fair judgement at times and respect the fact it can be a source for good."

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.