It's the little throwaway lines that are so revealing
Our Sam Bowman takes to the Sunday Times to point out how comparatively poor Britain is.
Why has Britain become so poor?
Even eastern Europe is catching up with our sluggish GDP. Our politicians have been slow to act, but economists say there’s still reason for hope
Indeed so. But while we can point out that Britain is poorer than Mississippi - the poorest US state - that doesn’t necessarily hit home with people. But little throwaway lines might, indeed should.
Like this one:
Bilodeau and scores of other women online are bragging about their work setup using the hashtag #lazygirljob. To fans, the ideal lazy-girl job is one that can be done from home, comes with a chill boss, ends at 5 p.m. sharp and earns between $60,000 and $80,000 a year—enough to afford the basic comforts of young-adult life, yet not enough to feel compelled to work overtime. Veterans of such jobs say roles such as “digital marketing associate,” “customer-success manager” and “office administrator” are good bets for achieving the lazy-girl lifestyle.
Clearly, there are a number of comments possible here. One being “In your dreams”. Another being that the money isn’t everything crowd are quite right, people will work less and enjoy other parts of life when given the chance - when their income meets the physical lifestyle they desire.
We can even think of that target income as just that, a target (a target that appears easily achievable working in a Texas supermarket). But think about what that target means. The basics of the young adult life are $60 to $80k. That’s the standard of living they’re expecting.
That’s a rich, rich, country compared to the median pay of £27k or so ($34k, at market FX rates) in Britain. In fact, that lazy girl income, the one defined as covering those young adult basics, is in the top 10% of UK incomes.
Which is the proof of what we are missing by not having that economic growth. The proof of how comparatively poor we are. Even, compared to the US we’re all in relative poverty. In fact, we pretty much are. Median US household income is some $71k. Median UK is £34k. Or £57k to £34k, which means that, given the definition of relative poverty as below 60% of median household income then yes, the median UK household is in poverty by US standards.
That’s what we’re missing out upon. And it’s difficult to start arguing that the UK is more free market, less oppressed by politics and redistribution than the US is. Therefore, logically, to gain that living standard they’ve got we should be more free market and less burdened by politics and redistribution.
Government in the United States takes some 26 to 27% of everything to feed its maw. Here in Britain at present it’s more like 45%. Which gives us that very interesting target - let’s slash government by 20% of GDP so we can all have lazy girl jobs. Wouldn’t that be fun?