A stark rise in industrial action, a formidable rate of inflation and a nation teetering on the brink of a large-scale financial crisis. It is only considering these combined that root causes of the daily inconveniences of us all can be explained- from seeking healthcare, to using public transport and potentially even attending classes at school. But whilst seemingly a hindrance to many, at the crux of these lies a graver issue: heightened wealth disparities. And the recent questions of many are how, if there is a way, to overcome inadequate standards of living without neglecting crucial duties.
With high levels of financial development on a global scale, it is often overlooked that the UK has a national Gini Coefficient of 0.62. It perhaps more so surprises us all to register London, a seemingly progressive hub of industry, as its most unequal region. With 10% of households owning more than 44.3% of the area’s net worth, we are led to question whether equal opportunities really are provided in proportion to the city’s rapid financial growth, as well as how this can be achieved.
There is no doubt that the availability of a range of services has drastically improved. This can be seen in the free healthcare and education or the expansion of the Crossrail Services, none of which we can take for granted. However, with one in six households in the UK facing serious financial difficulty, frequent disparities in those able to take advantage of these can be brought to light. This is reflected in the contrast of two London boroughs: Richmond and Newham. For instance, the rate of child poverty is 33% higher in Newham than the former, with employment lower by 9%. Moreover, disparities in healthcare have pushed up the difference in life expectancy of London’s between both boroughs to around 10 years. A sole cause of this can be seen to be the expenses of services themselves, with daily railway and toll fees within London making up a large proportion of many wages, and depriving many people of a feasible means of traveling to a job or accessing quality education. Despite healthcare being free nationally, it is often difficult for many to gain healthcare insurance which results in longer waiting times, even in the instances of urgency.
With high levels of desperation in terms of health and finance throughout childhood, many children in deprived households experience a pressure to work immediately after leaving school. This often restricts them from taking up higher paying jobs, the majority of which require inarguably expensive university educations. With a lower population with GCSE attainment and university education in London’s more deprived regions, these are likelier to fall into urban decline, resulting in what we can see as a largely unfair and systemic cycle of poverty. This causes us to wonder if, despite the availability free services to all in London, the accessibility of these are merely restricted to those more able to afford them.
Many say furthermore that high levels of development do not necessarily improve standards of living. A reason for this is gentrification: a symptom of our increasingly productivity-based economy. For instance, housing companies and shops are most commonly owned by businesses seeking high levels of profit. Consequent higher costs of necessities, whilst attracting more local investment, have resulted in many locals struggling to make ends meet. For example, it cannot be forgotten that an alarming number of residents have been evicted from their homes during regeneration projects, such as those of the Focus E15 apartments in Stratford. The fire of Grenfell tower furthermore is only a troubling reminder that many affordable properties are poorly maintained. In turn, the comfort we’d associate with a home is merely replaced by constant, traumatic anxiety and intense levels of grief.
We must also think about a vast disparity in wages themselves. A field affected by recent industrial action is healthcare, with 4,749 appointments canceled due to nurse strikes, not to mention a drastic increase in medical error during surgical operations. Whilst many have condemned the movement as selfish, it is crucial to think of the circumstances the economy has created for its workers. A nurse, for example, despite spending equal hours on duty and constantly interacting with patients directly, earns around half the salary of a doctor. A similar pattern can be seen in the strikes of transport workers, with engineers earning considerably more than drivers themselves, despite the latter having to do the same hours of manual and often more precarious labor. Studies have recently shown additionally that minimum wage is not adequate to sustain a living these including jobs essential to the community, such as childcare and food preparation. These are jobs without which we wouldn’t imagine our comfortable standards of living, yet continue to be justified by the term ‘low-skilled.’ These are jobs which require all to strive tirelessly, but many to not receive what they wholly deserve: a decent quality of life.
Rather than sympathy however, culture dictates to overlook this due to the privileges we do receive. Culture propels the scorn that several have for those struggling, unfairly claiming that many wouldn’t if they ‘simply tried harder.’ And it is only when we take in underlying disparities into consideration that we recognise that education and healthcare are far from accessible. We recognise that, inevitably, wage distribution is biased to those in technologically advanced fields. But as a growing yet suffering economy, it is yet for us to recognise a solution.
