쉐도잉 연습: Why the UK's Economy is Awful - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

각 모드는 전체 화면 연습실로 열립니다.

204 문장

문장이 너무 짧거나 길면 Edit를 눌러 조정하세요.

This is London.

It has 215,700 millionaires, 516 centimillionaires, and 45 billionaires.

London is very, very rich.

But the rest of the UK?

Not so much.

In fact, citizens of the once proud United Kingdom have less disposable income than the poorest five US states

and the average OECD country.

And if you remove London and the southeast from the equation, the UK's GDP per capita drops 14%.

Life expectancy in parts of Blackpool are lower than in Rwanda,

and entire cities and towns that once thrived now rank among the poorest in Western Europe.

The UK has gone from from the greatest kingdom on earth to squalor.

How did it get here?

This is the UK, the divided kingdom.

Our story starts in 1979.

Margaret Thatcher is elected prime minister with the goal of controlling inflation.

In the lead up to her election, inflation had spiraled out of control.

100 pounds in 1970 was worth over 300 by 1979.

But what caused this?

First, the 1970s were rocked by two massive oil shocks.

When OPEC doubled and then tripled oil prices, everything from gas to groceries got more expensive overnight.

At the same time, wages kept rising as powerful trade unions demanded more pay to keep up with the rising prices,

creating a vicious cycle of rising prices leading to rising wages, leading to rising prices, and so on.

to this, loose monetary and fiscal policies leading to tons of money floating in the economy, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Guided by Chancellor Jeffrey Howe and hardline monetarists like Keith Joseph and Alan Walters, Thatcher had made inflation enemy number one.

To fight it, her strategy was simple.

First, reduce the money supply.

Thatcher's government set out to strangle money supply, cutting sterling M3 growth from 12% a year to just 6% by 1984.

Second, interest rates.

In June 1979, she increased rates from 12% to 14%, then again to 17% in November, the highest in the history of Britain.

The idea was simple enough, make borrowing expensive, slow down credit, and choke off inflation.

Although this helped stamp down inflation, a stronger pound made British exports uncompetitive abroad, while sky-high borrowing costs crippled businesses at home.

Manufacturers couldn't invest, couldn't expand, and in many cases, couldn't even keep the lights on.

And the third thing was government spending.

The Thatcher government aimed to cut public sector borrowing requirement from 4.7% of GDP in 1979 to just 1.5% by 1983.

Concurrently, while in the middle of a recession, they did the unthinkable.

They raised taxes.

But Britain was already in trouble.

More than 2 million people were out of work and every month another 100,000 were joining the unemployment lines.

It was so shocking that 364 economists signed a letter to the Times saying the policy had no basis in economic theory.

So the question was, did it work?

Well, yeah.

Although extreme, inflation decreased from 13% in 1979 to 5% by 1983. But at what cost?

High interest rates, a strong pound, and spending cuts crushed manufacturing towns across the United Kingdom.

Britain's industrial base was gutted and regional inequality began to take shape.

Meanwhile, London was living a very different story.

Predominantly a service-based economy, London, unlike much of the UK, was able to hold on.

By the mid-1980s, joblessness in Northern England, Scotland, and Wales all pushed past 15%, while the Southeast and London stayed under 10%.

But why was this the case?

Enter the Big Bang re-regulation package.

Thatcher had a vision of transforming London into a financial superpower through deregulation.

Fixed commissions and exchange controls were scrapped, the single capacity rule ended, foreign ownership welcomed, and electronic trading unleashed.

The result?

International banks poured in 450 million pounds into the city, 1500 new millionaires were minted,

and London cemented itself as the world's dominant financial center.

On paper, the UK looked like it had gone through a renaissance.

At the end of Thatcher's first year in office, GDP was around 1 trillion Great Britain pounds, but when she left in 1990,

it was 1.4 trillion GBP.

GDP per capita also rose from 15.5 thousand to 19.9 thousand by 1990.

Britain was richer.

But this data doesn't show the whole picture.

During this same period of time, the Gini coefficient, a measure for inequality, increased from 25 to 35.

Meaning, while GDP per capita rose by 30%, inequality rose by 40.

So although Britain was richer, it was becoming more unequal.

This was partly due to the extreme cost of Thatcher's policies on Britain's industrial base.

For example, in 1979, manufacturing accounted for nearly 30% of the UK's GDP, and by 1990 it fell to 16%.

Concurrently, manufacturing employment fell by nearly 40% from 1979 to 1993.

So yes, GDP rose, GDP per capita increased, but if you didn't live in London, it wasn't so obvious.

The services industry grew but other industries declined as the UK wanted to rejig its economy.

Another way to examine the impact of shifting industries is the relationship between direct and indirect jobs created.

Basically, if you open a factory selling widgets, you might hire 100 people directly, but to make your widgets you need steel, electricity, and distributors, and more.

Your factory therefore might support an additional 300 indirect jobs, giving a ratio of 1 direct job to every 3 indirect jobs.

If we look at banking, the total is around 200 indirect jobs per 100 direct jobs, a ratio of 1 to 2.

But if we look at iron manufacturing, the total is over 900 indirect jobs per 100 direct jobs, a ratio of 1 to 9.

In fact, if we look at the financial services industry broadly, the ratio is around 1 to 3.6,

which sounds great, but when you compare it to other industries like utilities, durable manufacturing and non-durable manufacturing?

It isn't.

And this is one of the reasons that service-based industries lead to higher GDP

but increase inequality as earnings become more concentrated among a smaller group of individuals.

But this isn't simply about job creation, it's also about wages and benefits.

Manufacturing jobs tended to be characterized by formal employment agreements with strong benefits, retirement plans, paid holidays, insurance, and sick leave.

Alternatives for the majority low-skilled manufacturing workforce did not have these characteristics.

As such, studies show that the shift away from manufacturing led to an increase in inequality.

And as a reminder, the UK's industrial base is deeply regionalized.

So although there might be jobs and wage growth in the South, pockets that historically relied on out-of-favor industries became hollowed out.

And today, not a single region in the UK north of London has a GDP per capita higher than the UK average.

Let that sink in.

That means that every region in the UK, excluding London and the southeast, is poorer than the average of the UK.

Real quick, over 96% of you aren't subscribed, so if you've been watching for a while, join the 4%.

It's free and helps the channel.

Now back to the video.

As cities become poorer, people begin to move to wealthier ones in search of greener pastures.

It's only natural.

In fact, this phenomenon is studied the world over.

As such, as London began to grow, many economists believe that there would be a significant migration to the big city from other parts of the United Kingdom.

But they were wrong.

Even though people in the UK move between regions at a higher rate than other G7 countries, London is the exception.

In fact, Britons move away from London more than they move to London.

London is one of the only cities in the UK with a negative internal mobility rate.

But how does that make any sense?

100

Especially when you take into account that median household incomes in London are 14% higher than the UK.

101

Isn't it obvious to move?

102

Well, not if you take into account living cost.

103

When you factor in housing, household incomes are only 1% higher in London.

104

So unless you are on the top quartile of earners, it absolutely makes no sense to move.

105

Housing in London is nearly two times greater than the UK average, and when you take into consideration what you get for your dollar, it's even more expensive.

106

It's no surprise then that London has a major homelessness problem.

107

But it's not like anything seen in the Western world.

108

Homelessness advocates counted over 13,000 rough sleepers in London in 2024, a 10% increase from the year prior,

109

and a 63% increase from a decade ago.

110

Overall, 2% of Londoners are considered homeless.

111

Compare that to New York at 0.8%, Toronto at 0.5%, Paris at 0.3%, Berlin at 0.3%, and Amsterdam at 0.2%.

112

London is in a league of its own.

113

One of the reasons for housing struggles is the right-to-buy scheme that Margaret Thatcher introduced in 1980.

114

The idea was to privatize social housing by allowing tenants who

115

lived in these homes to purchase them at a discount from the government.

116

And these discounts were steep.

117

Initially 33% for houses and 50% for flats, which was later raised to 70%.

118

Now many conservative-minded folks might say this sounds like a good idea, but I assure you it is absolutely not.

119

The government was basically allowing people to buy properties at steep discounts to market value without any promise of ensuring

120

that housing stock would remain affordable.

121

This policy would economically benefit the current generation at the expense of future generations.

122

And not only that, local authorities had to offer mortgages with no deposit.

123

So do the math.

124

If you bought a property for 0% down at a 70% discount, then sold it for market value a few years later,

125

untaxed might I add, you would be laughing to the bank.

126

The problem was particularly acute in London.

127

In 1980, London had around 715,000 of these homes, representing nearly 30% of the entire housing stock in the city.

128

But today, only 390,000 of these homes remain, and social housing now comprises around 10% of housing stock,

129

a decrease of 61%.

130

percent.

131

Furthermore, across the UK, it is estimated that at least 40% of right-to-buy homes are now rented at market rates.

132

But there are more reasons than just this for London's skyrocketing housing prices.

133

For one, there are no legal restrictions for foreign nationals to purchase property in London, meaning millionaires and billionaires from abroad have no barrier to buying in London.

134

And they take advantage of this.

135

Roughly 27% of total residential property sales in London in Q1 of 24 were to foreign buyers.

136

Now you might be asking, what does it look like in other major cities like New York?

137

While London is at 27%, New York is at 0.3%.

138

That's a 90 times difference.

139

And it gets worse, over 20% of new rental properties in London have at least one foreign shareholder, doubling from 2016.

140

One of the reasons for this is the UK's non-DOM tax status, which has basically been abolished.

141

This enabled UK residents who claimed their permanent home was abroad to avoid paying UK tax on foreign income and capital gains.

142

Now some might think this is a smart policy, but it is deeply short-sighted.

143

Yes, these people bring money from abroad and spend it locally, but they also compete with the local population on scarce resources like housing.

144

Now if you have a handful of these people, it's really not an issue.

145

But if you have 83,000 of them, you have a major problem.

146

Countries around the world love the idea of rich people spending their money in their country.

147

But it always leads to housing dislocations.

148

Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver, and others all fell trapped to this.

149

Moreover, these rich individuals don't contribute in the same way to the economy.

150

They aren't going to take care of the sick and old.

151

They aren't opening new businesses locally and employing people locally.

152

They aren't working at all.

153

They simply buy luxury homes and cars, eat out, and sleep.

154

Yes, they contribute a little to the economy, but they are nothing more than a way to pad stats.

155

All of this at the expense of local people.

156

But housing is only one piece of the puzzle.

157

The deeper issue is where Britain puts its money, and for decades, the answer was simple.

158

London.

159

When most people visit London, they complain about the tube and the poor infrastructure.

160

Clearly, these people haven't been to other parts of the country.

161

If you look at transport investment in the UK, London takes the cake.

162

The city gets nearly £1,200 per person.

163

Compare that to the Northeast at just £430 and the East Midlands at £350.

164

Even the Southeast, the closest region, barely gets half what London gets.

165

To put it in perspective, if the North had been funded at the same per-person rate as London, it would have seen an extra £140 billion of investment.

166

That's the equivalent of building seven Elizabeth lines.

167

To make matters worse, Burton underspends on transport compared to its peers.

168

OECD data shows that the UK put just 0.3% of GDP a year into roads between 1995 and 2020.

169

Compare this to Italy at 0.4%, Germany and the US at 0.5%, and France at over 0.6%.

170

The tragedy is that this underinvestment makes Britain's cities less productive.

171

With weak road and rail lengths, cities outside London have far less effective size.

172

Fewer people can commute in, fewer jobs are connected, less growth is possible.

173

A unique data point that encapsulates the problem is

174

that the UK is pretty much the only place in Western Europe where city size does not correlate strongly to economic productivity.

175

The poor infrastructure is a critical driver of this, and it's not just transport, the same neglect shows up in R&D.

176

R&D expenditure is heavily concentrated in higher productivity, higher income locations, ergo London.

177

In 2016, the government spent just £21 per person on R&D in the north of England and 14 pounds in the Midlands.

178

In London, it was 60 pounds.

179

This creates a reinforcing loop.

180

More R&D means London firms grow faster, which tracks more private capital, which funds even more R&D.

181

Moreover, Britain is the outlier.

182

Germany's poorer regions, the smaller bubbles on the scrap, receive more public R&D support.

183

In the UK, it's the opposite.

184

The outcome is obvious.

185

The places that need support the most are left with scraps, and Britain's R&D policy ends up deepening inequality instead of fixing it.

186

Now, there is merit to prioritizing government R&D investment into areas where there is business R&D investment, but that isn't even what the UK is doing.

187

In fact, areas like London receive more government R&D support relative to the amount of business R&D in the region, whilst the rest of the UK receives less.

188

Put simply, businesses outside of London are being deprioritized in favor of those in London.

189

Just another reason the UK revolves around London and the quality of life is deteriorating.

190

The United Kingdom is a shell of its former self.

191

What once was a prosperous country has become a mostly vestigial nation with a single thriving city.

192

Tony Blair once promised that the kaleidoscope has been shaken.

193

The pieces are in flux.

194

Soon they will settle again.

195

Before they do, let us reorder this world around us.

196

But two decades later, the only thing reordered has been the United Kingdom around London.

197

The tragedy is that Britain still has the ingredients for prosperity.

198

But until they can spread opportunity beyond London, that promise will remain broken.

199

So yes, Britain still has money, they still have power, and they still have prestige,

200

but it is concentrated in a few square miles along the Thames.

201

For everyone else, the empire is gone, the factories are gone, and the future is shrinking.

202

London sits and eats Michelin star food, while the rest of the UK eats scraps in the alleyways like stray cats.

203

Thank you for watching.

204

Subscribe to 2in20 for more on economics and politics.

앱 다운로드

유창하게 말하는 데 필요한 모든 것

AI 발음 평가문장마다 점수 확인

IPA 발음 연습모든 소리 마스터

단어 학습나만의 단어장 만들기

단어 게임놀면서 외우기

QR 스캔

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

같은 채널

FOR YOU

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 B2 수준 말하기 레슨은 영상 “Why the UK's Economy is Awful”을(를) 바탕으로 합니다. 가장 자주 반복되는 단어는 다음과 같습니다: London, housing, Gdp. 이 영상에는 섀도잉할 문장 204개와 단어 2600개가 있습니다. 말하는 구간의 길이는 17:25입니다. 화자는 분당 약 149단어의 일정한 속도로 말해서 섀도잉하기에 편한 속도입니다. 영어에서 가장 많이 쓰이는 3,000단어에 속하는 단어가 81%뿐이라 어휘가 어려운 편입니다.

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에서 가장 어려운 단어 15개를 발음, 뜻과 함께 정리했습니다.

단어	발음	뜻
inequality 명사	/ˌɪn.ɪˈkwɑ.lɪ.ti/	불평등
inflation 명사	/ɪnˈfleɪ.ʃən/	인플레이션, 인플레
southeast 명사	/sawˈθɪjst/	동남
millionaire 명사	/ˌmɪl.i.əˈnɛə(ɹ)/	백만장자
homelessness 명사	/ˈhəʊm.ləs.nəs/	홈리스니스
billionaire 명사	/ˌbɪl.jəˈnɛɚ/	억만장자
economist 명사	/iˈkɑ.nə.mɪst/	경제학자
steep 형용사	/stiːp/	가파르다
tragedy 명사	/ˈtɹæd͡ʒ.ɪ.di/	비극
moreover 부사	/mɔːˈɹəʊ.və/	게다가, 더욱이
shareholder 명사	/ˈʃɛəˌhəʊl.də(ɹ)/	주주
choke 동사	/t͡ʃoʊk/	질식하다
ingredient 명사	/ɪnˈɡɹiːdi.ənt/	성분
expenditure 명사	/ɛkˈspɛndɪt͡ʃə/	비용, 지출
prestige 명사	/pɹɛsˈtiːd͡ʒ/	위신, 명망

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	is elected · were rocked · was gutted
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	has gone · has basically been abolished · haven't been
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	flats, which was · status, which has

주의할 발음

화자는 aren't, isn't, couldn't 같은 축약형과 약화된 형태를 17번 사용합니다. 들리는 대로 짧게 발음하세요.

“th” 소리: southeast /sawˈθɪjst/, thrive /θɹajv/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/
“sh”와 “zh” 소리: inflation /ɪnˈfleɪ.ʃən/, abolish /əˈbɑl.ɪʃ/, shareholder /ˈʃɛəˌhəʊl.də(ɹ)/, restriction /ɹɪˈstɹɪkʃən/, vicious /ˈvɪʃəs/
긴 단어 — 강세 위치에 주의: inequality /ˌɪn.ɪˈkwɑ.lɪ.ti/, millionaire /ˌmɪl.i.əˈnɛə(ɹ)/, economist /iˈkɑ.nə.mɪst/, productivity /ˌpɹɒdʌkˈtɪvəti/, characterize /ˈkɛɹəktəɹaɪz/

한국어 화자가 어려워하는 소리:

/f/ — ㅍ(/p/)으로 바꾸지 말고 윗니를 아랫입술에 대기: inflation /ɪnˈfleɪ.ʃən/, workforce /ˈwɝk.foɹs/, float /fləʊt/, transform /tɹænsˈfɔɹm/, fixing /ˈfɪksɪŋ/
/v/ — ㅂ(/b/)과 구별하기: productivity /ˌpɹɒdʌkˈtɪvəti/, moreover /mɔːˈɹəʊ.və/, thrive /θɹajv/, vicious /ˈvɪʃəs/, divide /dɪˈvaɪd/
/z/ — ㅈ이 아니라 성대를 울리는 /s/: characterize /ˈkɛɹəktəɹaɪz/, comprise /kəmˈpɹaɪz/, groceries /ˈɡɹoʊ.s(ə.)ɹiz/, puzzle /ˈpʌzəl/, examine /ɪɡˈzæmɪn/

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

먼저 말하지 않고 영상을 끝까지 듣고 모르는 단어를 적어 둡니다.
보통 속도로 한 문장씩 섀도잉하고, 화자의 리듬과 맞을 때까지 반복합니다.
자신의 목소리를 녹음해 원본과 비교하고, inequality, inflation, southeast 같은 단어에 특히 주의합니다.

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: Why the UK's Economy is Awful - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

앱 다운로드

같은 채널

How Erdogan Is Destroying Turkey’s Future

How Greed is Destroying FIFA

Why Plastic Surgery Is Destroying Korea

Why Living In Australia Is Impossible

추천 영상

Fall of Britain: Why Britain Is Collapsing Into a TRAP? ( And cant Escape) Economic case study

The Inflation Problem... It's Worse Than You Think

Labor's near record poll plunge | 9 News Australia

Contemporary Topics 2 Unit 9 PUBLIC HEALTH Global epidemic

The Crown: Wilson's Devaluation Speech

Vietnam’s Insane Economic Boom Explained

Why France’s Economy Is Stalling

#DragonsDen Investor Deborah Meaden: How can the #FutureofBritain make us rich, happy, and healthy?

Kemi Badenoch: “Everybody is an opponent” | Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg

Why Being Poor Is Expensive

What 50% Unemployment Will Actually Do to the Economy

The End Game of U.K Economics