|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 14, 2023 16:43:04 GMT
The minimum wage was a good idea with unforeseen consequences. Instead of guaranteeing a minimum wage it created an expected wage. For instance. A pub looking for a new bar person before the minimum wage might well look to see what other pubs were offering and off a little more. But the minimum wage gave every pub owner the exact amount they needed to pay and they found they could get staff at that rate. Sadly then business competition drove prices down so that they couldn't pay more even if they wanted to.
That would sound correct but its not borne out by the stats, we have had low unemployment in this country for the decades we have had high immigration.
The change has been in the type of jobs available rather than the pay rate for given jobs.
See above.
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Jun 14, 2023 16:55:06 GMT
I imagine a party in favour of low tax and low benefits don't we all..  Plus whacking great pension increase when the elections loom  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 14, 2023 17:00:14 GMT
Its a tricky one. Generally it is observed that most people even given sufficient amounts to survive comfortably still work harder to obtain more. I disagree, gaining advantage is a genetic trait, one associated with survival. Very sure. Rather than second guessing what's in my head are you sure you're not a secret supporter of the communist party? Yes. And what do we do about the wealth gap. So what do we do about the wealth gap as automation takes jobs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 17:14:22 GMT
A post by Red Rackham suggesting the Tories had moved to the centre left led me to think about what a centre right Tory would look like. I realise that my ideas of what this might be are not necessarily correct. I imagine a party in favour of low tax and low benefits in which each man and women is supposed to look after themselves with only very few seeming worthy of help. Cutting funding on health without any thought of how we pay for the endless new treatments now available, but with the secret idea that the wealthy can get it privately A two tier system. Anyway that's my impression. Am I wrong. I think the terms centre left, centre right, left, right, far left, far right are not fixed. Because different people mean slightly different things by them quite often. As to the point in question, for my part I imagine a centre right Tory to be something of a one nation Tory, keen to reward economic success and encourage entrepreneurialism yet also holding some compassion for the poor and wanting to help everybody achieve. I see where the Tories mostly were in the Days of Macmillan as being centre right. I don't think the Tories have ever been centre left, and don't see them as being so now. I do think there is a wing of the Tory party today that is populist in an almost Trumpian sense, occupying similar shifting sands where the truth is concerned. Boris Johnson himself is the most prominent member of this wing. As populists they are prepared to occasionally hijack popular policies touted by parties to their left, but most of their driving impulses are right wing. I essentially see three types of Tories today. The right of centre one nation ones who also believe in sound finances who are mostly in control right now. Then there are the right wing populists as represented by Boris Johnson and his followers. Then there are the economically radical right wing Thatcherites as represented by people like Truss. Her mistake was to forget about the balanced budget aspects of Thatcherism. I will add in conformity with this sub-forum's rules that these are just my educated opinions based upon my own observations and researches over the years. I could be right or I could be wrong, or I could be a bit of both. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 14, 2023 17:17:20 GMT
So what do we do about the wealth gap as automation takes jobs. Why do we need to anything about the wealth gap as automation has always taken jobs right back to the Luddites in the 19th Century. As jobs get taken over by machines other jobs are created - we now have more people in work than ever before in our history. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 17:20:20 GMT
Which always leads to the question of what don't we want. Please don't just say that if we cut the waste we could have it all. OK - I'll give you an easy example. Currently we have more Civil Servants working in the MOD than the total manpower in the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force combined. At the present rate of growth within 10 years we will have more Civil Servants than we have soldiers in the Army. The UK Armed Forces have been shrinking in size since the fall of the Berlin Wall - yet the unproductive Civil Service keeps expanding.. I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong. But do you have any evidence to back that up? Otherwise, according to this subforum's tougher rules it can only be regarded as an opinion and not a statement of fact. Opinions can still be right of course. But reliable evidence would confirm it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 14, 2023 17:21:48 GMT
I don't think the Tories have ever been centre left, and don't see them as being so now. Where do you place Starmers Labour Party? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 17:30:49 GMT
I don't think the Tories have ever been centre left, and don't see them as being so now. Where do you place Starmers Labour Party? They have adopted a similar position on the spectrum to New Labour, right of centre on a range of issues, slightly left of centre on others and well to the left on identity politics issues, which right wingers tend to label as "woke". Economically, Labour now is not very far away at all from Rishi Sunak. They might have slightly more generous impulses in some areas but the differences are marginal. It is on so-called culture war issues where there exists a big divide between Labour and Tories. Also Labour is markedly less hostile to the EU than the Tories, most of its current MPs having been opponents of Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 14, 2023 17:31:16 GMT
So what do we do about the wealth gap as automation takes jobs. Why do we need to anything about the wealth gap as automation has always taken jobs right back to the Luddites in the 19th Century. As jobs get taken over by machines other jobs are created - we now have more people in work than ever before in our history. I disagree. The acceleration of automation is out stripping the creation of new jobs in the well paid sectors. The jobs available today are increasingly in discretionary spend service industries where demands for higher wages would simply remove the service. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 14, 2023 17:37:05 GMT
Why do we need to anything about the wealth gap as automation has always taken jobs right back to the Luddites in the 19th Century. As jobs get taken over by machines other jobs are created - we now have more people in work than ever before in our history. I disagree. The acceleration of automation is out stripping the creation of new jobs in the well paid sectors. The jobs available today are increasingly in discretionary spend service industries where demands for higher wages would simply remove the service. Wage growth has stagnated in recent years, but not due to automation - we have had massive automation and wage growth go hand in hand since the Industrial Revolution. If you are interested in tackling stagnant wages then tackle the reasons for stagnant wages - worrying about inequality that has always been there (and is impossible to eradicate) is no solution. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 17:40:57 GMT
Why do we need to anything about the wealth gap as automation has always taken jobs right back to the Luddites in the 19th Century. As jobs get taken over by machines other jobs are created - we now have more people in work than ever before in our history. I disagree. The acceleration of automation is out stripping the creation of new jobs in the well paid sectors. The jobs available today are increasingly in discretionary spend service industries where demands for higher wages would simply remove the service. In the long run this is going to be economically unworkable, because such discretionary spend businesses rely on others earning enough to afford discretionary spending. If fewer and fewer people earn enough to afford discretionary spending because more and more of them are working for low pay in businesses that cannot afford to pay more without losing customers, many such businesses will be driven out of business anyway. And this will happen because there will be fewer customers. There is the danger of a runaway downward spiral the like of which we have never seen before. The only solution I can see which makes sense is either some form of Universal Basic Income, or directly subsidising and removing the tax burden from the low paid. And also somehow doing something to reduce extortionate housing costs. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 14, 2023 17:59:25 GMT
I disagree. The acceleration of automation is out stripping the creation of new jobs in the well paid sectors. The jobs available today are increasingly in discretionary spend service industries where demands for higher wages would simply remove the service. In the long run this is going to be economically unworkable, because such discretionary spend businesses rely on others earning enough to afford discretionary spending. If fewer and fewer people earn enough to afford discretionary spending because more and more of them are working for low pay in businesses that cannot afford to pay more without losing customers, many such businesses will be driven out of business anyway. And this will happen because there will be fewer customers. There is the danger of a runaway downward spiral the like of which we have never seen before. The only solution I can see which makes sense is either some form of Universal Basic Income, or directly subsidising and removing the tax burden from the low paid. And also somehow doing something to reduce extortionate housing costs. 100% agree. Historically the UK was a leader in industrial development selling new technology to the second world, that market started shrinking in the late 50's with China's industrial revolution. Its all but gone now and alongside automation the number of middle income jobs is shrinking. Meanwhile in order to keep land values high, governments have allowed the housing gap to grow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 20:02:51 GMT
In the long run this is going to be economically unworkable, because such discretionary spend businesses rely on others earning enough to afford discretionary spending. If fewer and fewer people earn enough to afford discretionary spending because more and more of them are working for low pay in businesses that cannot afford to pay more without losing customers, many such businesses will be driven out of business anyway. And this will happen because there will be fewer customers. There is the danger of a runaway downward spiral the like of which we have never seen before. The only solution I can see which makes sense is either some form of Universal Basic Income, or directly subsidising and removing the tax burden from the low paid. And also somehow doing something to reduce extortionate housing costs. 100% agree. Historically the UK was a leader in industrial development selling new technology to the second world, that market started shrinking in the late 50's with China's industrial revolution. Its all but gone now and alongside automation the number of middle income jobs is shrinking. Meanwhile in order to keep land values high, governments have allowed the housing gap to grow. On the issue of businesses relying on discretionary spending to survive. There is one I frequent whose example can probably stand for many. It is a fish and chip shop and cafe. I sometimes buy fish and chips or some such food there or eat in to enjoy a full English breakfast. But their costs have increased enormously. The cost of cooking oil has doubled. Their energy costs have rocketed. The food they have to buy in to cook has increased in cost by enormous amounts. The fish they buy for example has doubled in cost. They have cut down staff but have still been forced to radically increase their prices. A portion of cod and chips which not long ago could be had for £6 now costs nearly £9. They have diversified slightly by offering a hake and chips option but that still costs £7.75. A full English big one breakfast that used to cost £7 now wipes out the best part of a tenner. But of course many of their customers are feeling the cost of living crisis themselves and are cutting down on their discretionary spending. So the establishment is having to charge more to customers who have a lot less to spare. The inevitable result is that it is a lot less busy now with far fewer customers. The cafe component used to be rammed full. Now it is two thirds empty even at peak times. This does mean I get served much more quickly. But I too have greatly increased costs and less spare cash so what used to be a treat there a couple of times a week is now only a couple of times a month. I know from speaking to them that they are struggling and at risk of going out of business. This is the hard reality already being faced by small businesses relying on customers with spare cash for discretionary spending. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 14, 2023 20:18:09 GMT
100% agree. Historically the UK was a leader in industrial development selling new technology to the second world, that market started shrinking in the late 50's with China's industrial revolution. Its all but gone now and alongside automation the number of middle income jobs is shrinking. Meanwhile in order to keep land values high, governments have allowed the housing gap to grow. On the issue of businesses relying on discretionary spending to survive. There is one I frequent whose example can probably stand for many. It is a fish and chip shop and cafe. I sometimes buy fish and chips or some such food there or eat in to enjoy a full English breakfast. But their costs have increased enormously. The cost of cooking oil has doubled. Their energy costs have rocketed. The food they have to buy in to cook has increased in cost by enormous amounts. The fish they buy for example has doubled in cost. They have cut down staff but have still been forced to radically increase their prices. A portion of cod and chips which not long ago could be had for £6 now costs nearly £9. They have diversified slightly by offering a hake and chips option but that still costs £7.75. A full English big one breakfast that used to cost £7 now wipes out the best part of a tenner. But of course many of their customers are feeling the cost of living crisis themselves and are cutting down on their discretionary spending. So the establishment is having to charge more to customers who have a lot less to spare. The inevitable result is that it is a lot less busy now with far fewer customers. The cafe component used to be rammed full. Now it is two thirds empty even at peak times. This does mean I get served much more quickly. But I too have greatly increased costs and less spare cash so what used to be a treat there a couple of times a week is now only a couple of times a month. I know from speaking to them that they are struggling and at risk of going out of business. This is the hard reality already being faced by small businesses relying on customers with spare cash for discretionary spending. Yep 1,000 pubs closed there doors forever in the last 12 months. My business is in leisure, we are seeing a 24% drop in sales and expect it to get worse with the next mortgage hike, we are not alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 14, 2023 20:33:45 GMT
I disagree, gaining advantage is a genetic trait, one associated with survival. Humans in general seek comfort and safety. If both can be gained without effort, risk or sacrifice, that's the option the vast majority will choose. Any tendency to do otherwise comes either from culture / status and/ or anticipation of the consequences of not investing ( ie is the same via an indirect route). This is why non authoritarian socialism can't work and here you are still arguing that it does and should also, you missed my point somewhat - society adapts to forces it encounters. Btw - your post is difficult to reply to because you have messed up the attribution |
|
