Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 20:52:50 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. This is why non authoritarian socialism can't work and here you are still arguing that it does and should Btw - your post is difficult to reply to because you have messed up the attribution It is innately human to put in effort to get somewhere or achieve some desired goal, or to gain status amongst ones peers, or provide for ones family and to secure future security. Most of us have been trying to do this since prehistoric times. It is typical of the human mindset and it is how we have collectively built civilisation. A minority may well have opted out due to a system that perversely does not reward their effort but will keep them secure even without it. But there are only two possible solutions. Either ensure effort is rewarded or withdraw support altogether. The latter would not be politically acceptable once people could see the suffering. The bigger problem affecting ever more people is that effort and endeavour is no longer rewarded. Instead it becomes a necessary means to further enrich the rentier classes leeching ever more money out of productive workers. When the economic organisation of a society becomes one where effort and hard work brings neither status, security or modest comfort but instead simply enriches the non-productive rentier classes we have a problem right there. When work is no longer the route to prosperity but instead ownership is by way of sucking wealth out of the pockets of productive workers, we have a major systemic problem. When effort achieves nothing but further enrich the monkeys on your back, we have a systemic problem. Rentier capitalism is at least as much of a policy doomed to failure as socialism. And indeed a little of the latter might well be the essential correction to the former. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 14, 2023 21:08:53 GMT
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. This is why non authoritarian socialism can't work and here you are still arguing that it does and should Btw - your post is difficult to reply to because you have messed up the attribution It is innately human to put in effort to get somewhere or achieve some desired goal, or to gain status amongst ones peers, or provide for ones family and to secure future security. The desired goal being some level of comfort / safety. Status is set by culture and a culture will reflect the realities it encounters. For instance, if large numbers of people decide not to bother at all, any lower status for doing this won't mean much to most people. The people who carry on striving to keep everything working will become mugs who only enjoy ten percent of their own contribution |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 14, 2023 21:32:22 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. A UBI is a great idea, however your version of it is unaffordable. Housing costs can be tackled one of 2 ways - increase supply (historically very difficult) or reduce demand (never been tried). But is there any actual evidence that people cannot earn enough to afford discretionary spending?. Currently the airlines are forecasting a boom this summer with people jetting off across the globe, that doesnt sound like the death knell in consumer spending. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 14, 2023 21:39:07 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 Again we disagree. Humans are no different to animals in this respect. The male will always try to do better than other males, the female will always be attracted to the male that is successful. Very few humans are happy with just enough. This is the very reason socialism fails, for no one wants to struggle to do better just to see it shared with others deemed not to be as good. Society does adapt, but it does not do so by changing human nature. Apologies on the attribution, I will pay more attention in future. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 14, 2023 23:15:57 GMT
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 Again we disagree. Humans are no different to animals in this respect. The male will always try to do better than other males, the female will always be attracted to the male that is successful. Sure - in the fullness of time, those who are capable and competent will 'compete' by burning your system to the ground. However, in the meantime and in general many people offered a choice between spending their days doing something tedious / difficult and living relatively comfortably, will choose the later. Enough people to make your system unworkable.. Some time ago you claimed not to be socialist / communist and yet here you are spouting its mistaken tenets |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2023 6:35:40 GMT
He messed up the quotes and I can't be bothered to try and fix them. Still, from what I can tell the argument over why minimum wage was introduced seems to have been met with an argument over unemployment. My guess is that the point was conveniently missed and deflected.
Wage stagnation in the UK has been an ongoing problem thanks to the previous Labour government. You can't have natural wage growth when competition for the same jobs are so high, which is why they introduced an artificial minimum cap. The Tories haven't addressed this Labour government created problem, but then again maybe the problem was meant to be irreversible.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 15, 2023 6:54:39 GMT
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. This is why non authoritarian socialism can't work and here you are still arguing that it does and should Btw - your post is difficult to reply to because you have messed up the attribution Agreed This is the issue. That there is no expectation of betterment for a growing proportion of the population. No chance of your own home, not much prospect of promotion where better paid roles are few and far between. Just a life of drudgery and making ends meet. No wonder so many opt out. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 15, 2023 7:03:24 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. A UBI is a great idea, however your version of it is unaffordable. Housing costs can be tackled one of 2 ways - increase supply (historically very difficult) or reduce demand (never been tried). But is there any actual evidence that people cannot earn enough to afford discretionary spending?. Currently the airlines are forecasting a boom this summer with people jetting off across the globe, that doesnt sound like the death knell in consumer spending. Well the CBI says leisure spending is down by 22%. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 15, 2023 7:09:09 GMT
Again we disagree. Humans are no different to animals in this respect. The male will always try to do better than other males, the female will always be attracted to the male that is successful. Sure - in the fullness of time, those who are capable and competent will 'compete' by burning your system to the ground. However, in the meantime and in general many people offered a choice between spending their days doing something tedious / difficult and living relatively comfortably, will choose the later. Enough people to make your system unworkable.. Some time ago you claimed not to be socialist / communist and yet here you are spouting its mistaken tenets Agreed. Are those the best choices we can offer? No chance of improvement, no promotion. If this is it I see society falling apart. So a UBI based on you doing X amount of hours per week? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 15, 2023 7:16:37 GMT
A UBI is a great idea, however your version of it is unaffordable. Housing costs can be tackled one of 2 ways - increase supply (historically very difficult) or reduce demand (never been tried). But is there any actual evidence that people cannot earn enough to afford discretionary spending?. Currently the airlines are forecasting a boom this summer with people jetting off across the globe, that doesnt sound like the death knell in consumer spending. Well the CBI says leisure spending is down by 22%. So unless somebody comes up with a plan which can sustain a growing population which is already over 3 times its sustainable limit, then it will continue as it does. Turning up as a zealot and telling us we had better just stop oil, will not cut the mustard. Which in fairness you all have been told for a while, while the likes of Khan thinks it is a good way of getting richer faster and more power for himself with the added bonus of causing even more financial suffering for others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2023 7:29:49 GMT
Jack Dromey on 'British Jobs for British Workers' when Deputy Secretary-General of Unite; the talking starts about 2 minutes:
It is interesting to know that these Labour Unions are more about supporting the causes of wage stagnation instead of supporting British workers over pay. My guess is that his Union rely on the problems to feather its own nest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2023 7:49:24 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. A UBI is a great idea, however your version of it is unaffordable. Housing costs can be tackled one of 2 ways - increase supply (historically very difficult) or reduce demand (never been tried). But is there any actual evidence that people cannot earn enough to afford discretionary spending?. Currently the airlines are forecasting a boom this summer with people jetting off across the globe, that doesnt sound like the death knell in consumer spending. Every useful measure of the cost of living from rents to mortgages, energy costs to food prices, not to mention overall rates of inflation, is rising faster than average wages. This inevitably means people have less cash for discretionary spending as more of it needs to go on the essentials. And I can see it with my own eyes in the businesses I frequent that rely on discretionary spending, from KFCs to cafes, fish and chip shops to takeaways, restaurants to pubs. Not only can I and most people I know afford to go to such places much less often, when I do I see that for most of the time they are much quieter than they used to be. Though of course it might well depend on who your target clientele are. If your business is a high end, upmarket establishment with a customer base mostly consisting of the very well off, then they can probably maintain whatever level of discretionary spending they desire. But lower income groups and middle earners will be hit much harder. As for airlines forecasting a boom, firstly we have to see if the forecasts prove to be correct. And most of those who can afford foreign holidays are people with above average scope for discretionary spending, but even here such a boom could mask cheaper destination choices and/or cutbacks in discretionary spending elsewhere in order to afford to go abroad still. Also many people doing ok on fixed rate mortgages are facing a future where their mortgage costs are going to rocket. Some of these might be getting a foreign holiday in before that happens, unsure of when they might be able to afford another. Although this relates to the last financial year 2022-23, there are some very relevant stats in there..... www.grantthornton.co.uk/news-centre/households-look-to-cut-back-25-billion-worth-of-non-essential-spending/#:~:text=The%20typical%20UK%20household%20is,economy%20during%20this%20financial%20year. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 15, 2023 17:56:46 GMT
Well the CBI says leisure spending is down by 22%. So unless somebody comes up with a plan which can sustain a growing population which is already over 3 times its sustainable limit, then it will continue as it does. Turning up as a zealot and telling us we had better just stop oil, will not cut the mustard. Which in fairness you all have been told for a while, while the likes of Khan thinks it is a good way of getting richer faster and more power for himself with the added bonus of causing even more financial suffering for others. Theoretically a growing population creates a growing demand balancing the books. Truth is that with growing automation the job market is shrinking and increasing the population is no longer viable. For years I've been questioning the reasons for this constant immigration. Many have claimed politicians are trying to obliterate the English, but I think its far more likely that it was used to bring in more tax. (increase population, don't increase infrastructure= more tax) Now the infrastructure is falling apart and the population are beyond enough is enough. The answer is higher tax, but whose gonna vote for that. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 15, 2023 18:01:49 GMT
Our business analysis shows people are choosing between holidays and events. Limited funds, limit experiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 15, 2023 20:09:10 GMT
So unless somebody comes up with a plan which can sustain a growing population which is already over 3 times its sustainable limit, then it will continue as it does. Turning up as a zealot and telling us we had better just stop oil, will not cut the mustard. Which in fairness you all have been told for a while, while the likes of Khan thinks it is a good way of getting richer faster and more power for himself with the added bonus of causing even more financial suffering for others. Theoretically a growing population creates a growing demand balancing the books. Truth is that with growing automation the job market is shrinking and increasing the population is no longer viable. For years I've been questioning the reasons for this constant immigration. Many have claimed politicians are trying to obliterate the English, but I think its far more likely that it was used to bring in more tax. (increase population, don't increase infrastructure= more tax) Now the infrastructure is falling apart and the population are beyond enough is enough. The answer is higher tax, but whose gonna vote for that. Although obliteration of the English belongs in the conspiracy theory category the evidence grows daily that this must be the aim and it it is not the laws and the policies being enacted make very little sense. |
|
