is there a war on the poor?

digitalscream

robgilmo said:

Its not a ''rich people are evil'' bitterness I have, it doesn't take a genius to see how large companies exploit a workforce for profit, massive inflation? So basically keep people on low wages to protect large company's assets? Their ''lot more to loose than you or I'' isn't really a problem for you or I.

This just happens to be the bigger picture you think no one else can see.

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming

So, this guy believes that a well paid workforce will in turn creat a more robust economy which in turn will create more jobs as demand for products rises. Take Henry Ford for example, paid his workforce way more than other car manufacturers simply so they could afford to buy the cars that they built. It might be ''massive inflation'' as you say IF Henry Ford also put the price of his cars up, but he didn't, that was the point I was trying to make.

Henry Ford could do that, because the main cost in his company wasn't people; bumping their wages didn't actually hurt the bottom line all that much. Nowadays, staff are the main cost in almost every business, because of the wage expectations that already exist.

Don't forget that the wage isn't the only cost of having staff - training, employers NIC etc...it all adds up quite significantly. The average employee can cost the company up to twice as much as their wage.

Of course, let's say that you're right - big companies can afford to pay their staff 50% more than they currently do (hypothetically) without raising prices. What about all the small companies, with margins that only just pay their owners a decent wage? They also have to pay more for their staff, otherwise they won't have any staff or will get pinged for paying unfair wages compared to the rest of their industry. What can they do? They have no choice but to put their prices up so they can afford the staff, which means they can no longer compete with the bigger companies.

Welcome, then, to the era of the massive multinational where small companies don't get a look in and the massive companies basically control the entire supply chain. What, pray tell, do you think happens next...?

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Yes it is. And in my view the Conservatives have done close to fuck all to improve this route or to make it more accessible.

Quite wrong. The government and the private sector is pumping billions into apprenticeships. Companies are crying out for skills and are running their own schemes.

What skills? 

The billions - well, July 2015 the Times was quoting £1.5 billion of taxation pumped into apprenticeship schemes and the whole nature of the apprentice levy was coming in. Some companies run their own, some companies go with government organised schemes. You're a man in the business know, how do you feel about the levy? 

I'll speak for the apprentices I've seen in the hospitality industry over the last two years. Most of them were nothing more than schemes to get young people working hard for shit money. When you see how the job listings for specific companies are so dominated by apprentices, then you ask where these apprentices will go after they've achieved all their spurious qualifications (and I now hold some of those spurious qualifications thanks to online training that was next level retarded). It's clear that not all apprenticeships are wonderful opportunities. If I get on one such course in September, I'll happily compare my experiences there to what I have seen. 

In the meantime, if the Telegraph questions the scheme, then I think it's fair to listen. 

As for other things... the Open University was a very well respected route to gaining skills and qualifications whilst working. That has been affected hugely by the fee rises and so it is harder to study via that route compared to pre-Coalition days. The transformation of vocational and adult education hasn't happened. We're still lagging behind the sort of adult education courses I took in Canada over a decade ago. The online world provides so much potential for those who want to educate themselves but it's still rather backward over here. 

Dominic

Why do large ( or small companies ) have to be seen to EXPLOIT people for profit ?
That ignorant claptrap is 40 years out of date ..............get with the programme
Its a free market economy ....people choose to work there or not ,it isn't compulsory
the market sets the labour rate .....if nobody wants the jobs they will have to pay more money to entice labour
 The higher your personal skill sets ;the higher your market rate 
There's thousands upon thousands of potential footsoldiers for industry but education enabled craftsmen ,technicians etc can earn more and accountants,analysts,marketeers,etc can earn more still.
 The building trades are booming in the S East ......carpenters are earning £385 per day on some London sites I know of 
with 18 month contracts -the demand fuels the wages.
 A fact of modern life is transition and having to go where the work/opportunity is whether you are a blue collar or senior bank executive who are moved together with family from London to Hong Kong or suchlike at the drop of a hat with 2 weeks notice .
Every week thousands of E. Europeans rock up here with little more than a positive attitude to work and end up earning this kind of money on London building sites .....they haven't just moved around their own country ....they have emigrated away from their own stagnant homelands and all their familiarity to come to a foreign land  driven by the will to work and make a better life .........and 95 % of them do exactly that .
 A world economy race ,automation ,artificial intelligence and mobility have changed the rules forever and the factory floor you refer to is actually doing its utmost to stay competitive with it's Chinese counterpart who really is exploitative .
 Like it or not ,that's the driver not some silly 1950s outdated Factory Workers post-war Mantra -the world has changed and You need to change with it.

ToneControl

Someone always has to be top of the heap and bottom of the heap, even in communist countries
No attempt to cancel this out has ever succeeded

I often  think that  people have ideas of poverty in this country that are laughable
Someone living on benefits here can have a double-glazed house, and be fed and warm,  with a  standard of living that no  working -class person in the UK 100 years ago could have dreamed of.  In most parts of the world, our poorest would be envied, and yet people are  focusing on the perceived injustice within the UK.

Economies don't work unless people have different  incomes. If working as a gardener paid the same salary I am on, I would do it.
If  the unemployed or  lowly paid were topped up to the "average" income,  firstly it would no longer be the average, it would be  "the new poor", and secondly  who would top up the incomes of all those that were on intermediate incomes?

I visited the remains of the USSR twice, and have seen the wreckage  of  the logical outcome when "equality" is  manufactured

robgilmo

digitalscream said:

robgilmo said:

Its not a ''rich people are evil'' bitterness I have, it doesn't take a genius to see how large companies exploit a workforce for profit, massive inflation? So basically keep people on low wages to protect large company's assets? Their ''lot more to loose than you or I'' isn't really a problem for you or I.

This just happens to be the bigger picture you think no one else can see.

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming

So, this guy believes that a well paid workforce will in turn creat a more robust economy which in turn will create more jobs as demand for products rises. Take Henry Ford for example, paid his workforce way more than other car manufacturers simply so they could afford to buy the cars that they built. It might be ''massive inflation'' as you say IF Henry Ford also put the price of his cars up, but he didn't, that was the point I was trying to make.

Henry Ford could do that, because the main cost in his company wasn't people; bumping their wages didn't actually hurt the bottom line all that much. Nowadays, staff are the main cost in almost every business, because of the wage expectations that already exist.

Don't forget that the wage isn't the only cost of having staff - training, employers NIC etc...it all adds up quite significantly. The average employee can cost the company up to twice as much as their wage.

Of course, let's say that you're right - big companies can afford to pay their staff 50% more than they currently do (hypothetically) without raising prices. What about all the small companies, with margins that only just pay their owners a decent wage? They also have to pay more for their staff, otherwise they won't have any staff or will get pinged for paying unfair wages compared to the rest of their industry. What can they do? They have no choice but to put their prices up so they can afford the staff, which means they can no longer compete with the bigger companies.

Welcome, then, to the era of the massive multinational where small companies don't get a look in and the massive companies basically control the entire supply chain. What, pray tell, do you think happens next...?

Don't you think that's happening anyway? There will always be someone out there bigger and cheaper and the rest will always be left behind unless able to match them, that's a capitalist society, it will only end up going that way, there is no other way for it to go. Its not a question of if, its a question of when.
However, if a large company puts the wages of its employees up and as a result expands to the point where it employs more people (remember employing more people is a last resort for any company) and others who can follow suit would those small company's you speak of not also benefit from a stronger more robust economic environment? Of course they would, we all would.

robgilmo

Lets break that down a little, big factory in a small town makes TV's, lovely big flat screen Tv's.
The owner of that factory pays very well so that his workers can buy his Tv's.

In the same town there is a sweet shop, small tiny two man band.

However things change because all the rich factory workers can now buy sweets, his sales rise, he needs a bigger shop, he can now afford to pay his workers more money, they can now afford to buy a bigger Tv.

See?

ToneControl

robgilmo said:

Lets break that down a little, big factory in a small town makes TV's, lovely big flat screen Tv's.
The owner of that factory pays very well so that his workers can buy his Tv's.

In the same town there is a sweet shop, small tiny two man band.

However things change because all the rich factory workers can now buy sweets, his sales rise, he needs a bigger shop, he can now afford to pay his workers more money, they can now afford to buy a bigger Tv.

See?

you need to read some  books on how economics works, teaching it via a thread is a bit  clunky
try:  
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Undercover-Economist-Tim-Harford/dp/0349119856/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

robgilmo

Dominic said:

Why do large ( or small companies ) have to be seen to EXPLOIT people for profit ?
That ignorant claptrap is 40 years out of date ..............get with the programme
Its a free market economy ....people choose to work there or not ,it isn't compulsory
the market sets the labour rate .....if nobody wants the jobs they will have to pay more money to entice labour
 The higher your personal skill sets ;the higher your market rate 
There's thousands upon thousands of potential footsoldiers for industry but education enabled craftsmen ,technicians etc can earn more and accountants,analysts,marketeers,etc can earn more still.
 The building trades are booming in the S East ......carpenters are earning £385 per day on some London sites I know of 
with 18 month contracts -the demand fuels the wages.
 A fact of modern life is transition and having to go where the work/opportunity is whether you are a blue collar or senior bank executive who are moved together with family from London to Hong Kong or suchlike at the drop of a hat with 2 weeks notice .
Every week thousands of E. Europeans rock up here with little more than a positive attitude to work and end up earning this kind of money on London building sites .....they haven't just moved around their own country ....they have emigrated away from their own stagnant homelands and all their familiarity to come to a foreign land  driven by the will to work and make a better life .........and 95 % of them do exactly that .
 A world economy race ,automation ,artificial intelligence and mobility have changed the rules forever and the factory floor you refer to is actually doing its utmost to stay competitive with it's Chinese counterpart who really is exploitative .
 Like it or not ,that's the driver not some silly 1950s outdated Factory Workers post-war Mantra -the world has changed and You need to change with it.




See, you are very wrong, people do have to work there, most people have no choice, Do you honestly believe people actually want to work in a factory for 7.25 an hour? Or is it more a case of they have to because they really don't have any other options? I worked as a plumber in the SE, I never saw any carpenter on that kind of money, even on price work, although things may have changed as that was ten years ago.
Your fact of the modern world is nonsense with all due respect, I would never , ever,  bring my kids out of school, away from friends and family so I could earn more money, few people would unless it was a last resort or the money was exceptional, not everyone is driven by money. 

ToneControl said:

robgilmo said:

Lets break that down a little, big factory in a small town makes TV's, lovely big flat screen Tv's.
The owner of that factory pays very well so that his workers can buy his Tv's.

In the same town there is a sweet shop, small tiny two man band.

However things change because all the rich factory workers can now buy sweets, his sales rise, he needs a bigger shop, he can now afford to pay his workers more money, they can now afford to buy a bigger Tv.

See?

you need to read some  books on how economics works, teaching it via a thread is a bit  clunky
try:  
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Undercover-Economist-Tim-Harford/dp/0349119856/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Economies can adapt, that's how things change, an economy isn't a strict disciplined machine. You can read all the books you want but you and I both know a book can never explain the complexities within an economy either national or global. Tim Harford wrote “The economy is shaped by psychology, history, culture, unforeseeable new technologies, geological and climatic events, computer trades too quick for humans to perceive, and much else.”
Perhaps that's why economists are forever getting it wrong. Things need a shake down and restructure, I doubt it will tell you that in any of Tims books.  

ToneControl

robgilmo said:

ToneControl said:

robgilmo said:

Lets break that down a little, big factory in a small town makes TV's, lovely big flat screen Tv's.
The owner of that factory pays very well so that his workers can buy his Tv's.

In the same town there is a sweet shop, small tiny two man band.

However things change because all the rich factory workers can now buy sweets, his sales rise, he needs a bigger shop, he can now afford to pay his workers more money, they can now afford to buy a bigger Tv.

See?

you need to read some  books on how economics works, teaching it via a thread is a bit  clunky
try:  
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Undercover-Economist-Tim-Harford/dp/0349119856/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Economies can adapt, that's how things change, an economy isn't a strict disciplined machine. You can read all the books you want but you and I both know a book can never explain the complexities within an economy either national or global. Tim Harford wrote “The economy is shaped by psychology, history, culture, unforeseeable new technologies, geological and climatic events, computer trades too quick for humans to perceive, and much else.”
Perhaps that's why economists are forever getting it wrong. Things need a shake down and restructure, I doubt it will tell you that in any of Tims books.  

of course economies adapt, but Harford's explanations of how they work makes sense, whereas  your descriptions  seem  illogical
Cause and effect across complex systems are far more complicated, you can't just increase everyone's income. 
Well actually you can, Greece did that.  

Myranda

digitalscream said:

Myranda said:

stickyfiddle said:

This! 

I've never understood why the government sets a minimum wage they claim is reflective of the average cost of living based on working 40-45 hours a week, but then make you pay tax on it. Surely it would be much cleaner to optimise it so the first tax threshold is equivalent to a 40-hr week at minimum wage. Then anyone working part time or at the minimum wage is lifted out of income taxation, and anyone working a full time job above minimum pays the same share of that extra income to the government. 

I'm a perfect example of someone who's gone as far as leaving the country (partly) to avoid paying taxes so I can save more money and buy a house, but if taxes were lower I'm sure we'd have thought twice.

Not sure if anyone addressed this... but they don't

They're raising the minimum wage a little each year because 3 years ago the national Living Wage was about 9.50ish ... while minimum wage was 6.20. The minimum wage will hit 9.50ish by 2020 ... which will be 5 years of inflation too late. So without ever saying it, they've basically admitted that the minimum wage is literally too low to live on - using the Living Wage which they accept as accurate as a guide... 

So paying any tax on that is completely immoral - even in the eyes of the people setting the taxation, but they don't seem that fussed about fixing it in a timely manner.

There is nothing to say that in 2020 they wont just leave the minimum wage too low again for another ten years before using raising the minimum to a fair(er) level as a campaign pledge

That's only half the story - they're also raising the tax-free threshold at the same time (by proportionally more), so that by 2020 (I think) a full-time minimum wage salary won't incur any tax at all. That's what confuses me about the whole "Tories want to destroy the poor" thing - they actually put in place a plan that explicitly benefits those on low wages, which Labour refused to do.

It's reasonable to do it in stages, because the vast majority of businesses aren't flush with cash, and a straight minimum wage hike to £10/hr would effectively put them out of business.

But aiming to raise the minimum wage to less than what is required to live is admitting that the incremental raises need to be higher, and to then link minimum wage rises to the living wage...

Yes the tax allowance is increasing, but then so is council tax - which is in no way linked to income, costs of travel etc ... so it will still be too low a minimum wage when it is "finished" 

Of course, when minimum wage is fair and can be lived on then the next bracket up will get upset as their wages wont rise each year...

So, perhaps link director pay to staff pay - because it's fine that directors benefit from their company doing well, but the company staff actually made it happen... so you give yourself a £50 million bonus maybe also give 50 million to the staff (or 25 million to director and 25 million to staff - spread out. same with rises). Then bosses in places like Tesco can still give themselves millions while only giving the staff a few hundred each, but everyone benefits from the success that way

robgilmo

ToneControl said:

robgilmo said:

ToneControl said:

robgilmo said:

Lets break that down a little, big factory in a small town makes TV's, lovely big flat screen Tv's.
The owner of that factory pays very well so that his workers can buy his Tv's.

In the same town there is a sweet shop, small tiny two man band.

However things change because all the rich factory workers can now buy sweets, his sales rise, he needs a bigger shop, he can now afford to pay his workers more money, they can now afford to buy a bigger Tv.

See?

you need to read some  books on how economics works, teaching it via a thread is a bit  clunky
try:  
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Undercover-Economist-Tim-Harford/dp/0349119856/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Economies can adapt, that's how things change, an economy isn't a strict disciplined machine. You can read all the books you want but you and I both know a book can never explain the complexities within an economy either national or global. Tim Harford wrote “The economy is shaped by psychology, history, culture, unforeseeable new technologies, geological and climatic events, computer trades too quick for humans to perceive, and much else.”
Perhaps that's why economists are forever getting it wrong. Things need a shake down and restructure, I doubt it will tell you that in any of Tims books.  

of course economies adapt, but Harford's explanations of how they work makes sense, whereas  your descriptions  seem  illogical
Cause and effect across complex systems are far more complicated, you can't just increase everyone's income. 
Well actually you can, Greece did that.  

No, actually that's not what happened in Greece at all, or certainly not the reason the Greek economy failed. You could ask a Greek person what really happened, I could do that for you but they are all in bed now.

holnrew

Didn't say anything controversial, just don't fully agree with I'd said

CabbageCat

robgilmo said:

The point is, that people are missing, why should someone go out and make 1k a month by working 40 hrs a week only to fund some toffs lifestyle?
You cannot end poverty and the rich/poor divide by trying to make the poor richer and the rich still hold their wealth and income, its not possible. So Mr Toff factory owner could well give up some of his income to pay his workers a better wage, but he wont, obviously, so taxing them then giving it to his workers as hand outs simply brushes the problem of low pay under the carpet.

Why should "toff" (ignoring the fact that business owners often earn less than their employees) pay £20k to someone who is willing to work for £10k?

Would you honestly pay a dude £20k to put your kitchen in when another, equally competent fellow would do it for £10k?

TheBigDipper

It's not a war against the poor, it's for the wealthy, and it's not deliberate targeting, just a consequence of social change. 

We cannot say that every child in the UK has an equal chance to achieve their potential. Some will say that's just the way it is and others will get angry about it. 

People who justify the status quo are generally those who feel they did well within it and that everyone else had the same opportunities as them. That's just not true. For example, if there are 10 scholarships at an institution, but 100 suitable candidates, clearly the 90 who didn't get the scholarship have not had the same opportunity as the 10 who did. 

It's still true in the UK that a public school education which leads to an Oxbridge degree and the making of "for life" contacts and relationships during that period will help someone do better in life, get more opportunities. It's still true that the children of those people will be more able to do the same, when it's their turn. 

That doesn't mean we drag the public schools down. We should be looking to lift state schools up so no-one feels the need to send their child to a public school. That used to be a political goal. Now, the people who decide what money gets spent where, choose to reduce spending in these areas - yet their own children are generally not affected by their decision. 

Go figure...

"Diving for dear life, when we could be diving for pearls"