silver foxSo to summarise; a higher minimum-wage will not destroy jobs…
…except in cases where it destroys jobs!
But you don’t care as those companies (or workers) weren’t important to the economy…
…see…..there’s a thatcherite in all of us!!! 🙂
Possibly wasn’t clear enough in my meaning, for the purposes of debate let’s assume that a business is dependent on paying poverty wages for it’s survival.
That business will produce no profit, therefore pay no tax, the workers “employed” will be in neeed of suplementary benefits and obviously paying no tax, will in fact usually only attract gang master type labour which usually translates as cheap immigrant labour.
If this hypothetical company exists what useful purpose does it serve?, frankly I don’t believe that there is the slightest excuse for any company paying poverty wages, far too many employers will pay as little as they can, more than a few looking for every avenue to even avoid paying current minimum wages, this is purely for the employers short term profit, with very little concern for the future, in many cases even their own future.
silver foxMaybe Thatcher didn’t physically close down manufacturing, but she was certainly behind the switch from a producing economy to a banking economy, she advocated buying in the cheapest option from wherever, with no concern for the results of that. Yet we know that buying in the cheapest option may well save short term, but will definitely cost long term, the growth and generosity of the mobility allowances were no more nor less than a ploy to reduce unemployment figures, yet when that policy comes back to bite government on the bum these same people are the scum of the Earth.
Even sadder was Blair and Brown being dazzled by the easy money and continuing many of the same policies.
Back to the current situation, work must pay better than benefits and working must permit workers a living wage, if anyone is working full time yet in need of benefit top ups, then that wage is too low, I have no doubt that we will get all those bleating that increased wages will destroy jobs, simply it won’t. Frankly if any business is reliant on paying poverty wages to stay in business, then it might as well close because quite simply that business is contributing nothing.
Efficiency and productivity are keys in much of manufacturing, sadly for too many employers this translates as sack a few workers, cut wages and expect the same or more output, yet I have seen, in fact was part of the transformation of one company in a particular industry, investment and training, improvements in equipment and working practises, co-operation between management and unions, result massive increase in both quality and productivity, increases in numbers of shop floor workers and earnings, amazingly during the 9 years I worked there (late 60s early 70s) not one hour lost to industrial action, can’t imagine why.
silver fox#7
Moggy I agree with your post, (that hurt) according to the maps etc I live on top of an area of shale gas and not surprisingly have more than a fleeting interest.
If we can safely and economically extract this gas, then we must do so, yes I wish to see the communities adversely affected recieve benefit, I hope that jobs generated go to locals were possible, but the decisions must not be taken by the RENT A MOB, RENT A GOB BRIGADE.
Just an off topic thought, on this site unions come in for some stick, if those “protesters” were a union taking strike action and acted in the same disruptive manner, most would be now locked up.
silver foxNot what I’m saying at all, an efficient productive company should be profitable and capable of paying fair wages, if it’s only profit comes from cutting wages then there is something way, way wrong, I cited a manufacturing company, a major company in it’s own right incidentally, which through investment, training etc, increased quantity and quality of production, increased staff levels and incomes and also increased profits considerably, I mentioned the years only because so many feel that that time was the era of massive industrial unrest, of bullish union activity, of strike happy Britain, yes there were problems, but the real sadness is that none of the problems were insurmountable if only people would talk and try to understand were the the other guy is coming from.
But again that’s probably a flaw in most of humanity.
silver foxPossibly the country would have been much better if we had had the foresight to throw Thatcher and Scargill in a locked room and left them to it.
Scargill was right in his declarations of Thatcher’s intentions for coal mining, Thatcher was right in the need to modernise the coal industry, but the methods and tactics of both were deplorable, in reality coal mining was used as a punch ball for two conflicting ideologies rather than any practical purpose.
silver foxSalary, expenses and perks!
Who brought MPs and bankers into the discussion?
silver foxIn a word yes, live on the edge of Southport adjoining West Lancashire, one drill site about 2 miles from my home, no problems whatsoever with the drill site although no fracking as yet, until the eco warriors arrived to save us from ourselves.
Was highly amused to see some of the loony tunes mob, attempt to block access to a farm tractor with a slurry tank on tow, soon abandoned the attempt when the driver set the tanker pump to empty.
Currently nothing going on here at all.
silver foxNotwithstanding subsidies already paid anyway, the costs of total state investment in oil gas and nuclear would have been unaffordable for the taxpayer, don’t you think?
That sir was precisely the argument used to convince the public, that flogging off the railways was actually going to save the taxpayer £gazillions and give us cheaper public transport, that worked out well then.
silver foxYour comment was to whether the taxpayer could afford the investment required to maintain our energy supplies, I merely used the railways as an example of just where that thinking has taken us previously, notice that not one of the energy generating companies is prepared to invest without subsidy and guarantees to future bills.
silver foxTrumper has a valid point, leaving food stuffs in the cans may increase the physical damage potential, but just think the tins could probably be collected up and put to good use at a food bank or similar.:cool:
silver foxWe have had socialism in the UK since 1945, and we are now experiencing its logical conclusion – namely a workshy population and bankruptcy. It is an honorable ideology, but is flawed in implementation by our flaws as a race – greed, jealousy, laziness and apathy.
The state of our nation is all the proof I need that Socialism does not, and can not work.
The closest this country has ever been to a socialist state was during WW2 and even then nationalisation or public ownership was far from total, we have a welfare state working in a predominantly capitalist economy, the two sides jar far too frequently.
You are certainly correct when you put greed at the head of your list of flaws, the ideal would be capitalism with a conscience and the welfare state as back up, but that isn’t going to happen because of the inherent greed of capitalism.
Outright socialism is just as self defeating as unbridled capitalism, but will we ever get the right balance?, personally I doubt it.
silver foxThose shown on the programme are not in any way representative of the majority of people who are struggling to get by on benefits.
There are those with little sense of value even self worth from all walks of life, the “outrage” is manufactured because the hardworking taxpayer is funding them, of course we don’t fund the outrageous salary and bonus packages of the so called top executives, the tax dodgers/evaders, the expense fiddlers etc, scum doesn’t always come in tatty jeans with a fag hanging out of it’s mouth, backed up with low level criminality, it is just as likely to be in a suit and smart car, with a foreign bank account and high level criminality.
silver foxSorry to link this to benefits, but the thing that really winds so many up is the knowledge that convicted criminals are costing so much to simply keep, real people in real need, struggle and scramble to survive on a pittance, yet we apparently spend £37,000 per person, per annum to keep scum in comfort and safety.
I’ve no doubt that someone will come on here, with comments on the lines of “it’s no fun in prison” or “I don’t know what I’m talking about”. Very happy to state that I’ve no idea of what prison life entails, but equally I fail to understand why more is spent on the safety and security of criminals than for instance our own law abiding pensioners, how come they can appeal (and very often win) against loss of privileges, loss of facilities, or as posted on here the state of their bed, tell me, before I retired I had a company car, since then have had to buy and run my own, can I claim for loss of privilege?
silver foxQuite correct – we don’t, as taxpayers!! And you need to differentiate between tax dodging, or tax avoidance which is entirely legal and tax evasion, which is illegal.
Possibly not directly as taxpayers, although that point could be argued looking at any company or business which receives support from the taxpayer, such as subsidies to the rail operators, the stake we still have in the banks.
You say that we must differentiate between legal and illegal tax dodging, I’ll go with that, now tell me, those claiming benefits are they acting legally or illegally?, quite possibly unethically just as our tax avoiders, now as I see it if the unethical benefit claimants are the scum of the Earth, where does that leave unethical tax avoiders, you can’t have it both ways.
I am no supporter of benefit fiddlers, dodgers, scivers or those who choose benefits as a way of life, equally I find it so wrong when wealthy individuals and companies avoid and dodge tax, yet are adjudged to be smart business men/women, they aren’t, they have the same self serving mentality of anyone else who thinks the world owes them a living.
silver foxSince mankind had conscious thought how many gods, religions or forms of religion have there been? at the time there would always be many who believed, some who disbelieved and of course those who used the whole charade in a power and control game.
Our current crop of religions have no more validity or logic than the now defunct and discredited religions of bygone times, personally couldn’t care less who you say your prayers to, the great god Coca-Cola if you wish.
Stay within the law, don’t push your beliefs up my nose and carry on believing whatever you wish to believe is absolutely fine, trying the evangelical approach will only bring you grief, education and knowledge are or certainly will be,the death knell of religions.
Sign In
