Oh Dear - he's gone and trumped them all!

[RogerS]

There seems to be a disconnect between what people want and what society wants them to be.

Society reflects the people in it ! They are one and the same.

With regard to Jacob's point re wages etc and migrant workers, he is ignoring the customer at the end of the day. Most people want to buy cheap..regardless of quality. So supermarkets drive the prices down, which drives the prices down to the suppliers. Is it small wonder that a supplier will pay the lowest wage he can to stay in business ?

 

[Jacob]

.... Is it small wonder that a supplier will pay the lowest wage he can to stay in business ?

No it's quite understandable.
But there should be a strongly imposed minimum living wage, otherwise it's the desperate people at the bottom of the heap (not necessarily immigrants - they may be unemployed little englanders!) who get very badly treated - can't support themselves and their families and become a social problem which has to be paid for by the state (us) - tax credits, income support, housing benefits (the biggest one), etc. for starters - but then a whole rake of social problems which affect the poor and are a cost to society.
Blaming the poor for poverty is Alice Through the Looking Glass economics

 

[Jacob]

..... The continuing absence of any coherent justification for the current free movement policy (other than the sound bite "the economy benefits" nonsense) .....

Free movement is the jewel in the crown.
It's the most important of the four freedoms. It's civilisation - democracy on the hoof.
It's also a boon for employers - an available workforce
"Unfree" movement has another common name: "slavery".
It applies to you too - if your employers decide to move would you be happy to be unable to follow them and instead settle down to unemployment at home?
Will the unfree movement boundaries shift with time? As it stands our freedom to move about Europe is likely to be stopped, will it be movement across British borders next - a visa for Scotland? Very likely a closed border with Eire for starters.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

On the subject of wage levels across the EU, this is worth a listen - particularly from about 7.00 minutes in. (The whole video is worth listening to, though it is a bit long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvZil0qWPg

Free movement also clearly benefits the big corporates too - if you can ship in cheap labour from Eastern Europe, you can compete better with Chinese imports (as others have said in various ways). I'm not convinced that it actually works that well for the ordinary man and woman in the street, just getting by.

 

[RogerS]

.... Is it small wonder that a supplier will pay the lowest wage he can to stay in business ?

No it's quite understandable.
But there should be a strongly imposed minimum living wage, otherwise it's the desperate people at the bottom of the heap (not necessarily immigrants - they may be unemployed little englanders!) who get very badly treated - can't support themselves and their families and become a social problem which has to be paid for by the state (us) - tax credits, income support, housing benefits (the biggest one), etc. for starters - but then a whole rake of social problems which affect the poor and are a cost to society.
Blaming the poor for poverty is Alice Through the Looking Glass economics

I will repeat myself since you have decided to ignore my main point and instead carry on with your usual Marxist tub-thumping.

He (Jacob) is ignoring the customer at the end of the day. Most people want to buy cheap..regardless of quality. So supermarkets drive the prices down,

Or maybe it's simply because, in comparison to other EU countries such as France, the British workforce is not as productive.

https://www.ft.com/content/fff1944a-e51 ... 8b0d268c39

 

[RossJarvis]

The other issue that the Remainers seem to ignore is the fundamental change that is taking place in the economy. Having gone through the agricultural and industrial revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries we are now entering the technological age. The days when industry needed thousands of workers to work in factories have long gone. The future of the economy now needs highly educated and motivated people. There will still be a role for a number of unskilled workers to work in leisure and care sectors but having an open door policy is madness and grossly unfair on the existing population. The continuing absence of any coherent justification for the current free movement policy (other than the sound bite "the economy benefits" nonsense) suggests that our EU lords and masters really are engaged in the Coudehove-Kalergi plan.

The big problem here is that a very large number of the current population do not have the required capabilities, for a large number of reasons, to engage in this high-tech high-motivation revolution and currently there seems to be no means to change this. This is one of the reasons that an ever increasing underclass is developing. Maybe in a couple of generations or so things may turn around.

At the moment we have an employment market which requires people to fit into it, whereas we should be developing the employment market for those who exist. Admittedly this needs some kind of controlled intervention or general change in mind-set and I wouldn't particularly like to see a government of any flavour doing this.

The big worry is that in a highly competitive global economy, based on the "winners" trampling on and ignoring the "losers", we would not be competitive if we worked to a more egalitarian ethos. As mentioned, uncontrolled immigration would seem to lead to the displacement of native-born people from the employment market, but maybe only if the employment market itself were to remain as it is.

 

[Jacob]

..
The big problem here is that a very large number of the current population do not have the required capabilities, for a large number of reasons, to engage in this high-tech high-motivation revolution and currently there seems to be no means to change this. This is one of the reasons that an ever increasing underclass is developing. .....

Industrialisation has been going steadily for thousands of years. the "industrial Revolution" (science, coal, steel, steam power, oil power) and the new high tech revolution, are just conspicuous blips when change was/is most speedy.

The whole point of industrialisation is to produce more goods/services with less effort - which means that the whole point of it is to create unemployment. This is of course brilliant if you happen to have a pension, redundancy money, stack of cash, no rent to pay etc.
But many people find themselves redundant without these benefits. And under urgent pressure to get some cash together immediately. I don't know the figures but a vey large proportion of the population only have enough for a week or so if their income source stops completely - they don't have the means with which to re-arrange their lives and sheer survival comes to the fore. Expecting them to find other ways of earning a living is slightly crazy as we are in the process of removing opportunity in most areas of working life.

Unless wealth is more equally distributed so that everybody gets the benefit of modern production, then for these people it is pointless and destroys livelihoods.

Another approach was that of the Luddites - they weren't anti machinery or anti comfortable retirement, they were anti losing their livelihoods and being thrown onto the scrap heap. The took the simple line of protest by attacking the machines which had taken their jobs, and who can blame them? Another line was mass emigration to the colonies where they stole others land and committed genocide in various forms.

Unless post industrial efficiency benefits ALL society then it is not working - it is not efficient, and directly or indirectly, we are ALL the losers

 

[RogerS]

....
Unless wealth is more equally distributed so that everybody gets the benefit of modern production, then for these people it is pointless and destroys livelihoods.

....

Straight out of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.

Just how are you going to do that? What criteria are you going to use? Divide up all the wealth that the UHNW people have among the rest of the population? If so then you can have my 26p

Or only among some ? That's what the Politburo and all their apparachniks did in the good 'ol USSR. And every other leftwing regime.

 

[Jacob]

....
Unless wealth is more equally distributed so that everybody gets the benefit of modern production, then for these people it is pointless and destroys livelihoods.

....

Straight out of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.

Just how are you going to do that? What criteria are you going to use? Divide up all the wealth that the UHNW people have among the rest of the population? If so then you can have my 26p

Or only among some ? That's what the Politburo and all their apparachniks did in the good 'ol USSR. And every other leftwing regime.

Not easy. "Universal basic living wage" given to all, is talked about.
After all we all already receive massive indirect benefits - NHS, Education, the whole social infrastructure, roads etc. Handing out a bit of cash starts looking like a tiny detail in comparison

 

[RogerS]

....
Unless wealth is more equally distributed so that everybody gets the benefit of modern production, then for these people it is pointless and destroys livelihoods.

....

Straight out of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.

Just how are you going to do that? What criteria are you going to use? Divide up all the wealth that the UHNW people have among the rest of the population? If so then you can have my 26p

Or only among some ? That's what the Politburo and all their apparachniks did in the good 'ol USSR. And every other leftwing regime.

Not easy. "Universal basic living wage" given to all, is talked about.
After all we all already receive massive indirect benefits - NHS, Education, the whole social infrastructure, roads etc. Handing out a bit of cash starts looking like a tiny detail in comparison

Jacob...your comments are sounding more and more like an episode of Citizen Smith. Or from "Bedtime Stories" by Jeremy Corbyn. Whimsy doesn't even come close !!

 

[thetyreman]

The other issue that the Remainers seem to ignore is the fundamental change that is taking place in the economy. Having gone through the agricultural and industrial revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries we are now entering the technological age. The days when industry needed thousands of workers to work in factories have long gone. The future of the economy now needs highly educated and motivated people. There will still be a role for a number of unskilled workers to work in leisure and care sectors but having an open door policy is madness and grossly unfair on the existing population. The continuing absence of any coherent justification for the current free movement policy (other than the sound bite "the economy benefits" nonsense) suggests that our EU lords and masters really are engaged in the Coudehove-Kalergi plan.

The big problem here is that a very large number of the current population do not have the required capabilities, for a large number of reasons, to engage in this high-tech high-motivation revolution and currently there seems to be no means to change this. This is one of the reasons that an ever increasing underclass is developing. Maybe in a couple of generations or so things may turn around.

At the moment we have an employment market which requires people to fit into it, whereas we should be developing the employment market for those who exist. Admittedly this needs some kind of controlled intervention or general change in mind-set and I wouldn't particularly like to see a government of any flavour doing this.

The big worry is that in a highly competitive global economy, based on the "winners" trampling on and ignoring the "losers", we would not be competitive if we worked to a more egalitarian ethos. As mentioned, uncontrolled immigration would seem to lead to the displacement of native-born people from the employment market, but maybe only if the employment market itself were to remain as it is.

I agree with this, and it is very worrying indeed, what worries me the most about it is that we are loosing our identity as a country and just copying american culture whilst loosing our own in the process, even the idea of winners and loosers is very american, it's not an idea I like particularly, it's very bipolar/black and white thinking.

 

[MIGNAL]

What's the alternative Roger? There's a very good reason for Brexit and Trump. Ignore it if you want, just don't be surprised if things get much worse and politics becomes increasingly polarised. After all, when these people have nothing they have nothing to lose.

 

[Jacob]

............

Straight out of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.

Just how are you going to do that? What criteria are you going to use? Divide up all the wealth that the UHNW people have among the rest of the population? If so then you can have my 26p

Or only among some ? That's what the Politburo and all their apparachniks did in the good 'ol USSR. And every other leftwing regime.

Not easy. "Universal basic living wage" given to all, is talked about.
After all we all already receive massive indirect benefits - NHS, Education, the whole social infrastructure, roads etc. Handing out a bit of cash starts looking like a tiny detail in comparison

Jacob...your comments are sounding more and more like an episode of Citizen Smith. Or from "Bedtime Stories" by Jeremy Corbyn. Whimsy doesn't even come close !!

So what is your solution to impending mass unemployment? You can't say "get a job" as jobs are precisely the items increasing in scarcity - which is precisely the problem.

 

[RossJarvis]

Unless wealth is more equally distributed so that everybody gets the benefit of modern production, then for these people it is pointless and destroys livelihoods.

I applaud the idea that wealth is distributed better and maybe re-distributed from some to others. The process through which this is done is the sticking point. I think if everyone has equality of opportunity to create the wealth they need we are on to a winner. We also need to think about supplying the needs of those who for whatever reason may not have the opportunity of wealth creation, for whom subsidy is the only option.

I would much rather live in a society where everyone agrees to distribute their wealth, or the opportunity to get it, and sees the benefit of doing it, rather than one where it is enforced from outside. Unfortunately at this time I'm not sure how many see this "enjoyable duty" as an option, either from greed or fear or anything in between.

To what extent is it the government's responsibility to equalise wealth or the means to achieve it? Currently our government seems unable or unwilling to do either and I'd much rather "society" take the responsibility for this and not leave it up to the tiny group of Nerks who make up HM Government and its opposition.

 

[MIGNAL]

Our favourite economist on austerity and who is paying for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgDxLtXt_M

Don't forget we've been told for the last 10 years that there is no alternative. Anyone who wanted to stimulate the economy was seen as a left wing nut job. Except that they did masses of QE, which even Osbourne admitted ended up in the hands of the wealthy. Probably by design rather than by accident.
Blyth is quite correct regarding private debt. You only need to look at the graph from 1982 (freeing of financial markets) and the line goes up at 45 degrees. We are all in debt.

 

[Jacob]

..... I think if everyone has equality of opportunity to create the wealth they need we are on to a winner. .........

It's the over-creation of "wealth" which is putting people out of work and, incidentally, destroying the planet.
In fact we need more people to be allowed to exist without creating wealth, in the material sense at least. Maybe they've all got to become entertainers or something. Would being able to play the banjo be a form of wealth! It'd definitely be a commodity (if anybody would pay for it!)

 

[RossJarvis]

..... I think if everyone has equality of opportunity to create the wealth they need we are on to a winner. .........

It's the over-creation of "wealth" which is putting people out of work and, incidentally, destroying the planet.
In fact we need more people to be allowed to exist without creating wealth, in the material sense at least. Maybe they've all got to become entertainers or something. Would being able to play the banjo be a form of wealth! It'd definitely be a commodity (if anybody would pay for it!)

I agree here, creation of wealth, or however you want to phrase it, for need, with a bit left over for luxuries and the entire planet would be using a fraction of the resources it currently does and probably eliminate the poison it produces. Anyone could choose how many banjo players they wish to give the surplus to. I'm not sure how much wealth banjo playing would create, Billy Connoly had to tell jokes to subsidise his and I think the Eagles are the only popular band who made one tune with the banjo in lead.

 

[DennisCA]

Our favourite economist on austerity and who is paying for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgDxLtXt_M

Don't forget we've been told for the last 10 years that there is no alternative. Anyone who wanted to stimulate the economy was seen as a left wing nut job. Except that they did masses of QE, which even Osbourne admitted ended up in the hands of the wealthy. Probably by design rather than by accident.

Blyth is quite correct regarding private debt. You only need to look at the graph from 1982 (freeing of financial markets) and the line goes up at 45 degrees. We are all in debt.

This guy needs more attention, it's not often you find an economist who is fun to listen to.

 

[RogerS]

.....
Not easy. "Universal basic living wage" given to all, is talked about.
After all we all already receive massive indirect benefits - NHS, Education, the whole social infrastructure, roads etc. Handing out a bit of cash starts looking like a tiny detail in comparison

Jacob...your comments are sounding more and more like an episode of Citizen Smith. Or from "Bedtime Stories" by Jeremy Corbyn. Whimsy doesn't even come close !!

So what is your solution to impending mass unemployment? You can't say "get a job" as jobs are precisely the items increasing in scarcity - which is precisely the problem.

When on the back foot, bring in another 'red herring' ! How have we got from redistribution of wealth to mass unemployment ?

 

[Jacob]

.......
Jacob...your comments are sounding more and more like an episode of Citizen Smith. Or from "Bedtime Stories" by Jeremy Corbyn. Whimsy doesn't even come close !!

So what is your solution to impending mass unemployment? You can't say "get a job" as jobs are precisely the items increasing in scarcity - which is precisely the problem.

When on the back foot, bring in another 'red herring' ! How have we got from redistribution of wealth to mass unemployment ?

Pay attention there at the back!
The question is; how do you solve the problem of mass unemployment without some form of redistribution of wealth?
Clue "getting a job" isn't the answer as it is the inability to get a job which is the problem, hence the mass unemployment.