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

[RogerS]

....

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.

Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason.

Following on your idea....so you distribute the wealth, it gets spent, then we're back to square one. Where do you go from there ?

 

[Jacob]

.....
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.

....Following on your idea....so you distribute the wealth, it gets spent, then we're back to square one. Where do you go from there ?

Continuous re-distribution of wealth - which is what we do anyway. It means higher taxes for the high earners and higher benefits for the unemployed, or UBI (universal basic income). Lots of ways - higher minimum wage would be good, purchase tax on luxury goods, and so on.

So I take it your solution (Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason. ) is to let them all drop dead?

 

[RossJarvis]

Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason.

I'd have to partially disagree here. There may well be too many people for the way populations and resources are currently distributed, but the World can easily sustain a much greater population, which it'll have to anyway unless we kill a lot off by accident or design.

 

[RossJarvis]

Continuous re-distribution of wealth - which is what we do anyway. It means higher taxes for the high earners and higher benefits for the unemployed, or UBI (universal basic income). Lots of ways - higher minimum wage would be good, purchase tax on luxury goods, and so on.

Surely taxation is a very inefficient way to redistribute wealth, not to mention annoying for the "wealthy".

I would have thought it much better for the poor to access more wealth/resources earlier on and maybe for the "greedy" to not take so much in the first place. This would then mean all the tax officials could be freed up to do something much more rewarding and worthwhile instead!

 

[RogerS]

....Following on your idea....so you distribute the wealth, it gets spent, then we're back to square one. Where do you go from there ?

Continuous re-distribution of wealth - which is what we do anyway. It means higher taxes for the high earners and higher benefits for the unemployed, or UBI (universal basic income). Lots of ways - higher minimum wage would be good, purchase tax on luxury goods, and so on.

#-o #-o #-o I give up. I'd rather nail jelly to a tree.

So I take it your solution (Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason. ) is to let them all drop dead?

Dunno about you? Maybe in your Marxist utopia people live forever. For the rest of 'mere' mortals we eventually do drop dead. Cutting the birth rate would be a start.

 

[RogerS]

Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason.

I'd have to partially disagree here. There may well be too many people for the way populations and resources are currently distributed, but the World can easily sustain a much greater population, which it'll have to anyway unless we kill a lot off by accident or design.

There are many people - probably both brighter and with more knowledge and experience than either you or I - who would beg to differ.

 

[RossJarvis]

Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason.

I'd have to partially disagree here. There may well be too many people for the way populations and resources are currently distributed, but the World can easily sustain a much greater population, which it'll have to anyway unless we kill a lot off by accident or design.

There are many people - probably both brighter and with more knowledge and experience than either you or I - who would beg to differ.

Maybe we could make the planet bigger. If we all stuff a foot pump into our gardens and get peddling like mad?

 

[Jacob]

Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason.

I'd have to partially disagree here. There may well be too many people for the way populations and resources are currently distributed, but the World can easily sustain a much greater population, which it'll have to anyway unless we kill a lot off by accident or design.

There are many people - probably both brighter and with more knowledge and experience than either you or I - who would beg to differ.

Ross is right. It's a well researched area ( by people brighter and with more knowledge and experience than Roger - not many of them about!).
Elimination of word wide poverty is well within our capabilities - should we choose to do it. One of the simplest and most boring changes, but highly effective, would be to all become vegetarian. This would liberate millions of square miles for food production (as distinct from animal food production). Sounds silly I know, but the figures prove it.

It's all down to political will and as we have the rise of Trump and the decline of the EU it looks less and less likely. We are all off to hell in a handcart!

 

[RobinBHM]

I'm confused by the talk of mass unemployment, The UK currently has an unemployment rate of 4.8% compared to France 10%, Portugal 11%, Italy 11.4, Spain 19%, Greece 23.4%

It seems to me we are off to hell in a handcart if we stay in the EU........

'Higher taxes for higher wage earners'....nice in theory but the pragmatic solution is to have low taxation for high earners. Unfair yes, but the reality is that low taxes means businesses and people are attracted to the UK, so creating more jobs for people and a much larger number of wealthy paying low tax means a much larger overall revenue to HMRC than few wealthy people paying high taxes.

I do find it frustrating that large companies are in the UK and avoid paying their taxes, that is unfair. Apple for example have managed to wangle a great deal in Ireland, they have had a huge incentive to come to Ireland and bring jobs in return for reduced tax. Nevertheless it is a significant employer which is good for the economy and employment there.

 

[MIGNAL]

4.8% :lol: Complete joke of a figure!

 

[Jacob]

I'm confused by the talk of mass unemployment, The UK currently has an unemployment rate of 4.8% compared to France 10%, Portugal 11%, Italy 11.4, Spain 19%, Greece 23.4%........

So immigration to Britain is not a problem is it - as far as jobs are concerned. Pleased you've spotted this!
But we are talking off mass un-employment to come with the advent of even higher hi-tech productivity

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm confused by the talk of mass unemployment, The UK currently has an unemployment rate of 4.8% compared to France 10%, Portugal 11%, Italy 11.4, Spain 19%, Greece 23.4%........

So immigration to Britain is not a problem is it - as far as jobs are concerned. Pleased you've spotted this!
But we are talking off mass un-employment to come with the advent of even higher hi-tech productivity

I wonder.

Back in the late 19th century, people were writing about how machines would soon be doing all the work, and what would we do with all the leisure time it would create? Well - partly true, in that we generally work shorter hours than was common in 1850 or 1900 - but on the other hand, how many IT support people were there around then? Or aircraft fitters, come to that. Each new technological revolution seems to create a whole new category of work that needs doing. Maybe automation will, to some extent. It's also true that because we work fewer hours, we have more leisure time - which has created (or at any rate, greatly expanded) a whole new industry in leisure and tourism.

I'm not making any predictions. Just throwing some thoughts out there....

 

[RobinBHM]

Ive never suggested mass immigration is a problem for jobs. Indeed without significant foreign workers in th UK, many sectors, like hospitality, retail, agriculture would have real problems.

Immigrants do not take jobs ftom UK citizens.

Immigration is an issue for infrastructure, school places, doctors surgeries, housing. Net Immegration of 300k is not sustainable to an Island of already quite high population density. The increase that foreign workers generate in tax does not relate to the increase of investment needed. I understand and applaud the idealogical theory of free movement, but there are practical issues that have to be solved.

Technology is changing the nature of employment, but its been changing for many decades yet we have very low unemployment so I dont agree that its an issue. We arent going to wake up in 2017 and find robots have taken all our jobs!

If that is the case, there would then be an army of robot field engineers needed.......

 

[RogerS]

Even better. Stop breeding like rabbits. Then we could all enjoy a bacon buttie.

 

[Jacob]

Even better. Stop breeding like rabbits. Then we could all enjoy a bacon buttie.

I say you lot would you mind not doing that!

Unfortunately the urge to reproduce is strong - strongest when under pressure, threat, disruption, war, famine etc etc -not just with humans but throughout the plant and animal world. The pressure to perpetuate ones own genes is much stronger than the pressure to reproduce in a conveniently sensible way. It's about survival of the species. Population growth is greatest where quality of life is low and uncivilised.
Large families are in the 3rd world, or people from the third world yet to become cosily middle class.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html .It's about survival of the species.
Simple answer to this is make sure these people are secure and have a reasonable livelihood and their birthrate will fall to 1.79 per woman.

 

[Jacob]

.... Net Immegration of 300k is not sustainable to an Island of already quite high population density..........

Population density in Britain not particularly high https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ ... on_density

 

[RobinBHM]

The vast majority of net immegration is to England not the UK.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... index.html

England has a population density of 413 per sq km compared to France 114

 

[RossJarvis]

The vast majority of net immegration is to England not the UK.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... index.html

England has a population density of 413 per sq km compared to France 114

Yep. You could probably fit the World's population easily into Caithness and Sutherland, mind you the trench foot and wet rot to their houses may be an issue.

 

[RossJarvis]

Immigration is an issue for infrastructure, school places, doctors surgeries, housing. Net Immegration of 300k is not sustainable to an Island of already quite high population density. The increase that foreign workers generate in tax does not relate to the increase of investment needed. I understand and applaud the idealogical theory of free movement, but there are practical issues that have to be solved.

Technology is changing the nature of employment, but its been changing for many decades yet we have very low unemployment so I dont agree that its an issue.

Have to agree with the infrastructure issue, I think this is where the greatest toll of immigration has been. I knew of one school in Sheffield where over 100 different first languages were spoken, so it wasn't just the numbers themselves which added to the stress on the system. Additionally the concentration of immigrants in fewer particular areas rather than evenly spread is a further problem both on the services and the social fabric of an area.

In terms of the unemployment figures, these are just a function of the policy to make it much harder to be unemployed, therefore forcing people into low value low paid jobs or quite often, still unemployed but not able to claim, so that you vanish from the figures. I'm not sure this is something to celebrate. There is still a large burden in benefits being paid to the low waged in terms of housing benefit, tax credits etc, plus the zero or minimal return from income tax.

 

[Steve Maskery]

still unemployed but not able to claim, so that you vanish from the figures.

Absolutely spot on. The ONLY reason we have the lowest unemployment figures for years is that we have the HIGHEST self-employment levels for years, where an enormous percentage of those people are scratching around for any kind of income and to whom Minimum Wage is just an aspiration.

If you are self-employed and not earning enough, HMRC stops your Working Tax Credits on the grounds that you are not working in an Organised Manner or working Regular Hours. You can simply be left with no income at all.

Go figure.