Post Match Thread: Election 2017

[Chippy_boy]

the problem is that the majority of those jobs will still need doing in this country.
For example, from the office of national statistics, there were 362,000 jobs paying below the national living wage in 2016
Of these 60,000 were in the caring professions, we cant transition out of these, nursing and care homes are in the UK and pretty much have to stay here.
110,000 are in elementary occupations, thats basic service industry life bar staff waiters etc, again unless we stop going out , we cant transition out of these.
55,000 are in sales and customer service, do we really want to transition out of these so we end up with more foreign call centres when you ring up a company?
45,000 are admin and secretarial, cant really transition out of these as they support the high skill and high paid jobs and without them the high skilled high paid jobs are not possible.
So thats about 75% of the really low paid jobs we cant transition out of.

If we then look at the 5,000,000 people that claim working family tax credits and the like.
The stats for these are not published centrally, but some are available
there are about 1,500,000 providing social care (info from skillsforcare.org). So even if there are absolutely no elementary or customer service or admin jobs in that 5 million (and I am guessing there are) then there is at least 30% of those we cannot transition out of.
Its more likely that more than half of those 5 million jobs we cannot transition out of.

Just for discussion chippy old chap

Sure mate - good points. Of course we can't all be brain surgeons and highly skilled engineers. I simply make the point that this is the direction we need to go in. There will of course always be a need for unskilled labour. in the public sector, that's less of an issue since it's not "competitive". We can simply pay people what they need to be paid (subject to the economy being able to afford it), and there's no issue about the costs being uncompetitive. Likewise if private care costs increase, to an extent, people will just have to pay it, and similarly things like bar work, although if beer became £6 a pint, it wouldn't do the pubs business any good at all.

Agriculture is a big challenge. We can't do away with our farming industry, but crop picking is always going to be a difficult means of putting a roof over your families' heads and paying the bills. And if we start producing cabbage at £2 each, people will just buying the imported ones for £1. You make valid points about other lines of work too.

It's going to be a difficult road this, but thinking we can just pay everyone more, is not going to work.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You have just engaged in an exercise that every government since Harold Wilson has wrestled with and come, very roughly to some of their conclusions, though there are some conspicuous by their absence. But they will not be solved by this government, they are politically hardwired never to solve them.

Put simply there have been four types of approaches to these problems, A National Plan approach, white hot heat of the technological revolution , infrastructure investment under pinned by taxation and Keynesian economics, red brick universities, mid 60s Harold Wilson. The enabling government, nudge, nudge approach of Blair, while simultaneously letting market forces rip unrestrained. The shock and awe, slash and burn, don't give a fuck about the great unwashed, class warfare of Thatcher and the neoliberalism of May and Cameron, who don't seek to address these problems at all, as they are felt most acutely by people, who Duncan Smith rightly pointed out, "don't vote for us" and therefore don't matter.

That is why I and millions like me rallied to Corbyn, because these problems matter and they can only be addressed by massive investment underpinned by higher rates of taxation on the rich and borrowing. I would suggest you actually listen to Corbyn and John Mcdonnell and read the manifesto, because whatever your opinions are, these men seriously address the underlying problems that have plagued this country for decades, they're not obfuscating, they speak to the problems directly, for what they are, and they generated hope because they are serious in their intentions to address them. No other party is.

My anger with you and other right wingers in here is the narrowness of your vision, the utter hopelessness of it all. Nothing you post and nothing this government you support will ever do will solve any of the problems you've outlined. Maybe you buy in to the vicars daughter's biblical interpretation "you will always have the poor among you" and therefore you're quietly satisfied that she does nothing to alleviate it.

I have read the Labour manifesto - of course i have. There's some good stuff in there, as there is in the conservative one.

But McDonnell's favoured route is simply to pay people more. This cannot work as a long term solution. In the long term, people need to earn - in the sense of value delivered - what they are paid. Paying them over the odds is not a sustainable solution.

And you say the Tories don't get this. They most certainly do. Margaret Thatcher got it, when she allowed the mining industry to decline hugely. Had Labour had its way, we'd still be employing millions more people in vast unskilled numbers in shipbuilding, mining etc. We'd be in a worse mess than we are now.

Incidentally, Trump is completely deluded in what he wants to do (or at least said) with the rust belt. His solution is to allow uncompetitive american companies to make overpriced, uncompetitive products, but to put trade barriers in place to stop Americans buying better, cheaper goods from abroad, i.e. protectionism.

This will be to the benefit of a few 10's of millions of Americans, and the detriment of 300m, and ultimately to the detriment of their economy. Trabant, anybody?

 

[The perfect fumble]

I have read the Labour manifesto - of course i have. There's some good stuff in there, as there is in the conservative one.

But McDonnell's favoured route is simply to pay people more. This cannot work as a long term solution. In the long term, people need to earn - in the sense of value delivered - what they are paid. Paying them over the odds is not a sustainable solution.

In an economy based on consumption, it makes perfect sense to give people money to consume. Right wingers are happy to endorse quantitative easing for the banks, well how about quantitative easing for the people.

 

[pirate]

I have read the Labour manifesto - of course i have. There's some good stuff in there, as there is in the conservative one.

But McDonnell's favoured route is simply to pay people more. This cannot work as a long term solution. In the long term, people need to earn - in the sense of value delivered - what they are paid. Paying them over the odds is not a sustainable solution.

you are assuming that people are currently earning, in the sense of value delivered, what they deserve. I would argue that, in terms of value delivered, that the majority of the low paid are paid less than they earn, therefore the only long term solution is to pay them more.

 

[Bigga]

I would say it is a problem, but that it is also their right to do so. Just like it the workers' right to resist that and it is the workers' right to try to smash capitalism.

Trying to argue everything in terms of rights is something I would try to avoid. What are generally perceived to be 'rights' change over time depending on the make up of political and economic power. In the 1800s loads of people argued in favour of slaveholders' rights, and before that people argued for the divine right of kings.

However, even using the general understanding of rights that we have today I would still stay that the Tories had the right to try to set out to smash the power of the unions. Where they would have crossed the line would be if they had banned unions which would be in breach of the right of free assembly/association.

Well, one can't have it both ways, clearly.

There's the desire for a better standard of living and feeling like a work dog or letting the shareholder/ owner soak up all the profit without a second thought to who else is helping them have soft hands.

But, that's capitalism for you.

One would hope for a more symbiotic relationship that is rewarding to both employer and employee, after all how much does one really need? Isn't there a benefit in being a place people are queuing up to work for? How many times do you hear, these days, that a company is really great to work for? I hear it less than I ever have, these days, if at all!!

The days of 'dividend sharing' to the employee is pretty much all gone.

Loyalty is dead and it's now 'us against them'.

That's pretty fooked up.

 

[depps]

It has to be a partnership. Just as the business owners cannot run their businesses without the participation of the workers then also the workers cannot hold a business to ransom thinking that the business will not function without their labour. The only way forward is for business people to recognise that their workers are entitled to a wage that will give them a decent living standard as opposed to merely a subsistence. The workers need to know that by making excessive demands they will eventually kill the golden goose that is the business. The welfare of both parties is inextricably and intrinsically linked.
Generally, depending on the state of the employment market at any one time it will be the position of the workers that will be weaker than that of the employer. The position of the workers cannot be strengthened without threatening the business. In a weak employment market the workers cannot even threaten the business with withdrawal of labour in the knowledge that the employer will simply replace the existing workforce with a more compliant and cheaper workforce. So should then an employer grind down his workforce into working for a bowl of rice a day knowing that there are no jobs to be had and that the workers have families to feed and so have no other choice. The prevailing environment might make it feasible for an employer to cut wages with impunity, the question is is it right to do so.
This is my argument for morality in capitalism. It is in fact the only recipe for progress. Both parties voluntarily understanding the position of the other and working to make each others, and therefore their own position more prosperous and stronger.

To be honest with you I agree with your sentiment - the world would be a better place if their was more co-operation between owners and workers to ensure their businesses were successful, if the owners recognized that workers should be paid a decent wage as the welfare of both parties is linked. And in fact there are business that operate on that basis, and their are business owners that when bad times hit will be the ones to take the pain and will do everything they can to protect their workers pay and conditions.

However, as you note yourself, the workers are typically the ones in the weaker position in the economy and, even if the situation you describe above was to be replicated across all businesses, the workers are ultimately dependent on the goodwill of the bosses when times get though. Essentially, the relationship of the worker to his boss/the owner of the means of production is like that of the medieval peasant to his feudal lord - their are nice bosses who will look after you, and bad bosses who will screw you. Relying on what capital is willing to give them is not a viable approach in the long term.

Workers only enjoy the protections that they now do (40 hour week, a minimum wage, health and safety standards etc) becuase they organised in unions and politically through the Labour Party to win those protections. The bosses didn't hand these things over voluntarily, the workers fought for them and won them against the resistance of the bosses.

Ultimately, the solution for the workers is that they must take ownership of the means of production - but that is probably a long way off for many reasons.

In the shorter term they should use the political power inherent in their numerical superiority to elect governments that will legislate in their favour, that will increase their protections/bargaining power against the bosses, and adopt economic/fiscal policies that will favour the many over the few.

I don't have time to respond individually to all of the points raised by others subsequent to your comment (like Chippy_boys) other than to say that from the perspective of how economies currently function they do have some valid points - for example, competition from cheaper labour overseas and from automation are realities which can't be escaped under the current economic system. The Labour Party is barking up the wrong tree if it thinks it can reverse these trends. And I have to admit that I don't know what the solution is, other than to say that automation should be embraced by the left - if managed properly automation could (and should) mean we all have to do less work!

I would also concede that in the situation the UK finds itself in right now with Brexit it would probably be a bad idea, all other things staying as they are, for the Labour Party to actually raise corporation taxes.

 

[The perfect fumble]

you are assuming that people are currently earning, in the sense of value delivered, what they deserve. I would argue that, in terms of value delivered, that the majority of the low paid are paid less than they earn, therefore the only long term solution is to pay them more.

Yep, If ever an economy needed stimulus it's ours and when so much of our economy is based on consumption where's the logic in squeezing consumption?

 

[pirate]

Sure mate - good points. Of course we can't all be brain surgeons and highly skilled engineers. I simply make the point that this is the direction we need to go in. There will of course always be a need for unskilled labour. in the public sector, that's less of an issue since it's not "competitive". We can simply pay people what they need to be paid (subject to the economy being able to afford it), and there's no issue about the costs being uncompetitive. Likewise if private care costs increase, to an extent, people will just have to pay it, and similarly things like bar work, although if beer became £6 a pint, it wouldn't do the pubs business any good at all.

Agriculture is a big challenge. We can't do away with our farming industry, but crop picking is always going to be a difficult means of putting a roof over your families' heads and paying the bills. And if we start producing cabbage at £2 each, people will just buying the imported ones for £1. You make valid points about other lines of work too.

It's going to be a difficult road this, but thinking we can just pay everyone more, is not going to work.

you didnt really address the points.
You say we can pay public sector employees what they need to be paid, subject to the economy being able to afford it. When the economy cant afford it (as the Tories claim is currently the case) do we cut the public sector? Do we suppress the wages and keep the same number of employees? or do we reduce the number of employees on the same wages and reduce then services provided?
If we suppress the wages then that puts people into the welfare system and any money saved in wages are lost in welfare payments, plus a little bit more in increased admin costs.
If we cut the number of employees the direct saving in wages are again offset in increased welfare payments (the people who lose their jobs are unlikely to get other employment as the reason the government cant afford them is the economy is struggling) and reduction in tax take. In addition there is either the economic losses incurred from reduced services (for example: less road maintenance leading to increased haulage costs) or the social problems (reduced healthcare, more social strife)

Private care costs. If they increase substantially they become public care costs as people will not be able to afford them. Either the state will have to pick up the bill or just leave people to suffer and die. Which would you choose?

Why is our farming industry different from other industry? You seem happy to get rid of other industries, what makes farming special.
I know why its special, but I dont think it should be treated as an industry. If its an industry why does it get special treatment.

 

[pirate]

To be honest with you I agree with your sentiment - the world would be a better place if their was more co-operation between owners and workers to ensure their businesses were successful, if the owners recognized that workers should be paid a decent wage as the welfare of both parties is linked. And in fact there are business that operate on that basis, and their are business owners that when bad times hit will be the ones to take the pain and will do everything they can to protect their workers pay and conditions.

However, as you note yourself, the workers are typically the ones in the weaker position in the economy and, even if the situation you describe above was to be replicated across all businesses, the workers are ultimately dependent on the goodwill of the bosses when times get though. Essentially, the relationship of the worker to his boss/the owner of the means of production is like that of the medieval peasant to his feudal lord - their are nice bosses who will look after you, and bad bosses who will screw you. Relying on what capital is willing to give them is not a viable approach in the long term.

Workers only enjoy the protections that they now do (40 hour week, a minimum wage, health and safety standards etc) becuase they organised in unions and politically through the Labour Party to win those protections. The bosses didn't hand these things over voluntarily, the workers fought for them and won them against the resistance of the bosses.

Ultimately, the solution for the workers is that they must take ownership of the means of production - but that is probably a long way off for many reasons.

In the shorter term they should use the political power inherent in their numerical superiority to elect governments that will legislate in their favour, that will increase their protections/bargaining power against the bosses, and adopt economic/fiscal policies that will favour the many over the few.

I don't have time to respond individually to all of the points raised by others subsequent to your comment (like Chippy_boys) other than to say that from the perspective of how economies currently function they do have some valid points - for example, competition from cheaper labour overseas and from automation are realities which can't be escaped under the current economic system. The Labour Party is barking up the wrong tree if it thinks it can reverse these trends. And I have to admit that I don't know what the solution is, other than to say that automation should be embraced by the left - if managed properly automation could (and should) mean we all have to do less work!

I would also concede that in the situation the UK finds itself in right now with Brexit it would probably be a bad idea, all other things staying as they are, for the Labour Party to actually raise corporation taxes.

the easiest way to do that would be for the workers to organise in groups with the same needs and goals. then possibly get together with other workers groups with similar goals and I dont know, set up a political party and fund it so it can compete with the established parties.
If only those organisations existed so we didnt have to set them up.

hang on thats the trade unions and the labour party.

 

[depps]

the easiest way to do that would be for the workers to organise in groups with the same needs and goals. then possibly get together with other workers groups with similar goals and I dont know, set up a political party and fund it so it can compete with the established parties.
If only those organisations existed so we didnt have to set them up.

hang on thats the trade unions and the labour party.

I'm not sure if you are arguing with or against me here - I am saying that workers should join unions and vote for the Labour Party!