I dislike people based on actions / words not skin color or religion And I don’t make assumptions about liking or not liking someone for no reason
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
I ran my own very, very successful business for 40 years so I'm quite confident that I am clued up enough to comment how businesses work. Have you ever run a business ?You’re demonstrating your cluelessness about how businesses are run. The ones whose hours aren’t charged to contracts are those that provide all the functions that a business needs to enable its revenue earners to operate. Without them, customers don’t get invoiced, wages don’t get paid, overheads aren’t looked after and the business falls apart. A good successful business values all its employees whether they are revenue earners or not.
As I said all roles are important to the running of any business but my answer was to which role was the most important.
Remove those that do the invoicing, wages, cleaning etc. Those that produce the product that generates the revenue could still send out the invoices, do the wages, clean the office and workshop. It might make the day longer but it would still get done.
Keep those that do the invoices, do the wages and clean the office and get rid of the revenue producers and those left have nothing to invoice, no wages to pay, apart from their own but there won't be any money to pay them as nothing is being produced and sold.
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
See my reply to west didsblue and with the same question to you, have you ever run your own business ?Well if you want to play around with semantics. The conversation was about how, apparently some roles in an organisation are not worthy of the minimum wage. You say the most important roles are the revenue generators. But without the support staff those people can't carry out their role.
There are many service organisations, that don't generate revenues per se but are crucual to revenue generation by the end user.
hilts
Well-Known Member
I dont think anyone has said there shouldn't be wage disparity it was more in reaction to a poster saying minimum wage jobs should be paid less, the difference between wages in many cases though is obsceneI ran my own very, very successful business for 40 years so I'm quite confident that I am clued up enough to comment how businesses work. Have you ever run a business ?
As I said all roles are important to the running of any business but my answer was to which role was the most important.
Remove those that do the invoicing, wages, cleaning etc. Those that produce the product that generates the revenue could still send out the invoices, do the wages, clean the office and workshop. It might make the day longer but it would still get done.
Keep those that do the invoices, do the wages and clean the office and get rid of the revenue producers and those left have nothing to invoice, no wages to pay, apart from their own but there won't be any money to pay them as nothing is being produced and sold.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Are these revenue earners going to clean the shit splattered toilets, manage confidential waste and a plethora of other jobs that keep a business running as well?I ran my own very, very successful business for 40 years so I'm quite confident that I am clued up enough to comment how businesses work. Have you ever run a business ?
As I said all roles are important to the running of any business but my answer was to which role was the most important.
Remove those that do the invoicing, wages, cleaning etc. Those that produce the product that generates the revenue could still send out the invoices, do the wages, clean the office and workshop. It might make the day longer but it would still get done.
Keep those that do the invoices, do the wages and clean the office and get rid of the revenue producers and those left have nothing to invoice, no wages to pay, apart from their own but there won't be any money to pay them as nothing is being produced and sold.
After a couple of weeks of your guys cleaning the office, you’d bring in a cleaning service as it would be way more efficient use of people’s time.I ran my own very, very successful business for 40 years so I'm quite confident that I am clued up enough to comment how businesses work. Have you ever run a business ?
As I said all roles are important to the running of any business but my answer was to which role was the most important.
Remove those that do the invoicing, wages, cleaning etc. Those that produce the product that generates the revenue could still send out the invoices, do the wages, clean the office and workshop. It might make the day longer but it would still get done.
Keep those that do the invoices, do the wages and clean the office and get rid of the revenue producers and those left have nothing to invoice, no wages to pay, apart from their own but there won't be any money to pay them as nothing is being produced and sold.
And in the cleaning service business, guess who are the revenue producers :-)
metalblue
Well-Known Member
No I haven’t but who reads any manifesto I mean it will be progressive both socially and on green issue I am sure but are you saying private jets shouldn’t pay more fuel tax ? Or the rich shouldn’t pay there fair share ? However I am talking both the Green Party and the green movement more broadly for example fact that wind turbines etc are not in of themselves progressive / tax the rich or anyone else for that matter ( actually green energy is cheaper for all (look at gas and oil subsidies ). Cutting back doesn’t cost anyone either
Right, where is the bit where you or I have to change our behaviours? There isn’t we are going to tax rich folk and someone else is going to use that tax building wind turbines etc.
That is the whole problem with it, they convince us it’s someone else’s problem to solve not mine or yours, we can still pop off for our 2 weeks of sunshine without a care in the world and everything will be sorted, and that is just dishonest. To show you what a great job they’ve done, only 7% of the public favour carbon capture for tackling climate change over renewables, efficiencies like home insulation, public transport and spending more on the consequences of climate change. That simply blows my mind, you don’t stop a boat already sinking by plugging the hole the water is getting through, you need to pale out a bunch of the water there already.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
I ran my own very, very successful business for 40 years so I'm quite confident that I am clued up enough to comment how businesses work. Have you ever run a business ?
As I said all roles are important to the running of any business but my answer was to which role was the most important.
Remove those that do the invoicing, wages, cleaning etc. Those that produce the product that generates the revenue could still send out the invoices, do the wages, clean the office and workshop. It might make the day longer but it would still get done.
Keep those that do the invoices, do the wages and clean the office and get rid of the revenue producers and those left have nothing to invoice, no wages to pay, apart from their own but there won't be any money to pay them as nothing is being produced and sold.
I get the point you are making but if you reduce your revenue generators time selling your wares whilst they invoice etc then you have to balance your opportunity costs from your revenue generators not generating versus paying someone to do the invoicing etc.
To your central point the most important people to the government are the revenue generators, aka the tax payers, businesses etc although you wouldn’t think it currently. The opportunity cost is keeping them healthy etc so they can come to work (NHS, GPs) and travel etc (road, busses, rails). It’s all about the right balance and herein lays the question - what do we want a government to provide for us? This, and how we pay for it, is generally what separates those on the left and those on the right.
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
I don'tAfter a couple of weeks of your guys cleaning the office, you’d bring in a cleaning service as it would be way more efficient use of people’s time.
And in the cleaning service business, guess who are the revenue producers :-)
There is a very good analogy supposedly by a heart surgeon who was questioned by his mechanic why his job pays more then the mechanic. The mechanic claimed he could take an engine apart and fix the issue it had. The surgeon replied that was all well and good but could he do it while the engine is still running.I dont think anyone has said there shouldn't be wage disparity it was more in reaction to a poster saying minimum wage jobs should be paid less, the difference between wages in many cases though is obscene
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
Never had a cleaner, always cleaned my own office.After a couple of weeks of your guys cleaning the office, you’d bring in a cleaning service as it would be way more efficient use of people’s time.
And in the cleaning service business, guess who are the revenue producers :-)
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
I'm sure they could do that if required but could the cleaners operate the machinery that makes the product the business sells to generate it's revenue. Answer is no, therefore the revenue earners are the most important people in a business. You can dress your point up however you want but it won't change a basic fact. I'll wager you have never run a business.Are these revenue earners going to clean the shit splattered toilets, manage confidential waste and a plethora of other jobs that keep a business running as well?
Last edited:
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree that the business wouldn't be as efficient but that isn't the point. All I was doing was merely saying that a business could run without certain people but the ones it couldn't run without are those that produce the revenue stream.I get the point you are making but if you reduce your revenue generators time selling your wares whilst they invoice etc then you have to balance your opportunity costs from your revenue generators not generating versus paying someone to do the invoicing etc.
To your central point the most important people to the government are the revenue generators, aka the tax payers, businesses etc although you wouldn’t think it currently. The opportunity cost is keeping them healthy etc so they can come to work (NHS, GPs) and travel etc (road, busses, rails). It’s all about the right balance and herein lays the question - what do we want a government to provide for us? This, and how we pay for it, is generally what separates those on the left and those on the right.
threespires
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 8,736
- Team supported
- City
After a couple of weeks of your guys cleaning the office, you’d bring in a cleaning service as it would be way more efficient use of people’s time.
And in the cleaning service business, guess who are the revenue producers :-)
Nah, the real heroes in that scenario are the tech team who've created the BogShine gig economy platform (as an mvp before expanding into ArseShine the social care offshoot) which has a great valuation cause investors love technology with a low cost base, that scales quickly but keeps costs low by transferring risk from firms to individual workers.
Unfortunately for the tech team, before their employee share scheme meaningfully vests they'll be superseded by Platy-Plus the ultimate platform creation platform, which can be operated in its entirety by a single specially bred capuchin monkey (with the rest of the troop paid a retainer in case she's unwell). Only then will they realise that the race to the bottom they (maybe unwittingly) participated in, actually included them.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Your naivety is off the scale, but not surprisingI'm sure they could do that if required but could the cleaners operate the machinery that makes the product the business sells to generate its revenue. Answer is no, therefore the revenue earners are the most important people in a business. You can dress your point up however you want but it won't change a basic fact. I'll wager you have never run a business.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Sandringham private estate is the same size as Nottingham.People love using the UK as a whole when going on about us not being over populated, but when you change it to England it paints a very different picture.
England is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, with a population density significantly higher than the continental average.
With approximately 434 to 443 people per square kilometre, England is far more crowded than the United Kingdom average and ranks as the second most densely populated major nation in Europe, trailing only the Netherlands.
Netherlands ~518 - 528 ~19% Denser
europaEngland ~443 (Reference) Belgium ~383 - 384 ~14% Less Dense
europaGermany ~233 - 237 ~47% Less Dense
worldatlasItaly ~195 ~56% Less Dense
worldatlasFrance ~119 - 125 ~72% Less Dense
facebookSpain ~94 - 96 ~78% Less Dense
facebookEuropean Union (Avg) ~109 ~75% Less Dense
europa
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
Typical and expected deflection. Have you run a business ? Yes or no will sufficeYour naivety is off the scale, but not surprising
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,014
The population density of the Sandringham estate will be significantly increasing in the next year. Not really relevant to the point being discussed but I thought I’d mention it.Sandringham private estate is the same size as Nottingham.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
YesHave you run a business ? Yes or no will suffice
metalblue
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree that the business wouldn't be as efficient but that isn't the point. All I was doing was merely saying that a business could run without certain people but the ones it couldn't run without are those that produce the revenue stream.
Of course you are correct. The NHS are making nurses redundant because a hospital needs a HR department but can run with a couple less nurses. It’s exactly the same point mate.
maxwellblue
Well-Known Member
Exactly right. Nurses, doctors all producers. Clerical staff while have a role, do not save livesOf course you are correct. The NHS are making nurses redundant because a hospital needs a HR department but can run with a couple less nurses. It’s exactly the same point mate.