Tony Blair on Nick Robinson's Show

[lust overlord]

Because it is cheaper, it isn't exploitation. If India can do the same job for cheaper then unfortunately that is the nature of the job you do. It is no different to a business replacing you with a robot. The vast majority of jobs however are not done by robots nor are they in India and the employment statistics and number of vacancies out there pretty much supports that.

The same question as before stands, if you won the lottery would you distribute it out to the local economy? Most people wouldn't, so why would you expect a business owner to exist only to act as a cash machine? In fact if there was no reward allowed then why would you even bother in the first place?

Basically the key argument folk are making is workers should not be allowed to be exploited but businesses should? Is that fair?

Cheaper doesn't mean better though,as most of us who have made frustrating phone calls to call centres in foreign countries could testify.

Businesses need to make a profit,of course they do.

However there are loads of businesses that nowadays make generating extra profits today, more important than investing for the future and producing a quality service.

And yes they are "exploiting"workers in India etc because they are exploiting the lower pay conditions of these countries.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Cheaper doesn't mean better though,as most of us who have made frustrating phone calls to call centres in foreign countries could testify.

Businesses need to make a profit,of course they do.

However there are loads of businesses that nowadays make generating extra profits today, more important than investing for the future and producing a quality service.

And yes they are "exploiting"workers in India etc because they are exploiting the lower pay conditions of these countries.

Another view -I employ 1 guy in Sri Lanka, soon to be 2. That isn't exploitation or anything like that. We hire people in Sri Lanka as we can't afford people in the UK to do the same job - there is a good chance that will change in 18 months as I would like to have UK staff

 

[lust overlord]

Another view -I employ 1 guy in Sri Lanka, soon to be 2. That isn't exploitation or anything like that. We hire people in Sri Lanka as we can't afford people in the UK to do the same job - there is a good chance that will change in 18 months as I would like to have UK staff

Not having a dig here as you have a business to run and no doubt budget accordingly.

You do exploit,or to put it more politely,take advantage of the local employment conditions though,lower overheads etc etc to compete with other businesses doing likewise.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Not having a dig here as you have a business to run and no doubt budget accordingly.

You do exploit,or to put it more politely,take advantage of the local employment conditions though,lower overheads etc etc to compete with other businesses doing likewise.

It is the word 'exploit' that I took exeption to - it makes it sound like he is in some sort of fire hazardous sweatshop. He works from home

But yeah, we do take advantage of the fact that he is cheaper than a UK person doing the same job

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Because it is cheaper, it isn't exploitation. If India can do the same job for cheaper then unfortunately that is the nature of the job you do. It is no different to a business replacing you with a robot. The vast majority of jobs however are not done by robots nor are they in India and the employment statistics and number of vacancies out there pretty much supports that.

The same question as before stands, if you won the lottery would you distribute it out to the local economy? Most people wouldn't, so why would you expect a business owner to exist only to act as a cash machine? In fact if there was no reward allowed then why would you even bother in the first place?

Basically the key argument folk are making is workers should not be allowed to be exploited but businesses should? Is that fair?

It doesn’t matter whether it’s exploitation or not. Essentially they are devaluing the work that loyal staff put in in favour of a cheaper alternative that generally isn’t better for their customers or their brand. He could also do what other companies have done and say that he’s ‘outsourcing’ their jobs to a 3rd party who's going to pay them less, with fewer benefits.

The economy is like an ecosystem in nature. There are many different, little things going on that work together to maintain the whole. If there’s a negative impact on one part of that chain then it can have a multiplying effect on the whole thing.

If you shut down a large factory, it’s not only the jobs of the people who work there that are impacted but those of their suppliers and of other businesses in the local economy that relied on those workers spending their wages. Now, most new jobs are insecure - short-term, gig-economy, zero-hours, casual, whatever - and that means people have no or little financial security. Can't get mortgages or credit or plan any longer-term financial commitments. That's obviously not good for the economy.

And the comparison with the lottery doesn't stand up expect in one sense. To have a better chance of winning I would have to invest more to do that. But even if I did win, it's not through the hard work efforts of me or my staff but sheer luck. And I'd spend what I wanted to spend in the local economy. Perhaps a nicer house, buying nice things, etc. I'd also invest the rest, which would allow the banks to use the multiplier effect to lend something like 5 times what I'd invested, which would itself generate further wealth.

 

[kiam06]

The only place Tony Blair should be interviewed from is a prison cell.

 

[inbetween]

It doesn’t matter whether it’s exploitation or not. Essentially they are devaluing the work that loyal staff put in in favour of a cheaper alternative that generally isn’t better for their customers or their brand. He could also do what other companies have done and say that he’s ‘outsourcing’ their jobs to a 3rd party who's going to pay them less, with fewer benefits.

The economy is like an ecosystem in nature. There are many different, little things going on that work together to maintain the whole. If there’s a negative impact on one part of that chain then it can have a multiplying effect on the whole thing.

If you shut down a large factory, it’s not only the jobs of the people who work there that are impacted but those of their suppliers and of other businesses in the local economy that relied on those workers spending their wages. Now, most new jobs are insecure - short-term, gig-economy, zero-hours, casual, whatever - and that means people have no or little financial security. Can't get mortgages or credit or plan any longer-term financial commitments. That's obviously not good for the economy.

And the comparison with the lottery doesn't stand up expect in one sense. To have a better chance of winning I would have to invest more to do that. But even if I did win, it's not through the hard work efforts of me or my staff but sheer luck. And I'd spend what I wanted to spend in the local economy. Perhaps a nicer house, buying nice things, etc. I'd also invest the rest, which would allow the banks to use the multiplier effect to lend something like 5 times what I'd invested, which would itself generate further wealth.

I'm sure many on these forum shop at Aldi instead of using local growers so why do you do this? Aren't you also devaluing British workers by favouring cheaper foreign alternatives?

Why should a company be expected to not find ways to reduce costs when you as a consumer always choose the cheaper alternative?? Or shall we go down the route of forcing people to buy British as well as forcing the companies?? What a time to be alive....

I'm sorry we do not live in a totalatarian state, we live in a free country and as with my tax analogy if you cared enough about British workers and goods then you as a consumer would get your wallet out and be willing to pay for it.

Take a look at Primark on a Saturday afternoon (who gets most of its clothes made by kids in Bangladesh) if you want to see where the British consumer moral compass sits.

I'm not going to go into the rest, it is the same regurgitated socialist argument which holds zero value or substance because it contains problems and not solutions. I can tell you now that increasing business taxes, upping the national minimum wage, increasing regulation and massively increasing the national debt will not help with your factory shutting down scenario above..... It will directly cause it.

Anyway back on Blair, he is never going to be the person we want but he is the person we need. We desperately need a return to the centre. Labour has abandoned the average working joe.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I'm sure many on these forum shop at Aldi instead of using local growers so why do you do this? Aren't you also devaluing British workers by favouring cheaper foreign alternatives?

Why should a company be expected to not find ways to reduce costs when you as a consumer always choose the cheaper alternative?? Or shall we go down the route of forcing people to buy British as well as forcing the companies?? What a time to be alive....

I'm sorry we do not live in a totalatarian state, we live in a free country and as with my tax analogy if you cared enough about British workers and goods then you as a consumer would get your wallet out and be willing to pay for it.

Take a look at Primark on a Saturday afternoon (who gets most of its clothes made by kids in Bangladesh) if you want to see where the British consumer moral compass sits.

I'm not going to go into the rest, it is the same regurgitated socialist argument which holds zero value or substance because it contains problems and not solutions. I can tell you now that increasing business taxes, upping the national minimum wage, increasing regulation and massively increasing the national debt will not help with your factory shutting down scenario above..... It will directly cause it.

Anyway back on Blair, he is never going to be the person we want but he is the person we need. We desperately need a return to the centre. Labour has abandoned the average working joe.

I'm always amazed by stuff like this. You put together a pretty decent snapshot of how global corporate capitalism sucks, then you state this....

" I can tell you now that increasing business taxes, upping the national minimum wage, increasing regulation and massively increasing the national debt will not help with your factory shutting down scenario above..... It will directly cause it".

Eh? You've just said global capitalism caused that? So how come socialism caused it? Let's assume you meant socialism will make it worse.
You then state...

I'm not going to go into the rest, it is the same regurgitated socialist argument which holds zero value or substance because it contains problems and not solutions.

Well that was handy, so your solution is....

"We desperately need a return to the centre."

That's going to solve it is it? Care to tell us how?

Of course you end with....

"Labour has abandoned the average working joe."

Abandoned them in favour of what? Global corporations? I think you'll find that's the Tories and New Labour, but you want New Labour Third Way tinkering back! That's the middle way, right?

Sorry pal, you're making no sense.

Watch Tucker Carlson on Fox making the same case as you, with a different set of bonkers reasons, but, not surprisingly, he still comes to the same bizarre conclusion....

 

[blueparrot]

Abandoned them in favour of what?

Self absorbed navel gazing.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Self absorbed navel gazing.

Quite the opposite, Labour's getting flack from within and without because capital thinks they mean it.