FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > SNP supermarket pricing caps
SNP supermarket pricing caps
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *iquante OP Man 3 weeks ago
Birmingham |
The SNP is proposing to impose mandatory pricing caps in supermarkets for a basket of between 20-50 food staples.
On top of the rent controls already introduced.
This sounds like a good idea.
What other daily items and services that people buy should be subject to pricing caps?
Should the rest of the UK follow suit?
Will it work? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Agriculture has been reduced to 0.6% of gdp making UK reliant on imported food.
Defra say 37,000 farms have closed since 1973, another 6000 agricultural businesses reportedly closed due to Labours iht grab on farms
Warmer temperatures has given opportunity to growing fruits in UK but planners resisting large Dutch style greenhouses.
Long waits for allotments and new homes with tiny gardens shadowed by privacy fencing making unsustainable for growing.
Banning the use of glyphosate would be advisable instead of poisoning ourselves.
Investment should be channeled into farming for food security, and with it lower prices. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Agriculture has been reduced to 0.6% of gdp making UK reliant on imported food.
Defra say 37,000 farms have closed since 1973, another 6000 agricultural businesses reportedly closed due to Labours iht grab on farms
Warmer temperatures has given opportunity to growing fruits in UK but planners resisting large Dutch style greenhouses.
Long waits for allotments and new homes with tiny gardens shadowed by privacy fencing making unsustainable for growing.
Banning the use of glyphosate would be advisable instead of poisoning ourselves.
Investment should be channeled into farming for food security, and with it lower prices. "
When was the UK not reliant on imported food? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cynical attempt to mimic Mamdani's popularity stemming from his undeliverable pre-election promises, and achieve similar success.
In the same boat as the false promises from the Right."
Funny how he's delivering his promises |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Agriculture has been reduced to 0.6% of gdp making UK reliant on imported food.
Defra say 37,000 farms have closed since 1973, another 6000 agricultural businesses reportedly closed due to Labours iht grab on farms
Warmer temperatures has given opportunity to growing fruits in UK but planners resisting large Dutch style greenhouses.
Long waits for allotments and new homes with tiny gardens shadowed by privacy fencing making unsustainable for growing.
Banning the use of glyphosate would be advisable instead of poisoning ourselves.
Investment should be channeled into farming for food security, and with it lower prices. "
Why would the food security of home-grown lead to lower prices? We already see British beef being sold for significantly more than Argentinian beef |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cynical attempt to mimic Mamdani's popularity stemming from his undeliverable pre-election promises, and achieve similar success.
In the same boat as the false promises from the Right.
Funny how he's delivering his promises "
Which of his promises has he delivered? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Funny how he's delivering his promises "
He has no credible plan for:
Fast and fare-free buses.
A 4-year rent freeze.
Building 200,000 affordable homes.
Ending homeless encampment sweeps (he walked back this pledge).
Taxing the rich for newly funded programmes (he simply cannot do this, except through property taxes, which will cause huge issues).
But the one this echoes most closely is the subsidised grocery stores. It's unclear how he will deliver anything at all useful. Sure, he can open a building with a few items, but delivering something that makes a real difference is a huge uphill battle. It failed in Kansas City and Florida, because shops like Walmart and Aldi already work on razor-thin margins, with much more cost-effective logistics. And this is the issue that the SNP will face. Many staples are already loss-leaders to attract people into stores (bread/beans/milk sometime lose money, as beer famously did, until Scotland put a minimum price on alcohol).
In a challenging cost-of-living environment, this sounds great to many voters. But the implementation is pretty tricky, almost to the point of impracticality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
How does the SNP propose to make sure products continue to be sold if the price cap makes them unprofitable?
How do they propose to ensure that the product quality and quantity also stay the same if the suppliers/producers are making a loss on them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How does the SNP propose to make sure products continue to be sold if the price cap makes them unprofitable?
How do they propose to ensure that the product quality and quantity also stay the same if the suppliers/producers are making a loss on them?"
Dairy farmers will love the price squeeze... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It failed in Kansas City and Florida, because shops like Walmart and Aldi already work on razor-thin margins, with much more cost-effective logistics. And this is the issue that the SNP will face. Many staples are already loss-leaders to attract people into stores (bread/beans/milk sometime lose money, as beer famously did, until Scotland put a minimum price on alcohol).
"
This is what many people fail to realise. They have been repeatedly fed the idea that these companies are making money doing nothing. They provide a logistics service over the actual material cost of food. Where there isn't a monopoly, competition drives the margins thin.
When a politician promises something is "free", it means that someone else is going to pay the price for it. Everyone is happy as long as that someone is not themselves.
The best way to improve people's material life is to improve productivity and innovation so that the supply is high enough to meet demand. Playing with money through taxation doesn't solve the underlying problem. It only makes it worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".
The best way to improve people's material life is to improve productivity and innovation so that the supply is high enough to meet demand.
How's that working out so far?"
In spite of population explosion in many countries over the past 50 years, we have managed to reduce hunger deaths in some and completely eliminated it in the others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 3 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"The SNP is proposing to impose mandatory pricing caps in supermarkets for a basket of between 20-50 food staples.
On top of the rent controls already introduced.
This sounds like a good idea.
What other daily items and services that people buy should be subject to pricing caps?
Should the rest of the UK follow suit?
Will it work?"
Not like you to support something socialist bordering on communism… are you feeling well????  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".
The best way to improve people's material life is to improve productivity and innovation so that the supply is high enough to meet demand.
How's that working out so far?
In spite of population explosion in many countries over the past 50 years, we have managed to reduce hunger deaths in some and completely eliminated it in the others."
I mean specifically here, in the UK. Innovation and productivity has continued to grow, so we ought to be in clover right now. Why aren't we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".
The best way to improve people's material life is to improve productivity and innovation so that the supply is high enough to meet demand.
How's that working out so far?
In spite of population explosion in many countries over the past 50 years, we have managed to reduce hunger deaths in some and completely eliminated it in the others.
I mean specifically here, in the UK. Innovation and productivity has continued to grow, so we ought to be in clover right now. Why aren't we?"
Innovation, in terms of research, yes. Is that innovation used in companies? Not much. Has productivity increased? Not much either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
This is what many people fail to realise. They have been repeatedly fed the idea that these companies are making money doing nothing. They provide a logistics service over the actual material cost of food. Where there isn't a monopoly, competition drives the margins thin."
Running the numbers for Tesco:
Average operating profit over the past five years is 2.5bn. That's roughly £120 per household per year (assuming 20m households, based upon clubcard numbers).
Their operating margin is 2.33%. So if they were operating purely as a non-profit, your average shopping would be very marginally cheaper.
If they were a nonprofit, competition and cost efficiency (the hallmarks of Tesco) would go out the window, so you can assume increased costs of at least 10%, probably much more (no, there is no data to back this up, just gut feeling, after having worked there in IT and having friends who worked there in purchasing).
Aggregating all major stores, weekly profit per household sits under £4 per week, per household. Punishing the retailers is unlikely to make much of a difference and will likely make things worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Funny how he's delivering his promises
He has no credible plan for:
Fast and fare-free buses.
A 4-year rent freeze.
Building 200,000 affordable homes.
Ending homeless encampment sweeps (he walked back this pledge).
Taxing the rich for newly funded programmes (he simply cannot do this, except through property taxes, which will cause huge issues).
But the one this echoes most closely is the subsidised grocery stores. It's unclear how he will deliver anything at all useful. Sure, he can open a building with a few items, but delivering something that makes a real difference is a huge uphill battle. It failed in Kansas City and Florida, because shops like Walmart and Aldi already work on razor-thin margins, with much more cost-effective logistics. And this is the issue that the SNP will face. Many staples are already loss-leaders to attract people into stores (bread/beans/milk sometime lose money, as beer famously did, until Scotland put a minimum price on alcohol).
In a challenging cost-of-living environment, this sounds great to many voters. But the implementation is pretty tricky, almost to the point of impracticality."
What planet you living on?
He's implemented tax on property worth $5 million or more for people who don't permanently reside in NY today.
He's only been in office since January.
Seems like a stand up guy to me. Let's see what he can do.
But he categorically is raising the taxes and he still says he's doing the free childcare and buses |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It failed in Kansas City and Florida, because shops like Walmart and Aldi already work on razor-thin margins, with much more cost-effective logistics. And this is the issue that the SNP will face. Many staples are already loss-leaders to attract people into stores (bread/beans/milk sometime lose money, as beer famously did, until Scotland put a minimum price on alcohol).
This is what many people fail to realise. They have been repeatedly fed the idea that these companies are making money doing nothing. They provide a logistics service over the actual material cost of food. Where there isn't a monopoly, competition drives the margins thin.
When a politician promises something is "free", it means that someone else is going to pay the price for it. Everyone is happy as long as that someone is not themselves.
The best way to improve people's material life is to improve productivity and innovation so that the supply is high enough to meet demand. Playing with money through taxation doesn't solve the underlying problem. It only makes it worse."
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What planet you living on?
He's implemented tax on property worth $5 million or more for people who don't permanently reside in NY today.
He's only been in office since January.
Seems like a stand up guy to me. Let's see what he can do.
But he categorically is raising the taxes and he still says he's doing the free childcare and buses "
Let's continue this discussion in three years, shall we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits."
What percentage is an acceptable net profit margin to you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits."
How are tax payers subsidising the workers? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 3 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
Funny how he's delivering his promises
He has no credible plan for:
Fast and fare-free buses.
A 4-year rent freeze.
Building 200,000 affordable homes.
Ending homeless encampment sweeps (he walked back this pledge).
Taxing the rich for newly funded programmes (he simply cannot do this, except through property taxes, which will cause huge issues).
But the one this echoes most closely is the subsidised grocery stores. It's unclear how he will deliver anything at all useful. Sure, he can open a building with a few items, but delivering something that makes a real difference is a huge uphill battle. It failed in Kansas City and Florida, because shops like Walmart and Aldi already work on razor-thin margins, with much more cost-effective logistics. And this is the issue that the SNP will face. Many staples are already loss-leaders to attract people into stores (bread/beans/milk sometime lose money, as beer famously did, until Scotland put a minimum price on alcohol).
In a challenging cost-of-living environment, this sounds great to many voters. But the implementation is pretty tricky, almost to the point of impracticality."
The rent freeze he can do.. he will need to appoint his people to the rent board to do it (one of former mayor Eric Adams last acts was to try and scupper this by putting his people on the board)
His new has the money for universal pre 3k childcare.. and this new mansion tax will mean he can now deliver on pre 2k childcare
Everyone makes such a big deal about the city owned grocery stores but all that was ever proposed was one city owned grocery store in each of the 5 boroughs, in a place that has become a grocery store desert because businesses had actually closed or moved out .. the price tag is a drop in the ocean at 20 million dollars
The building of the affordable housing has actually taken a step forward with the removal of some regulations.. which means it’s easier to start building housing in places like the outer Bronxs, and in Long Island city
The free buses was always going to be the one that takes the longest as it’s going to have to in conjunction with port authority and the MTA as you are going to have to cover things like revenue replacement and old fashioned bus procurement |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?"
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension "
The solution to this is simple - Remove the benefits. Companies will he forced to pay better wages. Companies get away with this BECAUSE the government is subsidising the wages. You then reduce the taxes because you don't have to pay for the benefits anymore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension
The solution to this is simple - Remove the benefits. Companies will he forced to pay better wages. Companies get away with this BECAUSE the government is subsidising the wages. You then reduce the taxes because you don't have to pay for the benefits anymore."
Remove benefits? For everyone? Disabled people?
Shall we reimpose the work houses? Would that make you happy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension
The solution to this is simple - Remove the benefits. Companies will he forced to pay better wages. Companies get away with this BECAUSE the government is subsidising the wages. You then reduce the taxes because you don't have to pay for the benefits anymore.
Remove benefits? For everyone? Disabled people?
Shall we reimpose the work houses? Would that make you happy?"
Don't get too emotional 
How did disabled people come into the argument here? People who are clearly able to work AND working are being subsided. Why? That's the reason the companies can get away with lowering the wages. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension
The solution to this is simple - Remove the benefits. Companies will he forced to pay better wages. Companies get away with this BECAUSE the government is subsidising the wages. You then reduce the taxes because you don't have to pay for the benefits anymore.
Remove benefits? For everyone? Disabled people?
Shall we reimpose the work houses? Would that make you happy?
Don't get too emotional
How did disabled people come into the argument here? People who are clearly able to work AND working are being subsided. Why? That's the reason the companies can get away with lowering the wages."
Remove benefits you said I asked from who?
I have no idea how we've reached a position where the government are subsidising people's wages but it's insane!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension
The solution to this is simple - Remove the benefits. Companies will he forced to pay better wages. Companies get away with this BECAUSE the government is subsidising the wages. You then reduce the taxes because you don't have to pay for the benefits anymore.
Remove benefits? For everyone? Disabled people?
Shall we reimpose the work houses? Would that make you happy?
Don't get too emotional
How did disabled people come into the argument here? People who are clearly able to work AND working are being subsided. Why? That's the reason the companies can get away with lowering the wages.
Remove benefits you said I asked from who?
I have no idea how we've reached a position where the government are subsidising people's wages but it's insane!! "
There is no reason why the government should be paying benefits to people who find work. For people who do not work, the government could help for about 6 months. After that, unless there is a clear case of disability that doesn't allow them to work, the benefits should stop. About 22.8% of working age people in the country are relying on benefits.
Look around you. Do you really think one in every 5 people around you deserve benefits from government? Do you think this is sustainable? Do you think it's fair on people who work and pay taxes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes "
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages."
Well this is an interesting doom loop |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension
The solution to this is simple - Remove the benefits. Companies will he forced to pay better wages. Companies get away with this BECAUSE the government is subsidising the wages. You then reduce the taxes because you don't have to pay for the benefits anymore.
Remove benefits? For everyone? Disabled people?
Shall we reimpose the work houses? Would that make you happy?
Don't get too emotional
How did disabled people come into the argument here? People who are clearly able to work AND working are being subsided. Why? That's the reason the companies can get away with lowering the wages.
Remove benefits you said I asked from who?
I have no idea how we've reached a position where the government are subsidising people's wages but it's insane!!
There is no reason why the government should be paying benefits to people who find work. For people who do not work, the government could help for about 6 months. After that, unless there is a clear case of disability that doesn't allow them to work, the benefits should stop. About 22.8% of working age people in the country are relying on benefits.
Look around you. Do you really think one in every 5 people around you deserve benefits from government? Do you think this is sustainable? Do you think it's fair on people who work and pay taxes?"
You understand that recieving benefits is not automatically the same as not working, right? Benefits cover things like caring for disabled relatives, single parents with young children and people who are genuinely unable to work because of disabilities. How does the "6 months and you're done" idea work for them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages."
Where do you get that idea from? You only need to look at history to see that eras like the Industrial Revolution, where there was no government assistance at all, did not correspond to high wages for workers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages.
Well this is an interesting doom loop"
It's just common sense. Assume a company is wants to hire a worker.
Person A demands £20,000 per annum. Person B demands £10,000 per annum because he can get benefits while working.
The company obviously gives the job to person B.
In a world where these benefits don't exist, both person A and B will ask for £20,000 and the company has to pay £20,000. This is how supply demand based negotiation works - The natural order of things, until the government decides to jump in mess things up for everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages.
Where do you get that idea from? You only need to look at history to see that eras like the Industrial Revolution, where there was no government assistance at all, did not correspond to high wages for workers."
Why do you think different people receive different wages today? There are employees getting £500,000 per annum and there are also employees getting only £30,000 per annum. By your logic, companies wouldn't pay anyone £500,000 per annum right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You understand that recieving benefits is not automatically the same as not working, right? Benefits cover things like caring for disabled relatives, single parents with young children and people who are genuinely unable to work because of disabilities. How does the "6 months and you're done" idea work for them?"
The benefits numbers I gave are people getting universal credit and people on PIP. I ask you the same question again. Do you really believe that one in five people around you of working age are actually deserving of doing nothing and getting benefits? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages.
Well this is an interesting doom loop
It's just common sense. Assume a company is wants to hire a worker.
Person A demands £20,000 per annum. Person B demands £10,000 per annum because he can get benefits while working.
The company obviously gives the job to person B.
In a world where these benefits don't exist, both person A and B will ask for £20,000 and the company has to pay £20,000. This is how supply demand based negotiation works - The natural order of things, until the government decides to jump in mess things up for everyone."
Absolutely not!!
People aren't going around saying we'll do it for 10k because the government will top us up.
Companies have to advertise the jobs with the pro rata rate, they decide to pay peanuts for monkeys.
They could pay more and invest in individuals but that means the share holder has to go with less and the manager has a lower bonus.
It's always the poor who has to pay |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages.
Where do you get that idea from? You only need to look at history to see that eras like the Industrial Revolution, where there was no government assistance at all, did not correspond to high wages for workers.
Why do you think different people receive different wages today? There are employees getting £500,000 per annum and there are also employees getting only £30,000 per annum. By your logic, companies wouldn't pay anyone £500,000 per annum right?"
Not for the same job they don't |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You understand that recieving benefits is not automatically the same as not working, right? Benefits cover things like caring for disabled relatives, single parents with young children and people who are genuinely unable to work because of disabilities. How does the "6 months and you're done" idea work for them?
The benefits numbers I gave are people getting universal credit and people on PIP. I ask you the same question again. Do you really believe that one in five people around you of working age are actually deserving of doing nothing and getting benefits? "
I ask you, what makes you qualified to know what's wrong with each individual?
Just because they aren't crippled in a wheelchair doesn't mean they are well |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages.
Where do you get that idea from? You only need to look at history to see that eras like the Industrial Revolution, where there was no government assistance at all, did not correspond to high wages for workers.
Why do you think different people receive different wages today? There are employees getting £500,000 per annum and there are also employees getting only £30,000 per annum. By your logic, companies wouldn't pay anyone £500,000 per annum right?
Not for the same job they don't "
Why? Why don't the companies pay much less for everyone and ask them all to get benefits? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
In a world where these benefits don't exist, both person A and B will ask for £20,000 and the company has to pay £20,000. This is how supply demand based negotiation works - The natural order of things, until the government decides to jump in mess things up for everyone.
Absolutely not!!
People aren't going around saying we'll do it for 10k because the government will top us up.
"
People are already doing it. That's why you have people who are paid lower wages which are subsidised by the government.
"
Companies have to advertise the jobs with the pro rata rate, they decide to pay peanuts for monkeys.
They could pay more and invest in individuals but that means the share holder has to go with less and the manager has a lower bonus.
It's always the poor who has to pay "
Wages are dependent on supply and demand. As long as there are people who are willing to work for lower wages, there will be companies paying lower wages. And this wage suppression happens because of government subsidies. If they stop that, companies will be forced to pay more and the government will have an opportunity to reduce taxes(though they won't). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I ask you, what makes you qualified to know what's wrong with each individual?
Just because they aren't crippled in a wheelchair doesn't mean they are well"
I have seen enough people across different countries I have lived to know that Britain's numbers in this matter don't make any sense. There are lots of people taking the piss. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages.
Where do you get that idea from? You only need to look at history to see that eras like the Industrial Revolution, where there was no government assistance at all, did not correspond to high wages for workers.
Why do you think different people receive different wages today? There are employees getting £500,000 per annum and there are also employees getting only £30,000 per annum. By your logic, companies wouldn't pay anyone £500,000 per annum right?
Not for the same job they don't
Why? Why don't the companies pay much less for everyone and ask them all to get benefits?"
So there's a hierarchy of payment based on title within the company.
A CEO isn't going to be payed minimum wage.
Equally not all industries will be able to pay CEO 500k
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
In a world where these benefits don't exist, both person A and B will ask for £20,000 and the company has to pay £20,000. This is how supply demand based negotiation works - The natural order of things, until the government decides to jump in mess things up for everyone.
Absolutely not!!
People aren't going around saying we'll do it for 10k because the government will top us up.
People are already doing it. That's why you have people who are paid lower wages which are subsidised by the government.
Companies have to advertise the jobs with the pro rata rate, they decide to pay peanuts for monkeys.
They could pay more and invest in individuals but that means the share holder has to go with less and the manager has a lower bonus.
It's always the poor who has to pay
Wages are dependent on supply and demand. As long as there are people who are willing to work for lower wages, there will be companies paying lower wages. And this wage suppression happens because of government subsidies. If they stop that, companies will be forced to pay more and the government will have an opportunity to reduce taxes(though they won't)."
No one is doing that.
The job market doesn't work like that.
You have to state what the wage is pro rata. People have to know what they're applying for.
If it wasn't for the government and it's minimum wage the companies would be paying less!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I ask you, what makes you qualified to know what's wrong with each individual?
Just because they aren't crippled in a wheelchair doesn't mean they are well
I have seen enough people across different countries I have lived to know that Britain's numbers in this matter don't make any sense. There are lots of people taking the piss. "
So as a medical expert in nothing your opinion matters on these issues matter less. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".
How about we stop the triple lock? "
The triple lock was always a doomed idea.
It should have taken pensions at a point in time and said that pensions will be triple locked to that value, based on the greatest of the measures yearly, rather than locked to the previous year's. Eventually, it will grow uncontrollably.
But pensions have been paid for and planned for - to reduce them is some serious treachery. Better yet would be a system like in Australia, with mandatory private contributions from employers. The UK is many years behind Australia. Current pension contributions are nothing more than a tease. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I ask you, what makes you qualified to know what's wrong with each individual?
Just because they aren't crippled in a wheelchair doesn't mean they are well
I have seen enough people across different countries I have lived to know that Britain's numbers in this matter don't make any sense. There are lots of people taking the piss.
So as a medical expert in nothing your opinion matters on these issues matter less."
I have seen enough medical experts who are happy to lie, just like the lawyers in the other threads. I don't doubt their expertise. I doubt their integrity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages.
Where do you get that idea from? You only need to look at history to see that eras like the Industrial Revolution, where there was no government assistance at all, did not correspond to high wages for workers.
Why do you think different people receive different wages today? There are employees getting £500,000 per annum and there are also employees getting only £30,000 per annum. By your logic, companies wouldn't pay anyone £500,000 per annum right?
Not for the same job they don't
Why? Why don't the companies pay much less for everyone and ask them all to get benefits?
So there's a hierarchy of payment based on title within the company.
A CEO isn't going to be payed minimum wage.
Equally not all industries will be able to pay CEO 500k
"
Why isn't a CEO not going to be paid minimum wage? Why is a business analyst, a date scientist or a software engineer paid only the minimum wage? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I ask you, what makes you qualified to know what's wrong with each individual?
Just because they aren't crippled in a wheelchair doesn't mean they are well
I have seen enough people across different countries I have lived to know that Britain's numbers in this matter don't make any sense. There are lots of people taking the piss.
So as a medical expert in nothing your opinion matters on these issues matter less.
I have seen enough medical experts who are happy to lie, just like the lawyers in the other threads. I don't doubt their expertise. I doubt their integrity."
Either the person is ill or they aren't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".
The best way to improve people's material life is to improve productivity and innovation so that the supply is high enough to meet demand.
How's that working out so far?
In spite of population explosion in many countries over the past 50 years, we have managed to reduce hunger deaths in some and completely eliminated it in the others.
I mean specifically here, in the UK. Innovation and productivity has continued to grow, so we ought to be in clover right now. Why aren't we?"
Productivity has effectively stalled since 2008. That is the fundamental reason living standards are falling behind everyone else.
The country (ie all of us) are barely more productive than we were almost 20 years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No one is doing that.
The job market doesn't work like that.
You have to state what the wage is pro rata. People have to know what they're applying for.
"
And if the wages aren't good enough for your basic needs, they won't find an employee. Then they will have to increase it.
"
If it wasn't for the government and it's minimum wage the companies would be paying less!!"
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden would like to have a word with you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I ask you, what makes you qualified to know what's wrong with each individual?
Just because they aren't crippled in a wheelchair doesn't mean they are well
I have seen enough people across different countries I have lived to know that Britain's numbers in this matter don't make any sense. There are lots of people taking the piss.
So as a medical expert in nothing your opinion matters on these issues matter less.
I have seen enough medical experts who are happy to lie, just like the lawyers in the other threads. I don't doubt their expertise. I doubt their integrity.
Either the person is ill or they aren't."
And that has nothing to do with the medical certificate they get from the doctors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The companies could pay people more. Minimum wage is the rate the government sets, companies can pay more to be more attractive to the best.
So we could also turn our irk at companies trying to do things on the cheap and find loopholes
Companies will pay more if they know that the government wouldn't subsidise their employee wages.
Where do you get that idea from? You only need to look at history to see that eras like the Industrial Revolution, where there was no government assistance at all, did not correspond to high wages for workers.
Why do you think different people receive different wages today? There are employees getting £500,000 per annum and there are also employees getting only £30,000 per annum. By your logic, companies wouldn't pay anyone £500,000 per annum right?
Not for the same job they don't
Why? Why don't the companies pay much less for everyone and ask them all to get benefits?
So there's a hierarchy of payment based on title within the company.
A CEO isn't going to be payed minimum wage.
Equally not all industries will be able to pay CEO 500k
Why isn't a CEO not going to be paid minimum wage? Why is a business analyst, a date scientist or a software engineer paid only the minimum wage?"
All sorts of reasons, level of responsibility being chiefly amongst it, but knowledge, experience also play a part.
They could take a pay cut and pay above minimum wage for the lower payed. They might attract a better type of worker too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No one is doing that.
The job market doesn't work like that.
You have to state what the wage is pro rata. People have to know what they're applying for.
And if the wages aren't good enough for your basic needs, they won't find an employee. Then they will have to increase it.
If it wasn't for the government and it's minimum wage the companies would be paying less!!
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden would like to have a word with you."
No because people are forced to apply or they don't get universal credit despite not having an interest in that industry then their back on the dole 6 months later because guess what it's not a match. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No one is doing that.
The job market doesn't work like that.
You have to state what the wage is pro rata. People have to know what they're applying for.
And if the wages aren't good enough for your basic needs, they won't find an employee. Then they will have to increase it.
If it wasn't for the government and it's minimum wage the companies would be paying less!!
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden would like to have a word with you.
No because people are forced to apply or they don't get universal credit despite not having an interest in that industry then their back on the dole 6 months later because guess what it's not a match."
And you don't see that the problem is with how universal credit works? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
All sorts of reasons, level of responsibility being chiefly amongst it, but knowledge, experience also play a part.
They could take a pay cut and pay above minimum wage for the lower payed. They might attract a better type of worker too"
If they are happy to pay higher for a CEO who they believe is better for the role, why do you think they won't pay higher for other workers if they are going to do better? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No one is doing that.
The job market doesn't work like that.
You have to state what the wage is pro rata. People have to know what they're applying for.
And if the wages aren't good enough for your basic needs, they won't find an employee. Then they will have to increase it.
If it wasn't for the government and it's minimum wage the companies would be paying less!!
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden would like to have a word with you.
No because people are forced to apply or they don't get universal credit despite not having an interest in that industry then their back on the dole 6 months later because guess what it's not a match.
And you don't see that the problem is with how universal credit works?"
Yeah, forcing people into work they don't like because they'll loose it in 6 months only created a doom loop of going from one job you don't like to another.
Why not find out what their interests are, invest in training and education for them and put them on the path to a job they like? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
All sorts of reasons, level of responsibility being chiefly amongst it, but knowledge, experience also play a part.
They could take a pay cut and pay above minimum wage for the lower payed. They might attract a better type of worker too
If they are happy to pay higher for a CEO who they believe is better for the role, why do you think they won't pay higher for other workers if they are going to do better? "
Because the nature of society as you continually prove, put more status on rich people and high earners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No one is doing that.
The job market doesn't work like that.
You have to state what the wage is pro rata. People have to know what they're applying for.
And if the wages aren't good enough for your basic needs, they won't find an employee. Then they will have to increase it.
If it wasn't for the government and it's minimum wage the companies would be paying less!!
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden would like to have a word with you.
No because people are forced to apply or they don't get universal credit despite not having an interest in that industry then their back on the dole 6 months later because guess what it's not a match.
And you don't see that the problem is with how universal credit works?
Yeah, forcing people into work they don't like because they'll loose it in 6 months only created a doom loop of going from one job you don't like to another.
Why not find out what their interests are, invest in training and education for them and put them on the path to a job they like?"
Sweden also forces people to work after a one year period last I checked. But they neither have minimum wage nor benefits for people who are working. You don't have companies paying lower wages because they can be subsidised by the government. There are numerous working examples across the world where the outcomes have been better with stricter benefits criteria and no minimum wage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
All sorts of reasons, level of responsibility being chiefly amongst it, but knowledge, experience also play a part.
They could take a pay cut and pay above minimum wage for the lower payed. They might attract a better type of worker too
If they are happy to pay higher for a CEO who they believe is better for the role, why do you think they won't pay higher for other workers if they are going to do better?
Because the nature of society as you continually prove, put more status on rich people and high earners."
Lol. Do you think the shareholders want to pay more money to Ceo for status? Do you think that the CEO wants to pay more money to data scientists, business analysts and software engineers for status? Tell me more |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to start growing our own vegetables."
I was chatting to a grocer in Wales yesterday. She tells me that she can't sell carrots from the local farms because they're a bit y and slimy. But she can get perfect carrots imported from China for 20% less than the Welsh ones cost.
I can't see much future in us growing our own vegetables if no one is willing to pay for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
All sorts of reasons, level of responsibility being chiefly amongst it, but knowledge, experience also play a part.
They could take a pay cut and pay above minimum wage for the lower payed. They might attract a better type of worker too
If they are happy to pay higher for a CEO who they believe is better for the role, why do you think they won't pay higher for other workers if they are going to do better?
Because the nature of society as you continually prove, put more status on rich people and high earners.
Lol. Do you think the shareholders want to pay more money to Ceo for status? Do you think that the CEO wants to pay more money to data scientists, business analysts and software engineers for status? Tell me more "
Do you not work or live in the real world?
If you have one hell of a shop worker that loves the job, lives for it, there will be company pay scales that stop you from paying that person more than X amount, even if they are better at their job than a middle manager. It's just the structure of workplaces. However people like you won't consider them valuable because of their job title and how much they earn. Because you fetishise people like Elon musk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The SNP is proposing to impose mandatory pricing caps in supermarkets for a basket of between 20-50 food staples.
On top of the rent controls already introduced.
This sounds like a good idea.
What other daily items and services that people buy should be subject to pricing caps?
Should the rest of the UK follow suit?
Will it work?"
I think they could go one step further and go full Cuba. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why do you think different people receive different wages today? There are employees getting £500,000 per annum and there are also employees getting only £30,000 per annum. By your logic, companies wouldn't pay anyone £500,000 per annum right?"
Eh?? Your claim was that in a world without benefits, employers would have to pay good wages - but history and modern, real world examples tell us otherwise. Employers don't care if what they pay is "enough". They only care about getting a worker for the wage they are prepared to pay. Your idea of wage negotiation as some kind of reverse auction is hilarious. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No one is doing that.
The job market doesn't work like that.
You have to state what the wage is pro rata. People have to know what they're applying for.
And if the wages aren't good enough for your basic needs, they won't find an employee. Then they will have to increase it.
If it wasn't for the government and it's minimum wage the companies would be paying less!!
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden would like to have a word with you."
Those countries have wages set by the collective bargaining of very powerful Trade Unions - but I'm guessing you're also against Unions? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You understand that recieving benefits is not automatically the same as not working, right? Benefits cover things like caring for disabled relatives, single parents with young children and people who are genuinely unable to work because of disabilities. How does the "6 months and you're done" idea work for them?
The benefits numbers I gave are people getting universal credit and people on PIP. I ask you the same question again. Do you really believe that one in five people around you of working age are actually deserving of doing nothing and getting benefits? "
You're still assuming that Universal Credit and PIP = "doing nothing" 37% of people claiming UC are in work. 20% of PIP claimants are also in work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to start growing our own vegetables.
I was chatting to a grocer in Wales yesterday. She tells me that she can't sell carrots from the local farms because they're a bit y and slimy. But she can get perfect carrots imported from China for 20% less than the Welsh ones cost.
I can't see much future in us growing our own vegetables if no one is willing to pay for them."
Where will this all end
China apparently manufacturers 28% of everything on the globe
Uk car production has halved in the last decade, lowest numbers since 1952
British companies offshoring call centre jobs to India, south aftica, Philippines
Now it’s carrots
And people are worried about AI taking jobs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to start growing our own vegetables.
I was chatting to a grocer in Wales yesterday. She tells me that she can't sell carrots from the local farms because they're a bit y and slimy. But she can get perfect carrots imported from China for 20% less than the Welsh ones cost.
I can't see much future in us growing our own vegetables if no one is willing to pay for them.
Where will this all end
China apparently manufacturers 28% of everything on the globe
Uk car production has halved in the last decade, lowest numbers since 1952
British companies offshoring call centre jobs to India, south aftica, Philippines
Now it’s carrots
And people are worried about AI taking jobs "
Because we were all sold the line that globalization would benefit everyone - only make what you're good and trade for everything else. Win/win all round. But it turns out that it doesn't take long for the penny to drop that all this increased wealth is not distributed equally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Agriculture has been reduced to 0.6% of gdp making UK reliant on imported food.
Defra say 37,000 farms have closed since 1973, another 6000 agricultural businesses reportedly closed due to Labours iht grab on farms
Warmer temperatures has given opportunity to growing fruits in UK but planners resisting large Dutch style greenhouses.
Long waits for allotments and new homes with tiny gardens shadowed by privacy fencing making unsustainable for growing.
Banning the use of glyphosate would be advisable instead of poisoning ourselves.
Investment should be channeled into farming for food security, and with it lower prices.
When was the UK not reliant on imported food?"
The UK has been heavily reliant on food imports since the mid-19th century, with the last significant period of near self-sufficiency being before the Industrial Revolution around 1750–1830. While high, temporary self-sufficiency was achieved during both World Wars and peaked in the mid-1980s (at 78%), the nation has not been truly self-sufficient in food for nearly 200 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
What percentage is an acceptable net profit margin to you?"
Iets not forget CT tax is paid on profit at 20% |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension
The solution to this is simple - Remove the benefits. Companies will he forced to pay better wages. Companies get away with this BECAUSE the government is subsidising the wages. You then reduce the taxes because you don't have to pay for the benefits anymore.
Remove benefits? For everyone? Disabled people?
Shall we reimpose the work houses? Would that make you happy?
Don't get too emotional
How did disabled people come into the argument here? People who are clearly able to work AND working are being subsided. Why? That's the reason the companies can get away with lowering the wages.
Remove benefits you said I asked from who?
I have no idea how we've reached a position where the government are subsidising people's wages but it's insane!!
There is no reason why the government should be paying benefits to people who find work. For people who do not work, the government could help for about 6 months. After that, unless there is a clear case of disability that doesn't allow them to work, the benefits should stop. About 22.8% of working age people in the country are relying on benefits.
Look around you. Do you really think one in every 5 people around you deserve benefits from government? Do you think this is sustainable? Do you think it's fair on people who work and pay taxes?"
And 51% of the population are in receipt of a benifit be it pension, child benifit, carers allowance, income support universal credit. If 51% are in receipt of benifit do you think they might vote to a party to give that up? 🤔 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Don't see Tesco complaining that we the tax payer subsidies there workers while they make billions in profit.
They could pay there workers a living wage and make slightly less profits.
How are tax payers subsidising the workers?
Most people receiving benefits are in work and on minimum wage.
That will include people working for Tesco.
How about we stop the triple lock?
Boomers have had free education, cheap housing and now a gold plated pension.
But the young today are saddled with debt for education, can't afford housing due to the suppression of wages and the increase in house pricing. And probably won't have a state pension
The solution to this is simple - Remove the benefits. Companies will he forced to pay better wages. Companies get away with this BECAUSE the government is subsidising the wages. You then reduce the taxes because you don't have to pay for the benefits anymore.
Remove benefits? For everyone? Disabled people?
Shall we reimpose the work houses? Would that make you happy?
Don't get too emotional
How did disabled people come into the argument here? People who are clearly able to work AND working are being subsided. Why? That's the reason the companies can get away with lowering the wages.
Remove benefits you said I asked from who?
I have no idea how we've reached a position where the government are subsidising people's wages but it's insane!!
There is no reason why the government should be paying benefits to people who find work. For people who do not work, the government could help for about 6 months. After that, unless there is a clear case of disability that doesn't allow them to work, the benefits should stop. About 22.8% of working age people in the country are relying on benefits.
Look around you. Do you really think one in every 5 people around you deserve benefits from government? Do you think this is sustainable? Do you think it's fair on people who work and pay taxes?
And 51% of the population are in receipt of a benifit be it pension, child benifit, carers allowance, income support universal credit. If 51% are in receipt of benifit do you think they might vote to a party to give that up? 🤔 "
That's the slippery slope of socialism. People get used to it. They don't want to take harder measures to make it more sustainable. Eventually things go to shit like it happened in Argentina and only then they will learn their lesson that nothing in this world is for free. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
All sorts of reasons, level of responsibility being chiefly amongst it, but knowledge, experience also play a part.
They could take a pay cut and pay above minimum wage for the lower payed. They might attract a better type of worker too
If they are happy to pay higher for a CEO who they believe is better for the role, why do you think they won't pay higher for other workers if they are going to do better?
Because the nature of society as you continually prove, put more status on rich people and high earners.
Lol. Do you think the shareholders want to pay more money to Ceo for status? Do you think that the CEO wants to pay more money to data scientists, business analysts and software engineers for status? Tell me more
Do you not work or live in the real world?
If you have one hell of a shop worker that loves the job, lives for it, there will be company pay scales that stop you from paying that person more than X amount, even if they are better at their job than a middle manager. It's just the structure of workplaces. However people like you won't consider them valuable because of their job title and how much they earn. Because you fetishise people like Elon musk "
I have people in my family who run businesses. And no, what you said is categorically wrong. Many of them actually pay lot more for specific labourers who have been with them for a long time and are trustable, just for the loyalty factor. Looks like you have zero knowledge about how businesses work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why do you think different people receive different wages today? There are employees getting £500,000 per annum and there are also employees getting only £30,000 per annum. By your logic, companies wouldn't pay anyone £500,000 per annum right?
Eh?? Your claim was that in a world without benefits, employers would have to pay good wages - but history and modern, real world examples tell us otherwise. Employers don't care if what they pay is "enough". They only care about getting a worker for the wage they are prepared to pay. Your idea of wage negotiation as some kind of reverse auction is hilarious."
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No one is doing that.
The job market doesn't work like that.
You have to state what the wage is pro rata. People have to know what they're applying for.
And if the wages aren't good enough for your basic needs, they won't find an employee. Then they will have to increase it.
If it wasn't for the government and it's minimum wage the companies would be paying less!!
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden would like to have a word with you.
Those countries have wages set by the collective bargaining of very powerful Trade Unions - but I'm guessing you're also against Unions?"
No, I am in favour of unions in private sector. Not a big fan of public sector as a whole and public sector unions are a different type of problems in themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself? "
But you're arguing a point that I didn't make. If you earn significantly more than minimum wage, you are not on benefits by definition. We're talking about the lowest pay brackets here.
Your point that the employer of a worker who is also on benefits gets a degree of state subsidy is correct. But your claim that removing the subsidy will automatically result in higher wages lacks empirical evidence even though it sounds good in theory. People on the lowest employment rung have very little leverage and employers have no incentive to pay them a penny more than they can get away with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself?
But you're arguing a point that I didn't make. If you earn significantly more than minimum wage, you are not on benefits by definition. We're talking about the lowest pay brackets here.
Your point that the employer of a worker who is also on benefits gets a degree of state subsidy is correct. But your claim that removing the subsidy will automatically result in higher wages lacks empirical evidence even though it sounds good in theory. People on the lowest employment rung have very little leverage and employers have no incentive to pay them a penny more than they can get away with. "
There is empirical evidence - Literally every country that doesn't have such subsidies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself?
But you're arguing a point that I didn't make. If you earn significantly more than minimum wage, you are not on benefits by definition. We're talking about the lowest pay brackets here.
Your point that the employer of a worker who is also on benefits gets a degree of state subsidy is correct. But your claim that removing the subsidy will automatically result in higher wages lacks empirical evidence even though it sounds good in theory. People on the lowest employment rung have very little leverage and employers have no incentive to pay them a penny more than they can get away with.
There is empirical evidence - Literally every country that doesn't have such subsidies. "
Then share that evidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself?
But you're arguing a point that I didn't make. If you earn significantly more than minimum wage, you are not on benefits by definition. We're talking about the lowest pay brackets here.
Your point that the employer of a worker who is also on benefits gets a degree of state subsidy is correct. But your claim that removing the subsidy will automatically result in higher wages lacks empirical evidence even though it sounds good in theory. People on the lowest employment rung have very little leverage and employers have no incentive to pay them a penny more than they can get away with.
There is empirical evidence - Literally every country that doesn't have such subsidies.
Then share that evidence."
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden don't even have a minimum wage. Not sure of Austria and Italy, but Denmark, Finland and Sweden do not pay tax money to subsidise pay for employees. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself?
But you're arguing a point that I didn't make. If you earn significantly more than minimum wage, you are not on benefits by definition. We're talking about the lowest pay brackets here.
Your point that the employer of a worker who is also on benefits gets a degree of state subsidy is correct. But your claim that removing the subsidy will automatically result in higher wages lacks empirical evidence even though it sounds good in theory. People on the lowest employment rung have very little leverage and employers have no incentive to pay them a penny more than they can get away with.
There is empirical evidence - Literally every country that doesn't have such subsidies.
Then share that evidence.
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden don't even have a minimum wage. Not sure of Austria and Italy, but Denmark, Finland and Sweden do not pay tax money to subsidise pay for employees."
We're talking about state benefits, not minimum wage. Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have systems to aid low workers - albeit not as direct payments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself?
But you're arguing a point that I didn't make. If you earn significantly more than minimum wage, you are not on benefits by definition. We're talking about the lowest pay brackets here.
Your point that the employer of a worker who is also on benefits gets a degree of state subsidy is correct. But your claim that removing the subsidy will automatically result in higher wages lacks empirical evidence even though it sounds good in theory. People on the lowest employment rung have very little leverage and employers have no incentive to pay them a penny more than they can get away with.
There is empirical evidence - Literally every country that doesn't have such subsidies.
Then share that evidence.
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden don't even have a minimum wage. Not sure of Austria and Italy, but Denmark, Finland and Sweden do not pay tax money to subsidise pay for employees.
We're talking about state benefits, not minimum wage. Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have systems to aid low workers - albeit not as direct payments."
What systems do they have to aid lower paid workers? My point was that the system works just fine without the government having to subsidise workers and without minimum wage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself?
But you're arguing a point that I didn't make. If you earn significantly more than minimum wage, you are not on benefits by definition. We're talking about the lowest pay brackets here.
Your point that the employer of a worker who is also on benefits gets a degree of state subsidy is correct. But your claim that removing the subsidy will automatically result in higher wages lacks empirical evidence even though it sounds good in theory. People on the lowest employment rung have very little leverage and employers have no incentive to pay them a penny more than they can get away with.
There is empirical evidence - Literally every country that doesn't have such subsidies.
Then share that evidence.
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden don't even have a minimum wage. Not sure of Austria and Italy, but Denmark, Finland and Sweden do not pay tax money to subsidise pay for employees.
We're talking about state benefits, not minimum wage. Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have systems to aid low workers - albeit not as direct payments.
What systems do they have to aid lower paid workers? My point was that the system works just fine without the government having to subsidise workers and without minimum wage."
Denmark, Sweden and Finland operate a system of universal benefits that are accessible to everyone. You need to find a country which has no state support for its citizens at all and where the low end wages are high enough to make such support unnecessary. Over to you.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So why are they "prepared to pay" higher for some jobs and not the others? Your whole post makes zero logical sense. You are arguing that the companies don't negotiate and they will always pay low. And yet, majority of people who work actually earn higher than minimum wage. How exactly do you explain this nonsense to yourself?
But you're arguing a point that I didn't make. If you earn significantly more than minimum wage, you are not on benefits by definition. We're talking about the lowest pay brackets here.
Your point that the employer of a worker who is also on benefits gets a degree of state subsidy is correct. But your claim that removing the subsidy will automatically result in higher wages lacks empirical evidence even though it sounds good in theory. People on the lowest employment rung have very little leverage and employers have no incentive to pay them a penny more than they can get away with.
There is empirical evidence - Literally every country that doesn't have such subsidies.
Then share that evidence.
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden don't even have a minimum wage. Not sure of Austria and Italy, but Denmark, Finland and Sweden do not pay tax money to subsidise pay for employees.
We're talking about state benefits, not minimum wage. Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have systems to aid low workers - albeit not as direct payments.
What systems do they have to aid lower paid workers? My point was that the system works just fine without the government having to subsidise workers and without minimum wage.
Denmark, Sweden and Finland operate a system of universal benefits that are accessible to everyone. You need to find a country which has no state support for its citizens at all and where the low end wages are high enough to make such support unnecessary. Over to you...."
They don't give cash to people who are at a job, which is exactly what we are arguing to you. Numerous Asian countries don't do that either. If the government doesn't subsidise wages, the companies will have to pay their employees a wage that is good enough for them to come to work. It's just common sense. Only in this country, have I come across a rare class of people who find it hard to fathom that a society can exist without the government acting like a nanny spoonfeeding everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They don't give cash to people who are at a job, which is exactly what we are arguing to you. Numerous Asian countries don't do that either. If the government doesn't subsidise wages, the companies will have to pay their employees a wage that is good enough for them to come to work. It's just common sense. Only in this country, have I come across a rare class of people who find it hard to fathom that a society can exist without the government acting like a nanny spoonfeeding everyone."
It's a different form of benefits but it's still benefits as in the state is picking up the tab. You can repeat the same line as often as you want and you can call it "common sense" all you like, but the reality of history doesn't tally. You only need to go back 150 years, when there was no "spoonfeeding" at all, yet workers didn't have the leverage you claim they ought to have, wages were pitiful and grinding poverty was pretty normal. It's exactly that situation that led to the creation of welfare states. The fact that they exist at all is because your theory doesn't add up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They don't give cash to people who are at a job, which is exactly what we are arguing to you. Numerous Asian countries don't do that either. If the government doesn't subsidise wages, the companies will have to pay their employees a wage that is good enough for them to come to work. It's just common sense. Only in this country, have I come across a rare class of people who find it hard to fathom that a society can exist without the government acting like a nanny spoonfeeding everyone.
It's a different form of benefits but it's still benefits as in the state is picking up the tab.
"
What form of benefits? None of these countries give out cash nor force a minimum wage. Wages are for the companies and workers to negotiate with each other and it seems to work fine.
"
You can repeat the same line as often as you want and you can call it "common sense" all you like, but the reality of history doesn't tally.
"
You don't even have to look at history. You can look at the present - the countries I mentioned above. Numerous Asian countries don't have minimum wage and don't have benefits either.
"
You only need to go back 150 years, when there was no "spoonfeeding" at all, yet workers didn't have the leverage you claim they ought to have, wages were pitiful and grinding poverty was pretty normal. It's exactly that situation that led to the creation of welfare states. The fact that they exist at all is because your theory doesn't add up."
You mean poverty was so bad during the period of brutal wars? Damn capitalism 🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is the third time you've muddled minimum wage with benefits and I'm getting the sense that you don't even know what you're argument is any more 🤣🤣🤣"
If you scroll up, you will see that I have argued both are unnecessary and the wages would be fine without them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is the third time you've muddled minimum wage with benefits and I'm getting the sense that you don't even know what you're argument is any more 🤣🤣🤣
If you scroll up, you will see that I have argued both are unnecessary and the wages would be fine without them. "
You realise that they aren't the same thing, right?
I've asked you for real world, modern day examples and you can't find any. I've given you real world historical exmples but you don't like them because they don't fit with your dogmatism.
I think we're done here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is the third time you've muddled minimum wage with benefits and I'm getting the sense that you don't even know what you're argument is any more 🤣🤣🤣
If you scroll up, you will see that I have argued both are unnecessary and the wages would be fine without them.
You realise that they aren't the same thing, right?
I've asked you for real world, modern day examples and you can't find any. I've given you real world historical exmples but you don't like them because they don't fit with your dogmatism.
I think we're done here."
When did I ever say they are the same thing? I have given you enough examples where both are true. So, even if you are only looking for examples where one of them is true, the same examples can be used. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is the third time you've muddled minimum wage with benefits and I'm getting the sense that you don't even know what you're argument is any more 🤣🤣🤣
If you scroll up, you will see that I have argued both are unnecessary and the wages would be fine without them.
You realise that they aren't the same thing, right?
I've asked you for real world, modern day examples and you can't find any. I've given you real world historical exmples but you don't like them because they don't fit with your dogmatism.
I think we're done here.
When did I ever say they are the same thing? I have given you enough examples where both are true. So, even if you are only looking for examples where one of them is true, the same examples can be used."
You haven't given any example of where a state has removed welfare and wages have risen as a result. Your claim is simply that it's "common sense". You also reject the historical examples of where this didn't happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is the third time you've muddled minimum wage with benefits and I'm getting the sense that you don't even know what you're argument is any more 🤣🤣🤣
If you scroll up, you will see that I have argued both are unnecessary and the wages would be fine without them.
You realise that they aren't the same thing, right?
I've asked you for real world, modern day examples and you can't find any. I've given you real world historical exmples but you don't like them because they don't fit with your dogmatism.
I think we're done here.
When did I ever say they are the same thing? I have given you enough examples where both are true. So, even if you are only looking for examples where one of them is true, the same examples can be used.
You haven't given any example of where a state has removed welfare and wages have risen as a result. Your claim is simply that it's "common sense". You also reject the historical examples of where this didn't happen."
I have given you example of countries where the government doesn't subsidise wages and they still do fine with their wages |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is the third time you've muddled minimum wage with benefits and I'm getting the sense that you don't even know what you're argument is any more 🤣🤣🤣
If you scroll up, you will see that I have argued both are unnecessary and the wages would be fine without them.
You realise that they aren't the same thing, right?
I've asked you for real world, modern day examples and you can't find any. I've given you real world historical exmples but you don't like them because they don't fit with your dogmatism.
I think we're done here.
When did I ever say they are the same thing? I have given you enough examples where both are true. So, even if you are only looking for examples where one of them is true, the same examples can be used.
You haven't given any example of where a state has removed welfare and wages have risen as a result. Your claim is simply that it's "common sense". You also reject the historical examples of where this didn't happen.
I have given you example of countries where the government doesn't subsidise wages and they still do fine with their wages "
And I have explained that Scandinavian countries keep wages up through high union membership and strong collective bargaining, which is fine, but the UK worker no longer has that sort of leverage. Your oversimplified idea that an individual worker can simply demand a wage from an employer that covers what they don't get in benefits and that the employer has no option but to accept, is a fantasy. History shows that it doesn't happen like that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I've asked you for real world, modern day examples and you can't find any. I've given you real world historical exmples but you don't like them because they don't fit with your dogmatism.
I think we're done here.
When did I ever say they are the same thing? I have given you enough examples where both are true. So, even if you are only looking for examples where one of them is true, the same examples can be used.
You haven't given any example of where a state has removed welfare and wages have risen as a result. Your claim is simply that it's "common sense". You also reject the historical examples of where this didn't happen.
I have given you example of countries where the government doesn't subsidise wages and they still do fine with their wages
And I have explained that Scandinavian countries keep wages up through high union membership and strong collective bargaining, which is fine, but the UK worker no longer has that sort of leverage.
"
UK doesn't stop you from forming unions either.
There are many countries other than Scandinavian countries, like Singapore, Switzerland which don't subsidise their wages either.
"
Your oversimplified idea that an individual worker can simply demand a wage from an employer that covers what they don't get in benefits and that the employer has no option but to accept, is a fantasy. "
Strawman argument. That was never my claim. Wages are decided based on supply and demand. If the state doesn't subsidise the wages, you would find it difficult to get employees for those subsidised wages. That will force the employers to increase their wages. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Strawman argument. That was never my claim. Wages are decided based on supply and demand. If the state doesn't subsidise the wages, you would find it difficult to get employees for those subsidised wages. That will force the employers to increase their wages. "
🤣🤣🤣🤣. That was literally your argument:
"In a world where these benefits don't exist, both person A and B will ask for £20,000 and the company has to pay £20,000. This is how supply demand based negotiation works"
Remember?
The factory owners of 19th Century industrial Britain had no difficulty in finding workers for 3 shillings a week - even though it wasn't enough to live on and there was no wage subsidy. When theory doesn't tally with reality, then reality wins. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Strawman argument. That was never my claim. Wages are decided based on supply and demand. If the state doesn't subsidise the wages, you would find it difficult to get employees for those subsidised wages. That will force the employers to increase their wages.
🤣🤣🤣🤣. That was literally your argument:
"In a world where these benefits don't exist, both person A and B will ask for £20,000 and the company has to pay £20,000. This is how supply demand based negotiation works"
"
Not the same as "an individual worker can simply demand a wage from an employer that covers what they don't get in benefits and that the employer has no option but to accept". There will be a negotiation. If the companies can just pay low and ask the government to subsidise, why do you think they are paying higher than minimum wages to majority of people? They could have just asked everyone to fuck off and live on minimum wages right? 🤷♂️
"
The factory owners of 19th Century industrial Britain had no difficulty in finding workers for 3 shillings a week - even though it wasn't enough to live on and there was no wage subsidy. When theory doesn't tally with reality, then reality wins."
And there are countries in the world today and historically which didn't have to subsidise wages and things work fine there, if not better. So yes, reality wins. But you are the one who doesn't like reality. You are so addicted to the nanny state that you can't even accept the fact that there are countries where daddy government doesn't subsidise the wages even though there are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Well they were the words you used, which is why I read them back to you 🤣🤣🤣
I've already explained to you the leverage that Nordic workers have in terms of Unions and collective bargaining. That's the power they have, not some fantasy about the magic of free markets and the benevolence of capitalism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well they were the words you used, which is why I read them back to you 🤣🤣🤣
"
And I explained what they meant because you clearly don't understand.
"
I've already explained to you the leverage that Nordic workers have in terms of Unions and collective bargaining. That's the power they have, not some fantasy about the magic of free markets and the benevolence of capitalism."
And I already explained that workers here also can form unions and do collective bargaining. Plus I shared with you examples of countries which aren't Nordic too. Not sure how many times I have to repeat it. You don't need a nanny government to interfere in everything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
It’s supply and demand. Mass labour supply dilutes wages and any bargaining power. Subsidies just transfer the cost to the taxpayer instead of fixing the root issue and pushing diversification in the workforce and more accountability for in control personal outcomes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to start growing our own vegetables.
I was chatting to a grocer in Wales yesterday. She tells me that she can't sell carrots from the local farms because they're a bit y and slimy. But she can get perfect carrots imported from China for 20% less than the Welsh ones cost.
I can't see much future in us growing our own vegetables if no one is willing to pay for them.
Where will this all end
China apparently manufacturers 28% of everything on the globe
Uk car production has halved in the last decade, lowest numbers since 1952
British companies offshoring call centre jobs to India, south aftica, Philippines
Now it’s carrots
And people are worried about AI taking jobs "
Have you thought it might be privatisation? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s supply and demand. Mass labour supply dilutes wages and any bargaining power. Subsidies just transfer the cost to the taxpayer instead of fixing the root issue and pushing diversification in the workforce and more accountability for in control personal outcomes."
Thought no one could get jobs?
Where's the supply and demand? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"It’s supply and demand. Mass labour supply dilutes wages and any bargaining power. Subsidies just transfer the cost to the taxpayer instead of fixing the root issue and pushing diversification in the workforce and more accountability for in control personal outcomes.
Thought no one could get jobs?
Where's the supply and demand?"
If you do not have a skill that is in demand, you will simply be in a pool of thousands, the supply is high, the pay is low.
We are not a productive nation, until that is turned around we are not going to see any type of improvement. Starmer just like Sunak before him champions being the leaders in AI research and development, which is great but it isn't going to offer an answer to the millions of workers who are looking for more manual labour intensive tasks. Manufacturing in this country is spoken about but it is not the primary focus, it could be successive governments have resigned themselves to the fact that China and a few others have won that prize. Regardless, until we begin to manufacture, produce and sell on a global scale we are not going to realistically see the the improvements in wages and opportunities the bottom 50% of the population need. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s supply and demand. Mass labour supply dilutes wages and any bargaining power. Subsidies just transfer the cost to the taxpayer instead of fixing the root issue and pushing diversification in the workforce and more accountability for in control personal outcomes.
Thought no one could get jobs?
Where's the supply and demand?
If you do not have a skill that is in demand, you will simply be in a pool of thousands, the supply is high, the pay is low.
We are not a productive nation, until that is turned around we are not going to see any type of improvement. Starmer just like Sunak before him champions being the leaders in AI research and development, which is great but it isn't going to offer an answer to the millions of workers who are looking for more manual labour intensive tasks. Manufacturing in this country is spoken about but it is not the primary focus, it could be successive governments have resigned themselves to the fact that China and a few others have won that prize. Regardless, until we begin to manufacture, produce and sell on a global scale we are not going to realistically see the the improvements in wages and opportunities the bottom 50% of the population need."
How did China do that?
You and your kids going out to be sl@ves for companies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If AI is going to do our jobs isn't the question, how are we going to get taxes? How are people going to be paid?
I like a supportive state for those in need but people need a purpose and work has provided that reason to get up in the morning, to feel a part of something.
If we take that away won't you be crying about fecklessness and homelessness etc etc pick a headline from the daily mail over the past 50 years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
