FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Deliberate unemployment policy
Deliberate unemployment policy
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"more than 95% of businesses are micro (1-9 employees) so which little secret society gets all these owners together to keep unemployment high.More conspiracy theories. "
Well, that's why I doubt it.
However, it works for the large companies who influence policy.
There may also be a belief that keeping wages down helps those small companies and the economy in general so it becomes policy.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's just an interesting take. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
The minimum wage was always going to be the base point on wages. Large companies can always hide behind this, and to many of the migrant workforce, this is more than they would get in their own country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obletonMan
over a year ago
THE STICKS |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policy"
Is this news or just common knowledge?
There wouldn't be much point in trying to build a low regulation, flexible, dynamic, entrepreneurial, free market economy if there wasn't a pool of surplus labour ready to react to changing market conditions.
And of course skewing job competition in favour of employers, reduces labour power which is in a turn a factor in keeping inflation down.
I'm kind of surprised that the Guardian even bothered to try and present this as some kind of revelation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
well all i see around here are small companies trying to recruit.I think the main problem with unemployment is that there needs to be regeneration of some of the poorest places in the uk that in turn gives people the incentive to start out on their own which in turn leads to more jobs and more money in the community.There will always be unemployment though as some have grown up with 2 or 3 generations of not working and now consider it the norm instead of a safety net. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
But on the other hand people are demanding cheaper and cheaper products and so keep wages low because companies are struggling to keep costs down.
The fashion industry is just one example |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"well all i see around here are small companies trying to recruit.I think the main problem with unemployment is that there needs to be regeneration of some of the poorest places in the uk that in turn gives people the incentive to start out on their own which in turn leads to more jobs and more money in the community.There will always be unemployment though as some have grown up with 2 or 3 generations of not working and now consider it the norm instead of a safety net. "
That's the argument for people deserving what they get.
To some extent they do.
However, there are others working multiple jobs and irregular hours to make ends meet due to deregulation.
I overheard someone yesterday saying that they wanted Brexit because the EU "introduced minimum hours jobs".
What's going to be the first thing to go to make the UK more "competitive" and "flexible".
The point of this last comment is not Brexit but the contrast between what the population sees as economic success and what some interest groups do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"well all i see around here are small companies trying to recruit.I think the main problem with unemployment is that there needs to be regeneration of some of the poorest places in the uk that in turn gives people the incentive to start out on their own which in turn leads to more jobs and more money in the community.There will always be unemployment though as some have grown up with 2 or 3 generations of not working and now consider it the norm instead of a safety net.
That's the argument for people deserving what they get.
To some extent they do.
However, there are others working multiple jobs and irregular hours to make ends meet due to deregulation.
I overheard someone yesterday saying that they wanted Brexit because the EU "introduced minimum hours jobs".
What's going to be the first thing to go to make the UK more "competitive" and "flexible".
The point of this last comment is not Brexit but the contrast between what the population sees as economic success and what some interest groups do. "
So we are moving the conversation from manipulated unemployment to zero hours contracts now that is another debate altogether. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"well all i see around here are small companies trying to recruit.I think the main problem with unemployment is that there needs to be regeneration of some of the poorest places in the uk that in turn gives people the incentive to start out on their own which in turn leads to more jobs and more money in the community.There will always be unemployment though as some have grown up with 2 or 3 generations of not working and now consider it the norm instead of a safety net.
That's the argument for people deserving what they get.
To some extent they do.
However, there are others working multiple jobs and irregular hours to make ends meet due to deregulation.
I overheard someone yesterday saying that they wanted Brexit because the EU "introduced minimum hours jobs".
What's going to be the first thing to go to make the UK more "competitive" and "flexible".
The point of this last comment is not Brexit but the contrast between what the population sees as economic success and what some interest groups do. So we are moving the conversation from manipulated unemployment to zero hours contracts now that is another debate altogether."
That reply wasn't just directed at you btw. It was intended to be more general.
I don't think that it's altogether different.
It's about deliberate job insecurity tipping the balance of wage power towards the employer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"But on the other hand people are demanding cheaper and cheaper products and so keep wages low because companies are struggling to keep costs down.
The fashion industry is just one example "
This is the paradox at the heart of capitalism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"well all i see around here are small companies trying to recruit.I think the main problem with unemployment is that there needs to be regeneration of some of the poorest places in the uk that in turn gives people the incentive to start out on their own which in turn leads to more jobs and more money in the community.There will always be unemployment though as some have grown up with 2 or 3 generations of not working and now consider it the norm instead of a safety net.
That's the argument for people deserving what they get.
To some extent they do.
However, there are others working multiple jobs and irregular hours to make ends meet due to deregulation.
I overheard someone yesterday saying that they wanted Brexit because the EU "introduced minimum hours jobs".
What's going to be the first thing to go to make the UK more "competitive" and "flexible".
The point of this last comment is not Brexit but the contrast between what the population sees as economic success and what some interest groups do. So we are moving the conversation from manipulated unemployment to zero hours contracts now that is another debate altogether.
That reply wasn't just directed at you btw. It was intended to be more general.
I don't think that it's altogether different.
It's about deliberate job insecurity tipping the balance of wage power towards the employer."
I think there are merits to zero hour contracts and they work well for some but do agree they dont for a lot of people to.For small companies they are crucial to keeping the companies going but do agree if its a large company with say for example 50 or more employees that they should be on fixed contracts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"well all i see around here are small companies trying to recruit.I think the main problem with unemployment is that there needs to be regeneration of some of the poorest places in the uk that in turn gives people the incentive to start out on their own which in turn leads to more jobs and more money in the community.There will always be unemployment though as some have grown up with 2 or 3 generations of not working and now consider it the norm instead of a safety net.
That's the argument for people deserving what they get.
To some extent they do.
However, there are others working multiple jobs and irregular hours to make ends meet due to deregulation.
I overheard someone yesterday saying that they wanted Brexit because the EU "introduced minimum hours jobs".
What's going to be the first thing to go to make the UK more "competitive" and "flexible".
The point of this last comment is not Brexit but the contrast between what the population sees as economic success and what some interest groups do. So we are moving the conversation from manipulated unemployment to zero hours contracts now that is another debate altogether.
That reply wasn't just directed at you btw. It was intended to be more general.
I don't think that it's altogether different.
It's about deliberate job insecurity tipping the balance of wage power towards the employer.I think there are merits to zero hour contracts and they work well for some but do agree they dont for a lot of people to.For small companies they are crucial to keeping the companies going but do agree if its a large company with say for example 50 or more employees that they should be on fixed contracts."
I suppose the question that this raises is if there is a deliberate policy of labour insecurity or not.
I don't really know.
What I can see is a lack of interest in better regulating things like zero hours contracts.
It could be done, but is that "more red tape" = Bad or "preventing exploitation" = Good.
A classic right vs left argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"more than 95% of businesses are micro (1-9 employees) so which little secret society gets all these owners together to keep unemployment high.More conspiracy theories. "
That's a misleading statistic. On checking what I assume is your source for this, whilst businesses with 0-9 people make up 96% of the total, they only make up 33% of the total employment. Companies with 250+ people comprise 40% of employment.
So it wouldn't really require a 'secret society', just tacit understanding and loose co-operation between the biggest and most powerful businesses, to have a significant effect on the jobs market.
It's amazing, the childlike and naive faith rightwingers have in the fairness of capitalism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
If you go back to the creation of the welfare state the 1942 Beveridge Report - you'll see an assessment that full unemployment is when 3 % per cent of people are out of work.
This was the figure for the number of people simply unable to work - the injured, the disabled etc.
The social security system was based on the premise that it could be afforded if it was paying for 3%.
The 97 per cent were guaranteed a job in nationalised industry.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"more than 95% of businesses are micro (1-9 employees) so which little secret society gets all these owners together to keep unemployment high.More conspiracy theories. "
I'm sure the name of the secret society is around here somewhere. I knew it once, and I wrote down it's name.
I've now lost the piece of paper I wrote it down on.
I bared my right tit and checked for it there, but nope. Not there.
I wondered if I'd left it in my trouser leg, so I rolled up mt left trouser leg and checked if it was there. Nope. Not there.
In desperation, I checked my pinafore. Nope. Not there.
Oh well, I guess a secret is only a secret if nobody knows.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's not deliberate. Even this government now supports a minimum wage, despite previously whining it would cost jobs. It hasn't - as they love to tell you, more people are in work than ever before.
About as many people are working as can be - given all the many factors that can keep you out of a job. Many of them are on UC because their wages are low due to the limited hours they work.
One deliberate policy on low wages does seem to exist, though; private companies (and even the BBC) paying women less than men for doing the same work.
That's taking a long time to rectify. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policy"
It is a theory that has some truth in it but we have full employment in this country by any economic measurment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you go back to the creation of the welfare state the 1942 Beveridge Report - you'll see an assessment that full unemployment is when 3 % per cent of people are out of work.
This was the figure for the number of people simply unable to work - the injured, the disabled etc.
The social security system was based on the premise that it could be afforded if it was paying for 3%.
The 97 per cent were guaranteed a job in nationalised industry.
"
I wouldn’t mind betting that the 3% figure is now way higher. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policyIt is a theory that has some truth in it but we have full employment in this country by any economic measurment"
The economic measure is this:
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 years and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week"
So we can have full employment and many people seriously underemployed.
Zero hours contracts are not what most people want to be on for their livelihoods nor multiple jobs.
I'm sure this will be described as "being negative", but the reality of "full employment" now compared to 10 years ago is a very different one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policyIt is a theory that has some truth in it but we have full employment in this country by any economic measurment
The economic measure is this:
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 years and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week"
So we can have full employment and many people seriously underemployed.
Zero hours contracts are not what most people want to be on for their livelihoods nor multiple jobs.
I'm sure this will be described as "being negative", but the reality of "full employment" now compared to 10 years ago is a very different one."
It is measured as per EU law 577/98 (plus amendments)... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policyIt is a theory that has some truth in it but we have full employment in this country by any economic measurment
The economic measure is this:
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 years and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week"
So we can have full employment and many people seriously underemployed.
Zero hours contracts are not what most people want to be on for their livelihoods nor multiple jobs.
I'm sure this will be described as "being negative", but the reality of "full employment" now compared to 10 years ago is a very different one.
It is measured as per EU law 577/98 (plus amendments)..."
What difference does that make?
It's an international measure.
When it was defined, this sort of precarious work was not envisaged.
Do you think that this definition really implies high employment now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policyIt is a theory that has some truth in it but we have full employment in this country by any economic measurment
The economic measure is this:
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 years and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week"
So we can have full employment and many people seriously underemployed.
Zero hours contracts are not what most people want to be on for their livelihoods nor multiple jobs.
I'm sure this will be described as "being negative", but the reality of "full employment" now compared to 10 years ago is a very different one.
It is measured as per EU law 577/98 (plus amendments)...
What difference does that make?
It's an international measure.
When it was defined, this sort of precarious work was not envisaged.
Do you think that this definition really implies high employment now?"
Do you think that, as employment and unemployment is measured in the same way across the EU, that employment and unemployment figures are directly comparable between countries? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policyIt is a theory that has some truth in it but we have full employment in this country by any economic measurment
The economic measure is this:
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 years and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week"
So we can have full employment and many people seriously underemployed.
Zero hours contracts are not what most people want to be on for their livelihoods nor multiple jobs.
I'm sure this will be described as "being negative", but the reality of "full employment" now compared to 10 years ago is a very different one.
It is measured as per EU law 577/98 (plus amendments)...
What difference does that make?
It's an international measure.
When it was defined, this sort of precarious work was not envisaged.
Do you think that this definition really implies high employment now?
Do you think that, as employment and unemployment is measured in the same way across the EU, that employment and unemployment figures are directly comparable between countries?"
Only by the most broad measure.
That's the point I'm making.
If you have 80% employment but most people are in full time, secure work, is that better or worse than 95% employment but the majority "working" a few hours a week or multiple jobs trying to scrape together an income from one week to the next?
How do you distinguish between 97% employed working an average of 38 hrs/week and 97% employment working an average of 10 bra/week.
You tell me.
You often quote figures and ask questions, bit you rarely seen to respond or engage beyond that.
How about this time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policyIt is a theory that has some truth in it but we have full employment in this country by any economic measurment
The economic measure is this:
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 years and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week"
So we can have full employment and many people seriously underemployed.
Zero hours contracts are not what most people want to be on for their livelihoods nor multiple jobs.
I'm sure this will be described as "being negative", but the reality of "full employment" now compared to 10 years ago is a very different one.
It is measured as per EU law 577/98 (plus amendments)...
What difference does that make?
It's an international measure.
When it was defined, this sort of precarious work was not envisaged.
Do you think that this definition really implies high employment now?
Do you think that, as employment and unemployment is measured in the same way across the EU, that employment and unemployment figures are directly comparable between countries?
Only by the most broad measure.
That's the point I'm making.
If you have 80% employment but most people are in full time, secure work, is that better or worse than 95% employment but the majority "working" a few hours a week or multiple jobs trying to scrape together an income from one week to the next?
How do you distinguish between 97% employed working an average of 38 hrs/week and 97% employment working an average of 10 bra/week.
You tell me.
You often quote figures and ask questions, bit you rarely seen to respond or engage beyond that.
How about this time?"
Sorry... YOU are accusing someone of only ever asking questions!
Wow!just....wow!
But here's the answer to your question.
So you think that the average hours worked for 97% employment is 10 per week; it's actually 32.1hrs per week.
And there are c. 50,000 fewer people on zero hours contracts than there were in 2016. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policyIt is a theory that has some truth in it but we have full employment in this country by any economic measurment
The economic measure is this:
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 years and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week"
So we can have full employment and many people seriously underemployed.
Zero hours contracts are not what most people want to be on for their livelihoods nor multiple jobs.
I'm sure this will be described as "being negative", but the reality of "full employment" now compared to 10 years ago is a very different one.
It is measured as per EU law 577/98 (plus amendments)...
What difference does that make?
It's an international measure.
When it was defined, this sort of precarious work was not envisaged.
Do you think that this definition really implies high employment now?
Do you think that, as employment and unemployment is measured in the same way across the EU, that employment and unemployment figures are directly comparable between countries?
Only by the most broad measure.
That's the point I'm making.
If you have 80% employment but most people are in full time, secure work, is that better or worse than 95% employment but the majority "working" a few hours a week or multiple jobs trying to scrape together an income from one week to the next?
How do you distinguish between 97% employed working an average of 38 hrs/week and 97% employment working an average of 10 bra/week.
You tell me.
You often quote figures and ask questions, bit you rarely seen to respond or engage beyond that.
How about this time?
Sorry... YOU are accusing someone of only ever asking questions!
Wow!just....wow!
But here's the answer to your question.
So you think that the average hours worked for 97% employment is 10 per week; it's actually 32.1hrs per week.
And there are c. 50,000 fewer people on zero hours contracts than there were in 2016."
Of course I ask questions. I also answer them.
I didn't actually ask how many hours people were working. I asked what the better situation is between the two options I presented.
You can't tell me the level of security of these jobs because nobody knows.
You also cannot tell me how many jobs people are having to work or what are doing very high hours because they are very poorly paid.
From Fullfact talking about contracts without defined hours:
"this figure is an estimate from a sample of businesses, the actual number of contracts is “likely to lie between 1.4 and 2.0 million”
So the uncertainty is much larger than the fall you have claimed.
What is the point that you are actually making?
Are you saying that the increase in employment figures unambiguously indicates that the economy is performing better? That people have good jobs? That people are well paid?
The OECD definition is useful but does not provide detail. It does not distinguish between a crappy job with no more than a few hours with a crappy job with huge hours, to a stable job with regular hours.
Indicators like the increased use of food banks, underemployment and low productivity indicate that what should be good news needs to be looked at properly and something done about it.
Alternatively you declare victory, see no problems and move on.
What's your view?
None of this actually addresses the OP in the thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is an interesting take. That unemployment is deliberately maintained at a certain level to maintain low wages.
Is it deliberate? Is it a misinterpretation of economic theory?
I don't know but there is something in the fact that companies seem to be able to make bumper profits whilst keeping wages down...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/having-a-constant-pool-of-unemployed-workers-is-deliberate-policy"
.
This isn't a big secret, it's been known for decades.
After the second world war most Western governments targeted full employment as policy, workers being over leveraged against capital meant more money to workers than interest to capital, this policy came to an end in the 70s when double digit inflation became a by product of that policy and coincidentally that's when net negative migration ended and it became permanently positive, tighter Union controls and more workers meant more leverage to capital over wages, it's no big secret the whole point of the freedom of movement act of the EU was to lower wage costs by having a constant feed of more workers than jobs, it's also one of the reasons the Japanese choose to move some manufacturing abroad, they didn't want foreigners in Japan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
