Westminster Election 12th December 2019

Started by Ambrose, October 29, 2019, 02:24:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

RadioGAAGAA

The problems are not wholly related to wage. They are as much related to cost of living.

What proportion of a wage was spent on funding the roof over your head in the 1950s? 1970s? 1990s? Now?

I would expect it has risen for 99% of people.
i usse an speelchekor

seafoid

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on November 13, 2019, 12:55:59 PM
The problems are not wholly related to wage. They are as much related to cost of living.

What proportion of a wage was spent on funding the roof over your head in the 1950s? 1970s? 1990s? Now?

I would expect it has risen for 99% of people.
in 1980 50% of housing in London was social housing.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

five points

Quote from: armaghniac on November 13, 2019, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: five points on November 12, 2019, 05:49:40 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 12, 2019, 05:00:03 PM

Israel runs 2 legal systems and has separate roads for Jews and non Jews.
It's pure apartheid.

At least one dirty lie there and probably two.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/yourview/dispelling-the-myth-of-jews-only-roads-in-the-west-bank-856339.html

That  article makes clear that  there are  some roads  where Palestinians are banned. It also makes clear that people have different number plates, which is in itself a form of apartheid.

Context.
Quote
However, for security reasons, a very small percentage of West Bank roads around Israeli settlements (about 40 km in total according to the Israeli human rights organisation B'tselem) are prohibited to Palestinian traffic. But, even these 40 km of restricted roads are open to Israeli citizens of all faiths (including Muslims), east Jerusalem Palestinians (most of whom are Muslim), and foreign visitors of all faiths – Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians.

* Moreover, even the 40 km of restricted roads in Israeli controlled sections of the West Bank (Area C) should be placed in context. Israelis, for instance, are not permitted to drive on roads in the Palestinian controlled West Bank (Area A). This is because PA security personnel (and the IDF) can't guarantee the safety of drivers with Israeli license plates travelling in Palestinian areas.

Sauce for the goose & gander doesn't exactly connote apartheid.

If security-related road access restrictions and different number plates for different territories really mean apartheid, I grew up in an apartheid zone.


magpie seanie

Quote from: TheOptimist on November 13, 2019, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on November 13, 2019, 10:43:10 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on November 13, 2019, 09:49:50 AM
For context - McDonald's in the UK made profits of £341 million last year with one Director being paid £783k.

Sorry - was in a rush when I typed this and meant to say that was a 19% increase in profits. This is a big company making big profits and paying top Executives handsomely. I don't think £15/hr should be the minimum wage but certainly McDonald's can afford to pay that and should.

The economic model in place in Britain (and a lot of Western Europe and the US and perhaps elsewhere) presently is grossly unfair and is only going to go one way. Major changes are needed.

A minimum wage of £30k per year would put alot of businesses out of business.

I used to work in McDonalds as a student. Hated it, couldn't wait to work myself up to something better. Maybe McDonalds staff should do that if they want to earn more?

Maybe read what I posted again because you've stated something that I clearly agreed with in such a way as to make it appear I disagreed.

As for the comments on what other people should do with their lives - how do you feel when people tell YOU how to live your life? Do people not deserve to get an adequate wage for work they perform? If in this case the answer is no then clearly the business is not viable. Or addtitional profits are being made on the backs of underpayment of workers. Whichever it is I don't think it's good and it's becoming less and less sustainable as an economic model.

smelmoth

Quote from: trailer on November 13, 2019, 12:10:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 10:05:05 AM
Quote from: trailer on November 13, 2019, 08:59:34 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 12, 2019, 10:54:50 PM
Quote from: trailer on November 12, 2019, 09:29:53 PM

You see , you see £15 per hour for minimum wage and think that solves all problems everywhere

Why are you resorting to lies?
I didn't say this. You have invented it.
It cannot possibly help your argument. It's just a lie. Your lie

Quote from: trailer on November 12, 2019, 09:29:53 PM
But how much does a trades person then get an hour? What about other skilled people? It's all relative.
Wages are relative. I think most people get that

Quote from: trailer on November 12, 2019, 09:29:53 PM

It push wages up everywhere, which in turn pushes up costs.
The educational value of this site grows

Quote from: trailer on November 12, 2019, 09:29:53 PM
Who has to stump up? The consumer. Businesses don't absorb these costs. In real terms, probably no one is better off.

Society already stumps up. Housing allowance?? In work benefits?? Food banks??

Is the market working well enough for you for us to leave it well alone??

Quote from: trailer on November 12, 2019, 09:29:53 PM
That's why this is crazy economics.

I get that it is difficult to make ends meet on £8.21 ph, but it's a multi faceted solution. Working families have always struggled to make ends meet going right back over this past 100 or 200 years. It's not a new problem and just simply paying people more isn't the answer.

I haven't heard any of your multi-faceted solution but I'm willing to listen.

The fact that poor people are poor is no reason to leave them poor.

Again don't pretend that anybody claimed that paying people more was a magic bullet or a single solution . The attack was on Corbyn. Has he not put forward a fully costed package of measures in 2017 and is expected to do the same this weekend? I'm unaware of anyone in Labour who has argued that addressing low wages was anything other than a part of an overall suite of measures


I tried to have a grown up discussion with you, but you've resorted to being a cheeky cnut.

How did telling lies fit into your grown up discussion.

You were found out and called out and are now huffing.

If you would like to revert to the substantive points I'm happy to engage

I didn't tell any lies
I'm not huffing, I'm calling you out for being a cheeky, ill mannered cnut.
You're grand, I'll make my point without engaging with you.

So having said that

£15ph for flipping burgers or doing any sort of low skilled job is crazy economics.

Crikey

Lets start with the lie.

Firstly you posted this about me.
Quote from: trailer on November 12, 2019, 09:29:53 PM
you see £15 per hour for minimum wage and think that solves all problems everywhere.
Deny this if you will but lets face it I am going to find it pretty easy to prove that you did in fact post it.

Secondly it isn't true and is therefore a lie. Deny it if you will but at least have the decency to post the proof that you are  relying upon.

While I'm at it I not sure how you are substantiating the accusation of me being wither ill-mannered or cheeky. I am however guilty as charged of being a cnut so I'll that one pass.

Anyway I'm sure all that is dullx3 for anyone else to read

So the substantive issues. Currently we have a significant number of people in full time work living below the poverty line. If we excluded public support (housing allowance, in work benefits etc) the number would be a lot higher. Is this good? Should we leave well alone? If not what should we do? Happy to consider multi-faceted responses


magpie seanie

Quote from: APM on November 13, 2019, 11:04:45 AM
Note what I said about inequality - particularly the salaries of top execs.  I don't think it is defensible.

According to McDonald's website, they employ 120,000 people in the UK**.  Let's assume that relates to 60,000 Full Time Equivalent. 
If McDonald's paid an extra £2.50 per hour for 60,000 employees,  and didn't pass the extra cost onto their customers, it would wipe a profit of £341m out entirely.  That's OK if you don't want profit taking. But profits can a good thing.  It provide's a return for shareholders (often pension funds), an incentive for investment and retained profit can provide the means for reinvestment.  If you wipe out McDonald's profits by giving an extra £2.50/hour to the workers, does that make the business more or less sustainable for the self-same workers and McDonald's suppliers.  It's also worth asking, what level of profit is acceptable - £300m?, £200m? £10m?. 

Whether people like it or not, there is a market for labour and successive governments have correctly intervened in the market to first provide for a minimum wage and then provide a living wage.  There are working tax credits (again maybe these should be increased) to provide a minimum basic income for workers.  However, it is not sustainable for people to go from earning £8/hour to £15/hour overnight, because all that will happen is that will happen is that  the cost of doing business and the cost of living will rise accordingly and the lowest skilled jobs will still end up being the lowest salaries in real terms. 

** Just seen the point above about the franchise owners and I'll admit that I don't know much about their model.

There's a lot in that that strays from the central argument. Firstly, I don't believe that what's being sought here is an increase for every worker. So the 60000 FTE's getting a pay rise isn't realistic. Personally I'd feel that running McDonald's in the UK wouldn't be as difficult a job as PM so getting £783k (only one person I know but I'm sure there are several very well paid executives and managers) seems absolutely ridiculous so I'd suggest savings could be made on the higher end salaries. Or perhaps if pay increases are a no-no then the company could use some of their massive profits to provide other benefits for staff....to make it less of a "shit" place to work. Of course that's not their economic model. They don't want people to stay long term. They want to pay as little as possible in wages and don't mind high staff turnover.

seafoid

Quote from: five points on November 13, 2019, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 13, 2019, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: five points on November 12, 2019, 05:49:40 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 12, 2019, 05:00:03 PM

Israel runs 2 legal systems and has separate roads for Jews and non Jews.
It's pure apartheid.

At least one dirty lie there and probably two.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/yourview/dispelling-the-myth-of-jews-only-roads-in-the-west-bank-856339.html

That  article makes clear that  there are  some roads  where Palestinians are banned. It also makes clear that people have different number plates, which is in itself a form of apartheid.

Context.
Quote
However, for security reasons, a very small percentage of West Bank roads around Israeli settlements (about 40 km in total according to the Israeli human rights organisation B'tselem) are prohibited to Palestinian traffic. But, even these 40 km of restricted roads are open to Israeli citizens of all faiths (including Muslims), east Jerusalem Palestinians (most of whom are Muslim), and foreign visitors of all faiths – Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians.

* Moreover, even the 40 km of restricted roads in Israeli controlled sections of the West Bank (Area C) should be placed in context. Israelis, for instance, are not permitted to drive on roads in the Palestinian controlled West Bank (Area A). This is because PA security personnel (and the IDF) can't guarantee the safety of drivers with Israeli license plates travelling in Palestinian areas.

Sauce for the goose & gander doesn't exactly connote apartheid.

If security-related road access restrictions and different number plates for different territories really mean apartheid, I grew up in an apartheid zone.
West Bank Palestinians aren't allowed into occupied East Jerusalem to pray. West Bank Jewish settlers are. That's apartheid.
Every time Israel has an election Palestinians in the West Bank are locked down. The real sign is in incomes. Israeli GDP per head is $41k. Gaza is $876
Jim Crow in Alabama was the same. A money racket. 

Israel could end up destroying Judaism. Drops out rates amongst young US Jews are very high.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

smelmoth

#608
Quote from: magpie seanie on November 13, 2019, 02:02:18 PM
Quote from: TheOptimist on November 13, 2019, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on November 13, 2019, 10:43:10 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on November 13, 2019, 09:49:50 AM
For context - McDonald's in the UK made profits of £341 million last year with one Director being paid £783k.

Sorry - was in a rush when I typed this and meant to say that was a 19% increase in profits. This is a big company making big profits and paying top Executives handsomely. I don't think £15/hr should be the minimum wage but certainly McDonald's can afford to pay that and should.

The economic model in place in Britain (and a lot of Western Europe and the US and perhaps elsewhere) presently is grossly unfair and is only going to go one way. Major changes are needed.

A minimum wage of £30k per year would put alot of businesses out of business.

I used to work in McDonalds as a student. Hated it, couldn't wait to work myself up to something better. Maybe McDonalds staff should do that if they want to earn more?

Maybe read what I posted again because you've stated something that I clearly agreed with in such a way as to make it appear I disagreed.

As for the comments on what other people should do with their lives - how do you feel when people tell YOU how to live your life? Do people not deserve to get an adequate wage for work they perform? If in this case the answer is no then clearly the business is not viable. Or addtitional profits are being made on the backs of underpayment of workers. Whichever it is I don't think it's good and it's becoming less and less sustainable as an economic model.

Before I go on I not hugely interested in McDonalds as a corporation nor am I adamant that I attach any significance to the £15.00 per hour figure.

But as they are the matters in the spotlight I'll run with the example.

If McDonalds paid a living wage (relative to the location) to their lowest skilled staff the 1 or more of the following 3 happen:
1) McDonalds dont pass on the wages increase and its cut into McDonald's profits.
2) McDonalds pass on the wage increase to consumers who accept it as the see it it as value.
3) McDonalds try to pass on the wage increases to consumers who don't wear it. Business ceases to be viable.

Which 1 of the 3 are we scared of? Or are we saying that its socially necessary that McDonald's exist and the lowest skilled workers are the ones that have to take the squeeze to make it happen?

Taylor

Quote from: magpie seanie on November 13, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
Quote from: APM on November 13, 2019, 11:04:45 AM
Note what I said about inequality - particularly the salaries of top execs.  I don't think it is defensible.

According to McDonald's website, they employ 120,000 people in the UK**.  Let's assume that relates to 60,000 Full Time Equivalent. 
If McDonald's paid an extra £2.50 per hour for 60,000 employees,  and didn't pass the extra cost onto their customers, it would wipe a profit of £341m out entirely.  That's OK if you don't want profit taking. But profits can a good thing.  It provide's a return for shareholders (often pension funds), an incentive for investment and retained profit can provide the means for reinvestment.  If you wipe out McDonald's profits by giving an extra £2.50/hour to the workers, does that make the business more or less sustainable for the self-same workers and McDonald's suppliers.  It's also worth asking, what level of profit is acceptable - £300m?, £200m? £10m?. 

Whether people like it or not, there is a market for labour and successive governments have correctly intervened in the market to first provide for a minimum wage and then provide a living wage.  There are working tax credits (again maybe these should be increased) to provide a minimum basic income for workers.  However, it is not sustainable for people to go from earning £8/hour to £15/hour overnight, because all that will happen is that will happen is that  the cost of doing business and the cost of living will rise accordingly and the lowest skilled jobs will still end up being the lowest salaries in real terms. 

** Just seen the point above about the franchise owners and I'll admit that I don't know much about their model.

There's a lot in that that strays from the central argument. Firstly, I don't believe that what's being sought here is an increase for every worker. So the 60000 FTE's getting a pay rise isn't realistic. Personally I'd feel that running McDonald's in the UK wouldn't be as difficult a job as PM so getting £783k (only one person I know but I'm sure there are several very well paid executives and managers) seems absolutely ridiculous so I'd suggest savings could be made on the higher end salaries. Or perhaps if pay increases are a no-no then the company could use some of their massive profits to provide other benefits for staff....to make it less of a "shit" place to work. Of course that's not their economic model. They don't want people to stay long term. They want to pay as little as possible in wages and don't mind high staff turnover.

It doesnt matter how much money you take off the executives Seany - this cannot filter to the staff.

McD franchise model means the % they take off the restaurant owner is set for up to 20 years. Thats in a legal document.

It is the restaurant owner that exclusively pays the salary to the staff - nothing to do with McD as a corporation.

five points

Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 02:16:50 PM

Which 1 of the 3 are we scared of? Or are we saying that its socially necessary that McDonald's exist and the lowest skilled workers are the ones that have to take the squeeze to make it happen?

Yes, I'm happy to say that - while also saying that McDonalds is a shit company. Because when governments get into the business of shutting down shit companies, it never ends well for anyone, least of all those who depend on low-grade employment to put food on the table.

smelmoth

Quote from: five points on November 13, 2019, 02:56:21 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 02:16:50 PM

Which 1 of the 3 are we scared of? Or are we saying that its socially necessary that McDonald's exist and the lowest skilled workers are the ones that have to take the squeeze to make it happen?

Yes, I'm happy to say that - while also saying that McDonalds is a shit company. Because when governments get into the business of shutting down shit companies, it never ends well for anyone, least of all those who depend on low-grade employment to put food on the table.

Did you see the original introduction of the NMW, its subsequent increases or rebranding as a NLW as the government "shutting down shit companies"?

If McDonalds did shut down what would happen to the money spent in it - would it evaporate from the economy? What would happen the meals served in McDonalds - would those people just not eat?

armaghniac

Quote from: five points on November 13, 2019, 01:59:11 PM
If security-related road access restrictions and different number plates for different territories really mean apartheid, I grew up in an apartheid zone.

Likely in a West Bank settlement.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

five points

Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 03:05:13 PM

Did you see the original introduction of the NMW, its subsequent increases or rebranding as a NLW as the government "shutting down shit companies"?
I honestly can't remember, it was 20 years ago. I've read and seen in practice a lot of economics since though.

Quote
If McDonalds did shut down what would happen to the money spent in it - would it evaporate from the economy? What would happen the meals served in McDonalds - would those people just not eat?

McDonalds will never shut down though, least of all in response to higher staff costs. They'll just continue to automate and their "restaurants" will employ fewer and fewer staff.

five points

Quote from: armaghniac on November 13, 2019, 03:12:56 PM
Quote from: five points on November 13, 2019, 01:59:11 PM
If security-related road access restrictions and different number plates for different territories really mean apartheid, I grew up in an apartheid zone.

Likely in a West Bank settlement.

West bank of the Erne more like it.