Corbyn is pro leave, pay attention.
Poll: Exit Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Results discussion and OcUK Exit Poll - Closing 8th July
- Thread starter JohnnyG
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
So I misremembered a technicality from something I read two years ago, I don't think that invalidates the substance of my point which is that an awful lot of companies that are supposedly part of the free market, capitalist system, are in the pay of the taxpayer. Stakeholders in those companies grow richer because taxpayers bridge the gap between the pitiful wage they offer their wage slaves and the money required for those slaves to live.
Those companies should fold.
He used to be 7/10 to remain!
The blame does not lie at the door of the businesses. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the lawmakers who created the fertile environment for this situation to exist. The vast majority of businesses exist to provide returns to their shareholders. Most of them have some nice social purpose mantra on top and some actually live up to it. Companies will always exploit every avenue to save costs and increase returns. We as individuals do exactly the same.
Someone has to meet the cost if you want everyone to be on a higher living wage (which is of course being introduced anyway). You either choose to have Government subsidise it through a system akin to today's, or legislate to further increase the minimum wage in which case you, I and those living wage employees will all meet the cost through higher prices. The latter method will disproportionately affect those on lower wages as they have far less discretionary income at their disposal.
Capitalism is designed to create wealth. I think what you're really arguing about is the distribution of that wealth. But saying that these companies should fold is a non-sensical solution. Tens of thousands of jobs in the NHS, the UK's largest employer, would be at risk. You wouldn't have a supermarket to buy goods from, and if one was open the shelves would be half empty and devoid of reasonably priced fruit and vegetables because nobody could afford to farm them (which appears to be happening right now!). People would find it more difficult to work reduced hours to help raise children.
The current system is far from perfect, but the solution isn't as easy as 'close down businesses who don't pay living wage'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Corbyn campaigned to remain. He Brexit strategy is a bit like the Lib Dems on tax. Its easy to say things you know you'll never have to follow through.
Must have been a different lot of kids to those I've encountered of late - get the odd bright one that is hungry to learn and take on responsibilities but an increasing number of school leavers I've encountered are indifferent at best some as unenthusiastic as you can get. Not that those older are much better mind - seems to be an increasing number of experienced people disillusioned about work as well. The turn over rate when people find out they actually have to work to keep a job with us is pretty high.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
If the markets cannot regulate themselves then you do not have a free market. Capitalism is dead. Of course I don't disagree, I think you need to regulate the hell out of business and stop pursuing an unregulated market that governs itself because, as you say, companies are rarely going to return anything they don't have to to anyone they don't have to return it to. Of course there are some exceptions to this.
I had my eyes opened to me when I met Justin King who was at the time CEO of Sainsburys, some very genuine questions were asked about the pay and perks differences between those in supermarkets and those in convenience shops and the increased Christmas opening times. His opinion in a nutshell was that they'd worked out what they could get away with and if we didn't like it we could find another job. He chuckled whilst saying this to the people who busted a gut every day to ensure the business was successful so that he could earn his ridiculous salary and not have to work in the same conditions his workers do.
Yes, unfortunately that's the other side of the coin and it's why I think that as government increases minimum wage they should be reducing state funded in work benefits. Because as you say if companies know someone has more money in their pocket then they will charge them more but that doesn't mean that these companies, who make immense profits, shouldn't actually have to pay for their own work force rather than expecting you or I to subsidise them. I think you have a similar problem in this regard with the housing market. Landlords are charging extortionate rents and governments are paying for it with our money but then the government is highly unlikely to put any serious regulations in place because so many of them are landlords and have a conflict of interest.
Capitalism doesn't create anything. You and I create things. Capitalism exists as a method of exploiting what people create and channeling the benefit of those things in monetary terms to select individuals who have been fortunate enough to be born in to that position. This might be a cynical view to some but as the markets have supposedly become more free so too has social mobility decreased. If you are born poor you are more likely to die poor.
If a business exists to create wealth it shouldn't be in business if it can't without state sponsorship. Surely by your own definition that's true. How can you defend the idea that the government should fund successful enterprise by paying it's workforce for them?!
Since the 1980s people who have joined the workforce have been poorer than those who came before them. All this phoney capitalism isn't really doing much good is it if the trickle down effect isn't trickling and instead the very people poorer than their parents are actually having to trickle money in to the system just to get that poor return.
Of course it does work very well for a handful of people so why change what isn't broken?
Last edited:
He may have campaigned for remain, although not very strongly from what I remember. He did that as that was Labour's official line but he himself was not exactly pro EU at least in its current form.
Ignore the title of the video though as he isn't really making a case for brexit more a case for reform.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
I agree with many of his points. Our own government(s) have been complicit in creating all the problems he lists in his speech.
Like any decision, the positives need to weighed against the negatives. As a politician, Corbyn cares about the social equality. He know that our membership of the EU is an important part of this country ability to generating enough revenue to fun the social schemes he want to.
Like any decision, the positives need to weighed against the negatives. As a politician, Corbyn cares about the social equality. He know that our membership of the EU is an important part of this country ability to generating enough revenue to fun the social schemes he want to.
Last edited:
Which is now ruined by Brexit as if we wish to return, the Rebate is gone.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
I doubt it. Not if we canceled Brexit now.
Out position and influence within the EU would be seriously weakened without new leadership though.
Last edited:
The EU has implied as much, though it might just be the thoughts of guy verhofstadt or something.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Good set by Corbyn at Glastonbury - huge pyramid stage crowd (chose to watch Corbyn rather than Kaiser Cheifs) and chose to chant his name at the end 
I'd love to see what would happen if May tried that.
I'd love to see what would happen if May tried that.
Good set by Corbyn at Glastonbury - huge pyramid stage crowd (chose to watch Corbyn rather than Kaiser Cheifs) and chose to chant his name at the end
I'd love to see what would happen if May tried that.
He's connecting well
Pensions are already the worst performing financial investment product available and company pension fund abuse regulation is laughable, the idea we need to help business because of pensions is a joke at this point in time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,986
My pension is probably worth about 20% on top on my wage when you take company contributions and tax relief, if not more. Also the point I was responding to is if we have a moral position where no large company is allowed to make any profit then millions of future pensioners will be unable to suppport themselves even though they are willing and keen to do so. With a pension apartheid where only public sector employees can get a decent pension.
No.one said large companies can't make a profit,merely companies really need to stand on their own 2 feet and pay a fair living wage to.all workers regardless of age. If a company can't afford to proper wages then it's relying on government subsidy (such as tax credits). This isn't fair on companies that do pay realistic wages, and is essentially a form of communist state intervention.
But then the fact.is most of the large corporates that abuse unskilled workers are perfectly capable of paying fair wages.
In the US for example there are some supermarkets that pay federal.monium wages, there are others that pay 50-100% more with many benefits such as.paid maternity leave, paid sick time, pension matches, paid education,etc. These supermarkets are just as profitable. And this isn't limited to high end supermarkets, Walmart has recently started increasing salaries. Aldi is.paying some of the highest salaries.
Same thing with fast food. Some joints you get paid $7 an hour, others you are at $15-17 for the same job. In-n-out burger is certainly highly profitable despite their workers getting treated as humans.
For enterprises where salaries really are an overburdening issue then quite frankly the company needs use more automation, work.on other efficiencies, outsource to cheaper labour markers, or become state owned and operated.
If this was true then there would be changes in the trajectory of wages associated with changes in/introduction of tax credits. There aren't. The fact is that in the UK, with its low trade union membership and lack of worker representation on boards, workers in the kind of jobs where tax credits are paid have limited ability to influence their own wages and so companies are able to pay low wages. Tax Credits have numerous problems but subsidising companies isn't one of them and they fill a real need.
Yup, free markets are an abstraction that does not exist in the real world.
Can you please expand on this and further qualify the point you're making?
I really don't know wish would happen if they raised minimum wage to 10 across the board.
I would expect it would hit costs. Our would it?
I really don't know enough about how much for example it would add to supermarket prices
Or pub pint.
What you don't want to do is allow it to kill businesses and therefore less jobs.
However I haven't seen clue as to if this would happen or not
I would expect it would hit costs. Our would it?
I really don't know enough about how much for example it would add to supermarket prices
Or pub pint.
What you don't want to do is allow it to kill businesses and therefore less jobs.
However I haven't seen clue as to if this would happen or not
- Status