news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Ozanne]

 

[steviewevie]

Makes you proud.

 

[Neil]

7 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

Labour backing strikes - its like they want to do their best not to be a credible alternative.

COS IT WOULD BE CREDIBLE FOR LABOUR TO SAY TOUGH SHIT, STRUGGLE ON ON YOUR CURRENT WAGE!

[mattiloy]

12 hours ago, gary1979666 said:

To add to that, on top of labour, and 3rd party materials brought in will also carry a labour element (so a large part of the cost of the pizza box is labour, the ingredients, etc - normally 50% of a product's cost is people).  Outside of that you'll see the next biggest costs being premises and utilities....!

It won't affect just the lower paid in the company.  If delivery boy gets an increase, then the guy making the pizza wants one, then the store manager, then the lady in Domino's head office, etc.

 

Yes everybody knows that pizza boxes are painstakingly put together by craftsmen.…

Don’t kid yourself that head office folks at dominos are concerned by their pizza prices going from 7 quid to 11 quid. They are already buying 15 quid napolitan pizzas. Price sensitivity is relative to income.

Anyway, there is a large body of literature proving that minimum wage rises generally are not a causal factor in inflation just head on over to Google scholar. If your poor grasp of economics is influencing your politics, and even worse, influencing your reasonable expectation for a higher minimum wage, I suggest you take a refresher course. The 1970s was 50 years ago, nobody believes that shit anymore

[Neil]

16 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

The 1970s was 50 years ago, nobody believes socialism anymore

 😛 

[mattiloy]

12 hours ago, lost said:

That's why tax credits were invented. So people can have increases in income without it feeding into inflation or pricing their labour out of the market.

Tax credits increase aggregate demand the same as an equivalent wage rises does, they increase the money supply the same as an equivalent wage rise does. They cause the same amount of inflation as an equivalent wage rise does. Their Labour is not priced out of the market if everybody gets an equivalent wage rise.

Tax credits are a way of government subsidising business. 

[steviewevie]

God save the king.

 

[mattiloy]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

God save the king.

 

Gonna be maybe controversial here - why is sending refugees to Rwanda appalling?

Is it because we think Rwanda is a shithole?

Because isn’t that also bad?

“Just feel weird about it because those are the vibes I’m getting - ‘urgh no how terrible, not Rwanda!’

Edited June 10, 2022 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

8 hours ago, mattiloy said:

Gonna be maybe controversial here - why is sending refugees to Rwanda appalling?

Is it because we think Rwanda is a shithole?

Because isn’t that also bad?

“Just feel weird about it because those are the vibes I’m getting - ‘urgh no how terrible, not Rwanda!’

no it's because they are seeking asylum here.

[Ozanne]

8 hours ago, mattiloy said:

Gonna be maybe controversial here - why is sending refugees to Rwanda appalling?

Is it because we think Rwanda is a shithole?

Because isn’t that also bad?

“Just feel weird about it because those are the vibes I’m getting - ‘urgh no how terrible, not Rwanda!’

Some of the issue is how the Rwanda government treats people, their human rights record isn’t great. So we’d be sending people seeking asylum here and sending them to a place that risks their health. 

[Ozanne]

Come on Farmers, just grow more fruit and veg. Who’s going to pick it?

[lost]

9 hours ago, mattiloy said:

Tax credits increase aggregate demand the same as an equivalent wage rises does, they increase the money supply the same as an equivalent wage rise does. They cause the same amount of inflation as an equivalent wage rise does. . 

Not really the same though as remember it’s money chasing some goods and services produced offshore whilst a wage rise will be purely on shore, of course it’s going to distort the market in some way as any government intervention does but I guess Labour would argue there is also a social cost to long term unemployment so it’s a ‘least worst’ option 

[mattiloy]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

no it's because they are seeking asylum here.

Yeah but when the uk was in the eu it could return migrants to the first provable safe country they were in (ie France, also not their preferred destination) since the Dublin agreement right?

And when I think about the difference, I think that amidst the outrage is an implicit judgement that people themselves could not think of a fate worse than being sent to Rwanda. Which just maybe betrays a certain colonial ignorance and xenophobia about african countries.

Edited June 11, 2022 by mattiloy

[mattiloy]

1 hour ago, lost said:

Not really the same though as remember it’s money chasing some goods and services produced offshore whilst a wage rise will be purely on shore, of course it’s going to distort the market in some way as any government intervention does but I guess Labour would argue there is also a social cost to long term unemployment so it’s a ‘least worst’ option 

The least worst option would be for employers to pay a fair wage. If some employers cannot afford to pay a fair wage, then their business was not viable in the first place. Governments propping up shitty businesses by subsidising the wages of their employees is not a good solution.

Transient increases in unemployment are a normal part of the ‘creative destruction’ process of an economic cycle. If bad businesses aren’t allowed to fail, good ones can’t take their place - the trouble is new Labour and subsequent governments need the numbers to look acceptable so they can brag about them in the tabloids. So they introduced tax credits, zero hours contracts, changed the way the unemployment rate is measured. Everything to keep the numbers low, not for the benefit of the business landscape or by extension the workers.

[lost]

6 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Transient increases in unemployment are a normal part of the ‘creative destruction’ process of an economic cycle.

Because as I mentioned sometimes it isn't 'Transient' There are social issues around that with long term drug and alcohol problems. Habits people can fall into very quickly which can cost the state more money in the long term. In an ideal world yes the free market does it job, people get off their arse to gain new skills and price their labour at the level companies can pay a good wage and still be viable businesses but in practice it doesn't work like that and we have other state benefit systems which then come under strain (unemployment,NHS etc..)

[pink_triangle]

Heather Wheeler MP slagging off Birmingham and Blackpool. When will these red wall voters realize the conservative party hold them with contempt and are just using them to hold power?

[mattiloy]

1 minute ago, lost said:

Because as I mentioned sometimes it isn't 'Transient' There are social issues around that with long term drug and alcohol problems. Habits people can fall into very quickly which can cost the state more money in the long term. In an ideal world yes the free market does it job, people get off their arse to gain new skills and price their labour at the level companies can pay a good wage and still be viable businesses but in practice it doesn't work like that and we have other state benefit systems which then come under strain (unemployment,NHS etc..)

But someone with long term drug and alcohol problems is not likely to be on working tax credits. Which is what I am arguing against. 

I’m not against unemployment benefits, I think they should be increased if anything. Along with proper funding for social care and reeducation to address just those problems you mention.

Incidentally the Corbyn era manifestos had ideas for both a national social care system, and a national education system, which amongst other things, sought to address those specific issues.

[Ozanne]

 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Yeah but when the uk was in the eu it could return migrants to the first provable safe country they were in (ie France, also not their preferred destination) since the Dublin agreement right?

And when I think about the difference, I think that amidst the outrage is an implicit judgement that people themselves could not think of a fate worse than being sent to Rwanda. Which just maybe betrays a certain colonial ignorance and xenophobia about african countries.

I mean, it kind of looks like we're sending them off to work in the colonies.

[lost]

39 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

But someone with long term drug and alcohol problems is not likely to be on working tax credits.

No I said they are more likely to be unemployed. Bad habits which are more likely to picked up during your period of "transitory" unemployment which can become cemented. If you don't have to be up early in the morning your more likely to sit up drinking all night. We saw this during covid when people were paid to sit at home we created 1 million new alcoholics in the UK.

Minimum wage goes to £15 an hour and then obviously your "bad" businesses such as pubs and bars go under because they don't sell enough drinks to cover the costs. A number of those people will become permanently unemployed with the social aspects linked to that.    

[Neil]

12 hours ago, mattiloy said:

Gonna be maybe controversial here - why is sending refugees to Rwanda appalling?

Is it because we think Rwanda is a shithole?

Because isn’t that also bad?

“Just feel weird about it because those are the vibes I’m getting - ‘urgh no how terrible, not Rwanda!’

I Rwanda has its problems which makes it unsuitable for this scheme. 

[fraybentos1]

4 hours ago, lost said:

Minimum wage goes to £15 an hour and then obviously your "bad" businesses such as pubs and bars go under because they don't sell enough drinks to cover the costs. A number of those people will become permanently unemployed with the social aspects linked to that.    

Or they could increase the cost of their drinks and food. Happens in other countries 

[lost]

10 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Or they could increase the cost of their drinks and food. Happens in other countries 

Yep happens in this country too but obviously there is a limit to what people will pay before they chose to sit in front of the telly with a can instead hence the number of pubs going under.

Edited June 11, 2022 by lost