Well done Harriet Harman
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
- biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
Clandestine in as much as few people realise that this policy DOES transfer wealth from the exchequer to the landlords. Most folk. I guess, think of Housing Benefit as a payment to the tenants, feckless or otherwise.stumuzz wrote: ...for biff to believe it was some form of clandestine gov' policy to transfer wealth from taxation to private landlords, I'll try again.
Over,the last twenty years we the workers of Britain, have produced less and less as a country.
As for we the workers of Britain, personally I have been earning a living for the last decade by manufacturing stuff in Britain using virtually 100% British grown raw materials. (I've retired now.)
- biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
He's playing with pedantics B, as we both know, to avoid having to deal with the substantive issue.biffvernon wrote:Thankyou. It's a policy that is well hidden, as explained above.stumuzz wrote:Ah! changed the word policy to subsidybiffvernon wrote: And being honest about the hidden subsidy that Housing Benefit brings.
Good use of linguistics there Biff, like it, like it.
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
So for the labor as victims crowd did it go something like this?
In the 70’s labor managed to negotiate a pretty nice contract with good wages and retirement benefits and you had, lets say ten workers working on an assembly line. Then competition from Japan and elsewhere drove prices down and squeezed profits. Not being able to renegotiate the labor contract management retrofitted the line with robotic machines and they achieved an increase of productivity while reducing the number of workers from ten to three and perhaps these three were technicians and non union.
As labor did not invest in the robots they get no payment for the robot’s production. They are miffed that management will not pay the seven laid off workers to sit around and watch the robot’s do their former jobs.
Is that correct?
In the 70’s labor managed to negotiate a pretty nice contract with good wages and retirement benefits and you had, lets say ten workers working on an assembly line. Then competition from Japan and elsewhere drove prices down and squeezed profits. Not being able to renegotiate the labor contract management retrofitted the line with robotic machines and they achieved an increase of productivity while reducing the number of workers from ten to three and perhaps these three were technicians and non union.
As labor did not invest in the robots they get no payment for the robot’s production. They are miffed that management will not pay the seven laid off workers to sit around and watch the robot’s do their former jobs.
Is that correct?
You've missed that the average wages are holding steady(-ish), so those 10 low paid workers have morphed into 3 higher paid workers (management, programming, design... not technicians) but notably their combined wages are a lower proportion of the output than the 10.
You now have 3 people producing more per capita but 7 people sitting around - coldly put - as wasted resources. What are you going to do with them? Vote for Snowball and the four day week? Or wait for them to get all Steve on you and invoke lamp-post and rope based solutions?
You now have 3 people producing more per capita but 7 people sitting around - coldly put - as wasted resources. What are you going to do with them? Vote for Snowball and the four day week? Or wait for them to get all Steve on you and invoke lamp-post and rope based solutions?
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
A very serious question, the answer to which our leaders seem to be coming up short on. The rope and lamp post solution won't work in the US as those the Stevie’s might want to string up all have guns. The chances of union leaders realizing the limits of their power and making their members competitive in the world market place seem remote. Look at the city of Detroit and see the future.AndySir wrote:You've missed that the average wages are holding steady(-ish), so those 10 low paid workers have morphed into 3 higher paid workers (management, programming, design... not technicians) but notably their combined wages are a lower proportion of the output than the 10.
You now have 3 people producing more per capita but 7 people sitting around - coldly put - as wasted resources. What are you going to do with them? Vote for Snowball and the four day week? Or wait for them to get all Steve on you and invoke lamp-post and rope based solutions?
Thought you might bring that up. Of course even if you're morally okay with living in your gated community, probably by demonizing the people on the other side of your high walls (hey, look at that we're back on topic), you're now left with the situation where you're spending more and more of your GDP on security while your taxes are going down as a percentage of GDP.vtsnowedin wrote:...guns.
That trend has an obvious breaking point.
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
Probably means we are just going around in circles.
I don’t have any gate and the last ones I had kept the cows in the pasture.
Little need to spend any significant money on security as long as you keep the beer and cigarettes available and a bennies card handy.
I see one US Congressman proposing to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance on each gun with a $10,000 fine for non compliance. Net effect would be to disarm all poor and most minorities but they haven’t noticed that as yet. It goes right along with having strict gun laws in the cities and looser restrictions in the suburbs and countryside. Wouldn’t want the wrong sort of people to be knocking about legally armed don’t you know.
I don’t have any gate and the last ones I had kept the cows in the pasture.
Little need to spend any significant money on security as long as you keep the beer and cigarettes available and a bennies card handy.
I see one US Congressman proposing to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance on each gun with a $10,000 fine for non compliance. Net effect would be to disarm all poor and most minorities but they haven’t noticed that as yet. It goes right along with having strict gun laws in the cities and looser restrictions in the suburbs and countryside. Wouldn’t want the wrong sort of people to be knocking about legally armed don’t you know.
- biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact: