Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why do the right want to return us to the 1800s? Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    So right wingers, who want to abolish the NMW,
    1990s

    health and safety,
    1970s

    working time regulations,
    De-facto don't exist even now.

    safety standards for products,
    Debatable. Most defective product cases are based on common law fraud.

    benefits.
    The Poor Laws date back to the dissolution of the monasteries.

    This is what britain was in the 1800s, and will turn britain back into what it was then, the rich, feasting and partying while the poor suffer and starve.
    According to Professor Angus Maddison's historical estimates, Britain in 1800 had a GDP per capita of ~$2,900, about 2/3 that of the Republic of the Congo. In 1900 it had a GDP per capita of ~$7,800, less than such titans as Thailand, Suriname and Ukraine While relative poverty may be greater with Victorian policies today, the overwhelming difference in living standards is due to technological developments for which they are their free market economy are responsible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Typical loony leftie resorting to insults when you've lost the argument

    i bet you're the type who'd be involved in this UKIP smear campaign
    :daydreaming: :cockup: :daydreaming:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    :daydreaming: :cockup: :daydreaming:
    I don't know what you mean?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enterpriser)
    Workers are not exploited - they chose to do that job
    In the same way that someone with a gun to their head 'chooses' to do whatever the person holding the gun says.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    In the same way that someone with a gun to their head 'chooses' to do whatever the person holding the gun says.
    Er no, it's definately not in that same way, it's in a very different way to that entirely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Er no, it's definately not in that same way, it's in a very different way to that entirely.
    The gun is destitution and starvation it is entirely the same.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    The gun is destitution and starvation it is entirely the same.
    Yeah, of course, entirely the same, other than the gun not being physical, death not being imminent, no direct blackmail being present, and the flexibility and strength of the labour market coupled with modern labour laws allowing a wide range of other alternatives and protections if you believe that your current job is 'exploiting' you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yeah, of course, entirely the same, other than the gun not being physical, death not being imminent, no direct blackmail being present, and the flexibility and strength of the labour market coupled with modern labour laws allowing a wide range of other alternatives and protections if you believe that your current job is 'exploiting' you.
    Who said anything about it being your current job? I'm talking about jobs in general.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Tony Benn opposes the EU too
    so?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    Do you know what classical economics are? If supermarkets dropped the wage so low, no one would work for them, i fear you lack the basic knowledge of supply and demand for wages.
    did you not read my post? this is if the right get their way and remove benefits, you will have no choice, dont work and starve or work and slowly starve on a pittance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enterpriser)
    Suits at the top, that either got there by there own power or by their generation aboves. In short, they earned it. You give someone a tip at a restuarant and they'll start expecting one; it is no longer a compliment to give them a tip. You give workers higher wages for being uninnovative, not aiming high, not believing in themselves or trying to attain higher economic status and less of those will try and become businessmen... businessmen, which funnily enough, don't have job security (should state cover that in the name of fairness?), which pay everyones wages and without which, the economy could not exist.

    By hiring you or any other person the business(wo)man is providing you a service. Why should they be inclined or contracted to keep that service by regulations which undermine their spirit?

    If you are a worker, you are suspectible to firing, your are suspectible to low wages, because you chose not to try and get to the top. Don't blame anyone else, don't expect something for nothing, as doing either will get you no where. If you really wish to attain a higher standard of living, then of your own accord, go get it. If you want a girlfriend, are you entitled to them? No, you must go, have the courage, and get that girl.

    The only real reason for the extensive regulations available now are in the name of democracy - in other words, the system lets your vote (if you are a minimum wage or unemployed/unskilled worker, you are virtually a waste of space to our economy, and may have a negative impact), count as much as a highly innovative, enterprising businessman who has contributed potential millions to the countries economy, when it comes to voting for the party and people that make these decisions.

    Your kind of people have already won; you won when you overthrew King Charles and formed a goverment where voting was roughly speaking, equal to classes overtime. How is the goverment to do economically best for the country, if the people that vote for it, are so self-centered, so selfish, that they vote not for the economy, but for themselves, because they are so lazy, and have this concept of fairness. At the end of the day, you started of, and will be starting of, at any time if you choose to, on par with everyone else who gets to the top.
    so you think people should die for the benefit of the economy then?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enterpriser)
    Nearly everyone on the NMW can get better on benefits, which is probably why so many are on benefits. Raising the NMW lead to less jobs lead to increased benefits, which meant the NMW needs raising to keep it above that level. Once this was found to be unsustainable, the goverment has slowed the raising of the NMW. Thus without the initial NMW, no problem would exist.

    Workers are not exploited - they chose to do that job - and the 'financial gain' heads towards the goverment too. A hard working cleaner didn't work hard to get their, didn't innovate or do something good for this economy, so no, they don't deserve a high wage.
    this post is complete BS.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    You know how we've had to redefine poverty because the old definitions didn't apply to the UK any more? Tell me more about how our economy is a failure, I'm really interested.
    are all right wingers stupid? im not talking about the country TODAY, im talking about what your precious ukip want to turn us into
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    1990s


    1970s


    De-facto don't exist even now.


    Debatable. Most defective product cases are based on common law fraud.


    The Poor Laws date back to the dissolution of the monasteries.


    According to Professor Angus Maddison's historical estimates, Britain in 1800 had a GDP per capita of ~$2,900, about 2/3 that of the Republic of the Congo. In 1900 it had a GDP per capita of ~$7,800, less than such titans as Thailand, Suriname and Ukraine While relative poverty may be greater with Victorian policies today, the overwhelming difference in living standards is due to technological developments for which they are their free market economy are responsible.

    the point of the dates is?

    the point of that last paragraph is? the free market benefits only those who go into it with money
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yeah, of course, entirely the same, other than the gun not being physical, death not being imminent, no direct blackmail being present, and the flexibility and strength of the labour market coupled with modern labour laws allowing a wide range of other alternatives and protections if you believe that your current job is 'exploiting' you.
    Why does the abstraction of the threat, the remoteness of death and the indirectness of the blackmail make it any less destructive or reprehensible? If anything, it makes the system harder to assail and thus in some ways more torturous.

    Strength of the labour market? What planet are you on? (I really hope you don't waste my time replying with the government's employment statistics either!)

    "Flexibility" just means you have to be available 24/7 on a zero-hour contract.

    Modern labour laws are the subject of the thread: the Tories would abolish them if they could and with workfare are already circumventing the minimum wage. What they have reversed they can, for example extending the probationary period to two years.

    All work is exploitative, insofar as the worker is underpaid for his labour under threat of starvation. It must be exploitative, otherwise how would the capitalist earn any meaningful wealth?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    the point of the dates is
    The date those things were introduced. The OP thinks lack of them means going back to the 1800s, and most of them are no more recent than Harold Wilson, and one pre-dates democracy.

    the point of that last paragraph is? the free market benefits only those who go into it with money
    No it doesn't. Example: someone working 40 hours/week earning minimum wage today earns about 5x as much the mean national income in 1800. That is, even if income were distributed exactly evenly in 1800, everyone would be 5x poorer than the bottom rung of today's working class. This really understates the difference, because people in 1800 had a much more limited range of products they could buy with lower incomes (eg. no antibiotics or vaccinations), and 40 hours is a lot less than people worked at that time even though a 40 hour work week isn't legally enforced..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Strength of the labour market? What planet are you on? (I really hope you don't waste my time replying with the government's employment statistics either!)

    "Flexibility" just means you have to be available 24/7 on a zero-hour contract.
    Strong compared to what? France has about 33% higher unemployment than Britain, Spain something like 3-4x. With more restrictive labour laws those zero hour contracts would be replaced by unemployment.

    All work is exploitative, insofar as the worker is underpaid for his labour under threat of starvation. It must be exploitative, otherwise how would the capitalist earn any meaningful wealth?
    Who is under threat of starvation?

    Would you agree or disagree with the statement, "All employees are exploitative, in so far as shareholders are overcharged under threat of unfilled vacancies"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    so?
    People with sense on both sides of the political spectrum oppose the EU
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Why does the abstraction of the threat, the remoteness of death and the indirectness of the blackmail make it any less destructive or reprehensible? If anything, it makes the system harder to assail and thus in some ways more torturous.
    That's some amazingly pretentious claptrap right there.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Strength of the labour market? What planet are you on? (I really hope you don't waste my time replying with the government's employment statistics either!)
    I'm on planet Earth in the real world, not some naive idealistic communist student hippie utopia that you clearly reside in.


    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Modern labour laws are the subject of the thread: the Tories would abolish them if they could and with workfare are already circumventing the minimum wage. What they have reversed they can, for example extending the probationary period to two years.
    Except the Tories would do no such thing; this is simply sensationalist nonsense from the left. They've simply been making it easier for business to create jobs. Since you mention the probationary period, it's been proven that businesses are more reluctant to hire workers because right now it's a pain in the arse to fire them if they're rubbish.
    It's like how the left are moaning about the reduction in the top rate of income tax; on paper it looks 'regressive' but overall it will lead to more tax for the treasury, just like how that will in the end lead to more jobs.


    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    All work is exploitative, insofar as the worker is underpaid for his labour under threat of starvation. It must be exploitative, otherwise how would the capitalist earn any meaningful wealth?
    No, exploitation would require unjust and cruel behaviour. The profits made by business owners in relation to the workers proves nothing on that front. Fairness and equality are two completely seperate issues.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    People with sense on both sides of the political spectrum oppose the EU
    what on earth does the eu have to do with this? other than they have introduced some very good workers rights legislation.

    your obsessed you and your ukip loonies
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.