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

UK's 'lost work ethic' Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Flahey)
    1. We agree -- 2. Hilarious, government spending is a component of demand, this is basic. --- 3. You'd create massive market failures with the under provision of pensions, healthcare and education.
    2. Governments can only spend money that they either take from their citizens or borrow (which is just delayed taxation). When the government raises taxes to spend more, it's just reducing the spending of actual citizens either now or in the future - and the government would tend to mis-allocate resources because of failures in knowledge. Individual people know best what they want to purchase - or if they want to purchase something at all.

    If there's been a decline in the domestic auto industry, for example, it may be that the cars being produced domestically are too expensive or of inferior quality relative to foreign substitutes rather than people simply not having the money to purchase them.

    Even if we accept that governments might occasionally know what to do, it doesn't change the fact that they are just moving demand around geographically and temporally. They are not 'creating' demand - the government has no money of its own.

    3. Morally, I do not think it is acceptable to force anyone to purchase education, healthcare or a pension - for themselves or for someone else.

    Even ignoring this, however, it would seem to be undeniable that the present system cannot be sustained. The UK - and just about every developed nation on the planet -
    is hopelessly in debt primarily due to the ballooning costs of welfare and social protection.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    So, you agree with my comparison of natives and unions? Saying "To hell with it all!" doesn't really do much. With the reasoning in the OP, anyone in a union ought to resent anyone coming along and undercutting them, which includes immigrants being less demanding of employers.
    Bit in bold: it's whiny and self-centred.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Runninground)
    That's ridiculous. Imagine if you had been with a company for a few years and they just fired you for no reason. Would you just accept it and move on, or would you want a law to prevent this situation?
    Then it says a lot about the company.

    Hardly anything is done for 'no reason', they might have been able to cope with costs, so the employee needs to be made redundant. With the MW enforced, some people may be willing to work for less but legally can't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    Bit in bold: it's whiny and self-centred.
    Any opinion can be described as whiny, and when it comes to employment, there is bound to be a significant amount of self-centredness. Is the argument and comparison with unions valid?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've worked since I was 13 (employment card) through choice. I've always been told that if I work hard I'll earn the things I want. I almost get a kick out of it!

    It's 100% how you've been brought up. Crap parenting - crap kids!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    3. I'm in favour of eliminating welfare in all forms including state pensions, as well as public schooling and the NHS.
    What would your solution be for children whose parents can't afford to send them to school and their ability/talent is never recognised?

    Are you an anarcho-capitalist?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Any opinion can be described as whiny, and when it comes to employment, there is bound to be a significant amount of self-centredness. Is the argument and comparison with unions valid?
    I think so, if there are elements of entitlement.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Visited Germany last year. Stereotype is spot on, Germans work hard and I've never seen a group of people so efficient. We actually went when it was snowing, however those that were on "community service" so to speak, or even unemployed were sweeping the streets to help others get to work. Britain just isn't like that. However this goes as far back to the Unions, which is an entirely different argument altogether. I agree with the principle of Unions, however they tend to backfire. Take for example the miners in the 80's. They were getting paid extortionate amounts for very little work, and that's the truth. They forced the whole country to basically shut down in protest. Germany just isn't like that.

    In short, yes, were are lazy and I see it all the time. Why do you think companies are so willing to take on foreign workers? You could argue they pay them less, yes, however they also work damn hard. We have a whole attitude in Britain that we are entitled to work, and that we are entitled to high pay and fantastic conditions. We aren't. We need to shift the superiority complex before we get anywhere near Germany.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not wanting to be a mug slave =/= no work ethic.

    That said, if you've left yourself in a position where you can only apply for unskilled jobs, you've made a rod for your own back. Slave labour is back and it's here to stay my friends.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    Not wanting to be a mug slave =/= no work ethic.That said, if you've left yourself in a position where you can only apply for unskilled jobs, you've made a rod for your own back. Slave labour is back and it's here to stay my friends.
    Your so far removed from reality you wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by You Forever)
    Your so far removed from reality you wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass.
    U - No substantiation of point. No clear counter argument. No clarity of point. Failure to differentiate between "you're" and "your".

    You are free to resit your response and get a better grade. In fact, I encourage it :yes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    U - No substantiation of point. No clear counter argument. No clarity of point. Failure to differentiate between "you're" and "your".You are free to resit your response and get a better grade. In fact, I encourage it :yes:
    The hypocrisy is strong with you, you have failed to justify the description of modern employment as slavery, which is the basis of your argument. Thus without making said point, you have failed to produce an argument
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Flahey)
    I've studied economics and you've made some valid points, you've essentially stated that if you flood the market with labour and removed price regulations you'd expect wages ( price ) to fall. As for your second point, could you expand on that? Consumerism exists under all economic systems, we cant eat air. People may on low wages, generally don't spend large amounts of disposable income, this stifling their demand slightly would have little to no impact.
    I mean consumption of non essential items. Even the poor will spend money on alcohol, magazines etc. If people only spent money on essentials I.e. food, rent, fuel etc because they'd have no idea if they'd even have a job next week then a large part of our economy would suffer.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redpanda41)
    I mean consumption of non essential items. Even the poor will spend money on alcohol, magazines etc. If people only spent money on essentials I.e. food, rent, fuel etc because they'd have no idea if they'd even have a job next week then a large part of our economy would suffer. Posted from TSR Mobile
    Right but the point I was making was that if you take % of income spent on essential items, poor people spend a much, much higher %
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    What would your solution be for children whose parents can't afford to send them to school and their ability/talent is never recognised?

    Are you an anarcho-capitalist?
    1. Private charity.

    2. Yes, purely moralistically - but I also believe that it is a more practically efficient system.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    That only works when the increase in productivity comes in the form of new innovation or development of more efficient production methods and etc.. A level of increased competition in the market has positive incentive as well. However that is not the main kind of productivity we get from markets like China or India. Technology in which we absorbed the cost of R&D for has been reverse engineered or just plain stolen. Their low standards for working conditions and pay allow them to undercut prices.
    That is not correct. What matters is that productivity increases. Suppose the UK uses a technology that makes us more productive. The Chinese then copy this technology. This means that the Chinese produce more. This means there are more goods for the UK to consume. And the Chinese have more income to consume UK goods.

    The problem is that industry develops in underdeveloped nations first, then standards of living slowly follow. In the mean time, Industries from already developed nations are faced with having to innovate faster than they can be copied (not easy), The only other option is to cut costs other ways. This usually involves layoffs, less incentive to employees, moving production to these developing nations, outsourcing and various other cuts. All those things can ultimately diminish the quality of life here.
    And is there any evidence for the quality of life in Western nations diminishing due to increases in productivity in China, Brazil, India etc? Or have living standards improved due to being able to consume more goods? Have there been great swathes of unemployment in Western nations caused by developing nations?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    In. Kill 75% of the population and replace them with droids. Out.

    Utopia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Too many people with useless qualifications but no real skills. We should just leave school and most of us enter work instead of wasting time with college/uni.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.