Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RugRatz)
    Neither was Blairites . Blair was centre right (I kid you not) many called him center left, the only thing he was left on was social issues, Brown was more if a statist (moderate left) and milliband was more left than brown
    So you're saying Blair wasn't a Blairite?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    So you're saying Blair wasn't a Blairite?
    I was referring to miliband and brown, doing a bit of fishing on the net and i have found a chart created by someone on the positions of the last few labour leaders

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/cha...n&ec=-9&soc=-6
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Sure, there's income inequality, but more often than not, it's linked to ability. More able people get paid more. What do you do about the structures where the labour, rather than the management get paid the most? What about entertainment, sports, medicine? The actor/singer/player is getting paid millions, therefore everyone around them has to as well? Good recipe for hyper inflation, and everyone crying about rip-offs.

    What about surgeons? If they earn loads because of their skill, does that mean that their managers should earn more too? What about the person that does the cleaning?

    What you're suggesting is a kind of parasitic model of employment, where people can do low-skilled work, but earn more by seeking out high skilled employers. Can you not see what kind of disaster that would be?

    Cleaners at normal, small business, or at businesses that are just doing ok, would be earning market rates - whatever they're on now. People doing the cleaning for brain surgeons or pop stars would be earning triple that for doing exactly the same work. Everyone would want that work, and you'd have exactly the same income inequalities, but also with the added dimension of the total unfairness of workers for some organisations earning far more than workers at others - due to no effort of their own.
    You seem to be using exaggeration to mask a reasonable argument. The market rate is not based on a fair representation of the value of the work, it is purely and simply the least the employer can get away with for any particular role. In the UK since the recession real wages have gone down by over 10%. As competition for jobs has increased, we have all become worth less, even though overall wealth has increased substantially.
    Increasing automation and globalisation means this trend is going to continue. More and more wealth is going to fewer and fewer people. It is not those at the bottom who need to address this, as they can really go no lower, the big losses are in the middle,and to some extent the top. The middle are so preoccupied with the bottom, they don't realise their true vulnerabilty is with the top.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RugRatz)
    Neither was Blairites . Blair was centre right (I kid you not) many called him center left, the only thing he was left on was social issues, Brown was more if a statist (moderate left) and milliband was more left than brown
    So by your reckoning the Labour Party and all the others should shut up shop, as the Tories have cornered the market, and are exactly what the majority (36%) of the country want, and they are happy to impose it on the minority (64%).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    So by your reckoning the Labour Party and all the others should shut up shop, as the Tories have cornered the market, and are exactly what the majority (36%) of the country want, and they are happy to impose it on the minority (64%).
    May's tories are more right wing, you love corbyn too much thats the problem
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    You seem to be using exaggeration to mask a reasonable argument. The market rate is not based on a fair representation of the value of the work, it is purely and simply the least the employer can get away with for any particular role. In the UK since the recession real wages have gone down by over 10%. As competition for jobs has increased, we have all become worth less, even though overall wealth has increased substantially.
    Increasing automation and globalisation means this trend is going to continue. More and more wealth is going to fewer and fewer people. It is not those at the bottom who need to address this, as they can really go no lower, the big losses are in the middle,and to some extent the top. The middle are so preoccupied with the bottom, they don't realise their true vulnerabilty is with the top.
    This is why UK productivity is ****.

    People on low-pay have no incentive to work harder because they're only being paid what the company can legally get away with and wouldn't see any benefit from the fruits of their labour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    This is why UK productivity is ****.
    Overall the countries wealth is increasing. Productivity has largely moved abroad. We now manage our economy, by 'creating' work to avoid having everyone on benefits.

    People on low-pay have no incentive to work harder because they're only being paid what the company can legally get away with and wouldn't see any benefit from the fruits of their labour.
    this is what the system does. About time we came up with a new one.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Overall the countries wealth is increasing. Productivity has largely moved abroad. We now manage our economy, by 'creating' work to avoid having everyone on benefits.

    this is what the system does. About time we came up with a new one.
    I'm not against Capitalism and enterprise, on the contrary. But it's perfectly possible to have it without screwing people over along the way.

    There shouldn't be any in-work or child benefits whatsoever IMO, by that I mean low pay should be adequate for people to have an acceptable standard of living without the need for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RugRatz)
    May's tories are more right wing, you love corbyn too much thats the problem
    Perhaps Labour should have Cameron as leader is that the answer. It is not so much that I like Corbyn, it is more that I dislike the slimey, self interested excuses that we have had running the country for the past 50 years, who have not moved with the times, and have allowed virtually the entire wealth of the country to gravite to the top, and left the majority of the people as slaves to their, mortgages, rent, debt and daily living expenses, instead of benefiting from all the advances that have been made, and living fulfilling lives of an easy mix of work, leisure and education.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RugRatz)
    Neither was Blairites . Blair was centre right (I kid you not) many called him center left, the only thing he was left on was social issues, Brown was more if a statist (moderate left) and milliband was more left than brown
    Blair was a Conservative in everything by name. It was the fact of the horse-trading that he had to do to get elected (i.e. letting Brown have his little social engineering projects and his turn at being PM) that put all the centre-left bits into his governments.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Which part of my analysis did you find inaccurate?
    Well, all of it - because I'm not an adherent to Marx or Engels. I don't believe in Marxism or regressive socialism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I'm not against Capitalism and enterprise, on the contrary. But it's perfectly possible to have it without screwing people over along the way.
    Unfortunately it is like that by design. It is a competitive environment, so anyone attempting to play fair will always lose to a competitor who doesn't, and wind up going out of business. We live in a giant game of monopoly, where we don't start with the same amount of money, all the properties are already owned, our chances of making any progress up the chain are limited. In time the game will inevitably progress until one person owns everything. They can then pronounce themselves the winner, put all the money back in the box, and then maybe we can play a different, possibly fairer game.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    You seem to be using exaggeration to mask a reasonable argument. The market rate is not based on a fair representation of the value of the work, it is purely and simply the least the employer can get away with for any particular role. In the UK since the recession real wages have gone down by over 10%. As competition for jobs has increased, we have all become worth less, even though overall wealth has increased substantially.
    Increasing automation and globalisation means this trend is going to continue. More and more wealth is going to fewer and fewer people. It is not those at the bottom who need to address this, as they can really go no lower, the big losses are in the middle,and to some extent the top. The middle are so preoccupied with the bottom, they don't realise their true vulnerabilty is with the top.
    We're not having the same debate. My example was with respect to the idea of bracketing internal pay rates within a company and making them relative to other pay within a company by means of multipliers. To my mind, this is absurd by any measure - and about as far away from any socialist doctrine as its possible to be.

    It would mean workers being paid hugely more for equivalent work, dependent on the profitability of their company as a whole. That's all the worst bits of capitalism and socialism combined.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Well, all of it - because I'm not an adherent to Marx or Engels. I don't believe in Marxism or regressive socialism.
    That does not answer the question. it just labels it. The sum of the activity within a business is what produces the profit. It is just maths not politics.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    A lot of services are sub-contracted so the cleaners getting paid like doctors would never happen anyway.

    Even just a proper minimum wage would be a step in the right direction, employing someone for £7 per hour is criminal IMO. I'm suggesting fair pay not free money. At the moment we've got a system of low pay with in-work benefits subsiding it(corporate welfare in other words).
    Ok - then you've answered your own question.

    If you were to bring in your pay multiplier restrictions - the natural reaction would be to subcontract out all low-skill work to marginally profitable companies - or to self-employed low-skill workers.

    You've created the American dream.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    We're not having the same debate. My example was with respect to the idea of bracketing internal pay rates within a company and making them relative to other pay within a company by means of multipliers. To my mind, this is absurd by any measure - and about as far away from any socialist doctrine as its possible to be.

    It would mean workers being paid hugely more for equivalent work, dependent on the profitability of their company as a whole. That's all the worst bits of capitalism and socialism combined.
    Surely this would be a massive incentive for all those working within a company to make it as profitable as possible, instead of just the owners wringing every last penny out of the employees.
    People in this thread and lots of others seem obsessed with labels such as left, right capitalist socialist, as if this gives the right to dismiss arguments out of hand.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    It's the New Statesman though, not the Telegraph or the Mail. They're about as Left-Wing as you can get after Pravda.

    Ffs, even Owen Jones is being branded a Blairite for daring to criticise the Supreme Leader.
    New Statesman sits in the centre all things considered.

    The support generally goes for the New Labour side, not the likes of Corbyn. But as the country has been swathed in right wing culture since the 80s this has gradually become the norm as the opposition isn't massively different.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    There shouldn't be any in-work or child benefits whatsoever IMO, by that I mean low pay should be adequate for people to have an acceptable standard of living without the need for it.
    This is part of the great law of unintended consequences. They have no work / child benefits in the US either - the only Westernised country not to have them. As a result, women (on the whole) have to choose between having kids or a career. The impact on society and the country at large is a male dominated workforce that has little or no tolerance of people having kids and all the talent ends up staying at home to look after children.

    "Fair dos," I hear you say, "children are a lifestyle choice anyway." Indeed, you are correct, but without children there is no next generation. The solution is therefore to increase immigration or see the economy shrink as the population aged and grew smaller.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    This is part of the great law of unintended consequences. They have no work / child benefits in the US either - the only Westernised country not to have them. As a result, women (on the whole) have to choose between having kids or a career. The impact on society and the country at large is a male dominated workforce that has little or no tolerance of people having kids and all the talent ends up staying at home to look after children.

    "Fair dos," I hear you say, "children are a lifestyle choice anyway." Indeed, you are correct, but without children there is no next generation. The solution is therefore to increase immigration or see the economy shrink as the population aged and grew smaller.
    I meant that wages shouldn't be so **** that people are forced to rely on in-work and child benefits. If a company don't pay a proper living wage then they don't have a proper business, they're just scamming the tax-payer IMO.

    It wasn't meant from a neoliberal race to the bottom perspective although in hindsight it may have come across that way unintentionally.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Inequality will always be out of control, under any government that is not totalitarian. As the country gets wealthier all sections get absolutely wealthier but the wealthiest ones more so. It is inevitable.

    The question for lefties is, do you want the poor to be better off or do you want to bring the wealthy down to nearer the poor?
    See this is why I can never get on board with the far-left and people like Corbyn and his hate-filled supporters. They don't care about helping the less well-off to succeed, they're only about making sure that others do worse.*

    The evidence is their feelings towards the Blair government as a source of shame, even though the poorest did well in this era by absolutely any measure other than inequality. But the reason for that is the rich also did well. So their gripe is that the rich did well, even though the poor also did well (not that most Corbynites would know that as hardly any of them come from this section of society). It's dispicible and shows them up for everything they are, despite their false protestations about championing the poor. *
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 7, 2016
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.