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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Then its up to the hiring army to pay the market rate....if you don't pay the rate suited to their talents they go elsewhere, like the top bankers.

    Also I think there's a difference when it comes to mercenary armies, between some gang of coked up 10 year olds who are being hired by an African warlord, and have lets say suspect loyalties, and the type of private security firm which recruits former UK, US, South African servicemen who have an understanding of the concept of discipline.

    But actually the point you bring up is relevant to Afghanistan because the types of opiumheads who sign up for the "Afghan army" and the British soldiers are trying to train, are exactly that type of suspect crook who will sign up for jihad if the Taleban slips them a backhand payment.
    I'm far from being a lefty....... but your idea is just utter stupidity.

    Do you know why the US army is seen as much inferior to the British Army? The reason is that many join the US army just to have their college fees paid. Soliders in the British Army fight for their country, not for money.

    There are many things you privatise, armies are not one of them!
    • Offline

      2
      (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
      i'm far from being a lefty....... But your idea is just utter stupidity.

      Do you know why the us army is seen as much inferior to the british army? the reason is that many join the us army just to have their college fees paid. Soliders in the british army fight for their country, not for money.

      ahahahahahahahaha,

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Wow

      There are thousands of other factors to be taken into account: Increase in population, Increase in immigration, Decrease in Government Spending, Advances in technology and machinary requiring fewer workers.

      To suggest the wealthy have a larger impact than those factors would simply be idiotic.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
      Do you know why the US army is seen as much inferior to the British Army? The reason is that many join the US army just to have their college fees paid.
      Two statements of complete horsecrap.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
      Two statements of complete horsecrap.
      http://www.ehow.com/about_5095626_ar...-benefits.html
      It is well known that many people also join the U.S. Army to help pay for college and to avoid incurring debt from their student loans.
      Care to debate?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
      I'm far from being a lefty....... but your idea is just utter stupidity.

      Do you know why the US army is seen as much inferior to the British Army? The reason is that many join the US army just to have their college fees paid. Soliders in the British Army fight for their country, not for money.

      There are many things you privatise, armies are not one of them!
      In the UK the majority of officers are only in the forces to get their uni fees paid. Most of the soldiers are there because they buggered about at school and had no where to go at the end, and their retention rate (especially when we are at war) is extremely low. I don't deny some of them are there to fight for the country, but if it was simply a case of patriotism you'd see a lot more middle class people joining the army, but you don't because they have options. The US armies cannon fodder might be less well trained, but their military as a whole is far greater than the rest of the worlds combined.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by crcr)
        ... what i am saying is that technology produces net benefits even though people lose jobs, so what you believe to be a paradox really isn't as technology benefits everyone in the long term...
        Technology that is used to make people unemployed or underemployed is hardly of benefit to them, is it? Genius.

        Of course there can be wider societal benefits to the development and implementation of technology, I'm not arguing about that. I'm more specifically suggesting that capitalism is driven by the aim of maximising profits, not by any interest in providing people with work (and thus income). Moreover, I'm suggesting that capitalism will at every opportunity use technology to replace human labour where it is directly or indirectly profitable to do so and that we're alrwady some way along that process, particularly in the 'advanced' industrialised countries.

        The paradox is that while it is in the intersts of individual capitalists and businesses to shed as much human labour as possible - because wages are invariably a major business cost - capitalism more widely needs waged workers to go buy their goods and services. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the recent financial crisis reveals how far capitalism has found itself needing to feed people credit in order to get them buying stuff necessary to maintain the business cycle - real wages on their own clearly not being sufficient for the task. The system will keep failing until governments can no longer bail capitalism out, then even the rich folks will have to start worrying.
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Oswy)
        Technology that is used to make people unemployed or underemployed is hardly of benefit to them, is it? Genius.

        Of course there can be wider societal benefits to the development and implementation of technology, I'm not arguing about that. I'm more specifically suggesting that capitalism is driven by the aim of maximising profits, not by any interest in providing people with work (and thus income). Moreover, I'm suggesting that capitalism will at every opportunity use technology to replace human labour where it is directly or indirectly profitable to do so and that we're alrwady some way along that process, particularly in the 'advanced' industrialised countries.

        The paradox is that while it is in the intersts of individual capitalists and businesses to shed as much human labour as possible - because wages are invariably a major business cost - capitalism more widely needs waged workers to go buy their goods and services. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the recent financial crisis reveals how far capitalism has found itself needing to feed people credit in order to get them buying stuff necessary to maintain the business cycle - real wages on their own clearly not being sufficient for the task. The system will keep failing until governments can no longer bail capitalism out, then even the rich folks will have to start worrying.
        So you'd rather we were all still farmers?

        I ask as that is where technology first started putting people out of work and has done so to an impressive extent.

        And mechanisation is hardly a tool soley of capitalism, it was widely employed in '50s Russia to free people up to work in other industries.

        At least capitalism also allows for greater human manufacture where it is more profitable to do so than through mechanisation. ('handmade in', 'authentic' products) which is something that has yet to be displayed in implementations of socialism.
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by Quady)
          So you'd rather we were all still farmers?

          I ask as that is where technology first started putting people out of work and has done so to an impressive extent.

          And mechanisation is hardly a tool soley of capitalism, it was widely employed in '50s Russia to free people up to work in other industries.

          At least capitalism also allows for greater human manufacture where it is more profitable to do so than through mechanisation. ('handmade in', 'authentic' products) which is something that has yet to be displayed in implementations of socialism.
          I think you're missing my argument. I'm not having a go at technology, far from it, I'm having a go at the way technology is specifically used under capitalism to further ever more inequitable ends, i.e. to enhance the profits of the capitalist class regardless of what that means for everyone else. If technology were used in production to benefit all in society then the issue of unemployment would change - unemployment is primarily an issue because it means people go without their needs being met.
          • Offline

            1
            (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
            Two statements of complete horsecrap.
            The second one, I can vouch for. I have cousins in the USA who joined the Marines for a period and when they had served their time, they all went to prestigious US unis for a fully-funded degree courtesy of the nation.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Maker)
            Its been argued in other threads that we should not tax the wealthy too much because they are the ones creating jobs and they are needed for the health of the economy.

            Over the last 11 years, the wealthiest have had their income increasing more than any other group and 40% of the total increase in income have gone to the top 10%. http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml

            If the people who argue that the wealthy did create new jobs, then there should be an increase in jobs over the last 11 years and we should have far more jobs than we did a decade ago and we should not have more than 2.5 million people unemployed.

            Can those who argue that the wealthy create jobs explain why we have fewer jobs now despite the wealthiest people getting more wealthy at a faster rate than everyone else but we still have high unemployment?
            in short it has to be profitable for the wealthy to create jobs through a private company. If they can get a machine to do work that was done by hand they will - because its cheaper and therefore profits will increase. If demand is low then workers will be layed off as there are less people buying the products and services and so it would be bad for profit if they kept people on when they arnt selling.

            So to make the wealthy create jobs you need to make it profitable for them to do so. measures would include:

            cutting minimum wage
            lowering corporation tax
            restricting trade unions
            relaxing health and safety regs
            subsidising or bailing out companies

            This may seem like the rich will be getting richer and the poor getting poorer - but thats capitalism. If you don't like it then find out about socialism.
            Offline

            15
            ReputationRep:
            I think it's a case of the richest getting richer at a quicker rate than the poorest, not at the expense of the poorest.
            Offline

            12
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Oswy)
            Technology that is used to make people unemployed or underemployed is hardly of benefit to them, is it? Genius.

            Of course there can be wider societal benefits to the development and implementation of technology, I'm not arguing about that. I'm more specifically suggesting that capitalism is driven by the aim of maximising profits, not by any interest in providing people with work (and thus income). Moreover, I'm suggesting that capitalism will at every opportunity use technology to replace human labour where it is directly or indirectly profitable to do so and that we're alrwady some way along that process, particularly in the 'advanced' industrialised countries.

            The paradox is that while it is in the intersts of individual capitalists and businesses to shed as much human labour as possible - because wages are invariably a major business cost - capitalism more widely needs waged workers to go buy their goods and services. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the recent financial crisis reveals how far capitalism has found itself needing to feed people credit in order to get them buying stuff necessary to maintain the business cycle - real wages on their own clearly not being sufficient for the task. The system will keep failing until governments can no longer bail capitalism out, then even the rich folks will have to start worrying.
            But what about the role of technology to create jobs? Computers have replaced countless menial and not-so-menial jobs but that must be weighed against the vast number of jobs computers have generated. These hi-tech jobs tend not to directly benefit those low-skilled workers whose whose jobs were destroyed, but the benefits can hardly be said to accrue exclusively to the capitalist classes that implemented them in everyday life. After all, technology is not yet at the point where it can improve/maintain/operate itself.

            (All that said, I agree with your general premise that there is a worrying trend of replacing labour with technology. The people who argue that society benefits because now everyone can buy widgets at 10% lower cost neglect the huge personal and social damage that unemployment causes.)
            • Thread Starter
            Offline

            20
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by badtothebone)
            in short it has to be profitable for the wealthy to create jobs through a private company. If they can get a machine to do work that was done by hand they will - because its cheaper and therefore profits will increase. If demand is low then workers will be layed off as there are less people buying the products and services and so it would be bad for profit if they kept people on when they arnt selling.

            So to make the wealthy create jobs you need to make it profitable for them to do so. measures would include:

            cutting minimum wage
            lowering corporation tax
            restricting trade unions
            relaxing health and safety regs
            subsidising or bailing out companies

            This may seem like the rich will be getting richer and the poor getting poorer - but thats capitalism. If you don't like it then find out about socialism.
            Capitalism only works if people have money, all your measures decrease the amount of money people would have to spend.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Maker)
            Capitalism only works if people have money, all your measures decrease the amount of money people would have to spend.
            Look at any country that is undergoing cuts - such as ours and you will see the argument givin out by tories that corporation tax should be cut (28% to 24%) to encourage the private sector to take up the jobs their cutting from the public sector. In Ireland they are cutting the minimum wage by a euro. etc. etc.

            this is the contradiction inherent in capitalism. Employers need more profit so they want to spend less on wages, but at the same time the employees are also the consumers! - and so need more wages to buy things that the employer sells.

            To keep capitalism going you need a reformist government to intervene - so that the employers arnt so strong that they destroy their own demand and that trade unions arent strong enough that they take over and socialists join in and bring about the end of capitalism.
            • Offline

              13
              (Original post by BigFudamental)
              But what about the role of technology to create jobs? Computers have replaced countless menial and not-so-menial jobs but that must be weighed against the vast number of jobs computers have generated. These hi-tech jobs tend not to directly benefit those low-skilled workers whose whose jobs were destroyed, but the benefits can hardly be said to accrue exclusively to the capitalist classes that implemented them in everyday life. After all, technology is not yet at the point where it can improve/maintain/operate itself.

              (All that said, I agree with your general premise that there is a worrying trend of replacing labour with technology. The people who argue that society benefits because now everyone can buy widgets at 10% lower cost neglect the huge personal and social damage that unemployment causes.)
              Sure, but in the round computers and automation cut labour requirments, that's pretty much their whole point. You're right that tehcnology is not so advanced that it can do away with human labour of every kind in every sector. But given that the kinds of technological developments we're talking about - computers and robots - are only decades into development and the trajectory is always towards human-labour replacement, we should be cautious about thinking jobs safe today will be safe in future decades.

              It could be argued that the implementation of technology is used to increase output rather than shed human workers, and that's a fair point which is applicable in some cases, but then we hit the problem of growth (in consumption) as a necessary element in that model; and which has its own environmental problems. Moreover, we already have massive overproduction capacity in some of the major industries, like steel and motorcar production; we can't expect a growth model to save jobs in spite of automation.
              • Political Ambassador
              Offline

              17
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by loafer)

              ahahahahahahahaha,

              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
              Actually the US army training is very very far below the standards of the UK army.

              The UK army is small but is generally viewed as one of the best trained and most disciplined in the world.

              TBH when ever the US is in a war now they just use the marine core.
             
             
             
          • 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?
            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.