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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    But some people want temporary jobs and don't want job security. Some of us want zero-hours contracts too. Some of us don't want to be roped into something, we just wanna be in, make some dosh and get out. Hell, I'm desperate for a temp job right now but I can barely find any and the ones I do find aren't interested in poor old Jarred :moon: Then one or two of the JSA staff have a go at me, talk down to me and treat me like a scumbag for not having a job yet but then go on to cancel my appointment due to strike action less than a month later. Ungratefulness! I'd do their job! I'm desperate for some pre-uni moolah.

    Anyway there was a point to this rant:

    The labour market is a lot like any market, you shouldn't introduce unnatural and arbitrary controls into a market because it is capable of managing itself better than when a government assumes it thinks it knows what people want, we should let the market shift to reach that point naturally. I suppose it's all supply and demand at the end of the day. I'm certainly not an economist, but the market's going to revolve around that principle. If there are temporary jobs available it's because people are willing to work them and the presence of temporary jobs does not come at the expense of the man looking for a permanent job either.
    No, actually what we need is more arbitrary controls on the free market. Deregulation will simply lead to greater divisions and promote inequality. No minimum wage for instance will lead to businesses reaping greater profits, and all the while government expenditure on working benefits will rise. Look at China, a divided country of very wealthy and dirt poor. The market WILL NOT reach that point naturally because there are powerful, wealthy people who will gain by preventing it.

    There's always a loser in every decision, and by boosting working pay and conditions it is probably us (ages 16-23) as with minimum wage pay increases, employers are more likely to take on either staff to young to qualify, or those with many years more experience. Both of these have happened to me.

    Put it this way, I'd rather lose this temporary job now if it ensured I had safe work a few years down the line. Promoting zero hour contracts for those over 25 is definitely not something we should be supporting.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    No, actually what we need is more arbitrary controls on the free market. Deregulation will simply lead to greater divisions and promote inequality. No minimum wage for instance will lead to businesses reaping greater profits, and all the while government expenditure on working benefits will rise. Look at China, a divided country of very wealthy and dirt poor. The market WILL NOT reach that point naturally because there are powerful, wealthy people who will gain by preventing it.

    There's always a loser in every decision, and by boosting working pay and conditions it is probably us (ages 16-23) as with minimum wage pay increases, employers are more likely to take on either staff to young to qualify, or those with many years more experience. Both of these have happened to me.

    Put it this way, I'd rather lose this temporary job now if it ensured I had safe work a few years down the line. Promoting zero hour contracts for those over 25 is definitely not something we should be supporting.
    I'm a believer in free markets when it works but yes, the government should step in when a reason becomes clear. Markets usually do a good job but sometimes they no longer acheive their theoretic level and **** hits the fan, that's when we should take a look into playing a part to try and help them reach that theoretic efficiency. The belief in completely deregulated capitalism is a pie in the same sky as communism.

    But no, not arbitrary controls. Not just controls for the sake of it. Not controls plucked out of thin air. They have to be carefully calculated and put into place from sound economic reasoning rather than just conjured from nowhere just because you think they might be desirable. Ideologically induced controls aren't particularly good either. Killing off temporary jobs is in that ballpark if you ask me, but I don't suspect I'll ever convince you otherwise.

    I'd also be careful about comparing us to China because what's true for one economy is not necessarily true for all. For starters, China is still very much an industrialised country which we haven't been for a good 30 years. Still, I understand the point you are trying to make. All I can say to that is the rich aren't on top of some big mountain of money pulling the strings of the peasants below and laughing maniacally as they work effortlessly to stop them getting jobs. In fact, they usually just want more money, and they can't create that out of thin air. Usually their pursuit of the almighty dollar results in quite a few jobs getting created along the way, even if indirectly. They do a lot more for job creation than I will ever do in my lifetime, so I'm not in any rush to scapegoat them as the source of all of our problems.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    The latter is going to be difficult. Not surprised the right detest unions so much, but I figure that employee rights ranks well below the rights of a business to make profit. I'm not an expert on these rules myself, but the previous legislation required businesses take on permanent employees, not just fill it up with temporary staff. That bill was important for job security.
    Most people on the right don't hate unions, we hate striking.

    I don't think many of us have any objection to having somebody else negotiate on your behalf voluntarily as unions do on a range of issues.

    Of course some unions are too political like the NUT but that's a separate issue really.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Most people on the right don't hate unions, we hate striking.

    I don't think many of us have any objection to having somebody else negotiate on your behalf voluntarily as unions do on a range of issues.

    Of course some unions are too political like the NUT but that's a separate issue really.
    I highly doubt the strikers enjoy striking either.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I highly doubt the strikers enjoy striking either.
    Most are not even on a picket line, its another day off.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Most are not even on a picket line, its another day off.
    Considering they sacrifice a days pay for that, I'm sure they aren't exactly ecstatic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    NAY
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Most people on the right don't hate unions, we hate striking.

    I don't think many of us have any objection to having somebody else negotiate on your behalf voluntarily as unions do on a range of issues.

    Of course some unions are too political like the NUT but that's a separate issue really.
    There's a big contradiction here; Conservatives hate striking, but yet they force workers into a position where strike action is the only option left. Despite majority calls from doctors and nurses to end NHS cuts, the (real) government continues to cut the budget. Despite teachers' almost unanimous opposition to Gove's reforms, the reforms continue without compromise.

    If people strike to oppose unfair working conditions and austerity, the existence of that strike is not the fault of the trade unions - but rather than business owners and governments who've allowed those conditions to take place.
    • Offline

      15
      (Original post by That Bearded Man)
      No, actually what we need is more arbitrary controls on the free market.

      Deregulation will simply lead to greater divisions and promote inequality.
      You realise that no country in the world practices the Free Market as it's meant to be, there's no such Free Market in existence as it stands, regulating a market that was free doesn't continue to make it free, it's a regulated market which is what all markets are currently as there's regulation in one form or another.

      I'll never grasp this notion of equality, the way people explain it to me is that they want my success and my financial well being to be passed on to some lazy sod down at the Job Centre, basically I do the hard work and someone else reaps the rewards

      With the aforementioned in mind, this is why I don't pay myself a salary from my companies, this is why the holding company owns everything and I just use it, minimal corporate taxes (a lot less than both British and French income tax), efficient, pro-wealth creation and easier to pass on to my children/grandchildren.

      Why should I work hard for someone else to get benefits from it? My effort, my reward!

      By all means, regulate an economy, introduce working directives, stop zero-hour contracts, raise minimum wage etc but don't fight for an equality that will not happen.
      Offline

      22
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      You realise that no country in the world practices the Free Market as it's meant to be, there's no such Free Market in existence as it stands, regulating a market that was free doesn't continue to make it free, it's a regulated market which is what all markets are currently as there's regulation in one form or another.

      I'll never grasp this notion of equality, the way people explain it to me is that they want my success and my financial well being to be passed on to some lazy sod down at the Job Centre, basically I do the hard work and someone else reaps the rewards

      With the aforementioned in mind, this is why I don't pay myself a salary from my companies, this is why the holding company owns everything and I just use it, minimal corporate taxes (a lot less than both British and French income tax), efficient, pro-wealth creation and easier to pass on to my children/grandchildren.

      Why should I work hard for someone else to get benefits from it? My effort, my reward!

      By all means, regulate an economy, introduce working directives, stop zero-hour contracts, raise minimum wage etc but don't fight for an equality that will not happen.
      And you've just about summed up why a lot of people view the attitude of right-wingers as "selfish." The main concern is how much money I can make, how much tax can I avoid. People get ill, lose their job, bad things happen. It should be the responsibility of society to help them, thus we need people to pay their taxes. What a selfish society we live in if people refuse to pay money to help out those in need. I'm sure you couldn't give a crap, but it matters to some people.

      Equality will never exist, but we should be trying to close that gap.

      Also it's not just those who don't have a job, even to help those in work but who are on low incomes, who's multimillionaire boss has decided to freeze the wages across the board, so the government must fork our more in benefits to working families, thus ironically, some other guy, with your attitude, is costing you money by raising the amount of tax.
      • Offline

        15
        (Original post by That Bearded Man)
        And you've just about summed up why a lot of people view the attitude of right-wingers as "selfish." The main concern is how much money I can make, how much tax can I avoid. People get ill, lose their job, bad things happen. It should be the responsibility of society to help them, thus we need people to pay their taxes. What a selfish society we live in if people refuse to pay money to help out those in need. I'm sure you couldn't give a crap, but it matters to some people.

        Equality will never exist, but we should be trying to close that gap.

        Also it's not just those who don't have a job, even to help those in work but who are on low incomes, who's multimillionaire boss has decided to freeze the wages across the board, so the government must fork our more in benefits to working families, thus ironically, some other guy, with your attitude, is costing you money by raising the amount of tax.
        I'm not against a social security net, I'm against this idea that equality through government funding is the way forward, it isn't the way forward, it doesn't help to hand out money to people that need to work for it, they get comfortable and lazy then bam, on the dole for life... That's not equality, that's stupidity.

        Maybe, maybe not.

        Costing me money? I think not, I'm paid a grand total of £9,000/pa (tax free ), my company owns everything that I use... I pay taxes but they're practically nothing to the amount of money I generate through the business and then corporation taxes aren't that much of a hindrance. I'll be changing my tax domicile as soon as I work out what's happening with my SO so I'll go from minimal tax to zero
        Offline

        22
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by tehFrance)
        I'm not against a social security net, I'm against this idea that equality through government funding is the way forward, it isn't the way forward, it doesn't help to hand out money to people that need to work for it, they get comfortable and lazy then bam, on the dole for life... That's not equality, that's stupidity.

        Maybe, maybe not.

        Costing me money? I think not, I'm paid a grand total of £9,000/pa (tax free ), my company owns everything that I use... I pay taxes but they're practically nothing to the amount of money I generate through the business and then corporation taxes aren't that much of a hindrance. I'll be changing my tax domicile as soon as I work out what's happening with my SO so I'll go from minimal tax to zero
        If we increased the wages of lowest earners, we would remove the need to supply benefits to working families. Do you think people are comfortable on £70 a week? Would you consider living on £70 a week if you could.

        So you're happy to use public services, receive healthcare and education paid by the taxpayer, but avoid all levels of taxation? Don't you find that hypocritical?
        • Offline

          15
          (Original post by That Bearded Man)
          If we increased the wages of lowest earners, we would remove the need to supply benefits to working families. Do you think people are comfortable on £70 a week? Would you consider living on £70 a week if you could.

          So you're happy to use public services, receive healthcare and education paid by the taxpayer, but avoid all levels of taxation? Don't you find that hypocritical?
          I could easily live on £70/w, if I took out all my luxuries I'm damned sure my expenses total less than £70/w.

          I'm sorry but I pay for my healthcare privately and go back to France for treatment sometimes. Education isn't a big deal, I had the best in France and then I came here and struggled, my mother paid dearly for that one and as far as Uni loans are considered, mine are paid back.

          I'm yet to use British public services so no, it's not hypocritical.

          Edit: Actually that was a lie, I was 3-4 years ago during my mother's financial hardship and my father's unwillingness to help, on JSA briefly but I have since had jobs and paid my fair share of tax, it's only since the business I created isn't really that taxable due to how the tax code is set up that I'm able to get away with little payment of tax and to me it's fine as I don't actually use anything that Britain offers as Britain isn't my home, nor is France really, I spent more time in departure lounges and hotels than I had in an actual home.

          Funny isn't it, how life turns out.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by tehFrance)
          I'm yet to use British public services so no, it's not hypocritical.
          What about services which are not privatised. For example, DGSE/MI6, police force, major roadways, fire & rescue services, sewage ways, coastguard, military, immigration and customs at airports.

          In 20 years time you could be abroad when suddenly a conflict breaks out, you need the military to rescue you (like the French Army did to citizens during the Rwandan Genocide). You rely on MI6/DGSE to protect both countries against international threats including everything from cyber terrorism to biological attacks. If you were attacked you would probably go to the police in either France or Britain. I bet you have been on a car journey; roads like the M4 are owned and maintained by the state. Did you know all sewers in Britain are maintained either directly by the state or companies using state subsidies? Subsidies not coming from council tax. Everytime you pass through an airport you rely on state funded customs and immigration officers to ensure no one looking to cause harm is on the flight. These services don't pay for themselves. If you were critically injured in a crash, would you really specify you want a private ambulance or would you take the first one on the scene? What about if you were trapped in a building fire?

          You rely on public services much more than you realise, or let on. To pay zero tax is immoral and as exploitative as lazy sods on benefits. Whilst I agree with your points about false equality through taxpayers money and the fascination with using wealthy job creators as scapegoats, you are now coming across as a ungrateful and arrogate person - which I assume you don't intend to portray?

          We all like to pay less taxes. We all have tax accountants on speed dial but at the same time we all rely on the state to some extent.
          • Wiki Support Team
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          This is in cessation.
          • Community Assistant
          • Wiki Support Team
          • Political Ambassador
          • PS Reviewer
          Offline

          18
          ReputationRep:
          Division! Clear the Lobbies!
         
         
         
        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: July 20, 2014
      • 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
        Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
      • 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.