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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, I'm a Lib Dem supporter and I was considering switching to the greens, however I have one policy issue, the living wage. ---Initially I was supportive of the living wage, however I was talking to my economics teacher last year about an essay I was writing, in which I had to partly write about the living wage as a policy. I was told that the living wage could potentially cast cost push inflation, lead to more unemployment and make the poorest in society worse off as a result. With government spending on welfare stagnating, would it be fair to move more people onto the doll whilst raising the price level, resulting in them being much worse off, for the benefit of those workers who are not laid off?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Flahey)
    Hi, I'm a Lib Dem supporter and I was considering switching to the greens, however I have one policy issue, the living wage. ---Initially I was supportive of the living wage, however I was talking to my economics teacher last year about an essay I was writing, in which I had to partly write about the living wage as a policy. I was told that the living wage could potentially cast cost push inflation, lead to more unemployment and make the poorest in society worse off as a result. With government spending on welfare stagnating, would it be fair to move more people onto the doll whilst raising the price level, resulting in them being much worse off, for the benefit of those workers who are not laid off?
    Listen to your economics teacher. They just nailed it.

    Politicians tend to like to bribe voters to vote for them by promising things like free education, free healthcare a living wage.

    If a wage goes up, so it creates inflation. Inflation eats away at that pay rise. You then open the gap between people on benefits and those earning. Benefits have to go up, which results in higher taxes. End result is that although you may be on £10 an hour, because of inflation, you're in no better position than you were when you were on £6 an hour.


    The Bell curve answers everything.


    Name:  bell-curve.jpg
Views: 74
Size:  19.4 KB
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Milton Friedman explains.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeeGuy)
    Milton Friedman explains.

    I does make sense, and youth unemployment figures do validate t post 1998.

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05871

    However, as usual people will argue over one issue, and in fact there's several variables on simultaneously. So I'd say Friedmans example works in a normal environment with no other major economical impacts such as recession. I fret the correct term to use on that one, when everything is normal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I does make sense, and youth unemployment figures do validate t post 1998.http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05871However, as usual people will argue over one issue, and in fact there's several variables on simultaneously. So I'd say Friedmans example works in a normal environment with no other major economical impacts such as recession. I fret the correct term to use on that one, when everything is normal.
    The question is what level of unemployment is acceptable, this isn't an argument about whether or not we should have introduced the minimum wage, IMO milton was wrong, as the level of unemployment created was acceptable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Flahey)
    The question is what level of unemployment is acceptable, this isn't an argument about whether or not we should have introduced the minimum wage, IMO milton was wrong, as the level of unemployment created was acceptable.
    You'll never get 100% employment unless you physically force people to work. i.e. mass mobilization of the population. However even the US was running at 5% unemployement in 1942, and that finally did lower to 3% between 1943 to 1946. That was with a World War going on and America being the Arsenal of the free world.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemplo...te#Measurement


    My HRM lecturer discussed this issue at some length last semester. His take on it was even in a thriving economy you'll have between 3 to 4% unemployment and that' not just disabled people. There are people out their who are just unemployable. What he highlighted was generational changes. Generation Y seems to be producing a lot of very clever unemployable people. Yes, you may have a degree, but your attitude and approach to work and authority sucks so nobody employs you. He used his son as an example. 1st class honours and still unemployed after 2 years. Why? He still likes to spend all of his time on the internet at night and doesn't really care about work. He makes enough money doing online Poker to get by and that's all he's after.

    There's a good book called 'Next Generation Talent Management' by Andres Hatum that sums it up.


    The Baby boomers wanted and expected a job for life. Generation X were happy to move about a bit and Generation Y are rather demanding and will flit from one job to another. The thought of a job for life scares them.

    Most politicians are Baby Boomers so still think that younger generations want a job for life.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Flahey)
    Hi, I'm a Lib Dem supporter and I was considering switching to the greens, however I have one policy issue, the living wage. ---Initially I was supportive of the living wage, however I was talking to my economics teacher last year about an essay I was writing, in which I had to partly write about the living wage as a policy. I was told that the living wage could potentially cast cost push inflation, lead to more unemployment and make the poorest in society worse off as a result. With government spending on welfare stagnating, would it be fair to move more people onto the doll whilst raising the price level, resulting in them being much worse off, for the benefit of those workers who are not laid off?
    An interesting switch given that economically the Greens are the most socialist mainstream party in the UK while the Lib Dems embrace neo-liberalism.

    Conventional economic wisdom does support that and i've long held the same view however i've begun to doubt this policy recently given the success of Germany and Australia who are also wedded to a minimum wage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You'll never get 100% employment unless you physically force people to work. i.e. mass mobilization of the population. However even the US was running at 5% unemployement in 1942, and that finally did lower to 3% between 1943 to 1946. That was with a World War going on and America being the Arsenal of the free world.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemplo...te#Measurement


    My HRM lecturer discussed this issue at some length last semester. His take on it was even in a thriving economy you'll have between 3 to 4% unemployment and that' not just disabled people. There are people out their who are just unemployable. What he highlighted was generational changes. Generation Y seems to be producing a lot of very clever unemployable people. Yes, you may have a degree, but your attitude and approach to work and authority sucks so nobody employs you. He used his son as an example. 1st class honours and still unemployed after 2 years. Why? He still likes to spend all of his time on the internet at night and doesn't really care about work. He makes enough money doing online Poker to get by and that's all he's after.

    There's a good book called 'Next Generation Talent Management' by Andres Hatum that sums it up.


    The Baby boomers wanted and expected a job for life. Generation X were happy to move about a bit and Generation Y are rather demanding and will flit from one job to another. The thought of a job for life scares them.

    Most politicians are Baby Boomers so still think that younger generations want a job for life.
    Thanks for all this. I needed a good laugh.

    Edit: I had no idea how to respond to this. I disagree with it, but I got this feeling that an informed response would be responded to with ideological nonsense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    Thanks for all this. I needed a good laugh.

    Edit: I had no idea how to respond to this. I disagree with it, but I got this feeling that an informed response would be responded to with ideological nonsense.

    What did you disagree with? Bearing in mind its all backed up with empirical research.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    What did you disagree with? Bearing in mind its all backed up with empirical research.
    Don't get me wrong, I agreed with everything you said up until 'some people out there are just unemployable', and because a man told you, no less. It's a very cliched viewpoint and has been repeating itself in various forms since the 'criminal classes' and 'social residuum' ideas of the 19th century yet no precious empirical evidence is ever found to definitely prove it. I'm not saying you're wrong about everything else mind, just a little suspicious whenever someone says that some people are unable to be employed.

    On a separate note, what would your solution to fixing that problem be? I'm genuinely curious. Don't interpret that as some kind of assault.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    Don't get me wrong, I agreed with everything you said up until 'some people out there are just unemployable', and because a man told you, no less. It's a very cliched viewpoint and has been repeating itself in various forms since the 'criminal classes' and 'social residuum' ideas of the 19th century yet no precious empirical evidence is ever found to definitely prove it. I'm not saying you're wrong about everything else mind, just a little suspicious whenever someone says that some people are unable to be employed.

    On a separate note, what would your solution to fixing that problem be? I'm genuinely curious. Don't interpret that as some kind of assault.

    I don't think there is a solution that's cost effective. It's cheaper just to pay for them to stay at home.

    The other method that does work is chain Mao style mobilisation of the population. You don't work you starve to death.

    Incidentally the old man was a well published academic on the topic. Hardly a guy down the pub.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    An interesting switch given that economically the Greens are the most socialist mainstream party in the UK while the Lib Dems embrace neo-liberalism.Conventional economic wisdom does support that and i've long held the same view however i've begun to doubt this policy recently given the success of Germany and Australia who are also wedded to a minimum wage.
    Its just that I seem to agree with everything the green party has to say, except for when it comes to economic policy,ideologically I agree with them economically, but pragmatically I don't, it really is beginning to jar on me. I do wish the conservative part wasn't well, conservative, then I could consider voting for it, honestly the current economic plan if I understand it to be correct under the conservatives in regards to inflation and job creation is to allow for some inflation (with low interest rates), to allow wages to fall, in order to get more people into work. Then to raise interest rates back up when unemployment hits 7%, to help boost real incomes. Not sure if I agree with this plan morally, buts it a credible long term plan to help fix our economy for everyone within it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Flahey)
    Its just that I seem to agree with everything the green party has to say, except for when it comes to economic policy,ideologically I agree with them economically, but pragmatically I don't, it really is beginning to jar on me.
    So basically you should never have been in the Lib Dems and like many students never looked beyond some of their more superficial policies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    So basically you should never have been in the Lib Dems and like many students never looked beyond some of their more superficial policies.
    The lib dems like all smaller parties have populist impragmatic policies to gain votes, they never expected to actually have their chance to enact them and were caught out. All small parties do it, I bet the green party or UKIP would sway wildly from their manifesto especially within a coalition.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I don't think there is a solution that's cost effective. It's cheaper just to pay for them to stay at home.

    The other method that does work is chain Mao style mobilisation of the population. You don't work you starve to death.

    Incidentally the old man was a well published academic on the topic. Hardly a guy down the pub.
    Hmm yeah but academics are simultaneously geniuses and utter retards. A lot of topics that academics discuss (let's say Marxism) are far-detached from reality, and the use of apparently sound empirical research doesn't always change that. Not saying you are wrong. Just something to think about.

    What you said might be entirely true, but to an outsider like me it smacked of 'the younger generation are lazier than us glorious hard-working baby boomers', a viewpoint which I always treat with some skepticism.

    So the solution is to either work the population to death or to keep a certain proportion in controlled, perpetual misery? That's a wonderful policy, the kind of thing we need to maintain civilization for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    Hmm yeah but academics are simultaneously geniuses and utter retards. A lot of topics that academics discuss (let's say Marxism) are far-detached from reality, and the use of apparently sound empirical research doesn't always change that. Not saying you are wrong. Just something to think about.

    What you said might be entirely true, but to an outsider like me it smacked of 'the younger generation are lazier than us glorious hard-working baby boomers', a viewpoint which I always treat with some skepticism.

    So the solution is to either work the population to death or to keep a certain proportion in controlled, perpetual misery? That's a wonderful policy, the kind of thing we need to maintain civilization for.
    Not lazier. Just different outlooks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Green party certainly looks an attractive proposition to a centre-left voter (like me
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Greens are pretty much spot on for me, but there's one drawback, and it's a hefty one. Their green beliefs. I love all their policies, apart from the main one, and the anti nuclear stuff.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.