shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Shhhh, they’ve been told a story by their betters and are waiting patiently with their mouths open for the trickle down to reach them.
Jeremy corbyn (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Evo1883
- Start date
Shhhh, they’ve been told a story by their betters and are waiting patiently with their mouths open for the trickle down to reach them.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Well there are plenty of 'experts' that have looked at potential & actual effects. And funnily enough - there is no actual real consensus as to whether it is a good or bad thing.
And the 'experts' (scientists in this case) latest contradiction - as recently as yesterday - red meat! Same evidence base interpreted differently means that we might just as well return to the old adage as probably being the best advice "too much of a good thing..."
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Says he who has swallowed one side of the argument which fits his values...so everyone else must be wrong and stupid.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The largest scale studies from the USA, which suffers from greater income inequality and working poverty than this country, support raising it to the equivalent of £11/hour on the basis that:
1. Low income earners will put more back into the economy
2. Businesses are able to raise prices by modest amounts to absorb increased costs
Not all evidence is equal in value-but in your case it just seems like you can’t be arsed to understand it so you dismiss those who devote their careers to a given subject.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
That’s not what happened though. This is standard poor science reporting leading to people not understanding what research was actually done and what the results were.
The red meat example is the difference between individual and population level risks for example. Both pieces are perfectly congruent and even if they weren’t, that’s how science works. It builds toward a consensus through weight of evidence. No single study proves or disproves anything.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Wrong...I don't just dismiss it. Funny enough your evidence is a totally different country with different ethics, a different welfare state, a different tax system & a different economy.
As you raise the US...I have seen reports of the outcome of minimum wage in some US state (can't recall which) resulted in proportionately higher employment...in lowest paid jobs, with less overtime available - & greater unemployment overall. Almost the start of driving overall incomes down that sounds like to me.
As for moderate amounts of increased prices - you are agreeing with me! If prices go up moderately, those most affected are the poor & lower paid...the minimum wage quickly becomes pointless!!!
Strange that you always smell a rat on anything the Tories say, but not this. There MUST be something in it for the rich mustn't there?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
So just accept what the science tells us today...then change to accept what they say next week. Sounds like a plan.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You don’t need overtime if you’re paid properly to begin with. I’ve accounted for the differences with the US...to illustrate that in an even more unequal society a minimum wage increase would not do harm.
Wages in America have been below inflation and worker productivity for decades. It is simply restoring what should have already been in place
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Good grief what a dumbass
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Id rather people understood what science was or ignored it all together to be honest.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Wasting your time dude
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
That is spectacular.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I linked a report on here, (not sure what thread), recently which concluded that the tipping point for a minimum wage adversely affecting the economy was when it reached over 60% of the average wage. Grendel linked some a contrary study. Both studies were in the States.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I always listen to the bloke down the pub myself. They're far better trained.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
If you're paid properly in the first place you don't need a minimum wage!
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Careful - it's Schmeeee's plan not mine. And after all that was said about respect and choosing words carefully too! Good to see you have taken it all on board.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I didn’t invent the scientific method dude. I was several hundred years too late.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
There is truth to this, but can you admit it's not the increase in the wages that causes the inflation, it's largely the greed of the companies?
If NLW/NMW went up say 5%, some companies would increase prices at least 5% citing this increase as the reason. They however conveniently ignore or fail to mention that worker wages are only a proportion of their costs and that many of their employees are paid above that level anyway and so no increase in costs for them would be incurred. It's an excuse for profiteering.
It's not to say the effects on inflation you describe don't occur to some degree, but lets at least apportion the blame for it correctly.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Then thanks to capitalism someone undercuts them. As Bezos says: your margin is my opportunity.
Again, we have the data on wage growth and inflation. They aren’t linearly linked at all, it’s standard classical economics guesswork. See also the Laffer curve.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The problem being that then allows companies to pay fuck all
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Dude, I've tried patient explanations but the dumbass readings with you are off the scale.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
On that basis I’m guessing you’re still using cure all slugs anytime you’re ill.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
I would argue that there is also a knock on effect. If you are a skilled machine setter & get paid x, & the toilet cleaner gets paid x-3...If minimum wage is set at x-2, you are going to set wheels in motion that culminates in industrial action of some sort to restore your x-3! All adds up to increase in prices, inflation...etc...& back to square 1.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Tell you what Baz...I earn over £17/hour. If the cleaner goes up to £10/hour, I would DEMAND...absolutely nothing. Again, a claim not really borne out by reality.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I’d be happy people aren’t being paid poverty wages subsidised by my taxes instead of wondering what I can get out of it.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I get your point, but again it's a position taken out of self interest and frankly not having an understanding of economics because as you say it ends up being a vicious circle when it is trying to bring in a minimum standard of life for people which if everyone gets a pay rise never happens as the bar just gets higher.. Personally I think the vast majority of the burden should be taken by those at the top/senior positions which would allow those slightly further up the food chain to also have a modest increase if their wages wouldn't be that much higher than MW after the changes.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
1. You bought "DEMAND" into the argument...but I bet you would start kicking off if your hourly rate got close to the minimum wage rate!!!
2. Be careful what you wish for...it might yet become ypur reality.
Add to that...it stifles ambition. Today's junior accountant might aspire to be finance director or even CEO. Tomorrow's might be stifled to the point of accounts supervisor because the time & effort to get to their initial ambition just isn't worth it anymore
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
That is my overall point. Stop subsidising via welfare state & companies have to pay fair money to have the toilets cleaned (proper capitalist supply & demand). Instead of today's obsessional mentality that they only clean the toilets because they are too stupid to do anything else so they will work for virtually nothing!
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Conversely there is the argument that it would increase ambition and encourage them to try harder to get out of that initial job quicker. If you aspire to be finance director/CEO then that drive will still be there, as is the path to get there. You just want to get there quicker because the wages to begin with aren't great.
A lot of these professional positions don't offer great wages at the lower positions anyway because those people trying to get them have their eyes set on a higher prize from the start. A lot of the old manufacturing jobs offered decent wages because the opportunity for progression wasn't as available (and the work was much more physically demanding)
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I agree. It is perception of the worth of some jobs that is the issue, which again is filtered down from the top. Let an office go a week or two without the toilets being cleaned or bins emptied and see how 'worthless' they think the job is then?
They are plenty of well paid jobs in things like PR or relevant to this topic political aides (many of whom have no idea what is actually important or will impress voters - look at the aide that took Alexander's coffee from him the other day because it was in a disposable cup. Got noticed by so many people because of her actions when if he'd just drank the coffee hardly anyone would had noticed or cared).
Maybe I'm either optimistic or naive but I think the average person could understand the situation, it just needs to be made more accessible and relevant to them, rather than being deliberately obscured with industry words and supply/demand and graphs that just make them switch off.
You could just say if you've got two kids and you give one of them a sweet and the other one two extra sweets because they've helped you with something. The first one then moans they've got less sweets so you give them a second sweet. Then the other one says "but I deserve more because I helped more" so you give them an extra sweet. Then the first one complains they've had less sweets so they get another one.....and so and so on. In the end you end up spending a fortune on sweets and end up with two fat diabetic kids.
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's generally what happens after an election loss isn't it?
Seems to be a non-story if you look at the article its from and the actual quote. He was asked by Alastair Campbell if Corbyn would stay on as leader following an election loss.
“I can’t see... I think it is the same for my own personal position, I can’t see so, what we’d do is as the tradition, which is have an election for a new leader."
