Inequality in Britain

[Ladymuck]

Natural selection? Blimey, I probably wouldn't last a day...:-S

Shall we just go for anarchy then?;-)

[DJKillaQueen]

I take your point HAL but what would be the problem with going for a more stable form of that economy through some carefully thought out regulation? We had it before to some extent. I just don't buy that even within the realms of Capitalism that we have to be so entrenched in such a 'free market'. After all, not every bank exposed themselves in the way that RBS/ Northern Rock/ Lehman etc did.

I guess what I am saying is that there are more balanced (and less wreckless) forms of capitalism.

[HAL9000]

Whatever tweaks and fiddles we make cannot change the fact that the existing system relies on constant growth - the reason it is not working as desired now is that (amongst other factors) the long-term forecast for real, sustainable growth is poor to non-existent. In fact, the elephant in the room is the very real prospect of economic stagnation, at best, or, more likely, significant contraction for decades ahead - as far as anyone can foresee.

My own view is that the western socio-economic system is likely to collapse sometime within the next few decades. Capitalism - reckless or not - is dead.

[Ladymuck]

Excuse me if I am missing something here. But, don't countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway and Japan have their economic systems based on capitalism too? And yet their citizens enjoy a much, much more equal/fairer society than we do.

[DJKillaQueen]

Sweden has very high taxes and a higher GDP per head of population than we do. I don't know enough about the other countries.

I think there is some truth in what you write HAL. For sure the western economies are in slow decline and have been industrially for decades, hence the switch to finance and property - housing will never be an import. But you are absolutely right in that growth in those things is not infinite (we already can see that with regards to housing). And if we accept that we will stay in decline whilst Asia, India, Africa emerge and ultimately catch up....then what?

When the cost of manuafacturing in those areas gets too high for cheap exports, because people expect better salaries and so on.....then what?

[Ladymuck]

> When the cost of manuafacturing in those areas

> gets too high for cheap exports, because people

> expect better salaries and so on.....then what?

HAL said something about the economy self-destructing...

[DJKillaQueen]

Ah yes......but he'll be ok because he's a computer ;-)

[Ladymuck]

> There are many other types of economic system but

> we are stuck with this one (based on capitalism,

> fiat currencies and the creation of money through

> debt via fractional reserve banking) until it

> self-destructs...

HAL, you have now got me thinking. I am curious as to what makes you say this. Is it that you believe inflation will sky-rocket causing our pound sterling to massively devalue and ultimately collapse, bringing the economy crashing down with it?

[Ladymuck]

Well observed DJ. However, as an old and obsolete machine, depreciation will have taken its toll. In effect, he will be in no different a situation to our fiat currency.;-)

[HAL9000]

I claim no credit for this revelation - Karl Marx worked it out many years ago: capitalism will eventually destroy itself. The system is inherently flawed - every serious student of economics will know this. The great unknown is when it will happen - but happen it will - it is inevitable. More here.

[Dickensman]

Banking has been a mere distraction from the realities of this failing economy.

Until we can stand shoulder to shoulder with the Chinese and Indian economies we are ultimately doomed!

Until we can produce the same products for the same price as those economies we are heading towards disaster.

There will come a time sooner than we all think, when we can no longer borrow from the world bank, when we will only be able to buy in what we have cash for and 'quantative easing' can only rarely happen otherwise the pound will not be recognised as a serious currency and will lose it's value as confidence slides.

We need to become more competitive and work for a tenner a week, rather than a tenner per hour.

Who would do that?

This will happen when our borrowing comes to an end.

[Dickensman]

Inequality for the business man has not been considered, he has less power than his employees.

He is more responsible for them than they are for themselves when you consider the payments he makes to government.

The employees rites have for years been rammed down our throats to such an extent that an employee of mine ran up a ?2500 phone bill and was subsequently fired, when the unfair dismissal tribunal passed judgement I had to pay her seven thousand pounds and the defending of the case cost another six thousand.

I determined that day I would not employ anyone again, and I have since been faithful to that pledge.

Until we take back the classrooms and put the children back in the position of being in the wrong (which was the way of things in the fifties) then we will never take back the power needed to steer the adult workforce to compete, but if anyone is in doubt of how it would be in such times, I would suggest you read from my favourite author Charles Dickens.

[Huguenot]

I think it's likely that a company built on 1950s principles and a head-to-head fight with indentured labour would stuggle to employ many people anyway Steve, so not much to worry about there ;-)

This victorian obsession with industry defined as the manufacture of material goods is tired and outdated. People pay for the provision of goods and services.

Since the lifetime demand for material goods is limited, and their production is increasingly automated, I would advise any budding entrepreneur to think more creatively about their labours.

[Huguenot]

[Ladymuck]

> Inequality for the business man has not been

> considered, he has less power than his employees...

I must admit that the outcome to the incident you describe does, prima facie, strike me as - at best - a little odd, and, at worst, contrary to equitable principles. However, you cannot seriously believe that an employer/businessman has less power than his employees - can you?

Employment protection legislation exists for a reason: to ensure that an employee (the party in the weaker bargaining position) benefits from the most basic of rights and minimum standards in respect of his/her work.

Any attempt to repeal it, would, in all probability, result in another Peasants' Revolt.

Well, either that or a return to the days of slavery.

[Ladymuck]

Damn! I cannot view any clips, attachments, pictures etc. at the moment:X. Oh how frustrating! What does the pic show please? All I see is a large empty box.

[Huguenot]

...a 1950s industrial dispute Ladumuck.

The balance between employer and employee most definitely is weighted in the employee's favour, and tends to be based on bizarre (1950s?) concepts of business.

They assume that the business is perpetual, not subject to market fluctuations, leviathan and that performance is consistent.

Succesful modern businesses are quite the opposite: agile, highly responsive to market demands and small - often privately owned.

As a result I don't 'employ' anyone, I insist that they take on service contracts as traders. I would like to employ people - to train them and provide working incentives, holiday and healthcare - but the addditional legal restrictions and conditions are too onerous.

The people who lose out are the people I don't employ or develop, and the people to blame are the campaigners who created legislation so restrictive that it prevents employment.

We need a generation X commercial environment - fleet of foot, quick to respond, well educated and self-reliant. Not bollox 1950s toilet factories.

[SeanMacGabhann]

sounds horrific Huguenot - I mean sure, the people not employed by you are losing out, but more importantly your business must be suffering if you haven't got enough people for the job

or by not employ do you mean the ones you contract? I see a lot of businesses in London doing very well with employees. I know of a big bank that has cut back as many of it's contractors as possible and flipped them to full-time staff

When did campaigners go too far with their rights? Was it the 40 hour week? Sick pay? Maternity leave? Paid holidays?

When did it go too far? We must stop this madness!

[Huguenot]

The key, Sean, was 'big' bank.

Try paying 6 months of maternity leave if you're a three man band. Try paying someone from your own pocket when they're 'working to rule' and you're working every hour you've got. Try meeting your clients requirements in a two man band when your partner goes on long term sick leave and you have no other source of income.

All of them are fine if you've got a staff of 2,000 drones duplicating each others work.

My business doesn't suffer because when I have more work, I subcontract.

[SeanMacGabhann]

The reason I mentioned a "big" bank was just to counter

"Succesful modern businesses are quite the opposite: agile, highly responsive to market demands and small "

I'm aware that smaller operations are a different beast - but nor are they the only solution

Yours

A Drone

[Ladymuck]

> The balance between employer and employee most

> definitely is weighted in the employee's favour...

I acknowledge that society has progressed from the days of serfdom under feudalism and that workers now enjoy much greater employment protection. And, if the law appears weighted in favour of the employee (though I do not believe that it is), then this has to be down to necessity: the employee is the weaker party to a contract where there is unequal bargaining power. A consequence of this inequality of bargaining power means that the dominant party (the employer) is in the superior position of laying down terms favourable to himself. This means that, in reality, the employee cannot exercise his free will and may well be compelled to accept terms which are correspondingly less favourable - possibly even detrimental.

Thus, employers have the advantage in that it is generally they who dictate the terms and conditions of any employment contract: it is they who hold the power to effectively exert control and authority over their employees' lives. This potentially exposes their employees to abuse, exploitation and/or other unreasonable/unfair treatment.

This is why our employment legislation has evolved and continues to do so. Sure, the system is not perfect and is open to perversion - as it is in other other areas of law. But it exists to somehow provide some sort of balance between the conflicting interests of the employer to manage and operate his business as he wishes and those of the employee to be treated equitably. It also prevails so that a more level playing field may be created.

Bye the way, if you think that employers have it hard here, try running your business in France!

[SeanMacGabhann]

The challenges of running a small business are significant but to take some of Huguenot's examples I wonder what would happen in this hypothetical 2 person business if it was he who was the person long term sick? Genuine question btw

As for people "working to rule" - this is your passion, your dream and ultimately your prize (that car is still to be bought?). You are paying people to do a job, not share the dream. If you are lucky you will meet people who have enough empathy with the dream but you shouldn't judge them or resent paying them if they have a life outside that

You pay someone X amount for Y hours ? fair exchange. If you want more from them why not say I?ll pay x+ if you agree to work y+ at the interview/contract stage?

If everyone was like you, your business would probably fail a lot faster with all of the competition. Drones are important ? steady, reliable and get jobs done

[Huguenot]

I pay for insurance against being unable to work. If you're self-employed and you don't you'd have to be a nutjob.

I don't believe in paying people for hours, I prefer to pay them for work, and reward them for success. For me that's the only fair exchange.

If you're a receptionist then work/hours are fairly indistinguishable, if you're a salesperson they're fundamentally different.

[SeanMacGabhann]

re: insurance. Does that cover more than your income then? How does it help the clients or your partner in your scenario?

Different jobs do indeed have different requirements and squeeze-points. I'm not sure I would say one was superior to another. I think for the wellbeing of a society, it's probably best that not everyone works to sales-peoples targets tho

[Huguenot]

It means that my partner doesn't have to make the money to cover both his own salary and my sick pay. The money can then be spent on an additional contractor to cover the missing workload and meet the clients requirements.