The demonised underclass

Working until your 70 something

I’ll still live many times longer than the people who retired 30/40 years ago.

If we live a lot longer you can’t keep the retirement age the same, it’s just not affordable. Unless people pay more in themselves but that isn’t going to be popular…

deviant – Member

throwing money at welfare because it’s somehow ‘evil’ or cruel to expect people to work is equally as unappealing to me.

I think the fact that you’d represent the argument like this says it all, really. Nobody thinks it’s evil or cruel to expect people to work. But, there simply aren’t jobs for everyone. Youth unemployment is at its highest for 30 years, underemployment has fallen slightly but is still close to the record high (amounting to half a million FTE unemployed). And even leaving that aside, not everyone is qualified (there are jobs that anyone is qualified for; they just will usually go to someone that’s more qualified)

The day there’s nobody out of work that wants to work, you can talk like that.

It’s the overly simplistic black and white “workers or scroungers” argument that distorts this completely.

In return for benefits, those who can work should be doing their best to get work or experience – but that then gets abused into unpaid volunteering which takes work off others.

But I used to love trying to make appointments to see housing benefits claimants only to be told that they weren’t in that week as they were in Spain – I’ve not had a foreign holiday in 12 years!

The real stupidity is so many HB claimants are in work – so the issue is obviously low wages and lack of affordable housing, the two main issues that no government of either colour has tried to address for 30-40 years now.

Fair point robdob you will live longer than previous generations but I doubt you will be retired longer, it is amazing that people still think we can not afford our NHS/pensions if the “correct” amount of corporation tax was paid none of this would be an issue.

The corporation tax gap is estimated per annum at £70 to £120 billion (HMRC estimates) benefit fraund £3 billion – no s**t Sherlock current UK government borrowing is around £100 billion per annum – there you go no degree in Ecomomics required as I can just about add stuff up.

This is the great “long con” of modern times – borrow money on the open market feed it into the economy make profits from it and pay no tax, then blame all the scroungers and workshy for living off benefits – pure genius

the tax gap is £34bn according to HMRC (2014)
At 6.8% one of the lowest in the world.
Of which over half is criminal/black economy/error/non payment (all ultimately beyond collection), rather than avoidance, evasion and legal interpretation.

The real stupidity is so many HB claimants are in work – so the issue is obviously low wages and lack of affordable housing, the two main issues that no government of either colour has tried to address for 30-40 years now.

You make it sound as if low wages is a problem which governments have simply ignored when if fact low wages has been deliberate government policy for the last 35 years.

The reason governments have for the last 35 years been able to drive down wages so that today wages represent a much lower percentage of GDP is because trade unions have been weak for the last 35 years.

Tony Blair promised before he became Prime Minister that, quote : “we will still have the most restrictive union laws in the Western world”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/apr/27/election2001.uk1

You cannot have the most restrictive union laws in the Western world and expect wages to go anywhere other than down.

I will take £34 billion…. still 10 x benefit fraud

In terms of comparative malfeasance, you can have £15bn. 5x.

But it’s all yours to do with what you want now.

That’s the whole tax gap, the corporation tax gap is £3.9 billion.

Why is there a shock in the wages graph? Follows the long term decline in UK productivity as you would expect esp the sharp falls in the 70s and 90s and the brief rise at the end of the 80s. Perfectly logical.

We would expect that over the long-run real compensation growth deflated by the producer price (the labour costs that employers face) should track real labour productivity growth (value added per hour), so net decoupling should only occur if labour’s share falls as a proportion of gross GDP, something that rarely happens over sustained periods. We show that over the past 40 years that there is almost no net decoupling in the UK

Inconvenient I know!

Still remember how much time the ruling elite spent on improving productivity during the election? A big fat zero. Hmmmm….

robdob – Member
…The sad thing is that I was considering joining the union before I got there but there is no way I would do now. I was very happy to walk past them as they striked in that public sector strike a while back.

Just out of interest, did you decline the pay rise that the union negotiated?

Why is there a shock in the wages graph? Follows the long term decline in UK productivity as you would expect esp the sharp falls in the 70s and 90s and the brief rise at the end of the 80s.

Who said anything about “shock” ? Where did you get that from ? It’s a pretty straightforward fact that today wages represent a much lower percentage of GDP than they did a few decades back.

And you clearly can’t read the graph THM, or at least you think other people can’t – there wasn’t a sharp fall in the 70s. The average for the 70s was no less than the previous couple of decades.

As for your “brief rise at the end of the 80s” do really think everyone else can’t see that it was well below the previous 3 decades ffs ? You should be a Tory politician coming out with patent lies like that. Perhaps you are – I haven’t got a clue what your day job is.

And it’s all to do with a “decline in productivity” ?

The “single teenage mums sent England bankrupt” is absolutely sod all to do with economics. It’s to do with men attacking young women with less influence than their attackers.

I don’t know what you are on about Konabunny (perhaps you are referring to a post that I’ve missed) but your comment : “men attacking young women with less influence than their attackers” with regards to single teenage mothers is just plain weird.

What makes you think that women don’t also want to demonise single teenage mothers ?

It sounds like ridiculous feminist bollox.

Thatcher stirs up single parents

“Single-parent support groups have attacked Lady Thatcher’s claim that unmarried mothers and their children would be better off in religious orders than on welfare”.

What a shock, an Ernie swerve combined with a selectively chosen time scale on a graph with different data to that under consideration.

I will stick to proper economic analysis and data – starting with an understanding of what does or should determine wage growth, data on the UK not other counties (which does include a breakdown in the basic relationship esp,the US) and academic studies rather that your interpretation. Day job? Among other things requires an understanding of this stuff, hence links to proper academic research on the matter.

Thanks all the same for the entertaining if predictable side show. But fail to diagnose the problem and you will fail to arrive at the solution. From this, I think we can see who should be the politician!!

i suppose it boils down to whether you are smug and happy to live/exist in an exploitative and divisive system that is very wasteful of natural/human resources OR you wish to live in a way that is the polar opposite ..equality,solidarity,love ?– vs exploitation,division, hate –capitalism can only function in the latter….

That nirvana of equality, solidarity and love is really doing well in Russia and North Korea.
On a more sensible level, with regulation capitalism is the least worst system. The Danes and many Nordic countries have it about right. If you grew up on some of the council estates I did as a kid then you would know that the real division is between the try’s and the try not’s. Some people just expect society to owe them a living and don’t appreciate the fact that THEY have a role to play in making society work.

some people just expect society to owe them a living —aye -the idle rich

if you don’t get the idea that the rich set up the system to keep them in luxury , whilst others work and slave to make it so , i suppose there is little point in engaging —

Rudeboy,yes rich people get rich from the efforts of others. They should be (and I agree are not) taxed fairly on this as their success is on the back of the society they operate in. I guess what I don’t see is how this is bad? Provided people are not exploited and have free will on where to work then what is the workable alternative?

That nirvana of equality, solidarity and love is really doing well in Russia and North Korea.

No one would think they were examples of what he proposed so that ad hom /straw man was as irrelevant as it was unhelpful. It’s easier to point out that they are shit than negate the fact that it would be nicer to live in a fairer and more equal world.

Some people just expect society to owe them a living

The privileged elite? The Royals? hereditary aristocracy?
The children of oligarchs?
IMHO those at the margins expect that hard work wont get them very far so they dont even try. Its partly down to them and partly down to the system. IMHO society does owe everyone a living as there is little point to a society if it wont keep its citizens alive, fed. educated, healthy and able to better themselves.

I guess what I don’t see is how this is bad?

Well you just accepted they get rich of the back of others and therefore they exploit this /dont share it so I am not sure why you dont think this is bad. Who would teach a child to take things from the other kids and then not share them equally amongst everyone?

Provided people are not exploited and have free will on where to work then what is the workable alternative?

Well you just explained the former happened and you really think the council sink hole estate occupants have the same level of free will as Dave or Osborne or Prince Charles?
Its obvious how we can make this fairer and there is a lot of mileage in debating how fair we want to go in society
Very few folk argue capitalism is fair as for what is the alternative …this but nicer/fairer all the way to communism dependign on your leanings.

rudebwoy – Member
if you don’t get the idea that the rich set up the system to keep them in luxury , whilst others work and slave to make it so , i suppose there is little point in engaging —

Oh, that’s how it works. Odd that such a system could end up being so popular? Funny old world.

We are discussing what is fair not what is popular.

FWIW having an absolute monarchist or emperor has been very popular over history as has serfdom /slavery or oppression. None of these were fair either

Yes I was proud to go to work and do what was expected of me. I knew I had a good job and pay increases in line with every one else in the country, plus a better pension than most too. I didn’t ask for a strike for not being paid to cover their jobs for the day either.

As mentioned,I assume you would refuse any pay rise, improved conditions or benefits that the union and those that took action gained?

If the company wanted to make your conditions worse but the union managed to prevent this I guess you’d insist on accepting the worse conditions?

If you and the members of your department were going to be let go but as a last resort the union took strike action that successfully protected some jobs I take it you’d offer to be one of the ones to become unemployed?

You say ‘I knew I had a good job and pay increases in line with every one else in the country, plus a better pension than most too.’. Why do you think that is the case? Who negotiates your terms and conditions?

Day job? Among other things requires an understanding of this stuff, hence links to proper academic research on the matter.

But you can’t tell the difference between up and down ? Or at least you think other people can’t.

You – “the brief rise at the end of the 80s”. Fact – well below the level of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. (that would be the bad old 70s btw when average GDP was exactly the same as average GDP in the 80s)

See?

You – “sharp falls in the 70s ….” Fact – average for the 70s the same as the previous 2 decades.

Your spin is weak THM.

Maybe but your middle stump is missing, as you say anyone can read a graph.

And the evidence is overwhelming, here’s a nice easy piece

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2015/may/14/uk-wages-pay-boom-poor-producutivity

You may have hard this before, but just in case, a highlight

The less good news is that, if we are truly to enter a period of strong, sustained wage growth over the medium term then the new government needs to put some serious effort into solving our persistent productivity puzzle. And that is a debate that has barely begun.

Bloody economists hey…

The wages as a %age of GDP is a metric I am struggling to draw significance from.
I know from business that the fact is that to compete in the world that turnover per employee has to keep rising (this has always been the case since the industrial revolution). This means greater efficiency and more output per employee. It often also means more investment in CAPEX and sophisticated machinery. So linking my salary as a %age of output can give a misleading picture as advanced economies will naturally have more and more output per person, but this is not the same as profit.
Increased efficiency means goods are cheaper, so even if salaries are not increasing in line with GDP then your pound buys more stuff (last 7 years is a bad example of this due to commodity and energy price volatility, but we are generally more affluent than we were in the 70’s and 80’s).

I don’t know why you think that undermines the point I made THM.

So higher productivity creates the conditions where higher wages are possible. And weak trade unions create the conditions where wages can be driven down.

You seem to think that those two statements contradict each other, or at least you appear to expect me to believe that they do.

Your entire argument appears to be based on the ridiculous premise that employers will always offer the highest possible wages to their employees, irrespective of whether or not their employees ask for it. Apparently minimizing their wage bill and maximizing their profit isn’t what motivates employers.

It’s a fact that the better organised employees are the more likely they are to secure a higher wage than the employer would like to pay.

Your entire argument appears to be based on the ridiculous premise that employers will always offer the highest possible wages to their employees, irrespective of whether or not their employees ask for it.

Depends on the industry, in the knowledge economy you do get very high salaries as the scarce commodity is high calibre employees, employers compete for the resource. At the other end of the scale, in lower value-add work, without Union representation wages will just get pushed down as the human resource isn’t scarce.

so even if salaries are not increasing in line with GDP then your pound buys more stuff

The low wages issue was originally brought on this thread by MoreCashThanDash (ironically) in relation to housing.

Would you like me to find some graphs to compare the rises in wages and housing costs for the last 35 years ? 🙂

MoreCashThanDash – Member

It’s the overly simplistic black and white “workers or scroungers” argument that distorts this completely.

The real stupidity is so many HB claimants are in work – so the issue is obviously low wages and lack of affordable housing, the two main issues that no government of either colour has tried to address for 30-40 years now.

That nirvana of equality, solidarity and love is really doing well in Russia and North Korea.

there have been some pretty silly things said on this thread, but that one has the added disadvantage of being at least two decades out of date.

Your entire argument appears to be based on the ridiculous premise…

Well excuse my ridiculousness. I must try harder to understand these basic concepts.

FWIW, I do pay people more than the market rate and always have done. Why, because I hire very good people who are highly skilled and very productive. Much better model that the peanuts version, since monkeys can only do basic jobs IME. I love paying people well.

Now where is my copy of labour markets 101, I need to get to grips with this stuff….

you do get very high salaries as the scarce commodity is high calibre employees

Which is obviously exactly my point. IE Employers want to minimize their wage bill and maximize their profit. Higher wages are only granted reluctantly.

Much better model that the peanuts version, since monkeys can only do basic jobs IME.

I think its the reverse also applies
If you employ folk on low pay, no job security, poor Terms and conditions then they wont work very hard for you- ie pay peanuts get monkeys

If people are well paid, enjoy their job etc then they [ are more likely to]work hard and try their best. Very few folk are going to work hard on a zero hours Minimum wage contract as they get no more pay and promotion opportunities/progression is somewhat limited

Now where is my copy of labour markets 101, I need to get to grips with this stuff….

Have you any idea how silly that sort of comment sounds ?

I guess not.

The best way to minimise wages is to move production elsewhere, a trend we have been seeing for the longest time. China is quite a high cost producer for many things now, production has moved elsewhere in many industries. High tech is no saviour as its easy to move the factory too. Where does this end ? I can’t tell you but STW buying stuff off the internet from the cheapest supplier is exactly the same dynamic.

The best way to minimise wages is to move production elsewhere, a trend we have been seeing for the longest time.

Really ? You don’t agree with your Tory mate that employers aren’t interested in minimising wages ?

It would help if you all sang from the same hymn sheet. Get your act together fellas.

I think Junkyard has a point on low pay. We should have a level of salary for the poorest paid that offers a fair living standard, and is affordable by the employer. I think the minimum wage in the UK is set too low, and should be higher (£8.50?).
Housing costs are also a problem and can only really be fixed by building more houses ASAP.
Employers can only succeed if they are profitable, so yes ensuring that they don’t pay “over market rates” for people is part and parcel of this. If society thinks the “market rates” are too low for the lowest paid then this has to be fixed by legislation as you need to change the rules for ALL employers to keep the playing field level.
Interestingly, China is no longer the “low cost” centre it once was, salaries and taxation are pushing work out to Vietnam and also causing (hurray!) work to be brought back to the UK as in some markets we can now compete.

Housing costs are also a problem and can only really be fixed by building more houses ASAP.

Right outside the back of my house they’re building 103 new houses. A three bed semi or detached on my road was selling for £175/80k. A shiny new house of equivalent size on the new plot is selling for £250k+. This has led to the £175k houses being put up for and selling at £200k+.

Far from new houses lowering the cost of housing it’s actually put it up!

Demonised underclass ? Blame an out of control welfare state. One where welfare= cash handouts, rather than welfare in a broader sense, say, moving production centres to deprived areas and educating and intervening in the worst cases.
Britain needs to radically overhaul itself from the current ultra- capitalist society that we have presently, into some kind of capitalist/communist partnership that would benefit all of it’s citizens.
Why not get the jump on every other nation and start a national electric car company, similar to the vw beetle that was resurrected after the second world war.
Get the underclass back in line, with compulsory work schemes, housing single mums with extended family (even if it is a squash) and cash bonuses for high productivity instead of non productivity.
I could go on ……