Let me pick this one up. I believe you are looking at things in the wrong order. The first priority that is needed in the UK is to increase the amount of wealth created within the UK. That does not of itself address the fundamental issue of unemployment but it is an essential component.
Once there is sufficient wealth, what follows is a change in consumer attitudes as a result of increasing wealth. With increasing wealth, consumer choices become less about "value for money" in purchasing products and services and more about "value for time" ie time becomes more important and consumers are willing to pay for others to help them save time or add to the quality of their lives (eg leisure industry). There are potentially a whole host of services that can come from this shift of focus and which can provide significant employment opportunities for people in the UK.
But first we need to address the wealth creation deficit.
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier
Now there speaks a man who has never visited a filthy hospital. Never read of the shocking reports of filthy wards, given 3 minutes cleaning by an overworked skivvy on minimum wage.Things are looking up.
The real issue about public sector employment is what those involved are actually doing. Are they adding value or are they a net cost to the country? The public sector has a long history of inefficiency and waste of money. Many activities currently undertaken by the public sector could be carried out more efficienty by the private sector, others could be discontinued without any adverse impact.
Never seen a hospital cleaner walk into a room,sloshing the visible floor with a mop soaked in dirty water before dashing off to the next room because she has only a few allocated minutes to do each one.
Who gets the profit from her labour? The private cleaning contractor who brought the contract for £5 million knowing that to make a profit on his money,staff working conditions and cleaning standards would have to drop. Who are the losers? The patients who catch the superbugs and diseases which kill them.
And the taxpayers who pay the cost of it all.
This is England and .....
CB100: I fear that your opinions are simplistic economic ideas. There are activities which are best served by the dictates of the market place. Others are not only inappropriate for such a place, but its very culture can be dangerous. Should you disagree with me, can I refer to none other than Adam Smith to postumously support me? But I will deal with your proposition with very contemporary evidence. This very day BAE Systems who are Britain's largest manufacturing employer, I have mentioned them before you may recall, has proposed to cease ship-building and ship maintenance services in Portsmouth. The Admiralty believe that should that be permitted, the Royal Navy could be forced to abandon Portsmouth after 500 years. Will that suffice as an example of why one goal should not be allowed to reign supreme in matters economic?
Wealth creation, paradoxically, can be detrimental to the economic interests of the multitude. No shortage of examples to support that statement. In the 19th. C. we were the richest nation on earth, and we were able to 'close down' British agricultural interests. What British farmers could produce had to compete with uncompetitive prices from the Empire. Imports were paid for from overseas investments before they even arrived. Until 1900 half of London were living below the bread-line in squalor. Wealth creation in isloation guarantees nothing, it must be compatible with broader criteria. So confident were we that all we needed could be obtained unimpeded from overseas, there was a reluctance to invest in strategic reserve stock. That nealy proved fatal in WW!, and even by WW2, we still had not learned the lesson. After 1940 the navy was being decimated to bring into Britain resources which could have arrived in safety even by the late 1930s'. Suppose BAE believe it in their interests to sell that company to foreign owners, would that meet with your approbation in the quest for wealth? We are dealing with the real; these are likely events in the near future.
The USA declined to approve US ports and harbours being sold to Arab business interests: we don't seem to have such inhibitions, do we.
Economics must be seen as an ingredient, albeit an important one, in the totality of government policy. Not since the 19th.C. have such crude economic objectives been espoused. Ireland in the 1840s' was still exporting food to England despite the starvation sweeping their land, while the British government said that any restriction would be an unacceptable violation of the principles of laissez-faire. Economics must be applied via a social mechanism - that is what the market place must be - and it has no place to serve as a theological subsititute.
Presumably the 1920s' -1930s' in respect of their economic lessons are known to you? You will be aware, no doubt, that unemployemnt during those decades was broadly what they had been historically. The chemistry of unemployment, however, changed because of many factors, but two are of particular importance. The first was the attitude resulting from WW1. Many believed that a job and decent accommodation was a reasonable expectations for the citizens of a victorious Imperial power. The market place has never provided full employemt even when it had few restrictions. In Britain full employment had chronologically existed only in times of war. The second consideration was the mass unemployment in those geographical locations in which the staple industries existed. The hope/experiment after 1945 was the objective of full-emploment in times of peace. Was that a reasonable expectation. With some geographical variations it was amply demonstrated to be possible for three decades. What we now need, not only in Britain but the entire western world, are economic policies which permit peace-time full employment in consumer societies. There is little evidence that jobs will/are able to be produced in the required numbers. That is not helped by the reduction of the pension yields which now require the extension of the working life in terms of their years. What evidence do you have which suggests that extra jobs can be created in the numbers required? Should it not be possible, by what means will the insurrection on the streets, like we have seen in Greece, Italy and Spain, be avoided?
Last edited by Geoffrey Collier; 23-01-2012 at 10:47 AM.
I don't see how this in any way diminishes the wider point I was making about the importance of wealth creation and the many opportunities that are available to the UK currently. The fact that BAE is downscaling is, I believe, a reaction to the government's military spending cuts. Some companies prosper, others fail. That is market forces.
I believe you are conflating 2 separate issues - a) the persuit of wealth creation as an overall means of improving the lives of any society and b) the catalogue of mistaken economic policies and mismanagement within the UK over the last 100 years or so.Wealth creation, paradoxically, can be detrimental to the economic interests of the multitude. No shortage of examples to support that statement. In the 19th. C. we were the richest nation on earth, and we were able to 'close down' British agricultural interests. What British farmers could produce had to compete with uncompetitive prices from the Empire. Imports were paid for from overseas investments before they even arrived. Until 1900 half of London were living below the bread-line in squalor. Wealth creation in isloation guarantees nothing, it must be compatible with broader criteria. So confident were we that all we needed could be obtained unimpeded from overseas, there was a reluctance to invest in strategic reserve stock. That nealy proved fatal in WW!, and even by WW2, we still had not learned the lesson. After 1940 the navy was being decimated to bring into Britain resources which could have arrived in safety even by the late 1930s'.
I believe we have certain strategic interests which need to be protected, the defence of the country being one. How that is achieved is a matter for politicians but my own view is we have been rather too careless in the past in permitting foreigners to acquire British companies which are of strategic importance.Suppose BAE believe it in their interests to sell that company to foreign owners, would that meet with your approbation in the quest for wealth? We are dealing with the real; these are likely events in the near future.
The USA declined to approve US ports and harbours being sold to Arab business interests: we don't seem to have such inhibitions, do we.
I agree with your view on this. Unfettered capitalism is no longer acceptable and that has been the case for a very long time.Economics must be seen as an ingredient, albeit an important one, in the totality of government policy. Not since the 19th.C. have such crude economic objectives been espoused. Ireland in the 1840s' was still exporting food to England despite the starvation sweeping their land, while the British government said that any restriction would be an unacceptable violation of the principles of laissez-faire. Economics must be applied via a social mechanism - that is what the market place must be - and it has no place to serve as a theological subsititute.
From memory, I think that in the 1960's unemployment was around 300,000 with the addition of a small number of people claiming sickness benefits. Today we have around 10 million people of working age not working. This is the most shocking indictment of industrial policies over the last 40 or so years. We could have done so much better. My example of Germany is relevant here as a comparator.Presumably the 1920s' -1930s' in respect of their economic lessons are known to you? You will be aware, no doubt, that unemployemnt during those decades was broadly what they had been historically. The chemistry of unemployment, however, changed because of many factors, but two are of particular importance. The first was the attitude resulting from WW1. Many believed that a job and decent accommodation was a reasonable expectations for the citizens of a victorious Imperial power. The market place has never provided full employemt even when it had few restrictions. In Britain full employment had chronologically existed only in times of war.
I agree with you on this. And I would add that the policies of Thatcher in the early 1980's in downscaling large parts of British industry were a serious mistake and have led directly to the many millions of people who are now in receipt of welfare benefits.The second consideration was the mass unemployment in those geographical locations in which the staple industries existed. The hope/experiment after 1945 was the objective of full-emploment in times of peace. Was that a reasonable expectation. With some geographical variations it was amply demonstrated to be possible for three decades. What we now need, not only in Britain but the entire western world, are economic policies which permit peace-time full employment in consumer societies. There is little evidence that jobs will/are able to be produced in the required numbers. That is not helped by the reduction of the pension yields which now require the extension of the working life in terms of their years.
If the country becomes much wealthier, there is little doubt that many new jobs will be created in a whole host of areas eg leisure, life style, education etc as people begin to value their time more and have the money to pay for extra services.What evidence do you have which suggests that extra jobs can be created in the numbers required?
However, I very much doubt we will ever get back to full employment. Many of the people currently unemployed or on long term sickness benefits would probably not be of interest to employers even if the demand were there. I regret we are likely to see many more immigrants coming in to the UK to take up a fair proportion of any new jobs, just as they have done in the past. Sadly, I believe many of our own lot are virtually unemployable.
I think we need a stronger police response to rioters (possibly the introduction of something akin to the riot act) and long prison sentences for those convicted of serious offences.Should it not be possible, by what means will the insurrection on the streets, like we have seen in Greece, Italy and Spain, be avoided?
CB100: (1) The wider issue is the fact that a commercial company makes decisions which, according to the Admiralty, could impose upon them reluctantly, choices which may not be compatible to the national defence. This is completely outside any debate about market forces. (2) So we seem to agree that constraints/prohibitions on certain commercial firms is justifiable? (3) Some advocates of Libertarian Economics (Milton Friedman's son for example) are not as enlightened as you. (4) Concerning unemployment you are broadly correct. In 1960 it was 360,000 and increased fairly consistently to 579,000 by 1970. Two factors need to be considered. It would have been difficult for the figure to fall below 250,000 due to job changes in any given week, and the ending of National Service in 1960 ensured a larger work-force. (5) From 1976, it increased from 866,000 to 2.4. million by 1981. That saw the collapse of traditional industries. Much of the 1980s' saw unemployment hovering near the three million mark, and over three million in 1984 and 1985. (3.038. million & 3.149 million respectively). (6) This is where I have serious doubts. Unemployment is now a significant middle-class problem. Professionals increasingly are subject to time-specific employment contracts. Education debt is either increasingly being either paid by parents or 'inherited' by the children. Low interest rates are good for mortgage payers, but bad for pensions. In addition, grandparents are giving significant financial help to their children and grandchildren. Your ideas of a new leisure class I find reminiscent of the 19th.C sociologist Veblen. I was not one of his faithful students, but I fear that you are going in the same direction as him. What I will concede is that there was a rapid increase in the size of the Leisure Industry in the post 1945 years, following the extension of annual holidays to all levels of employees. That was an unintended consequence of State intervention against the wishes of the manufacturing employers. That kind of employement is often part-time and seasonal. I wouldn't put too much store on that one. Do you anticipate a larger unemployed/unemployable segment of the population receiving permanent benefits? That may annoy those still working into old age due to pension 'failures'.
(7) Civil unrest can, as we saw last Summer, result from greed and indiscipline, while devoid of any political agenda. In those countries which have had imposed on them unelected prime ministers by unlelected bureaucrats the problem is more complex. Often that causes middle-class unrest, and in the 20th.C they were frequently a significant political movement in European countries..
Finally, if we are to see all traditional economic activities converted into capital intensive processes, I do not see that an extension of Veblen's ideas in modern form will succeed. I still believe that national relationships to TNCs' are in need of fundamental revision.
Last edited by Geoffrey Collier; 23-01-2012 at 08:01 PM.
Yes a lot of good points there. The main point I am driving at however is that wealth creation is what opens the options for wider employment. In the last 10 years, Labour used the perceived increase in wealth generated by financial services to finance a huge expansion of the public sector employment. Personally I have serious misgivings about expanding the public sector because of my previously stated view on productivity. nevertheless, it shows what is possible if the money is there.
Further areas where jobs can be created is in the charity and voluntary sector. With an ageing population, there will be more opportunities for providing services to this group. I obviously don't have a crystal ball but I am simply giving examples of the job opportunities that could be created IF the wealth has been created on sufficient scale.
Yes I do. I don't see any way around it.Do you anticipate a larger unemployed/unemployable segment of the population receiving permanent benefits? That may annoy those still working into old age due to pension 'failures'.
The real challenge is to stop the next generation following down the same path. High quality education and training to our young people is thus vitally important. Currently our efforts in this area are inadequate and there is far too much of a "tick box" / "teaching to the test" approach to education currently which does not give our young people the necessary skills to meet the challenges that lay ahead.
My view on last Summer is that the police have been hamstrung by a political correctness and so called human rights agenda. This is a serious mistake and is simply viewed as weaknesss by the underclass. They need to be disabused of this notion and harsh responses to criminal behaviour from the police and courts are the way to do that.(7) Civil unrest can, as we saw last Summer, result from greed and indiscipline, while devoid of any political agenda. In those countries which have had imposed on them unelected prime ministers by unlelected bureaucrats the problem is more complex. Often that causes middle-class unrest, and in the 20th.C they were frequently a significant political movement in European countries..
Well neither of us know for sure but I believe it has real merit and we have seen very good examples in recent years. How much it will expand to create new employment opportunities is, self evidently, an open question but once again I insist that wealth creation must be the precursor.Finally, if we are to see all traditional economic activities converted into capital intensive processes, I do not see that an extension of Veblen's ideas in modern form will succeed. I still believe that national relationships to TNCs' are in need of fundamental revision.
NHS National/Racial Health Service
The National Health Service (NHS) is a Racial Health Service (RHS) because the British Nation is a White Nation.
Priority is given to the British people.
Perhaps we all need to keep everything in perspective.
You are clearly mentally disturbed, and just for info, I've no idea of your ethnicity. Skin colour, racial lineage and nationality have nothing to do with the fact that you're as mad as a box of frogs.
Steve
RHS actually stands for "Royal Horticultural Society." Go for a walk in the garden and you'll feel better. Although you already appear to be in the gardens of babble on (sic). And on. And on. And on.And on. And on.
This is England and .....
David Cameron's economic policy for dealing with unemployment is to give all the big manufacturing contracts to Germany, and crumbs from the table to companies like Bambardier.
But we must give him time, it will take some time to see if Cameron's very original economic ideas actually bring down unemployment long term.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks