To those that dislike the idea of wanting more

VTech

I actually went to the bank in 1996 and asked for £10,000 to start my business. I was refused and instead took an extension on my mortgage which was the entire capital for the business.
I was potless, just been made redundant after Porsche Racing was disbanded and I couldn't support my family.
Ive never made another loan since and always done quite well.

I will admit that a large proportion of my clientele is made from people who have little to no value of money and have never wanted for anything but that doesn't change the fact that for the last decade and a half I've worked 7 day weeks to get where I am. I shouldn't have to apologise for having success in business.

I actually made a huge change in december when I sold my company and it does make me laugh when I read some of the comments about money being all I'm interested in.
I won't go into details other than to say that when I sold the company I didn't take a single penny from the sale.

Money isn't everything to me, I like to have toys, I like to not worry about bills but I truly think I've earned the right to feel that way.

nathancom

You are suggesting that business owners should be lavished with praise for creating jobs. They don't wake up and think "how can I make some jobs today", they create jobs to increase the value of their assets. This does not strike me as an altruistic activity, though some businesses treat their employees better than others. (I am personally lucky to work for very good people in a very good company).

Also most businesses are not just sprung out of nothing, purely from the greater drive and moral energy of the owners. Businesses generally require significant funding to reach scale, this is not available to most people, therefore it is not simply that business owners generally take opportunities open to all, they take opportunities that generally are open to few.

My comments about Vtech's business is to show it is far from a typical business from which you can extrapolate. It is a niche luxury sector and so has little scope for scale or duplication.

VTech

nathancom wrote:

You are suggesting that business owners should be lavished with praise for creating jobs. They don't wake up and think "how can I make some jobs today", they create jobs to increase the value of their assets. This does not strike me as an altruistic activity, though some businesses treat their employees better than others. (I am personally lucky to work for very good people in a very good company).

Also most businesses are not just sprung out of nothing, purely from the greater drive and moral energy of the owners. Businesses generally require significant funding to reach scale, this is not available to most people, therefore it is not simply that business owners generally take opportunities open to all, they take opportunities that generally are open to few.

My comments about Vtech's business is to show it is far from a typical business from which you can extrapolate. It is a niche luxury sector and so has little scope for scale or duplication.

I am not arguing with most of what you are saying there but at the same time, you can't blame me for only having a perspective on my business. I talk about my business when replying here simply because I have first hand experience and quite rightly (as you mentioned) job creation was down to growth which in turn benefited me as the owner. That shouldn't be made out to be a negative though.
It is actually very foolish to create jobs needlessly as all it does is cost the business money and a broke business means good people lose their jobs.

A director has to do what he can to sustain the business, grow if possible and keep up to date in order to maintain.

ballysmate

nathancom wrote:

You are suggesting that business owners should be lavished with praise for creating jobs. They don't wake up and think "how can I make some jobs today", they create jobs to increase the value of their assets. This does not strike me as an altruistic activity, though some businesses treat their employees better than others. (I am personally lucky to work for very good people in a very good company).

Also most businesses are not just sprung out of nothing, purely from the greater drive and moral energy of the owners. Businesses generally require significant funding to reach scale, this is not available to most people, therefore it is not simply that business owners generally take opportunities open to all, they take opportunities that generally are open to few.

My comments about Vtech's business is to show it is far from a typical business from which you can extrapolate. It is a niche luxury sector and so has little scope for scale or duplication.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone be lavished with praise, just pointing out that VTech's business experience and success was worthy of acknowledgement.
I have never created a single job in my life. I know nothing about you but you say you work for a company, albeit a very good one, so I assume the next job you create will be your first.
Is it therefore safe to assume that VTech has done more than the both of us to create wealth and improve the lot of people he has employed?

pinno

Well, the Scandinavian countries do not have rampant inflation. They do have high standard of living because the 'give' is in high taxation.
We have a low wage, high cost economy. If we want a better standard of living we need to move away from low wages and increase the taxation proportionately. We want Scandinavian levels of health care and education but we are not willing to pay for it. We want German standards of organisation and industry (especially communications) but we are not prepared to invest in it. We have replaced industry with fickle service sector jobs. Germany has cruised through this recession because it maintains an industrial base whilst balancing them with an equal nuimber of jobs in the service/financial sector.

As far as the long term unemployed are concerned, pay every body in the UK £70 per week, regardless of earnings. Tax everything earned above that. The working population will pay it back in taxation and employers can employ people easier. Then, ATOS, the DWP and all other sycophantic agency costs would be minimised.
No one ever mentions the burgeoning costs of delivering an extra-ordinarily bureaucratic welfare system, riddled with faults.

arran77

nathancom wrote:

My comments about Vtech's business is to show it is far from a typical business from which you can extrapolate. It is a niche luxury sector and so has little scope for scale or duplication.

Just because VTechs business is a slightly niche market does not detract from the fact that he made it a success through his own efforts, I haven't ever achieved such a thing so hats off to him.

pinno

arran77 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

My comments about Vtech's business is to show it is far from a typical business from which you can extrapolate. It is a niche luxury sector and so has little scope for scale or duplication.

Just because VTechs business is a slightly niche market does not detract from the fact that he made it a success through his own efforts, I haven't ever achieved such a thing so hats off to him.

That's only because you spend too much time in the big girls thread.

nathancom

arran77 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

My comments about Vtech's business is to show it is far from a typical business from which you can extrapolate. It is a niche luxury sector and so has little scope for scale or duplication.

Just because VTechs business is a slightly niche market does not detract from the fact that he made it a success through his own efforts, I haven't ever achieved such a thing so hats off to him.

I am not suggesting it is a detraction, I am suggesting that his experience is not easy to replicate widely. In more scalable businesses Vtech would likely not have succeeded because he would have been taken out by some big player with economy of scale to out compete him, eg the car making industry itself.

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

arran77

pinarello001 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

My comments about Vtech's business is to show it is far from a typical business from which you can extrapolate. It is a niche luxury sector and so has little scope for scale or duplication.

Just because VTechs business is a slightly niche market does not detract from the fact that he made it a success through his own efforts, I haven't ever achieved such a thing so hats off to him.

That's only because you spend too much time in the big girls thread.

If only the big girls thread could be turned into a business I'd be sorted

VTech

nathancom wrote:

arran77 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

My comments about Vtech's business is to show it is far from a typical business from which you can extrapolate. It is a niche luxury sector and so has little scope for scale or duplication.

Just because VTechs business is a slightly niche market does not detract from the fact that he made it a success through his own efforts, I haven't ever achieved such a thing so hats off to him.

I am not suggesting it is a detraction, I am suggesting that his experience is not easy to replicate widely. In more scalable businesses Vtech would likely not have succeeded because he would have been taken out by some big player with economy of scale to out compete him, eg the car making industry itself.

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

I used to be part of a "breakfast club" made of small business owners of whom most were self funding and self building.
It may well be the case that most businesses are started from people with privileged backgrounds but I chose to focus on my future and not the background of others. I think most people look at others in a negative and positive way when they should focus on themselves.

Stevo_666

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

nathancom

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

People who run companies - want to do a survey of the FTSE 500 exec director backgrounds? I am sure they all come from inner city schools.

Stevo_666

nathancom wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

People who run companies - want to do a survey of the FTSE 500 exec director backgrounds? I am sure they all come from inner city schools.

So you're defining a businessman as a FTSE 500 exec director? Rather handily fits in with your prejuduices. What about the several million self employed in the UK who would describe themselves as businessmen (or women)? Kinda tips the balance away from the few thousand senior execs that you have the chip on your shoulder about.

VTech

nathancom wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

People who run companies - want to do a survey of the FTSE 500 exec director backgrounds? I am sure they all come from inner city schools.

I find it quite ironic that you said earlier today that people laugh at me and I don't realise

We are talking about people starting business and you are cross referencing that to CEO's of corporates. A totally different thing as most top500 companies are not run by those who started them.

I don't want to offend you so I'll leave it at that.

slowmart

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Your comprehension of a businessperson seems to be in need of revisiting

Here are some facts in relation to businesses in the UK for 2013

At the start of 2013:

There were an estimated 4.9 million businesses in the UK which employed 24.3 million people, and had a combined turnover of £3,300 billion
SMEs accounted for 99.9 per cent of of all private sector businesses in the UK, 59.3 per cent of private sector employment and 48.1 per cent of private sector turnover
SMEs employed 14.4 million people and had a combined turnover of £1,600 billion
Small businesses alone accounted for 47 per cent of private sector employment and 33.1 per cent of turnover
Of all businesses, 62.6 per cent (3.7 million) were sole proprietorships, 28.5 per cent (1.4 million) were companies and 8.9 per cent (434,000) partnerships
There were 891,000 businesses operating in the construction sector - nearly a fifth of all businesses
In the financial and insurance sector, only 27.5 per cent of employment was in SMEs. However, in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector virtually all employment (95.4 per cent) was in SMEs
Only 22.5 per cent of private sector turnover was in the arts, entertainment and recreation activities, while 92.7 per cent was in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector
With 841,000 private sector business, London had more firms than any other region in the UK. The south east had the second largest number of businesses with 791,000. Together these regions account for almost a third of all firms

micro: 0-9 employees, small: 10-49 employees, medium: 50-249 employees

I would suggest your perception of privilege being the main platform of success is demeaning and ill informed at best.

nathancom

VTech wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

People who run companies - want to do a survey of the FTSE 500 exec director backgrounds? I am sure they all come from inner city schools.

I find it quite ironic that you said earlier today that people laugh at me and I don't realise

We are talking about people starting business and you are cross referencing that to CEO's of corporates. A totally different thing as most top500 companies are not run by those who started them.

I don't want to offend you so I'll leave it at that.

Eh, I am not expecting an easy ride from Stevo, and nor am I going to whine about it either. Go cry elsewhere.

You seem to think there exists this idyllic world of small businesses employing tons of people built out of the energy of clear minded entrepreneurs exists all around us. The vast majority of the population is either employed in public service or large corporations such as Tesco, which alone employs 500,000 people.

nathancom

Slowmart wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Your comprehension of a businessperson seems to be in need of revisiting

Here are some facts in relation to businesses in the UK for 2013

At the start of 2013:

There were an estimated 4.9 million businesses in the UK which employed 24.3 million people, and had a combined turnover of £3,300 billionOk so on average a business employs 6 people? You are including all contractors who pay themselves via a company to avoid higher rate tax and the multiple holding companies that are created within any business of reasonable size.
SMEs accounted for 99.9 per cent of of all private sector businesses in the UK, 59.3 per cent of private sector employment and 48.1 per cent of private sector turnoverSo 99.9% of companies are SMEs, ie 1-250 people but only 59% of people are employed within them. That leaves a huge number of companies that effectively are simply accounting mechanisms
SMEs employed 14.4 million people and had a combined turnover of £1,600 billionThe last two companies I have worked for have been SMEs when I joined and both had a market value in excess of 500m. One was started by a joint venture between major corporations, the other is true tech startup success. ie SMEs is a fairly useless definition of company type in today's world of outsourcing and tech drastically reducing the necessary sizes of workforces
Small businesses alone accounted for 47 per cent of private sector employment and 33.1 per cent of turnover
Of all businesses, 62.6 per cent (3.7 million) were sole proprietorships, 28.5 per cent (1.4 million) were companies and 8.9 per cent (434,000) partnershipsSee above, plus this also includes trades, cleaners, taxi drivers etc which are not generally scalable businesses that can expect long term growth and "wealth creation"
There were 891,000 businesses operating in the construction sector - nearly a fifth of all businesses
In the financial and insurance sector, only 27.5 per cent of employment was in SMEs. However, in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector virtually all employment (95.4 per cent) was in SMEsBeing a farmer is now being a businessman and wealth creator? I am not going to stretch my definition of businessman that far...
Only 22.5 per cent of private sector turnover was in the arts, entertainment and recreation activities, while 92.7 per cent was in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector
With 841,000 private sector business, London had more firms than any other region in the UK. The south east had the second largest number of businesses with 791,000. Together these regions account for almost a third of all firms

micro: 0-9 employees, small: 10-49 employees, medium: 50-249 employees

I would suggest your perception of privilege being the main platform of success is demeaning and ill informed at best.

Those are some extremely ropey statistics there but let's not take my word for it, let's look to the Telegraph for an opinion - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9344366/Self-employment-hits-20-year-high-as-people-try-to-avoid-unemployment-ONS-says.html

"The number of self-employed people has hit the highest level since 1992 as “desperate” Britons take on work as cleaners, nannies and taxi drivers."

If you want to start on Social Mobility and Privilege we can get very statistics happy and all the evidence points towards greater and greater polarisation of wealth and opportunity. Clearly the poor just need to get off their backsides and create businesses...as cleaners.

arran77

nathancom wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

People who run companies - want to do a survey of the FTSE 500 exec director backgrounds? I am sure they all come from inner city schools.

I know many people who own their own businesses and would consider themselves businessmen but your certainly not going to find any of them on a list of FTSE 500 companies, also for what it's worth they were all state school educated!

Your view is slightly warped in my opinion

VTech

FAO Nathancom.

I'm sat at Birmingham airport right now just awaiting the finest breakfast wether spoons can knock up before my flight to Belfast to open a new workshop. The workshop will start with 6 employees, 3 of whom have been made redundant in the past six months and 3 of whom have just finished college.
This is how we fix the country. Not by biatching on a forum about someone who arrives to succeed but by getting of our RS's and making things happen.

Btw, I'm doing this for free as part of an enterprise scheme with the local government. Just wanted to get that in before you try to make out I'm doing it for profit (not that this would be an issue)

nathancom

arran77 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

People who run companies - want to do a survey of the FTSE 500 exec director backgrounds? I am sure they all come from inner city schools.

I know many people who own their own businesses and would consider themselves businessmen but your certainly not going to find any of them on a list of FTSE 500 companies, also for what it's worth they were all state school educated!

Your view is slightly warped in my opinion

Yes, because they are creating, sharing in and passing on to their employees the wealth of the nation. Oh wait, they are not, so you can all argue over the definition of a businessman as long as you want but simply wealth is increasingly being collected by those people who do run FTSE 500 companies. I think it is slightly warped that you try and group those business leaders together with some guy who runs a shop in a high street.

VTech

nathancom wrote:

arran77 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

People who run companies - want to do a survey of the FTSE 500 exec director backgrounds? I am sure they all come from inner city schools.

I know many people who own their own businesses and would consider themselves businessmen but your certainly not going to find any of them on a list of FTSE 500 companies, also for what it's worth they were all state school educated!

Your view is slightly warped in my opinion

Yes, because they are creating, sharing in and passing on to their employees the wealth of the nation. Oh wait, they are not, so you can all argue over the definition of a businessman as long as you want but simply wealth is increasingly being collected by those people who do run FTSE 500 companies. I think it is slightly warped that you try and group those business leaders together with some guy who runs a shop in a high street.

You just said it. Business leaders vs businessmen !

Do you understand economics ?
Small trade like a corner shop aids job creation but doesn't grow the country.
Medium business with exports brings new money into the country therefor growing its wealth.
Large corporates create at all levels.

What I don't get is your anger at those that make from the system.
Anyone can work 9-5 and take a wage.
Anyone can start a business.

It doesn't take anyone special to start a business, in fact it's often someone stupid. Stupid in that they are willing to sacrifice their personal life for the business and I'm not sure that's a wise thing.
Anyway, the world is meant to have different people.
Leaders and followers.

Just like you get reasonable and unreasonable people on Internet forums.

slowmart

nathancom wrote:

Yes, because they are creating, sharing in and passing on to their employees the wealth of the nation. Oh wait, they are not, so you can all argue over the definition of a businessman as long as you want but simply wealth is increasingly being collected by those people who do run FTSE 500 companies. I think it is slightly warped that you try and group those business leaders together with some guy who runs a shop in a high street.[/quote]


First thing. There is no such thing as the FTSE 500. 100 yes, 250 yes.

The CEO and senior execs are employed by the board. Get that they are employees.

The board oversees their performance.


The owners are the shareholders. Have a pension fund, savings plan then you are benefiting from yearly dividend payments.

So your narrow (again) view is wrong. And the information you called dubious was the from the Federation of Small Businesses.

pliptrot

This post certainly proves that opinions are not for changing. Every argument in this thread against increasing wages for the least well off is verbatim from those arguments against the minimum wage; all of which have been discredited. And it seems everyone who is materially successful considers those who are not as an undeserving tribe. To be successful and self-righteous is not very appealing.

We're all very impressed with money, especially those who have less, right?

pliptrot

Slowmart wrote:

The CEO and senior execs are employed by the board. Get that they are employees.

Well don't tell them, because they believe they are Messiahs. Just what is the average (FT250) CEO's salary as a multiplier of the national average? I guess the answer indicates they must work very hard indeed. 7 day weeks and sacrifices and all that hackneyed nonsense.....

VTech

pliptrot wrote:

This post certainly proves that opinions are not for changing. Every argument in this thread against increasing wages for the least well off is verbatim from those arguments against the minimum wage; all of which have been discredited. And it seems everyone who is materially successful considers those who are not as an undeserving tribe. To be successful and self-righteous is not very appealing.

We're all very impressed with money, especially those who have less, right?

Ok. Let's go with your view shall we.
Let's imagine we increase minimum wage to make it a livable wage.

Now forward 5 years and where are we ?

I grew up in longbridge and watched the decline of rover and the same stupid people that were there we have here.

They voted to keep all jobs and the Phoenix 4 were seen as Herod and 2 years later they all lost their jobs.

You just can't have everything. Sometimes people need to suffer and I'm not saying it's fair. It's just the way it is.
The saviour of rover was to lose just over half the staff. The wage bill was too high and yet the workers voted to keep everyone and ended up with them all losing.

It's stupidity to think we can afford to bankroll everyone.

nathancom

Slowmart wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Yes, because they are creating, sharing in and passing on to their employees the wealth of the nation. Oh wait, they are not, so you can all argue over the definition of a businessman as long as you want but simply wealth is increasingly being collected by those people who do run FTSE 500 companies. I think it is slightly warped that you try and group those business leaders together with some guy who runs a shop in a high street.

First thing. There is no such thing as the FTSE 500. 100 yes, 250 yes.

The CEO and senior execs are employed by the board. Get that they are employees.

The board oversees their performance.


The owners are the shareholders. Have a pension fund, savings plan then you are benefiting from yearly dividend payments.

So your narrow (again) view is wrong. And the information you called dubious was the from the Federation of Small Businesses.

Your stats are still meaningless. I never said they are not correct, but you seem to think that data without context has any value. Since you have no context, which I have tried to provide you, they are ropey stats.

Anyway it is a good day, Maria Miller is finished.

finchy

VTech wrote:

pliptrot wrote:

This post certainly proves that opinions are not for changing. Every argument in this thread against increasing wages for the least well off is verbatim from those arguments against the minimum wage; all of which have been discredited. And it seems everyone who is materially successful considers those who are not as an undeserving tribe. To be successful and self-righteous is not very appealing.

We're all very impressed with money, especially those who have less, right?

Ok. Let's go with your view shall we.
Let's imagine we increase minimum wage to make it a livable wage.

Now forward 5 years and where are we ?

I grew up in longbridge and watched the decline of rover and the same stupid people that were there we have here.

They voted to keep all jobs and the Phoenix 4 were seen as Herod and 2 years later they all lost their jobs.

You just can't have everything. Sometimes people need to suffer and I'm not saying it's fair. It's just the way it is.
The saviour of rover was to lose just over half the staff. The wage bill was too high and yet the workers voted to keep everyone and ended up with them all losing.

It's stupidity to think we can afford to bankroll everyone.

Maybe Rover would have fared a bit better if their cars hadn't been poorly designed and badly built. And then the workers could have decent wages.

Read this. It's in the definitely-not-socialist Forbes and it's a comparison of Germany car manufacturing compared to the USA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickal ... e-as-much/

pliptrot

VTech wrote:

I grew up in longbridge and watched the decline of rover

If ever there was an example of the company being ruined by management then that was it. Management ineptitude destroyed Rover. What eventually became Rover (ie. BMC /Leyland) came up with many fundamental innovations - the hatchback, the transverse engine, hydragas suspension, to name 3 - but the company was steered on the rocks by idiots at the top anyway. It was the expensive, well paid clowns who did fer that one. And in it's last incarnation? The directors who made themselves millionaires from ransacking what was left are now disqualified from ever holding such a post again. The stupid people there are long gone to sunny retirements.

And, no, people don't need to suffer. Many do because of bigoted ideologies and the relentless transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, but there's no need. People will of course, because of stupidity (shall we just say intellectual indolence?) as per your post, but it's entirely avoidable.

VTech

Rover workers were very highly paid. That was never in question.
It doesn't matter about what you think about the cars, they did sell enough to justify around 4000 employees. Problem was they have 9400 !!!!

Anyway, I've explained simply what the biggest accountancy firm in the world confirmed so maybe they were wrong ?

VTech

pliptrot wrote:

VTech wrote:

I grew up in longbridge and watched the decline of rover

If ever there was an example of the company being ruined by management then that was it. Management ineptitude destroyed Rover. What eventually became Rover (ie. BMC /Leyland) came up with many fundamental innovations - the hatchback, the transverse engine, hydragas suspension, to name 3 - but the company was steered on the rocks by idiots at the top anyway. It was the expensive, well paid clowns who did fer that one. And in it's last incarnation? The directors who made themselves millionaires from ransacking what was left are now disqualified from ever holding such a post again. The stupid people there are long gone to sunny retirements.

And, no, people don't need to suffer. Many do because of bigoted ideologies and the relentless transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, but there's no need. People will of course, because of stupidity (shall we just say intellectual indolence?) as per your post, but it's entirely avoidable.

Maybe suffer is the wrong word. Let's change that to struggle.

My next door neighbour is one of the Phoenix 4 so I'm kind of aware of the sell off. There is no doubt that is was a planned dismantle but infant change for the view that the employees were the hand that held the sword of death for the company as they wouldn't listen to Price Waterhouse Cooper who after months of reviews gave their opinion.