BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I know you shouldn't call people who disagree with you stupid, but voting in accordance with:Dorset_Boy said:
As mentioned before, you really don't get why those left behind voted for Brexit. As has been explained to you numerous times, it was a vote against the status quo. When you think thinks can't be any worse you are will to vote for change, any change. These people voted against the status quo. That meant a bloody nose for BOTH the British establishment and the European establishment, both of which these people felt (feel) had failed them over the previous 40 years.rick_chasey said:
Yes people in sh!t situations have a habit for voting for populist nonsense.morstar said:
And there you go still totally failing to grasp why some people voted for it.rick_chasey said:
It’s not even an answer to it.Jezyboy said:
So I tend to agree with the middle paragraph.morstar said:I don’t really have anything much more to add right now without repeating myself anymore than I already have so will part with this.
Where is the virtue in having a successful economy if it only benefits a minority within it?
To clarify, the minority is not especially small as I type this today but it is shrinking. The logical progression of the current trajectory of rapidly growing wealth disparity is not good. Don’t be surprised when the serfs take issue.
I just think brexit is an incredibly idiotic answer to the question.
It has nothing to do with inequality
Doesn’t mean it isn’t populist nonsense. Nor does it make it correct.
If you boil down the argument it is an iteration of blame the foreigner, which is the one thread that united the vote leave spectrum.
Either it’s the low wage immigrants or it’s the distrustful EU big wigs. Either way, the problem with them is they they’re foreign.
Unfortunately, this whole Brexit thing will only make it harder to help the people in tough spots. There will be less surplus to channel their way, less money for investment in the kinds of things that will help.
It’s a populist lie.
The irony is of course we all make out that truckies is some kind of super low paid work - it’s not that badly paid - a lot of them can afford to retire early!
The Murdoch press
A ton of wealthy tories
A public school educated ex commodities trader
The Daily Mail
Is hardly a great rebellion against the establishment.
It was a fabulous bit of marketing though from the leave campaign.
0 -
You forget they voted to maintain the status quo as Turkey was joining plus forming an EU army etc and they could keep the trading advantages of membershipJezyboy said:
I know you shouldn't call people who disagree with you stupid, but voting in accordance with:Dorset_Boy said:
As mentioned before, you really don't get why those left behind voted for Brexit. As has been explained to you numerous times, it was a vote against the status quo. When you think thinks can't be any worse you are will to vote for change, any change. These people voted against the status quo. That meant a bloody nose for BOTH the British establishment and the European establishment, both of which these people felt (feel) had failed them over the previous 40 years.rick_chasey said:
Yes people in sh!t situations have a habit for voting for populist nonsense.morstar said:
And there you go still totally failing to grasp why some people voted for it.rick_chasey said:
It’s not even an answer to it.Jezyboy said:
So I tend to agree with the middle paragraph.morstar said:I don’t really have anything much more to add right now without repeating myself anymore than I already have so will part with this.
Where is the virtue in having a successful economy if it only benefits a minority within it?
To clarify, the minority is not especially small as I type this today but it is shrinking. The logical progression of the current trajectory of rapidly growing wealth disparity is not good. Don’t be surprised when the serfs take issue.
I just think brexit is an incredibly idiotic answer to the question.
It has nothing to do with inequality
Doesn’t mean it isn’t populist nonsense. Nor does it make it correct.
If you boil down the argument it is an iteration of blame the foreigner, which is the one thread that united the vote leave spectrum.
Either it’s the low wage immigrants or it’s the distrustful EU big wigs. Either way, the problem with them is they they’re foreign.
Unfortunately, this whole Brexit thing will only make it harder to help the people in tough spots. There will be less surplus to channel their way, less money for investment in the kinds of things that will help.
It’s a populist lie.
The irony is of course we all make out that truckies is some kind of super low paid work - it’s not that badly paid - a lot of them can afford to retire early!
The Murdoch press
A ton of wealthy tories
A public school educated ex commodities trader
The Daily Mail
Is hardly a great rebellion against the establishment.
It was a fabulous bit of marketing though from the leave campaign.0 -
Sure there were typical establishment figures on the leave side, but they saw far more of the establishment on the remain side (the Government, the Opposition, the Civil Service, much of big business and the wealthy), and ultimately wanted to shake up the status quo which they feel failed them for 40 years.Jezyboy said:
I know you shouldn't call people who disagree with you stupid, but voting in accordance with:Dorset_Boy said:
As mentioned before, you really don't get why those left behind voted for Brexit. As has been explained to you numerous times, it was a vote against the status quo. When you think thinks can't be any worse you are will to vote for change, any change. These people voted against the status quo. That meant a bloody nose for BOTH the British establishment and the European establishment, both of which these people felt (feel) had failed them over the previous 40 years.rick_chasey said:
Yes people in sh!t situations have a habit for voting for populist nonsense.morstar said:
And there you go still totally failing to grasp why some people voted for it.rick_chasey said:
It’s not even an answer to it.Jezyboy said:
So I tend to agree with the middle paragraph.morstar said:I don’t really have anything much more to add right now without repeating myself anymore than I already have so will part with this.
Where is the virtue in having a successful economy if it only benefits a minority within it?
To clarify, the minority is not especially small as I type this today but it is shrinking. The logical progression of the current trajectory of rapidly growing wealth disparity is not good. Don’t be surprised when the serfs take issue.
I just think brexit is an incredibly idiotic answer to the question.
It has nothing to do with inequality
Doesn’t mean it isn’t populist nonsense. Nor does it make it correct.
If you boil down the argument it is an iteration of blame the foreigner, which is the one thread that united the vote leave spectrum.
Either it’s the low wage immigrants or it’s the distrustful EU big wigs. Either way, the problem with them is they they’re foreign.
Unfortunately, this whole Brexit thing will only make it harder to help the people in tough spots. There will be less surplus to channel their way, less money for investment in the kinds of things that will help.
It’s a populist lie.
The irony is of course we all make out that truckies is some kind of super low paid work - it’s not that badly paid - a lot of them can afford to retire early!
The Murdoch press
A ton of wealthy tories
A public school educated ex commodities trader
The Daily Mail
Is hardly a great rebellion against the establishment.
It was a fabulous bit of marketing though from the leave campaign.
The success of the leave campaigners was undoubted getting those people to the ballot box. And sadly the remain campaign didn't push the benefits of remaining, they ran such a negative campaign that it reinforced to those people left behind that this was their chance to shake things up.3 -
Are you advocating that, along with unlimited international movement of labour, all jobs are paid at the minimum wage? Note truck driving is not currently a minimum wage job. Or are you going to get the state to decide which jobs should be paid what minimum?rick_chasey said:
That’s not what I was trying to illustrate but ok.john80 said:
You really don't understand what percentage of the companies expense is wage costs if you think an increase in wages results in a equivalent increase in living costs.rick_chasey said:
You do know money is just the way to measure output and value, right?john80 said:
If you look back in time I am not sure there was much of a safety net for the working poor. There now is so you have to pay more to attract those in to work or alternatively start reducing benefits till you die on them. Yet to see an argument that a say 20% increase in the lowest paid results in an equivalent inflation but yeah crack on with this logic.rjsterry said:
We've had working poor since the ice sheets retreated. The idea that the income from any full time job should automatically tally with the cost of living is the stuff of unicorns. In John's fantasy Britain, there is full employment; lower earners all get paid more and all that extra money just appears in employers' bank accounts without causing any inflation or increase in the cost of living.morstar said:
The thing here is we are generally not miles apart (with the notable exception that you believe the country can accommodate infinite residents).rick_chasey said:
I'm of the view that a free as market as possible is optimal, and that the solution to the negative externalities of it, like things like poor conditions, is not to restrict the size of the labour pool but to legislate to improve conditions.TheBigBean said:
I don't care about their nationality just that they have the legal right to work in the UK. You seem to be arguing that truck driving should be some sort of special skill that anyone from anywhere can do. I don't understand why truck driving is special in this regard.rick_chasey said:
You can open the market up to international competition and set minimum standards.TheBigBean said:
The international market rate would include drivers from all over the world. You could abolish the minimum wage, import workers from all over the world and give them worse entitlements like the UAE, but most people, sensibly, are against that.rick_chasey said:Why is it artificial? It's the international market rate.
Surely introducing barriers around nationality is more artificial then just opening up the market to international competition? It would be on the supply & demand chart.
You seem to want to use market restrictions to improve conditions rather than just legislate for better conditions.
Why do you care what nationality a lorry driver is?
The problem with jobs like haulage is there is limited value you can add - it's quite hard to compete on anything other than price as the nature of the work means you can't suddenly add more value by getting there twice as fast or whatever. So the employer is always going to go for the cheapest option (within reason).
I'd argue that the fact Brits don't do those jobs suggests that Brits are better suited to other jobs, and the focus shouldn't be on making low-value-add jobs more attractive by restricting supply (which has knock on effects to the rest of the economy), but focus on getting people into more value-add jobs.
I don't think there is a big advantage in getting people into lorry jobs or equivalent. I don't think there is a missed opportunity to have to pay 2x the amount for fruit picking because it's now Brits doing it over Romanians or whoever is doing it.
I'd suggest you're better off getting those Brits into jobs and careers with bigger upside.
You blame national policies for the plight of the working poor and I 100% agree with you.
However, when assessing Brexit, you are confusing economic theory with practical considerations. The fact is we have had working poor under both colours of government while in the Eu.
The economy has let people down and whilst lots voted Brexit for lots of different reasons of which I disagree with many, the working poor (some anyway) have actually been better served by Brexit than any other domestic policy in my lifetime when they are seeing significant wage jumps.
Do you think less choice in shops is a price worth paying for a small wage being converted into a living wage? Many will.
If everyone is doing the same job they were before at the same productivity rate for the same hours and pay is increased, no one gets any richer.
Brexit categorically will not and cannot help British inequality.
It is nothing to do with it.
How come you’re not advocating a higher minimum wage rather than advocating for restrictions on supply?0 -
Eh?TheBigBean said:
Are you advocating that, along with unlimited international movement of labour, all jobs are paid at the minimum wage? Note truck driving is not currently a minimum wage job. Or are you going to get the state to decide which jobs should be paid what minimum?rick_chasey said:
That’s not what I was trying to illustrate but ok.john80 said:
You really don't understand what percentage of the companies expense is wage costs if you think an increase in wages results in a equivalent increase in living costs.rick_chasey said:
You do know money is just the way to measure output and value, right?john80 said:
If you look back in time I am not sure there was much of a safety net for the working poor. There now is so you have to pay more to attract those in to work or alternatively start reducing benefits till you die on them. Yet to see an argument that a say 20% increase in the lowest paid results in an equivalent inflation but yeah crack on with this logic.rjsterry said:
We've had working poor since the ice sheets retreated. The idea that the income from any full time job should automatically tally with the cost of living is the stuff of unicorns. In John's fantasy Britain, there is full employment; lower earners all get paid more and all that extra money just appears in employers' bank accounts without causing any inflation or increase in the cost of living.morstar said:
The thing here is we are generally not miles apart (with the notable exception that you believe the country can accommodate infinite residents).rick_chasey said:
I'm of the view that a free as market as possible is optimal, and that the solution to the negative externalities of it, like things like poor conditions, is not to restrict the size of the labour pool but to legislate to improve conditions.TheBigBean said:
I don't care about their nationality just that they have the legal right to work in the UK. You seem to be arguing that truck driving should be some sort of special skill that anyone from anywhere can do. I don't understand why truck driving is special in this regard.rick_chasey said:
You can open the market up to international competition and set minimum standards.TheBigBean said:
The international market rate would include drivers from all over the world. You could abolish the minimum wage, import workers from all over the world and give them worse entitlements like the UAE, but most people, sensibly, are against that.rick_chasey said:Why is it artificial? It's the international market rate.
Surely introducing barriers around nationality is more artificial then just opening up the market to international competition? It would be on the supply & demand chart.
You seem to want to use market restrictions to improve conditions rather than just legislate for better conditions.
Why do you care what nationality a lorry driver is?
The problem with jobs like haulage is there is limited value you can add - it's quite hard to compete on anything other than price as the nature of the work means you can't suddenly add more value by getting there twice as fast or whatever. So the employer is always going to go for the cheapest option (within reason).
I'd argue that the fact Brits don't do those jobs suggests that Brits are better suited to other jobs, and the focus shouldn't be on making low-value-add jobs more attractive by restricting supply (which has knock on effects to the rest of the economy), but focus on getting people into more value-add jobs.
I don't think there is a big advantage in getting people into lorry jobs or equivalent. I don't think there is a missed opportunity to have to pay 2x the amount for fruit picking because it's now Brits doing it over Romanians or whoever is doing it.
I'd suggest you're better off getting those Brits into jobs and careers with bigger upside.
You blame national policies for the plight of the working poor and I 100% agree with you.
However, when assessing Brexit, you are confusing economic theory with practical considerations. The fact is we have had working poor under both colours of government while in the Eu.
The economy has let people down and whilst lots voted Brexit for lots of different reasons of which I disagree with many, the working poor (some anyway) have actually been better served by Brexit than any other domestic policy in my lifetime when they are seeing significant wage jumps.
Do you think less choice in shops is a price worth paying for a small wage being converted into a living wage? Many will.
If everyone is doing the same job they were before at the same productivity rate for the same hours and pay is increased, no one gets any richer.
Brexit categorically will not and cannot help British inequality.
It is nothing to do with it.
How come you’re not advocating a higher minimum wage rather than advocating for restrictions on supply?
I’d be fine if the UK minimum wage was increased within reason and let the market decide the wage beyond that.
0 -
I just find your argument incoherent.rick_chasey said:
Eh?TheBigBean said:
Are you advocating that, along with unlimited international movement of labour, all jobs are paid at the minimum wage? Note truck driving is not currently a minimum wage job. Or are you going to get the state to decide which jobs should be paid what minimum?rick_chasey said:
That’s not what I was trying to illustrate but ok.john80 said:
You really don't understand what percentage of the companies expense is wage costs if you think an increase in wages results in a equivalent increase in living costs.rick_chasey said:
You do know money is just the way to measure output and value, right?john80 said:
If you look back in time I am not sure there was much of a safety net for the working poor. There now is so you have to pay more to attract those in to work or alternatively start reducing benefits till you die on them. Yet to see an argument that a say 20% increase in the lowest paid results in an equivalent inflation but yeah crack on with this logic.rjsterry said:
We've had working poor since the ice sheets retreated. The idea that the income from any full time job should automatically tally with the cost of living is the stuff of unicorns. In John's fantasy Britain, there is full employment; lower earners all get paid more and all that extra money just appears in employers' bank accounts without causing any inflation or increase in the cost of living.morstar said:
The thing here is we are generally not miles apart (with the notable exception that you believe the country can accommodate infinite residents).rick_chasey said:
I'm of the view that a free as market as possible is optimal, and that the solution to the negative externalities of it, like things like poor conditions, is not to restrict the size of the labour pool but to legislate to improve conditions.TheBigBean said:
I don't care about their nationality just that they have the legal right to work in the UK. You seem to be arguing that truck driving should be some sort of special skill that anyone from anywhere can do. I don't understand why truck driving is special in this regard.rick_chasey said:
You can open the market up to international competition and set minimum standards.TheBigBean said:
The international market rate would include drivers from all over the world. You could abolish the minimum wage, import workers from all over the world and give them worse entitlements like the UAE, but most people, sensibly, are against that.rick_chasey said:Why is it artificial? It's the international market rate.
Surely introducing barriers around nationality is more artificial then just opening up the market to international competition? It would be on the supply & demand chart.
You seem to want to use market restrictions to improve conditions rather than just legislate for better conditions.
Why do you care what nationality a lorry driver is?
The problem with jobs like haulage is there is limited value you can add - it's quite hard to compete on anything other than price as the nature of the work means you can't suddenly add more value by getting there twice as fast or whatever. So the employer is always going to go for the cheapest option (within reason).
I'd argue that the fact Brits don't do those jobs suggests that Brits are better suited to other jobs, and the focus shouldn't be on making low-value-add jobs more attractive by restricting supply (which has knock on effects to the rest of the economy), but focus on getting people into more value-add jobs.
I don't think there is a big advantage in getting people into lorry jobs or equivalent. I don't think there is a missed opportunity to have to pay 2x the amount for fruit picking because it's now Brits doing it over Romanians or whoever is doing it.
I'd suggest you're better off getting those Brits into jobs and careers with bigger upside.
You blame national policies for the plight of the working poor and I 100% agree with you.
However, when assessing Brexit, you are confusing economic theory with practical considerations. The fact is we have had working poor under both colours of government while in the Eu.
The economy has let people down and whilst lots voted Brexit for lots of different reasons of which I disagree with many, the working poor (some anyway) have actually been better served by Brexit than any other domestic policy in my lifetime when they are seeing significant wage jumps.
Do you think less choice in shops is a price worth paying for a small wage being converted into a living wage? Many will.
If everyone is doing the same job they were before at the same productivity rate for the same hours and pay is increased, no one gets any richer.
Brexit categorically will not and cannot help British inequality.
It is nothing to do with it.
How come you’re not advocating a higher minimum wage rather than advocating for restrictions on supply?
I’d be fine if the UK minimum wage was increased within reason and let the market decide the wage beyond that.
Let's say truck drivers currently work under poor conditions and are paid £14/hour. You say the way to improve things for them is to increase the minimum wage and to improve their working conditions.
Clearly, some things like toilet availability could be improved by legislation, but night shifts and short notice can't be changed without changing every job. Furthermore, some of the things that make conditions undesirable are to do with safety.
Then I don't see how increasing the minimum wage will help as this will presumably apply to all jobs including the easy ones. So you could have a special truck driving minimum wage, but then you have the government setting salaries in different industries.
So, I really don't understand your solution. I do get that allowing, for example, Chinese truck drivers special visas will reduce the cost to the level of the minimum wage, but that's not really improving things for truck drivers and is just outsourcing it. And why does truck driving get to be outsourced?
So can you spell out your solution?1 -
Rick's solution is don't do brexit and it has a lot going for it.
I think you're confusing issues BB. I don't think Rick has said salary is the big issue for truck drivers, although I could be wrong. It's been mentioned several times they make a reasonable living currently.
The issue seems to be conditions. We could aim to improve those without banning foreign drivers.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Tom Reddy has been driving lorries for more than 15 years and his pay was recently increased from £17.50 an hour to £24.50 - a 40% jump.
"I've never known anything like it," he told the BBC's Wake Up To Money programme. "But they could pay me £80,000 a year and it wouldn't be enough, I want to leave."
Mr Reddy says it is difficult to have a family life with the unsociable hours the job demands.
While Brexit is a factor, it is the shifts, regularly sleeping in a lay-by and the rude way in which members of the public talk to him that make him no longer want to continue in the job.
He also blames gender imbalance in the workplace, as well as racism and xenophobia on the road for his decision to leave.
Some of these issues are eminently fixable, some like hours are more tricky as you have noted, and some would normally be outright dismissed by some of those now so concerned about the plight of our brave truckers.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I’m not saying anything specific about truckies.TheBigBean said:
I just find your argument incoherent.rick_chasey said:
Eh?TheBigBean said:
Are you advocating that, along with unlimited international movement of labour, all jobs are paid at the minimum wage? Note truck driving is not currently a minimum wage job. Or are you going to get the state to decide which jobs should be paid what minimum?rick_chasey said:
That’s not what I was trying to illustrate but ok.john80 said:
You really don't understand what percentage of the companies expense is wage costs if you think an increase in wages results in a equivalent increase in living costs.rick_chasey said:
You do know money is just the way to measure output and value, right?john80 said:
If you look back in time I am not sure there was much of a safety net for the working poor. There now is so you have to pay more to attract those in to work or alternatively start reducing benefits till you die on them. Yet to see an argument that a say 20% increase in the lowest paid results in an equivalent inflation but yeah crack on with this logic.rjsterry said:
We've had working poor since the ice sheets retreated. The idea that the income from any full time job should automatically tally with the cost of living is the stuff of unicorns. In John's fantasy Britain, there is full employment; lower earners all get paid more and all that extra money just appears in employers' bank accounts without causing any inflation or increase in the cost of living.morstar said:
The thing here is we are generally not miles apart (with the notable exception that you believe the country can accommodate infinite residents).rick_chasey said:
I'm of the view that a free as market as possible is optimal, and that the solution to the negative externalities of it, like things like poor conditions, is not to restrict the size of the labour pool but to legislate to improve conditions.TheBigBean said:
I don't care about their nationality just that they have the legal right to work in the UK. You seem to be arguing that truck driving should be some sort of special skill that anyone from anywhere can do. I don't understand why truck driving is special in this regard.rick_chasey said:
You can open the market up to international competition and set minimum standards.TheBigBean said:
The international market rate would include drivers from all over the world. You could abolish the minimum wage, import workers from all over the world and give them worse entitlements like the UAE, but most people, sensibly, are against that.rick_chasey said:Why is it artificial? It's the international market rate.
Surely introducing barriers around nationality is more artificial then just opening up the market to international competition? It would be on the supply & demand chart.
You seem to want to use market restrictions to improve conditions rather than just legislate for better conditions.
Why do you care what nationality a lorry driver is?
The problem with jobs like haulage is there is limited value you can add - it's quite hard to compete on anything other than price as the nature of the work means you can't suddenly add more value by getting there twice as fast or whatever. So the employer is always going to go for the cheapest option (within reason).
I'd argue that the fact Brits don't do those jobs suggests that Brits are better suited to other jobs, and the focus shouldn't be on making low-value-add jobs more attractive by restricting supply (which has knock on effects to the rest of the economy), but focus on getting people into more value-add jobs.
I don't think there is a big advantage in getting people into lorry jobs or equivalent. I don't think there is a missed opportunity to have to pay 2x the amount for fruit picking because it's now Brits doing it over Romanians or whoever is doing it.
I'd suggest you're better off getting those Brits into jobs and careers with bigger upside.
You blame national policies for the plight of the working poor and I 100% agree with you.
However, when assessing Brexit, you are confusing economic theory with practical considerations. The fact is we have had working poor under both colours of government while in the Eu.
The economy has let people down and whilst lots voted Brexit for lots of different reasons of which I disagree with many, the working poor (some anyway) have actually been better served by Brexit than any other domestic policy in my lifetime when they are seeing significant wage jumps.
Do you think less choice in shops is a price worth paying for a small wage being converted into a living wage? Many will.
If everyone is doing the same job they were before at the same productivity rate for the same hours and pay is increased, no one gets any richer.
Brexit categorically will not and cannot help British inequality.
It is nothing to do with it.
How come you’re not advocating a higher minimum wage rather than advocating for restrictions on supply?
I’d be fine if the UK minimum wage was increased within reason and let the market decide the wage beyond that.
Let's say truck drivers currently work under poor conditions and are paid £14/hour. You say the way to improve things for them is to increase the minimum wage and to improve their working conditions.
Clearly, some things like toilet availability could be improved by legislation, but night shifts and short notice can't be changed without changing every job. Furthermore, some of the things that make conditions undesirable are to do with safety.
Then I don't see how increasing the minimum wage will help as this will presumably apply to all jobs including the easy ones. So you could have a special truck driving minimum wage, but then you have the government setting salaries in different industries.
So, I really don't understand your solution. I do get that allowing, for example, Chinese truck drivers special visas will reduce the cost to the level of the minimum wage, but that's not really improving things for truck drivers and is just outsourcing it. And why does truck driving get to be outsourced?
So can you spell out your solution?
My solution is to rejoin the eu single market and with that free movement of labour.
I mean, the government could have listened to the hauliers and invested in things that make them want to stay in the profession and attract more if it was really set on the objective of getting Brits to be truckies, but they didn’t.
0 -
OK, Pangolin was right. All those graphs, economics and words, and you just want a return to the EU. Fair enough, but I thought you were trying to argue for something more nuanced that included an "international" price for truck driving, so the UK was opening it up to the world labour market.rick_chasey said:
I’m not saying anything specific about truckies.TheBigBean said:
I just find your argument incoherent.rick_chasey said:
Eh?TheBigBean said:
Are you advocating that, along with unlimited international movement of labour, all jobs are paid at the minimum wage? Note truck driving is not currently a minimum wage job. Or are you going to get the state to decide which jobs should be paid what minimum?rick_chasey said:
That’s not what I was trying to illustrate but ok.john80 said:
You really don't understand what percentage of the companies expense is wage costs if you think an increase in wages results in a equivalent increase in living costs.rick_chasey said:
You do know money is just the way to measure output and value, right?john80 said:
If you look back in time I am not sure there was much of a safety net for the working poor. There now is so you have to pay more to attract those in to work or alternatively start reducing benefits till you die on them. Yet to see an argument that a say 20% increase in the lowest paid results in an equivalent inflation but yeah crack on with this logic.rjsterry said:
We've had working poor since the ice sheets retreated. The idea that the income from any full time job should automatically tally with the cost of living is the stuff of unicorns. In John's fantasy Britain, there is full employment; lower earners all get paid more and all that extra money just appears in employers' bank accounts without causing any inflation or increase in the cost of living.morstar said:
The thing here is we are generally not miles apart (with the notable exception that you believe the country can accommodate infinite residents).rick_chasey said:
I'm of the view that a free as market as possible is optimal, and that the solution to the negative externalities of it, like things like poor conditions, is not to restrict the size of the labour pool but to legislate to improve conditions.TheBigBean said:
I don't care about their nationality just that they have the legal right to work in the UK. You seem to be arguing that truck driving should be some sort of special skill that anyone from anywhere can do. I don't understand why truck driving is special in this regard.rick_chasey said:
You can open the market up to international competition and set minimum standards.TheBigBean said:
The international market rate would include drivers from all over the world. You could abolish the minimum wage, import workers from all over the world and give them worse entitlements like the UAE, but most people, sensibly, are against that.rick_chasey said:Why is it artificial? It's the international market rate.
Surely introducing barriers around nationality is more artificial then just opening up the market to international competition? It would be on the supply & demand chart.
You seem to want to use market restrictions to improve conditions rather than just legislate for better conditions.
Why do you care what nationality a lorry driver is?
The problem with jobs like haulage is there is limited value you can add - it's quite hard to compete on anything other than price as the nature of the work means you can't suddenly add more value by getting there twice as fast or whatever. So the employer is always going to go for the cheapest option (within reason).
I'd argue that the fact Brits don't do those jobs suggests that Brits are better suited to other jobs, and the focus shouldn't be on making low-value-add jobs more attractive by restricting supply (which has knock on effects to the rest of the economy), but focus on getting people into more value-add jobs.
I don't think there is a big advantage in getting people into lorry jobs or equivalent. I don't think there is a missed opportunity to have to pay 2x the amount for fruit picking because it's now Brits doing it over Romanians or whoever is doing it.
I'd suggest you're better off getting those Brits into jobs and careers with bigger upside.
You blame national policies for the plight of the working poor and I 100% agree with you.
However, when assessing Brexit, you are confusing economic theory with practical considerations. The fact is we have had working poor under both colours of government while in the Eu.
The economy has let people down and whilst lots voted Brexit for lots of different reasons of which I disagree with many, the working poor (some anyway) have actually been better served by Brexit than any other domestic policy in my lifetime when they are seeing significant wage jumps.
Do you think less choice in shops is a price worth paying for a small wage being converted into a living wage? Many will.
If everyone is doing the same job they were before at the same productivity rate for the same hours and pay is increased, no one gets any richer.
Brexit categorically will not and cannot help British inequality.
It is nothing to do with it.
How come you’re not advocating a higher minimum wage rather than advocating for restrictions on supply?
I’d be fine if the UK minimum wage was increased within reason and let the market decide the wage beyond that.
Let's say truck drivers currently work under poor conditions and are paid £14/hour. You say the way to improve things for them is to increase the minimum wage and to improve their working conditions.
Clearly, some things like toilet availability could be improved by legislation, but night shifts and short notice can't be changed without changing every job. Furthermore, some of the things that make conditions undesirable are to do with safety.
Then I don't see how increasing the minimum wage will help as this will presumably apply to all jobs including the easy ones. So you could have a special truck driving minimum wage, but then you have the government setting salaries in different industries.
So, I really don't understand your solution. I do get that allowing, for example, Chinese truck drivers special visas will reduce the cost to the level of the minimum wage, but that's not really improving things for truck drivers and is just outsourcing it. And why does truck driving get to be outsourced?
So can you spell out your solution?
My solution is to rejoin the eu single market and with that free movement of labour.
I mean, the government could have listened to the hauliers and invested in things that make them want to stay in the profession and attract more if it was really set on the objective of getting Brits to be truckies, but they didn’t.0 -
It's funny that people think only truck drivers will be in this situation.0
-
It's just an example. Obviously there are lots of other jobs being filled at international labour prices.kingstongraham said:It's funny that people think only truck drivers will be in this situation.
0 -
Surely the problem is the barriers to entry and that the Govt does not have a transition plan for key jobs which will involve training up and reskilling the indigenous workforce.0
-
Small government free marketeer wants the government to do something?surrey_commuter said:Surely the problem is the barriers to entry and that the Govt does not have a transition plan for key jobs which will involve training up and reskilling the indigenous workforce.
I'm back to disagreeing with you!1 -
Oh, FFS, there were 1hr queues for some of the rides at Chessington Work of Adventure the other week. Is that evidence for overpopulation, too?morstar said:
Couple of things.rick_chasey said:
Yes people in sh!t situations have a habit for voting for populist nonsense.morstar said:
And there you go still totally failing to grasp why some people voted for it.rick_chasey said:
It’s not even an answer to it.Jezyboy said:
So I tend to agree with the middle paragraph.morstar said:I don’t really have anything much more to add right now without repeating myself anymore than I already have so will part with this.
Where is the virtue in having a successful economy if it only benefits a minority within it?
To clarify, the minority is not especially small as I type this today but it is shrinking. The logical progression of the current trajectory of rapidly growing wealth disparity is not good. Don’t be surprised when the serfs take issue.
I just think brexit is an incredibly idiotic answer to the question.
It has nothing to do with inequality
Doesn’t mean it isn’t populist nonsense. Nor does it make it correct.
If you boil down the argument it is an iteration of blame the foreigner, which is the one thread that united the vote leave spectrum.
Either it’s the low wage immigrants or it’s the distrustful EU big wigs. Either way, the problem with them is they they’re foreign.
Unfortunately, this whole Brexit thing will only make it harder to help the people in tough spots. There will be less surplus to channel their way, less money for investment in the kinds of things that will help.
It’s a populist lie.
The irony is of course we all make out that truckies is some kind of super low paid work - it’s not that badly paid - a lot of them can afford to retire early!
I don’t like the clear racist undertones common to many Brexiteers and agree there is much populist nonsense behind it.
However, to have a less open borders policy than you espouse is almost certainly a very mainstream view.
Very few people believe in the unlimited immigration you support. I personally don’t come from a racist perspective but do find the country fairly full. As has been shown during Covid, the country is packed tight e.g. 40 minute queues at Snowdon as just one random example.
But, you also can’t dismiss it all as nonsense when one of the beliefs people had in Brexit is being proved correct with the wage increases.
Whether this is a wise outcome for the good of the nation is a very valid argument but you can’t dismiss current facts as nonsense just because you don’t like the bigger picture.
Wages have gone up as a direct result of Brexit policies. Many believed that would happen and it has.
Personally, I just thought we’d see the same immigration levels, just from different regions. Maybe we will yet.
As for Covid showing the UK to be 'fairly full', you should look at this chart.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was assuming a start point of leaving the EU on the harshest possible termsTheBigBean said:
Small government free marketeer wants the government to do something?surrey_commuter said:Surely the problem is the barriers to entry and that the Govt does not have a transition plan for key jobs which will involve training up and reskilling the indigenous workforce.
I'm back to disagreeing with you!0 -
Ok, Snowdon = poor example.rjsterry said:
Oh, FFS, there were 1hr queues for some of the rides at Chessington Work of Adventure the other week. Is that evidence for overpopulation, too?morstar said:
Couple of things.rick_chasey said:
Yes people in sh!t situations have a habit for voting for populist nonsense.morstar said:
And there you go still totally failing to grasp why some people voted for it.rick_chasey said:
It’s not even an answer to it.Jezyboy said:
So I tend to agree with the middle paragraph.morstar said:I don’t really have anything much more to add right now without repeating myself anymore than I already have so will part with this.
Where is the virtue in having a successful economy if it only benefits a minority within it?
To clarify, the minority is not especially small as I type this today but it is shrinking. The logical progression of the current trajectory of rapidly growing wealth disparity is not good. Don’t be surprised when the serfs take issue.
I just think brexit is an incredibly idiotic answer to the question.
It has nothing to do with inequality
Doesn’t mean it isn’t populist nonsense. Nor does it make it correct.
If you boil down the argument it is an iteration of blame the foreigner, which is the one thread that united the vote leave spectrum.
Either it’s the low wage immigrants or it’s the distrustful EU big wigs. Either way, the problem with them is they they’re foreign.
Unfortunately, this whole Brexit thing will only make it harder to help the people in tough spots. There will be less surplus to channel their way, less money for investment in the kinds of things that will help.
It’s a populist lie.
The irony is of course we all make out that truckies is some kind of super low paid work - it’s not that badly paid - a lot of them can afford to retire early!
I don’t like the clear racist undertones common to many Brexiteers and agree there is much populist nonsense behind it.
However, to have a less open borders policy than you espouse is almost certainly a very mainstream view.
Very few people believe in the unlimited immigration you support. I personally don’t come from a racist perspective but do find the country fairly full. As has been shown during Covid, the country is packed tight e.g. 40 minute queues at Snowdon as just one random example.
But, you also can’t dismiss it all as nonsense when one of the beliefs people had in Brexit is being proved correct with the wage increases.
Whether this is a wise outcome for the good of the nation is a very valid argument but you can’t dismiss current facts as nonsense just because you don’t like the bigger picture.
Wages have gone up as a direct result of Brexit policies. Many believed that would happen and it has.
Personally, I just thought we’d see the same immigration levels, just from different regions. Maybe we will yet.
As for Covid showing the UK to be 'fairly full', you should look at this chart.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density
But we are a crowded land imho.
We have huge swathes of largely unpopulated land and obviously don’t compare to city states like HK but I really didn’t think it was an out there view to think of us being quite crowded.
I find the south east pretty horrific for driving around. Anyone who doesn’t has become desensitised.
It’s not some anti immigration rant. I am all for some immigration but would balk at the idea of Ricks open border policy or any other one that saw 70-80 million population being acceptable.
Unless we grow the urban areas upwards to accommodate a growing population, I’m not a fan. We have constrained housing supply and building on green belt and flood plains being considered normal.0 -
Morstar, people have been saying Britain is over crowded for the last 300 years.
What’s an acceptable population level and why is it gonna be the population level when you were under 20 years old?0 -
I made the point before. If the government unilaterally decides to make a decision that will affect supply chains etc (leaving the single market) and pursues a nationalist policy (in this instance “British drivers for British lorries”) then surely they should prepare for that?TheBigBean said:
Small government free marketeer wants the government to do something?surrey_commuter said:Surely the problem is the barriers to entry and that the Govt does not have a transition plan for key jobs which will involve training up and reskilling the indigenous workforce.
I'm back to disagreeing with you!
Making big changes and then shrugging your shoulders and going “work it out yourself” is the worst of both worlds.0 -
Only if that price is above the UK minimum wage.TheBigBean said:
It's just an example. Obviously there are lots of other jobs being filled at international labour prices.kingstongraham said:It's funny that people think only truck drivers will be in this situation.
0 -
I think the "70-80 million population is unacceptable" rather assumes that open border policies result in one way and permanent immigration.
If it was given enough time I don't think it would play out like that at all - it hasn't in many other places in Europe.
For example, many of the initial influx of Poles have now moved back to Poland. A factor will be Brexit hostility, a factor will be improved job prospects in Poland, a factor will be it just suits where they are in their lives at the time.
Part of the problem is that Brits haven't embaced the two way aspect of open border with the same enthusiasm - albeit the retirees on the Costa de Sol may disagree with that. However, now we've had 18 months of significant numbers of us WFH that might change mindsets a little in that respect - if I could work from somewhere half the price with better weather and less crowded roads I would jump at the chance (and thank you Nigel/Boris for denying me that chance).
Its not going to suit everyone - you might have things keeping you in a place like family, work etc. - but as long as there is churn both inwards and outwards things balance out.0 -
The government constantly changes things. It even has a name in business: "change in law risk".rick_chasey said:
I made the point before. If the government unilaterally decides to make a decision that will affect supply chains etc (leaving the single market) and pursues a nationalist policy (in this instance “British drivers for British lorries”) then surely they should prepare for that?TheBigBean said:
Small government free marketeer wants the government to do something?surrey_commuter said:Surely the problem is the barriers to entry and that the Govt does not have a transition plan for key jobs which will involve training up and reskilling the indigenous workforce.
I'm back to disagreeing with you!
Making big changes and then shrugging your shoulders and going “work it out yourself” is the worst of both worlds.
The bolded part is a reciprocation of the rules the EU insisted on. British truckers driving in the EU was considered too much of a perk. Obviously the UK doesn't have to reciprocate, but it would have been politically unacceptable.0 -
How can it be more unacceptable than leaving NI behind?TheBigBean said:
The government constantly changes things. It even has a name in business: "change in law risk".rick_chasey said:
I made the point before. If the government unilaterally decides to make a decision that will affect supply chains etc (leaving the single market) and pursues a nationalist policy (in this instance “British drivers for British lorries”) then surely they should prepare for that?TheBigBean said:
Small government free marketeer wants the government to do something?surrey_commuter said:Surely the problem is the barriers to entry and that the Govt does not have a transition plan for key jobs which will involve training up and reskilling the indigenous workforce.
I'm back to disagreeing with you!
Making big changes and then shrugging your shoulders and going “work it out yourself” is the worst of both worlds.
The bolded part is a reciprocation of the rules the EU insisted on. British truckers driving in the EU was considered too much of a perk. Obviously the UK doesn't have to reciprocate, but it would have been politically unacceptable.0 -
Sure. It’s also literally what the govt said in response to the supermarket industry complaining about the lack of drivers.TheBigBean said:
The government constantly changes things. It even has a name in business: "change in law risk".rick_chasey said:
I made the point before. If the government unilaterally decides to make a decision that will affect supply chains etc (leaving the single market) and pursues a nationalist policy (in this instance “British drivers for British lorries”) then surely they should prepare for that?TheBigBean said:
Small government free marketeer wants the government to do something?surrey_commuter said:Surely the problem is the barriers to entry and that the Govt does not have a transition plan for key jobs which will involve training up and reskilling the indigenous workforce.
I'm back to disagreeing with you!
Making big changes and then shrugging your shoulders and going “work it out yourself” is the worst of both worlds.
The bolded part is a reciprocation of the rules the EU insisted on. British truckers driving in the EU was considered too much of a perk. Obviously the UK doesn't have to reciprocate, but it would have been politically unacceptable.
It’s not so much “too much of a perk” as it is the consequences of leaving the single market.0 -
-
Given that the market will adjust. No matter how good or bad the policy may be, a short/mid term reduced selection at the shops really is the very definition of a first world problem.
If this is as bad as Brexit gets, I’ll take it as a win.
If the Sh I t sandwich only contains a skid stain rather than a pile of sloppy turd, we should be thankful and happy for those that have gained a wad of extra take home pay in roles where they have previously had no leverage to improve.0 -
-
We aren't crowded, we lack infrastructure and housing plus have a history of attracting employment to centralised areas. That was a product of necessity when we were building around ports or raw materials for industry but, as the last 18 months have shown, large swathes of the economy can function without being centralised.morstar said:
Ok, Snowdon = poor example.rjsterry said:
Oh, FFS, there were 1hr queues for some of the rides at Chessington Work of Adventure the other week. Is that evidence for overpopulation, too?morstar said:
Couple of things.rick_chasey said:
Yes people in sh!t situations have a habit for voting for populist nonsense.morstar said:
And there you go still totally failing to grasp why some people voted for it.rick_chasey said:
It’s not even an answer to it.Jezyboy said:
So I tend to agree with the middle paragraph.morstar said:I don’t really have anything much more to add right now without repeating myself anymore than I already have so will part with this.
Where is the virtue in having a successful economy if it only benefits a minority within it?
To clarify, the minority is not especially small as I type this today but it is shrinking. The logical progression of the current trajectory of rapidly growing wealth disparity is not good. Don’t be surprised when the serfs take issue.
I just think brexit is an incredibly idiotic answer to the question.
It has nothing to do with inequality
Doesn’t mean it isn’t populist nonsense. Nor does it make it correct.
If you boil down the argument it is an iteration of blame the foreigner, which is the one thread that united the vote leave spectrum.
Either it’s the low wage immigrants or it’s the distrustful EU big wigs. Either way, the problem with them is they they’re foreign.
Unfortunately, this whole Brexit thing will only make it harder to help the people in tough spots. There will be less surplus to channel their way, less money for investment in the kinds of things that will help.
It’s a populist lie.
The irony is of course we all make out that truckies is some kind of super low paid work - it’s not that badly paid - a lot of them can afford to retire early!
I don’t like the clear racist undertones common to many Brexiteers and agree there is much populist nonsense behind it.
However, to have a less open borders policy than you espouse is almost certainly a very mainstream view.
Very few people believe in the unlimited immigration you support. I personally don’t come from a racist perspective but do find the country fairly full. As has been shown during Covid, the country is packed tight e.g. 40 minute queues at Snowdon as just one random example.
But, you also can’t dismiss it all as nonsense when one of the beliefs people had in Brexit is being proved correct with the wage increases.
Whether this is a wise outcome for the good of the nation is a very valid argument but you can’t dismiss current facts as nonsense just because you don’t like the bigger picture.
Wages have gone up as a direct result of Brexit policies. Many believed that would happen and it has.
Personally, I just thought we’d see the same immigration levels, just from different regions. Maybe we will yet.
As for Covid showing the UK to be 'fairly full', you should look at this chart.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density
But we are a crowded land imho.
We have huge swathes of largely unpopulated land and obviously don’t compare to city states like HK but I really didn’t think it was an out there view to think of us being quite crowded.
I find the south east pretty horrific for driving around. Anyone who doesn’t has become desensitised.
It’s not some anti immigration rant. I am all for some immigration but would balk at the idea of Ricks open border policy or any other one that saw 70-80 million population being acceptable.
Unless we grow the urban areas upwards to accommodate a growing population, I’m not a fan. We have constrained housing supply and building on green belt and flood plains being considered normal.
Whether we want to give up those huge swathes of green land to housing (and whether we should when the environment is so critical) is another matter.0 -
How many acres per person is enough? We really, really, really aren't overcrowded. We have created many problems by spreading people out too much, making public transport and other services difficult to sustain and forcing everyone to drive everywhere. The lack of affordable housing has many causes, but lack of space is not one. Many things actually work better when population density is increased.morstar said:
Ok, Snowdon = poor example.rjsterry said:
Oh, FFS, there were 1hr queues for some of the rides at Chessington Work of Adventure the other week. Is that evidence for overpopulation, too?morstar said:
Couple of things.rick_chasey said:
Yes people in sh!t situations have a habit for voting for populist nonsense.morstar said:
And there you go still totally failing to grasp why some people voted for it.rick_chasey said:
It’s not even an answer to it.Jezyboy said:
So I tend to agree with the middle paragraph.morstar said:I don’t really have anything much more to add right now without repeating myself anymore than I already have so will part with this.
Where is the virtue in having a successful economy if it only benefits a minority within it?
To clarify, the minority is not especially small as I type this today but it is shrinking. The logical progression of the current trajectory of rapidly growing wealth disparity is not good. Don’t be surprised when the serfs take issue.
I just think brexit is an incredibly idiotic answer to the question.
It has nothing to do with inequality
Doesn’t mean it isn’t populist nonsense. Nor does it make it correct.
If you boil down the argument it is an iteration of blame the foreigner, which is the one thread that united the vote leave spectrum.
Either it’s the low wage immigrants or it’s the distrustful EU big wigs. Either way, the problem with them is they they’re foreign.
Unfortunately, this whole Brexit thing will only make it harder to help the people in tough spots. There will be less surplus to channel their way, less money for investment in the kinds of things that will help.
It’s a populist lie.
The irony is of course we all make out that truckies is some kind of super low paid work - it’s not that badly paid - a lot of them can afford to retire early!
I don’t like the clear racist undertones common to many Brexiteers and agree there is much populist nonsense behind it.
However, to have a less open borders policy than you espouse is almost certainly a very mainstream view.
Very few people believe in the unlimited immigration you support. I personally don’t come from a racist perspective but do find the country fairly full. As has been shown during Covid, the country is packed tight e.g. 40 minute queues at Snowdon as just one random example.
But, you also can’t dismiss it all as nonsense when one of the beliefs people had in Brexit is being proved correct with the wage increases.
Whether this is a wise outcome for the good of the nation is a very valid argument but you can’t dismiss current facts as nonsense just because you don’t like the bigger picture.
Wages have gone up as a direct result of Brexit policies. Many believed that would happen and it has.
Personally, I just thought we’d see the same immigration levels, just from different regions. Maybe we will yet.
As for Covid showing the UK to be 'fairly full', you should look at this chart.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density
But we are a crowded land imho.
We have huge swathes of largely unpopulated land and obviously don’t compare to city states like HK but I really didn’t think it was an out there view to think of us being quite crowded.
I find the south east pretty horrific for driving around. Anyone who doesn’t has become desensitised.
It’s not some anti immigration rant. I am all for some immigration but would balk at the idea of Ricks open border policy or any other one that saw 70-80 million population being acceptable.
Unless we grow the urban areas upwards to accommodate a growing population, I’m not a fan. We have constrained housing supply and building on green belt and flood plains being considered normal.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1
