Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

same sh!t stevo.

Raising wages is raising productivity.

In my mind, just chucking more money at people to do the same thing does not do much. Can you explain how you see it working?

Also my question about root causes still stands - it cannot simply be about wages.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

same sh!t stevo.

Raising wages is raising productivity.

In my mind, just chucking more money at people to do the same thing does not do much. Can you explain how you see it working?

Also my question about root causes still stands - it cannot simply be about wages.

Well how d'ya measure productivity if it isn't wages?

If my wage goes up, according to the numbers, I am more productive.

Wages are the measure of productivity.

You know this.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

same sh!t stevo.

Raising wages is raising productivity.

In my mind, just chucking more money at people to do the same thing does not do much. Can you explain how you see it working?

Also my question about root causes still stands - it cannot simply be about wages.

I thought productivity is what you produced not what you earnt. So in an out of date factory you may make 8 cars but in a shiny new one you could be up to 10 and so have a 25% increase in productivity.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

same sh!t stevo.

Raising wages is raising productivity.

In my mind, just chucking more money at people to do the same thing does not do much. Can you explain how you see it working?

Also my question about root causes still stands - it cannot simply be about wages.

I thought productivity is what you produced not what you earnt. So in an out of date factory you may make 8 cars but in a shiny new one you could be up to 10 and so have a 25% increase in productivity.

Maybe I'm wrong but if you take GDP, divide it by the number of people, boom, there's your productivity per head.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

same sh!t stevo.

Raising wages is raising productivity.

In my mind, just chucking more money at people to do the same thing does not do much. Can you explain how you see it working?

Also my question about root causes still stands - it cannot simply be about wages.

Well how d'ya measure productivity if it isn't wages?

If my wage goes up, according to the numbers, I am more productive.

Wages are the measure of productivity.

You know this.

No, productivity is measured by output - various measures such as GDP per hour worked etc.

Wages simply reflect that employees may be more productive as you can afford to pay productive employees more but if was just a case of giving everyone a pay rise, don't you think people would have cottoned on to this by now?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

same sh!t stevo.

Raising wages is raising productivity.

In my mind, just chucking more money at people to do the same thing does not do much. Can you explain how you see it working?

Also my question about root causes still stands - it cannot simply be about wages.

I thought productivity is what you produced not what you earnt. So in an out of date factory you may make 8 cars but in a shiny new one you could be up to 10 and so have a 25% increase in productivity.

Maybe I'm wrong but if you take GDP, divide it by the number of people, boom, there's your productivity per head.

This sort of explains productivity and how you would improve it
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economi ... xplains-12

and this article explains that measuring productivity is difficult
https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonw ... ulb-moment

I am pretty sure that raining wages does not improve productivity.

term1te

Productivity is a measure of a given output per unit of input. However, it needs to be useful output, I could run the most productive Betamax factory in the world, but it wouldn’t do me any good. Wages are an input, or the cost of an input, so if I just up the wages, the overall productivity goes down. However, if I get more efficient at converting inputs into useful outputs, my productivity goes up, and I can afford to increase wages and the people being paid will have greater buying power, as the cost of goods hasn't increased. Increasing the cost of my output, without becoming more productive, will just fuel inflation, which will erode the buying power of the extra wages I've paid, so everyone is back to square one.

bompington

A couple of factors I've heard talked about re productivity:
- the French keep productivity high by simply not employing unproductive people. And by paying lots of public sector people highly to do not a lot. Fine until you can't sustain it.
- on the other hand, we are keeping lots of unproductive people in low-paid employment. People often mention "zombie companies" in this context - companies that are unproductive and should really die, but they can stay afloat due to low wages and interest rates. Is this a good thing? Well, yes and no I guess.

pblakeney

Well, my wages have been halved over the past 3 years due to supply outstripping demand.
How do you think that is affecting my productivity? Or my tax return? Or my spending?

I'm still employed though so those figures are good. Woo hoo!

Small sample example.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

- on the other hand, we are keeping lots of unproductive people in low-paid employment. People often mention "zombie companies" in this context - companies that are unproductive and should really die, but they can stay afloat due to low wages and interest rates. Is this a good thing? Well, yes and no I guess.

I do think that's the crux of the UK.

There are a lot of people underemployed in jobs that do not maximise their productivity.

BelgianBeerGeek

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

- on the other hand, we are keeping lots of unproductive people in low-paid employment. People often mention "zombie companies" in this context - companies that are unproductive and should really die, but they can stay afloat due to low wages and interest rates. Is this a good thing? Well, yes and no I guess.

I do think that's the crux of the UK.

There are a lot of people underemployed in jobs that do not maximise their productivity.

Why try harder if it won't get you any more?

rick_chasey

A classic example.

Friend of mine, first from Oxbridge in Chemistry, got a PhD from one of the highest rated labs in the whole of Europe.

Has decided his best options earnings wise is to be a programmer for a cloud based teleconferencing firm.

To me, that's under-utilisation.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

A classic example.

Friend of mine, first from Oxbridge in Chemistry, got a PhD from one of the highest rated labs in the whole of Europe.

Has decided his best options earnings wise is to be a programmer for a cloud based teleconferencing firm.

To me, that's under-utilisation.

Obviously not a direct comment on your friend, but I think doctorates are only an advantage in very specific areas of employment. In my industry it might almost be seen as a disadvantage.

briantrumpet

Rick Chasey wrote:

A classic example.

Friend of mine, first from Oxbridge in Chemistry, got a PhD from one of the highest rated labs in the whole of Europe.

Has decided his best options earnings wise is to be a programmer for a cloud based teleconferencing firm.

To me, that's under-utilisation.

You're right. And I'm qualified to do bovine artificial insemination, and I just play and teach the trumpet.

ballysmate

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

seems that getting Corbyn is a Brexit Bonus

Morgan Stanley told investors that another general election towards the end of 2018 was likely once Theresa May’s government realised it could not secure the Brexit deal it wants and the Conservative party began to fall apart, opening the door to Labour taking power.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

Tell us something we don't know...

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

Tell us something we don't know...

What investment w*nkers worried about a labour leadership?
Tell us something we don't know...

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

Tell us something we don't know...

What investment w*nkers worried about a labour leadership?
Tell us something we don't know...

It appears that the Guardian is worried. Didn't have the pious sandal wearing brigade down as investment bankers though?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

Tell us something we don't know...

What investment w*nkers worried about a labour leadership?
Tell us something we don't know...

It appears that the Guardian is worried. Didn't have the pious sandal wearing brigade down as investment bankers though?

You should dabble more often. Despite a few pro-Corbyn commentators, the BTL comments on most comment articles are always full of accusations that the writer is a toryindisguise, or worse <gasp> a Blairite.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

Tell us something we don't know...

What investment w*nkers worried about a labour leadership?
Tell us something we don't know...

It appears that the Guardian is worried. Didn't have the pious sandal wearing brigade down as investment bankers though?

You should dabble more often. Despite a few pro-Corbyn commentators, the BTL comments on most comment articles are always full of accusations that the writer is a toryindisguise, or worse <gasp> a Blairite.

Must admit a guilty pleasure of visiting CiF.
I may have, on occasion, poked them with a well aimed stick.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

Tell us something we don't know...

What investment w*nkers worried about a labour leadership?
Tell us something we don't know...

It appears that the Guardian is worried. Didn't have the pious sandal wearing brigade down as investment bankers though?

As this guy is being accepted as the oracle are you going to unquestionly accept his analysis that the Tories will screw up Brexit and then tear themselves apart so giving the keys to number 10 to comrade Corbyn

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Putting Brexit into perspective

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank


Must be true, it's in the lefty bible.

Tell us something we don't know...

What investment w*nkers worried about a labour leadership?
Tell us something we don't know...

It appears that the Guardian is worried. Didn't have the pious sandal wearing brigade down as investment bankers though?

As this guy is being accepted as the oracle are you going to unquestionly accept his analysis that the Tories will screw up Brexit and then tear themselves apart so giving the keys to number 10 to comrade Corbyn

Is he? Just another opinion as far as I can see.

mamba80

Brexit, falling productivity, falling growth, lowest rises in std of living since the 50's, low wage rises, higher inflation.... and you re all still fixated on the damage Labour might do to the economy

When has a party ever fully implemented a manifesto? stop worrying about what may never happen (JC will be into his 70s by the next GE) and start worrying about what is happening to this country right before your very own eyes.

If Corbyn gets in, it ll be the Tories fault for pursuing a brexit and eco policy which is plainly damaging this country and you tories voted for it..... Turkeys and Xmas spring to mind.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Brexit, falling productivity, falling growth, lowest rises in std of living since the 50's, low wage rises, higher inflation.... and you re all still fixated on the damage Labour might do to the economy

When has a party ever fully implemented a manifesto? stop worrying about what may never happen (JC will be into his 70s by the next GE) and start worrying about what is happening to this country right before your very own eyes.

If Corbyn gets in, it ll be the Tories fault for pursuing a brexit and eco policy which is plainly damaging this country and you tories voted for it..... Turkeys and Xmas spring to mind.

Well yes, its important to get priorities right in terms of risks and downsides.

Although as you said on a different thread, you can't do much about your tax bill so do you think that you won't suffer if Corbyn gets in ? Ditto when your pension funds can't pay out?

rick_chasey

Hold the press; John "I will be the first socialist Labour chancellor" and "i am a Marxist" McDonnell would not be good for the City.

I mean. F*ck.

rolf_f

mamba80 wrote:

When has a party ever fully implemented a manifesto? stop worrying about what may never happen (JC will be into his 70s by the next GE) and start worrying about what is happening to this country right before your very own eyes.

Are you telling me that the sort of stuff that political parties write on the sides of buses does not always get implemented? I think I'm losing my faith in politicians!

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Brexit, falling productivity, falling growth, lowest rises in std of living since the 50's, low wage rises, higher inflation.... and you re all still fixated on the damage Labour might do to the economy

When has a party ever fully implemented a manifesto? stop worrying about what may never happen (JC will be into his 70s by the next GE) and start worrying about what is happening to this country right before your very own eyes.

If Corbyn gets in, it ll be the Tories fault for pursuing a brexit and eco policy which is plainly damaging this country and you tories voted for it..... Turkeys and Xmas spring to mind.

Even if Corbyn had a strong shadow chancellor who was not bat shit crazy there would be huge pressure for a new election. If Labour had not already imploded the Tories would be gone already.

I hate our electoral system

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Brexit, falling productivity, falling growth, lowest rises in std of living since the 50's, low wage rises, higher inflation.... and you re all still fixated on the damage Labour might do to the economy

When has a party ever fully implemented a manifesto? stop worrying about what may never happen (JC will be into his 70s by the next GE) and start worrying about what is happening to this country right before your very own eyes.

If Corbyn gets in, it ll be the Tories fault for pursuing a brexit and eco policy which is plainly damaging this country and you tories voted for it..... Turkeys and Xmas spring to mind.

Well yes, its important to get priorities right in terms of risks and downsides.

Although as you said on a different thread, you can't do much about your tax bill so do you think that you won't suffer if Corbyn gets in ? Ditto when your pension funds can't pay out?

as i ve told you before, its the Tories that are running the show, not Labour, if and when there is an election, then sure point out the downsides to a Labour victory.

my overall tax burden is rocketing right now, rising prices, more vat paid, more council tax, less services, less spent on NHS (in real terms) same with education and roads, so called indirect taxation ie insurance tax, airport taxes.... the £400 i ve just had to pay out for post 16 transport (and they say they encourage 16yos to stay on at school!!!) the crash in sterling because of brexit... i am substantially worse off under the tories.

Maybe you can tell me how this proposed 50 billion to the EU is going to be paid for?

rolf_f

mamba80 wrote:

Maybe you can tell me how this proposed 50 billion to the EU is going to be paid for?

Obvious innit? The 50 billion is to cover the stuff that as members we were committed to pay out of the £350m pw the NHS is getting. So it isn't actually going to cost us any more than we would have paid had we stayed in the EU - we just won't be getting anything back (ie that bit that Boris forgot to mention when he was waddling about quoting £350m). The money we would have been getting back is that which the EU would have put into Cornwall, Welsh farming and the North in general etc.

So the 50 billion is going to be paid for by those parts of the country that are politely asking the UK Govt to keep funding that which previously the EU funded.