Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

1141517192067

Posts

  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,198
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    It intrigues me that some people don't seem to understand supply and demand in the labour market :)

    Go on, how does supply and demand work in a monopsony.

    300px-Monopsony-welfare-effects.svg.png

    Would have though long-time critic of state run industry would be aware of the deadweight loss of monopsony market structures.
    Why don't you explain your evidence to support why you think nurses are not paid enough rather than trying to divert onto theoretical conversations.

    On reflection, it was you who brought up the theory first....
    Never mentioned theory - I was talking practical application. You were the one who went all smartarse student and produced a graph from an economics website.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 17,322
    It's from Wikipedia. :P
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,485 Lives Here
    I’m giving you all the opportunities to agree with me and you’re still resisting.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,198
    I’m giving you all the opportunities to agree with me and you’re still resisting.
    I suppose I should be grateful for being given tne opportunity to agree with you :)

    However you have to make a point for me to agree with it. Posting a graph from Wikipedia and asking me to explain it isn't making a point, so care to make one in an understandable form?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,198
    rjsterry wrote:
    It's from Wikipedia. :P
    No surprise there :) But it almost made him look like some sort of economics guru.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,485 Lives Here
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I’m giving you all the opportunities to agree with me and you’re still resisting.
    I suppose I should be grateful for being given tne opportunity to agree with you :)

    However you have to make a point for me to agree with it. Posting a graph from Wikipedia and asking me to explain it isn't making a point, so care to make one in an understandable form?

    So a monospony is like a monopoly, but rather than being the only seller, it's the only buyer.

    So in this instance, the only buyer of nurse labour, or at least the dominant buyer, is the NHS.

    So in practical terms, the buyer uses its monopsonic power to reduce the wages it pays.

    This leads to a twofold loss; it reduces employment (as fewer people will want to do the job than the demand has capacity for) and lower wages for the staff who are working.

    The graph neatly demonstrates the phenomenon.

    450px-Monopsony-static-partial-equilibrium.svg.png

    So number of people employed is on the x axis and wages are on the y.

    On the graph, MC is the marginal cost of the product, (healthcare in this instance) and S is the supply of labour.

    In competitive conditions, the employer would be forced to pay where supply meets demand (point C), and so you would get L1 levels of employment and W1 wage levels.

    Because it has no competition however, it can use it's leverage to maximise profits, so it will instead aim to set wages, where the marginal cost meets the demand - at the expense of its labour force (paying the guys just enough to keep the thing running but not a penny more - as there's no other firm ready to poach them).

    As you can see in that graph, that reduces both the levels of employment and wages - which makes sense if you think about it.

    That's basically what happens with nurses.

    That area between A M and C is the net loss in both employment and wages that this market structure creates.

    It's the single most straightforward argument against state-run services like the NHS; where is the incentive to pay a competitive wage, which is, in net terms, the most efficient way to allocate resources?
  • robert88robert88 Posts: 2,706
    edited August 2019
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I’m giving you all the opportunities to agree with me and you’re still resisting.
    I suppose I should be grateful for being given tne opportunity to agree with you :)

    However you have to make a point for me to agree with it. Posting a graph from Wikipedia and asking me to explain it isn't making a point, so care to make one in an understandable form?

    So a monospony is like a monopoly, but rather than being the only seller, it's the only buyer.

    So in this instance, the only buyer of nurse labour, or at least the dominant buyer, is the NHS.

    So in practical terms, the buyer uses its monopsonic power to reduce the wages it pays.

    This leads to a twofold loss; it reduces employment (as fewer people will want to do the job than the demand has capacity for) and lower wages for the staff who are working.

    The graph neatly demonstrates the phenomenon.

    450px-Monopsony-static-partial-equilibrium.svg.png

    So number of people employed is on the x axis and wages are on the y.

    On the graph, MC is the marginal cost of the product, (healthcare in this instance) and S is the supply of labour.

    In competitive conditions, the employer would be forced to pay where supply meets demand (point C), and so you would get L1 levels of employment and W1 wage levels.

    Because it has no competition however, it can use it's leverage to maximise profits, so it will instead set the wage at point A, where the marginal cost meets the demand - at the expense of its labour force.

    As you can see in that graph, that reduces both the levels of employment and wages - which makes sense if you think about it.

    That's basically what happens with nurses.

    That area in yellow highlighted is the loss in both employment and wages that this market structure creates.

    It's the single most straightforward argument against state-run services like the NHS; where is the incentive to pay a competitive wage, which is, in net terms, the most efficient way to allocate resources?

    I was interested to read an article from over one hundred years ago.

    It described a problem where people with infectious diseases did nothing about them and carried on with their lives, implicitly because health care was too expensive.

    Obviously the result was that disease was spread widely. People were open to prosecution, particularly if they were parents of children but the authorities found it difficult to impose punishments because the culprits in many cases simply pled ignorance, i.e. said they assumed the disease was a less serious complaint.

    Also, almost exactly a century ago, the so-called 'Spanish' influenza epidemic carried off more people than WW1 (that had just ended). Troops returning from the front were allowed to disperse far and wide carrying the disease with them. At the time the authorities ensured the problem was hushed up up rather than dealt with since there wasn't the infrastructure to do anything better.

    It wasn't uncommon for soldiers to have survived the entire war, only to die at home of influenza and pneumonia.

    The NHS is not simply about money.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,485 Lives Here
    I guess my question is would public opinion tip before nurses wages rose to W1.
  • shirley_bassoshirley_basso Posts: 3,020
    That the word 'flu only carries one apostrophe when it's shortened from the beginning and end.
  • I guess my question is would public opinion tip before nurses wages rose to W1.

    The public seems remarkably relaxed about Drs losing their annual pension allowance because they earn over £150k.

    I don’t think public opinion would tip as they don’t get the relationship between paying nurses more and little Jayden having 4 more kids in his class or the puncture caused by an unrepaired pothole or having £20 a week less because taxation increased.

    Their problem is how they get there because if they went on strike it would instantly tip. Maybe follow the Drs lead and stop volunteering for overtime and/or retire early. That of course is an individual choice rather than a collective strategy.
  • robert88robert88 Posts: 2,706
    That the word 'flu only carries one apostrophe when it's shortened from the beginning and end.

    Have you asked Jacob Rees-Mogg?
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,286
    robert88 wrote:
    That the word 'flu only carries one apostrophe when it's shortened from the beginning and end.

    Have you asked Jacob Rees-Mogg?

    You sure he still frequents the forum??
  • awaveyawavey Posts: 2,368
    was following a Waitrose delivery van tonight, that started to indicate right, and suddenly the reversing lights and reversing noise came on whilst going forward...did they seriously change into reverse gear whilst trying to select 1st !!!
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,198
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I’m giving you all the opportunities to agree with me and you’re still resisting.
    I suppose I should be grateful for being given tne opportunity to agree with you :)

    However you have to make a point for me to agree with it. Posting a graph from Wikipedia and asking me to explain it isn't making a point, so care to make one in an understandable form?

    So a monospony is like a monopoly, but rather than being the only seller, it's the only buyer.

    So in this instance, the only buyer of nurse labour, or at least the dominant buyer, is the NHS.

    So in practical terms, the buyer uses its monopsonic power to reduce the wages it pays.

    This leads to a twofold loss; it reduces employment (as fewer people will want to do the job than the demand has capacity for) and lower wages for the staff who are working.

    The graph neatly demonstrates the phenomenon.

    450px-Monopsony-static-partial-equilibrium.svg.png

    So number of people employed is on the x axis and wages are on the y.

    On the graph, MC is the marginal cost of the product, (healthcare in this instance) and S is the supply of labour.

    In competitive conditions, the employer would be forced to pay where supply meets demand (point C), and so you would get L1 levels of employment and W1 wage levels.

    Because it has no competition however, it can use it's leverage to maximise profits, so it will instead aim to set wages, where the marginal cost meets the demand - at the expense of its labour force (paying the guys just enough to keep the thing running but not a penny more - as there's no other firm ready to poach them).

    As you can see in that graph, that reduces both the levels of employment and wages - which makes sense if you think about it.

    That's basically what happens with nurses.

    That area between A M and C is the net loss in both employment and wages that this market structure creates.

    It's the single most straightforward argument against state-run services like the NHS; where is the incentive to pay a competitive wage, which is, in net terms, the most efficient way to allocate resources?
    Understand the theory but the reality is somewhat different.

    The private sector accounts for around 25% of non-NHS nursing employment and around 35% of nursing auxiliaries and assistants. So not insignificant.

    Also the reality is that many nursing and other medical staff get around this by doing agency and locum work which pays more and effectively circumvents the pay restraint in the above situation. If as you say the pay structure suppresses supply for permanent roles, the work still needs to be done and contract work is how the demand is met.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 17,322
    Which probably costs the NHS more than if they just put up wages by an equivalent amount. Agencies must take a cut somewhere.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,198
    rjsterry wrote:
    Which probably costs the NHS more than if they just put up wages by an equivalent amount. Agencies must take a cut somewhere.
    True. As Rick said, that's part of the problem with state enterprises.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    keef66 wrote:
    robert88 wrote:
    That the word 'flu only carries one apostrophe when it's shortened from the beginning and end.

    Have you asked Jacob Rees-Mogg?

    You sure he still frequents the forum??

    yes.

    he mainly frequents the "hobby horse" section and is currently ranting in "campaign" about people trying to use newfangled pneumatic tyres.


    #reesmogg.nowhe'satwat
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • LagrangeLagrange Posts: 652
    Franco Prussian War vs 'German' dogs

    I was out on it this morning and coming home got barked at by an Alsatian and its fat cnt owner and I told him to keep his fng alsatian under control. He pointed to a sign on his fence which said 'Beware GSD Loose'. Clearly his fence has better powers of articulation than him. Anyway, my point is why are they now called GSD and not alsatians? Alsace was in France until the Franco Prussian war and presumably that is where Alsatians come from.

    Is this the same thing that caused dentists to be promoted from Mr Patel to Dr Patel?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 17,322
    Lagrange wrote:
    Franco Prussian War vs 'German' dogs

    I was out on it this morning and coming home got barked at by an Alsatian and its fat cnt owner and I told him to keep his fng alsatian under control. He pointed to a sign on his fence which said 'Beware GSD Loose'. Clearly his fence has better powers of articulation than him. Anyway, my point is why are they now called GSD and not alsatians? Alsace was in France until the Franco Prussian war and presumably that is where Alsatians come from.

    Is this the same thing that caused dentists to be promoted from Mr Patel to Dr Patel?

    They were always GSDs but had a re-brand after WW1
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 38,545
    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda

    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year." President of Abyssinia's annual address to the nation.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,198
    pinno wrote:
    In Sunderland that could be seen as attempts to make it a nicer place.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • LagrangeLagrange Posts: 652
    rjsterry wrote:
    Lagrange wrote:
    Franco Prussian War vs 'German' dogs

    I was out on it this morning and coming home got barked at by an Alsatian and its fat cnt owner and I told him to keep his fng alsatian under control. He pointed to a sign on his fence which said 'Beware GSD Loose'. Clearly his fence has better powers of articulation than him. Anyway, my point is why are they now called GSD and not alsatians? Alsace was in France until the Franco Prussian war and presumably that is where Alsatians come from.

    Is this the same thing that caused dentists to be promoted from Mr Patel to Dr Patel?

    They were always GSDs but had a re-brand after WW1


    So they were rebranded after WW1 then they must have become Alsatians? They must have been rebranded subsequently because they seem to be GSD again. Do they rebrand after every war? ...or do you mean the dentists? :D
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,390
    pinno wrote:
    Why offer an option to manage data options, then only offer "OK" as the single option?
    Okay, I know the answer but there should be some ruling.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 38,545
    pblakeney wrote:
    pinno wrote:
    Why offer an option to manage data options, then only offer "OK" as the single option?
    Okay, I know the answer but there should be some ruling.

    Dunno but I use proxy and VPN servers and clear my browser cache regularly.
    I also have Privacy Badger but Opera uses the above anyway, so I doubt it has much to do.
    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda

    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year." President of Abyssinia's annual address to the nation.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    why are england so rubbish at rugby when they big themselves up so much?

    #13-6
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • Well good point. Let's check shall we:

    Number of times England played Wales 134
    England wins 63
    Wales win 59
    Draw 12

    Grand Slam wins
    England 13
    Wales 12

    Points for England 1758
    Points for Wales 1593

    Number of times in RWC final England 3 Wales 0
    Number of times won RWC England 1 Wales 0

    Hmmm it appears then that England are less rubbish than Wales :lol:

    Still, enjoy the number 1 ranking while you can. Unfortunately for Wales(and other teams) I think NZ will have regained that come RWC final day.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,390
    pinno wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    pinno wrote:
    Why offer an option to manage data options, then only offer "OK" as the single option?
    Okay, I know the answer but there should be some ruling.

    Dunno but I use proxy and VPN servers and clear my browser cache regularly.
    I also have Privacy Badger but Opera uses the above anyway, so I doubt it has much to do.
    Yeah but, the point was not so much the why's and fixes but the pretence of options.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Well good point. Let's check shall we:

    Number of times England played Wales 134
    England wins 63
    Wales win 59
    Draw 12

    Grand Slam wins
    England 13
    Wales 12

    Points for England 1758
    Points for Wales 1593

    Number of times in RWC final England 3 Wales 0
    Number of times won RWC England 1 Wales 0

    Hmmm it appears then that England are less rubbish than Wales :lol:

    Still, enjoy the number 1 ranking while you can. Unfortunately for Wales(and other teams) I think NZ will have regained that come RWC final day.

    You should be handicapping those numbers to reflect relative populations and/or participation levels.

    Personally I think the sports we are perceived to be censored at are private school dominated and they lack the mental strength of their opponents
  • pblakeney wrote:
    pinno wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    pinno wrote:
    Why offer an option to manage data options, then only offer "OK" as the single option?
    Okay, I know the answer but there should be some ruling.

    Dunno but I use proxy and VPN servers and clear my browser cache regularly.
    I also have Privacy Badger but Opera uses the above anyway, so I doubt it has much to do.
    Yeah but, the point was not so much the why's and fixes but the pretence of options.

    Because they can’t make enough money without dropping cookies on visitors. When laws are passed they are very generic and then case law fills in the details. Websites are now pushing the boundaries and cases are being won and lost that will decide what is acceptable. Currently many are hiding behind “business necessity” which means they would go bust if they did not drop cookies on everybody.

    IMHO the problem is that online is perceived as free. They should all offer the Spotify model.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,390
    Because they can’t make enough money without dropping cookies on visitors.
    I get that.
    Why not just offer "Accept cookies" and "Leave"? The "manage" section is pointless.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
Sign In or Register to comment.