MrSmith Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Doesn't more people create a bigger demand for goods and therefore require more jobs to produce those goods? No, wealth increases demand and increase in population size increases dependency. Wealthy people consume more than a poor people, Increase the wealth of everyone on the planet and we run out of natural resources very quickly as demand increases. Make everyone on the planet poor and natural resources last much longer because demand and consumption drops. Neither is very desirable, increase the wealth of everyone whilst decreasing the population would be a reasonable compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Doesn't more people create a bigger demand for goods and therefore require more jobs to produce those goods? clearly you dont have a grasp of simple economics! more people requires more goods yes, but more efficient manufacturing abroad negates the need for more jobs to produce! you can thank union practices of the last 30 or so years in part for that in the uk! we now have a never ending circle of a growing population funded mostly on benefits which have to be paid for from the working and business, which in turn means less disposable income to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 clearly you dont have a grasp of simple economics! more people requires more goods yes, but more efficient manufacturing abroad negates the need for more jobs to produce! you can thank union practices of the last 30 or so years in part for that in the uk! we now have a never ending circle of a growing population funded mostly on benefits which have to be paid for from the working and business, which in turn means less disposable income to spend. Neither do you, but I have friends ... so that makes us different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 clearly you dont have a grasp of simple economics! more people requires more goods yes, but more efficient manufacturing abroad negates the need for more jobs to produce! you can thank union practices of the last 30 or so years in part for that in the uk! we now have a never ending circle of a growing population funded mostly on benefits which have to be paid for from the working and business, which in turn means less disposable income to spend. What an attitude ……. Lets all wear branded clothes or other produts made by kids on 10 bob a day week …….. lets ship out all our banking and call centres to Asian countries even if coustomers hate them ………. Oops that’s been tried hasn’t it and some companies are now bringing there services back and go out of therir way to advertise “British call centres only” Remind me again who doesn’t have a grasp of simple economics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 ...you can thank union practices of the last 30 or so years in part for that in the uk! we now have a never ending circle of a growing population funded mostly on benefits which have to be paid for from the working and business, which in turn means less disposable income to spend. Unions are responsible for immigration and unemployment? In the last 30 years we have had recessions in the early 80s caused by Thatcher's cuts, in the early 90s caused by the Lawson boom and bust, another starting in 2007 because of unregulated banks and another now thanks to the Osborne budgets. Unions have never been in charge of the Conservative Party or banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Unions are responsible for immigration and unemployment? In the last 30 years we have had recessions in the early 80s caused by Thatcher's cuts, in the early 90s caused by the Lawson boom and bust, another starting in 2007 because of unregulated banks and another now thanks to the Osborne budgets. Unions have never been in charge of the Conservative Party or banks. The argument is that because unions fought for better pay, better condition and created an unreliable workforce though strike action, employers turned to mechanization, importing from abroad and employing immigrant labour. The result is immigration and unemployment for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The argument is that because unions fought for better pay, better condition and created an unreliable workforce though strike action, employers turned to mechanization, importing from abroad and employing immigrant labour. The result is immigration and unemployment for many. :thumbsup:pretty much sums it up...................unfortunatly they wont get it:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Unions are responsible for immigration and unemployment? In the last 30 years we have had recessions in the early 80s caused by Thatcher's cuts, in the early 90s caused by the Lawson boom and bust, another starting in 2007 because of unregulated banks and another now thanks to the Osborne budgets. Unions have never been in charge of the Conservative Party or banks. ahh the old thatcher angle:suspect: ...of course how silly of me..............its her fault it rains as well eh:loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Un Suited Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The real problem is that we have super rich people who pay very little tax. We should confiscate the wealth of the top 10% (as most of them did not earn it anyhow) and use it for the common good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Wow! What a cunning plan! Who is this 'we' who are going to do the 'confiscating'? How are that 'we' going to get their hands on the wealth of the top 10%? Should that 10% think that the 'we' are a serious threat to them, do you think they would be able to 'hire some help' to persuade the 'we' to change their minds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.