Breadline Britain.

[I1L2T3]

Yes its a great trick to pull off. Pay everyone in the country high wages and still compete on the world stage with low wage economies. Its usually a trick imagined by folks in public sector jobs to whom competing isn't a word in their vocabulary.

 

I work in the private sector as it happens. Have done for a long time.

 

But anyway, there are a few things to discuss here which I hope you can do in a civil way without recourse to flawed right-wing sound bites:

 

1. On what terms do we want to compete? Do we want to take on Far East competitors at their game, in industries where they have a comparative advantage that we can never hope to overturn? Let's face it Apple are never going to post an order to a UK factory for several million iPods. From a standing start we haven't got the facilities in place, or workers who could feasibly work such long hours for such low wages to fulfil contracts. Our labour model is totally different one to the Far East where semi-educated workers migrate to cities and work long hours while living in poor conditions (e.g. dorms) for low pay. The likes of Apple manufacture in those countries precisely because those countries are decades behind the civilised world in terms of workers' rights and what is acceptable. It is not something to aspire to.

 

2. Or do we concentrate on our core strengths in industries where people can enjoy high wages in industries and sectors where we have comparative advantage. For example R&D, scientific industries, engineering, services etc... That is where the key to our prosperity is, not with trying to compete to manufacture cheap gizmos. In many ways this government has made a catastrophic mistake pulling R&D and infrastructure spending to get the deficit down. They have damaged our core industries while promoting an idea we should try and dumb down and reduce costs to compete in industries where we simply can't. If they were serious about the latter they would be reducing the basic costs of living by helping living costs fall, e.g. by investing cheaper housing. Also, sadly the sudden reduction in R&D and infrastructure spending makes the idea that we can compete with low-priced competitors a bit of a non-starter anyway - we're simply not investing to get the building blocks in place anyway.

 

3. It has to be recognised that major 'competitors' like China have state-owned and partly state-owned enterprises. A lot the infrastructure and R&D investment to make cheap manufacture possible comes from the state. The conditions in which people live in to work for the industries are dictated/allowed by the state too, conditions that by our standards we would consider to be poverty. The state has a role on a level we couldn't imagine here but you seem to be arguing that we can achieve the same thing without the state being involved. Curious.

 

4. Foreign aid. It's a double-edged sword really. One effect is to pull people in your 'competitor' nations out of poverty. The less people in poverty in 'competitor' nations the more their cost base rises. But right-wingers often want to remove this funding altogether. They don't see the benefits to us in the long run of it helping to level the playing field.

 

I would suggest that an issue with the right wing when discussing poverty, either in this country or relative to other countries is a failure to join the dots.

 

Happy to discuss.

[ricgem2002]

There are poor people in this country but most of it is their own doing, their life style and life choices are the main reason they are in poverty,there is no real poverty in this country compared to some country's.

also helped by uncaring gov

[Gleadly]

Get rid of the unions, as they, together with Labour, bankrupt the country.

 

How much do tube drivers in London get paid?

Look at the immigration problems we have at the moment.

 

Get all firms to be partnerships, like John Lewis etc.

[SHYTOT]

The public sector are subject to competitive tendering-just reminding you!

 

Get a lot of competition from China and other low wage economies do they?

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 14:09 ----------

 

I work in the private sector as it happens. Have done for a long time.

 

But anyway, there are a few things to discuss here which I hope you can do in a civil way without recourse to flawed right-wing sound bites:

 

1. On what terms do we want to compete? Do we want to take on Far East competitors at their game, in industries where they have a comparative advantage that we can never hope to overturn? Let's face it Apple are never going to post an order to a UK factory for several million iPods. From a standing start we haven't got the facilities in place, or workers who could feasibly work such long hours for such low wages to fulfil contracts. Our labour model is totally different one to the Far East where semi-educated workers migrate to cities and work long hours while living in poor conditions (e.g. dorms) for low pay. The likes of Apple manufacture in those countries precisely because those countries are decades behind the civilised world in terms of workers' rights and what is acceptable. It is not something to aspire to.

 

2. Or do we concentrate on our core strengths in industries where people can enjoy high wages in industries and sectors where we have comparative advantage. For example R&D, scientific industries, engineering, services etc... That is where the key to our prosperity is, not with trying to compete to manufacture cheap gizmos. In many ways this government has made a catastrophic mistake pulling R&D and infrastructure spending to get the deficit down. They have damaged our core industries while promoting an idea we should try and dumb down and reduce costs to compete in industries where we simply can't. If they were serious about the latter they would be reducing the basic costs of living by helping living costs fall, e.g. by investing cheaper housing. Also, sadly the sudden reduction in R&D and infrastructure spending makes the idea that we can compete with low-priced competitors a bit of a non-starter anyway - we're simply not investing to get the building blocks in place anyway.

 

3. It has to be recognised that major 'competitors' like China have state-owned and partly state-owned enterprises. A lot the infrastructure and R&D investment to make cheap manufacture possible comes from the state. The conditions in which people live in to work for the industries are dictated/allowed by the state too, conditions that by our standards we would consider to be poverty. The state has a role on a level we couldn't imagine here but you seem to be arguing that we can achieve the same thing without the state being involved. Curious.

 

4. Foreign aid. It's a double-edged sword really. One effect is to pull people in your 'competitor' nations out of poverty. The less people in poverty in 'competitor' nations the more their cost base rises. But right-wingers often want to remove this funding altogether. They don't see the benefits to us in the long run of it helping to level the playing field.

 

I would suggest that an issue with the right wing when discussing poverty, either in this country or relative to other countries is a failure to join the dots.

 

Happy to discuss.

 

That's all very nice and sanitized. But just what are these industries that you talk of that will employ 20 million folk where we can do not compete with low wage economies.

[MrSmith]

I work in the private sector as it happens. Have done for a long time.

 

But anyway, there are a few things to discuss here which I hope you can do in a civil way without recourse to flawed right-wing sound bites:

 

1. On what terms do we want to compete? Do we want to take on Far East competitors at their game, in industries where they have a comparative advantage that we can never hope to overturn? Let's face it Apple are never going to post an order to a UK factory for several million iPods. From a standing start we haven't got the facilities in place, or workers who could feasibly work such long hours for such low wages to fulfil contracts. Our labour model is totally different one to the Far East where semi-educated workers migrate to cities and work long hours while living in poor conditions (e.g. dorms) for low pay. The likes of Apple manufacture in those countries precisely because those countries are decades behind the civilised world in terms of workers' rights and what is acceptable. It is not something to aspire to.

 

2. Or do we concentrate on our core strengths in industries where people can enjoy high wages in industries and sectors where we have comparative advantage. For example R&D, scientific industries, engineering, services etc... That is where the key to our prosperity is, not with trying to compete to manufacture cheap gizmos. In many ways this government has made a catastrophic mistake pulling R&D and infrastructure spending to get the deficit down. They have damaged our core industries while promoting an idea we should try and dumb down and reduce costs to compete in industries where we simply can't. If they were serious about the latter they would be reducing the basic costs of living by helping living costs fall, e.g. by investing cheaper housing. Also, sadly the sudden reduction in R&D and infrastructure spending makes the idea that we can compete with low-priced competitors a bit of a non-starter anyway - we're simply not investing to get the building blocks in place anyway.

 

3. It has to be recognised that major 'competitors' like China have state-owned and partly state-owned enterprises. A lot the infrastructure and R&D investment to make cheap manufacture possible comes from the state. The conditions in which people live in to work for the industries are dictated/allowed by the state too, conditions that by our standards we would consider to be poverty. The state has a role on a level we couldn't imagine here but you seem to be arguing that we can achieve the same thing without the state being involved. Curious.

 

4. Foreign aid. It's a double-edged sword really. One effect is to pull people in your 'competitor' nations out of poverty. The less people in poverty in 'competitor' nations the more their cost base rises. But right-wingers often want to remove this funding altogether. They don't see the benefits to us in the long run of it helping to level the playing field.

 

I would suggest that an issue with the right wing when discussing poverty, either in this country or relative to other countries is a failure to join the dots.

 

Happy to discuss.

 

I like they way you want to discuss this civilly and then go on the mock anyone that might have a different opinion.

[Plain Talker]

As far as I know "poverty" is defined by what proportion of your wage/ benefit goes toward paying for the basic needs such as on Rent and on Fuel / water - Gas and electricity (coal?) bills, and water rates/ water bills.

 

In that I mean not extravagance, where you pay for a 14 bedroomed mansion, for yourself and one child, sort of scenario, I'm talking about appropriately sized homes, (a standard semi/ terrace) and adequate warmth.

[I1L2T3]

I like they way you want to discuss this civilly and then go on the mock anyone that might have a different opinion.

 

You're mistaken. It's not mocking. It's something I've noticed a lot. And it's something we see in our current right-wing government where departments seemingly fail to communicate while policies that do not cohesively cut acrosss departments. I think it's a common right-wing trait where simplistic issues can only be processed one at a time without reference to others. In terms of how people in this country may be affected by poverty this cross-departmental failure to join the dots could have terrible consequences.

 

Anything else about the rest of my post you want to talk about?

 

Happy to discuss.

[Tomtom66]

Poverty is an attention grabbing tool IMO, I honestly think that people who cry they are in poverty in this country don't have a clue about what hard times and real poverty are, me and my wife both work part time on minimum wage and we have 3 children to care for, no I haven't got loads to spend, we understand that money isn't as easy to come by as it use to be so we have cut back spending but I believe we are not in any poverty at all we can pay our bills and keep the roof over our head and our children are fed and happy, what more does anyone really need ?, people are to blinded by the need to have material things, the latest phone isn't important sky tv isn't important having a big tv isn't important, I think most people in this country need a reality check and need to see that money cannot buy happiness, if you are struggling for money time to cut back on the spending, if you have debts ring them and tell them you have to put them on hold for a while because you can not eat if your paying them so tough luck.

 

It's a wise tool to learn how to stretch your money and buy better, learn how to cook better, supermarkets seem cheap and easy but who really wants to eat that garbage ?, £20 worth of meat from the butchers if known how to spread it out properly will last 2 weeks, and £10 worth of veg from the markets accompany's those meals, the main problem I notice is people buy so much crap now it's ridiculous and then they all waddle around complaining about getting fat, yes you do need the Internet nowadays for most things but is it really necessary, is it more important than the roof over your head or food on the table ?

Do the kids need a new toy or would it be better getting them a colouring book and some pencils, or better yet do some baking with them which in turn is your food, cooking books from charity shops cost next to nothing and teach a lot, people need to learn how to live again I think.

[I1L2T3]

Get a lot of competition from China and other low wage economies do they?

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 14:09 ----------

 

 

That's all very nice and sanitized. But just what are these industries that you talk of that will employ 20 million folk where we can do not compete with low wage economies.

 

I've listed examples of sectors where we should be focusing. Do you think we should be competing to manufacture cheap goods? If so have you written to your MP to question why this government is not creating an environment for infrastructure and investment to help us compete?

[MrSmith]

You're mistaken. It's not mocking. It's something I've noticed a lot. And it's something we see in our current right-wing government where departments seemingly fail to communicate while policies that do not cohesively cut acrosss departments. I think it's a common right-wing trait where simplistic issues can only be processed one at a time without reference to others. In terms of how people in this country may be affected by poverty this cross-departmental failure to join the dots could have terrible consequences.

 

Anything else about the rest of my post you want to talk about?

 

Happy to discuss.

 

It would be pointless because we join the dots differently.