sgtkate Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Countries do better economically when there is minimal government interference. The flaw with this approach is that it lacks social justice, but that's not a matter of economics. ---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 20:55 ---------- Lending with interest. Can't have that. That's profit. Obviously unfairly confiscated from some worker somewhere. Economically for whom? Frankly, I'm not interested directly in how well the 'country' the doing. I'm interested in how well I'm doing and how well the poorest in our society are doing. I accept that these things are linked but saying GDP went up by 7% in a country without interference and only 4% in one with it is utterly meaningless to most people. ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:14 ---------- The company can't just increase prices. In any market with competition, the price is determined by supply and demand. Every solution on here seems to involve the government handing out money, or seizing money or ordering people about. This is not impossible, but every time you do something like that, you make the businesses you're messing with less competitive. That means at the very least that they'll not grow as fast as they might have and therefore generate fewer jobs. Yes and every company will have the same minimum wage within the UK meaning all of their costs will go up by similar amounts. People in the UK will on average earn more so can afford the increase in prices as I've already pointed out would be lower than the increase in wages. This is all fairly basic economics I'd have thought. Prices have been rising steadily above inflation for some time (RPI) yet somehow sales don't seem to be dropping, why is that? Some things may end up overseas, *SOME*, but that will be mostly lower skilled work and that's already happened massively. My local newsagent can hardly relocate to India can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 [quote=sgtkate;11195827 Some things may end up overseas, *SOME*, but that will be mostly lower skilled work and that's already happened massively. My local newsagent can hardly relocate to India can it? No,but the Indian can relocate to your local newsagent (sorry just a joke ..almost ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 No,but the Indian can relocate to your local newsagent (sorry just a joke ..almost ) Not in Swallownest mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Economically for whom? Frankly, I'm not interested directly in how well the 'country' the doing. I'm interested in how well I'm doing and how well the poorest in our society are doing. I accept that these things are linked but saying GDP went up by 7% in a country without interference and only 4% in one with it is utterly meaningless to most people. ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:14 ---------- Yes and every company will have the same minimum wage within the UK meaning all of their costs will go up by similar amounts. People in the UK will on average earn more so can afford the increase in prices as I've already pointed out would be lower than the increase in wages. This is all fairly basic economics I'd have thought. Prices have been rising steadily above inflation for some time (RPI) yet somehow sales don't seem to be dropping, why is that? Some things may end up overseas, *SOME*, but that will be mostly lower skilled work and that's already happened massively. My local newsagent can hardly relocate to India can it? The link between the state of the national economy and one's own standard of living can be complicated and seem distant but that doesn't mean it isn't there. The GDP tells you ultimately how much money there is. In the sort term, if the state takes measures to improve "fairness", then the poor get a temporary boost, but nobody has yet come up with a way of doing this that doesn't damage growth. Some years later, you may still have your "fairness", but the people you were trying to help are actually living on less than they would have been if you'd just left things alone. I find it odd that you talk so casually about jobs being transferred overseas. How many people are you willing to put out of work entirely and condemn to a life on benefits in the name of "fairness"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) He only graduated 4 years ago, so definitely not. ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 08:17 ---------- In what way are they "yours" if you don't own the business and didn't put up the capital at risk in the first place? Profits are generated by hard working staff. its right that they should receive compensation in the form of a fair wage. ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:41 ---------- Don't try and turn it around. You know what I mean - Were you ever in the workplace/looking for work before it? I'm wasting my time, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I don't think I'd believe you if you said yes. http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/national-minimum-wage according to this the NMW was introduced in 1999. Not that its in the slightest bit relevant. Ive been working since i was 14, my first job was helping out on the milkround for £1.50 per hour. So the answer is yes. Edited October 29, 2015 by TJC1 ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 They agree to the wage before they ever start work, and profit is only generated because of the capital someone else is risking. ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:46 ---------- The link between the state of the national economy and one's own standard of living can be complicated and seem distant but that doesn't mean it isn't there. The GDP tells you ultimately how much money there is. In the sort term, if the state takes measures to improve "fairness", then the poor get a temporary boost, but nobody has yet come up with a way of doing this that doesn't damage growth. Some years later, you may still have your "fairness", but the people you were trying to help are actually living on less than they would have been if you'd just left things alone. I find it odd that you talk so casually about jobs being transferred overseas. How many people are you willing to put out of work entirely and condemn to a life on benefits in the name of "fairness"? And yet in the countries with the lowest levels of income and wealth disparity, happiness is highest. People care more about the difference between rich and poor, than they care about how rich or poor they actually are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 The link between the state of the national economy and one's own standard of living can be complicated and seem distant but that doesn't mean it isn't there. The GDP tells you ultimately how much money there is. In the sort term, if the state takes measures to improve "fairness", then the poor get a temporary boost, but nobody has yet come up with a way of doing this that doesn't damage growth. Some years later, you may still have your "fairness", but the people you were trying to help are actually living on less than they would have been if you'd just left things alone. I find it odd that you talk so casually about jobs being transferred overseas. How many people are you willing to put out of work entirely and condemn to a life on benefits in the name of "fairness"? Less than have already gone. Economics is hardly an easy thing to do, if it was I'd like to believe that the best for all of us would just be the way. While we have a global economy anything we do is really peeing into the wind. We enforce more stringent taxes and companies leave leaving us worse off. We increase minimum wages and companies go bust or leave again. Honestly, the only way to do things at all is to have one big global country with fixed tax laws and wage laws etc. I'm not crazy enough to actually want to do this mind you... Anything we do, no matter how drastic doesn't really fix the issue as you've stated. We can make things 'fairer' but at what cost? It just utterly frustrates me that some people can put being a billionaire above stopping someone else from starving. That is just unbelievable. Until the entire world reaches a similar level of income and job protection we might as well almost give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 They agree to the wage before they ever start work, and profit is only generated because of the capital someone else is risking. Youve no idea how big companies raise capital on an individual basis, im sure the chairman of next on £4 million is not riskIng his personal inherited wealth. ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:01 ---------- And youre completely wrong anyway. Revenue is generated from the output of the workforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Originally Posted by Justin Smith View Post Bearing in mind that the Tories, who are constantly banging on about the importance of cutting the deficit, are also finding money to reduce inheritance tax and bribe (the better off) housing association tenants to buy their house, of course it isn`t fair (or consistent) policy. New labour are the culprits. Not tories. ---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 22:22 ---------- How are Labour to blame for Right to buy or IHT changes? ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:14 ---------- Youve no idea how big companies raise capital on an individual basis, im sure the chairman of next on £4 million is not riskIng his personal inherited wealth. ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:01 ---------- And youre completely wrong anyway. Revenue is generated from the output of the workforce. They wouldnt have the employment opportunity to generate that revenue if it wasnt for the company existing in the first place. It exists because the shareholders put up the capital to start the venture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Originally Posted by Justin Smith View Post Bearing in mind that the Tories, who are constantly banging on about the importance of cutting the deficit, are also finding money to reduce inheritance tax and bribe (the better off) housing association tenants to buy their house, of course it isn`t fair (or consistent) policy. How are Labour to blame for Right to buy or IHT changes? ---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:14 ---------- They wouldnt have the employment opportunity to generate that revenue if it wasnt for the company existing in the first place. It exists because the shareholders put up the capital to start the venture. So the entire staff of next stop selling clothing today, what happens to the revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now