|
Post by TroutBoy on May 3, 2006 8:13:00 GMT -5
I never get tired of catching that old trout from Derbyshire who believes that, if let loose, labour markets would work perfectly. I do believe it is worth a try! Capitalism is the only policy that has never actually been tried anywhere. It can't be worse than all the state interference policies so loved by the loony left, be they Democrats in the USA, communists in Cuba, or the crooks we have in Great Britain. Free markets! Let's try them... richard mmm how much thought did you give that idea : www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2006/0417rogoff.htm
|
|
|
Post by gregarach on May 3, 2006 9:46:04 GMT -5
Richardw can't remember who said this but maybe you should take heed "When they came for the Gypsies I said nothing, when they came for the Jews i said nothing, when they came for me there was no one left to speak for me. I wonder how many of these replies have been written in the companies time. (not this one)
|
|
|
Post by Cothi on May 3, 2006 10:17:42 GMT -5
I never get tired of catching that old trout from Derbyshire who believes that, if let loose, labour markets would work perfectly. I do believe it is worth a try! Capitalism is the only policy that has never actually been tried anywhere. It can't be worse than all the state interference policies so loved by the loony left, be they Democrats in the USA, communists in Cuba, or the crooks we have in Great Britain. Free markets! Let's try them... richard In David Howell’s (Fighting Unemployment: The Limits of Free Market Orthodoxy – OUP 2005) it is argued that it is simplistic to believe in the standard free-market prescription that lower wages for less skilled workers, weaker labour unions, greater decentralisation in bargaining, less generous unemployment benefits and much less job-security are necessary for good employment performance. Supporting evidence for this is very thin. The book has chapters from economists in seven European and North American countries and all find little or no evidence of an equality-employment trade-off and wage equality has not been found to be associated with higher unemployment. (or lower employment) rates. Case studies in the book suggest that good employment performance has been achieved less by shrinking the welfare state and deregulating the labour market but more by effectively coordinating macroeconomic and social policies with the wage bargaining system. – an achievement that requires strong employer and union associations and a relatively stable and consensual political environment. The larger message of the book is that fundamentally different labour market models are compatible with low unemployment, ranging from the more free-market American model to the more regulated and coordinated Scandinavian systems. The policy discourse should move beyond free-market orthodoxy. There is no golden key.
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 3, 2006 11:21:31 GMT -5
That task is done by machines not guys... I actually picked that example as one my partner did in the summer holidays whilst at university. I did get my facts wrong though, it was Roses and not Quality Street. They used to get paid a pittance, then the minimum wage came and they changed to piece work. The employer used the top performer as the benchmark and most people ended up with a pay cut. You see, companies do not care about the bottom tier of employees. An ex boss of mine once told me he fired everyone after 6 months as once they got over their 'new job enthusiasm' he'd get more work out of a new starter. The idea that a free labour market would somehow make things better for these people is laughable. More likely that because the labour market is so over regulated that if he didn't fire them at 6 months it became impossible to get rid of them as their "rights" increased the longer they were there. So 6 months and good bye is the result! richard
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 3, 2006 11:23:15 GMT -5
I actually picked that example as one my partner did in the summer holidays whilst at university. I did get my facts wrong though, it was Roses and not Quality Street. They used to get paid a pittance, then the minimum wage came and they changed to piece work. The employer used the top performer as the benchmark and most people ended up with a pay cut. You see, companies do not care about the bottom tier of employees. An ex boss of mine once told me he fired everyone after 6 months as once they got over their 'new job enthusiasm' he'd get more work out of a new starter. The idea that a free labour market would somehow make things better for these people is laughable. But the other side of the coin is that some people who think that they are impregnable tend not to work, take liberties and are less productive and a burden to both the company and those workers who do their bit. I work on the basis that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys and I pay a decent wage and expect a decent day's work in return. If someone isn't performing we use all reasonable means to help them improve as it's expensive and risky recruiting new staff but if they don't they have to go. Here, here! richard
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 3, 2006 11:29:22 GMT -5
I do believe it is worth a try! Capitalism is the only policy that has never actually been tried anywhere. It can't be worse than all the state interference policies so loved by the loony left, be they Democrats in the USA, communists in Cuba, or the crooks we have in Great Britain. Free markets! Let's try them... richard mmm how much thought did you give that idea : www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2006/0417rogoff.htmWell I've read the "interview" and wonder if you have! ;D richard
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 3, 2006 11:30:55 GMT -5
Richardw can't remember who said this but maybe you should take heed "When they came for the Gypsies I said nothing, when they came for the Jews i said nothing, when they came for me there was no one left to speak for me. I wonder how many of these replies have been written in the companies time. (not this one) Are you in the right thread? Who is coming for whom? richard
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 3, 2006 11:37:45 GMT -5
I do believe it is worth a try! Capitalism is the only policy that has never actually been tried anywhere. It can't be worse than all the state interference policies so loved by the loony left, be they Democrats in the USA, communists in Cuba, or the crooks we have in Great Britain. Free markets! Let's try them... richard In David Howell’s (Fighting Unemployment: The Limits of Free Market Orthodoxy – OUP 2005) it is argued that it is simplistic to believe in the standard free-market prescription that lower wages for less skilled workers, weaker labour unions, greater decentralisation in bargaining, less generous unemployment benefits and much less job-security are necessary for good employment performance. Supporting evidence for this is very thin. The book has chapters from economists in seven European and North American countries and all find little or no evidence of an equality-employment trade-off and wage equality has not been found to be associated with higher unemployment. (or lower employment) rates. Case studies in the book suggest that good employment performance has been achieved less by shrinking the welfare state and deregulating the labour market but more by effectively coordinating macroeconomic and social policies with the wage bargaining system. – an achievement that requires strong employer and union associations and a relatively stable and consensual political environment. The larger message of the book is that fundamentally different labour market models are compatible with low unemployment, ranging from the more free-market American model to the more regulated and coordinated Scandinavian systems. The policy discourse should move beyond free-market orthodoxy. There is no golden key. My point is that neither David Howell nor any other commentator can know what effect true Capitalism would have on us. Why? Simply because it has NEVER been tried anywhere, ever. Even the USA blew its chance by allowing politicians to interfere with business. I'm willing to give it a go. Let's all get paid only by results. richard
|
|
|
Post by Cothi on May 3, 2006 11:51:30 GMT -5
Richard, you are being disingenuous. Read this: www.theuniversityconcourse.com/II,6,12-6-1996/cc/Graham.htm As it says “most systems, economic or otherwise, need checks and balances. Sometimes the check on a free-market economy or a "true capitalistic" system is a government consisting of elected officials who have a moral concern for all people within the system. This does not mean the government is without flaw. All systems, because they consist of human beings, have the potential for exploitation”
|
|
|
Post by AR on May 3, 2006 16:42:17 GMT -5
I never get tired of catching that old trout from Derbyshire who believes that, if let loose, labour markets would work perfectly. But don't you sometimes tire of catch and release? The temptation pop him in the creel wrapped in some wet grass is occasionally overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by Cothi on May 3, 2006 17:30:42 GMT -5
I delighted in your suggestion for a while there AR and then came the most awful realisation - I think I would, oh dear me, miss him!
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 4, 2006 3:44:16 GMT -5
Richard, you are being disingenuous. Read this: www.theuniversityconcourse.com/II,6,12-6-1996/cc/Graham.htm As it says “most systems, economic or otherwise, need checks and balances. Sometimes the check on a free-market economy or a "true capitalistic" system is a government consisting of elected officials who have a moral concern for all people within the system. This does not mean the government is without flaw. All systems, because they consist of human beings, have the potential for exploitation” The checks and balances would be that folk would simply refuse to take work they didn't think was a fair bargain. Referrals to how things were in the Industrial Revolution are not valid if used to "prove" how horrid things would be now in an unregulated economy for those at the bottom of the pyramid. The past is the past and if you were in the past you would recognise that, at the time, child labour and long hours were actually welcomed by those who carried out the work. The way to ensure dignity and to make an end of poverty is by trade. You won't find my reasons for believing this quickly and conveniently on the Internet. What you would need to do is read a fairly long book called: The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, by C K Prahalad although this might give an insight: www.thenextpractice.com/?goog1Business is good and the politicians should keep their beaks out of it. It is their interfering that spoils it. Over regulation means underemployment... richard
|
|
|
Post by MichaelL on May 4, 2006 4:07:03 GMT -5
You need strike[1] powers because there is an incomplete market in Employers/Labor. To suggest otherwise is to ignore basic economics.
Further, what gives the right for a company to exist and utilise the natural resources of our country (E.g. its fortuitive timezone) ? Collectively we demand a cost for doing business in our country (only natural, all businesses charge for their services), and that cost is expressed in employment law. Again to ignore these is to fly (badly) in the face of basic economics. We don't and shouldn't give away "our" resources (e.g. the right to do business in our country) for free - that would be quite stupid.
You want something (to do business in the UK) then you pay for it (employment law). The cost we impose decides how competitve we are, different governments will increase/decrease this cost according to social policy.
Looking at current unemployment levels vs 10 years ago I think this government has broadly got the cost correct (though Im no Labour supporter myself).
[1] and/or other ancillary employment laws.
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 4, 2006 4:28:24 GMT -5
You need strike[1] powers because there is an incomplete market in Employers/Labor. To suggest otherwise is to ignore basic economics. Further, what gives the right for a company to exist and utilise the natural resources of our country (E.g. its fortuitive timezone) ? Collectively we demand a cost for doing business in our country (only natural, all businesses charge for their services), and that cost is expressed in employment law. Again to ignore these is to fly (badly) in the face of basic economics. We don't and shouldn't give away "our" resources (e.g. the right to do business in our country) for free - that would be quite stupid. You want something (to do business in the UK) then you pay for it (employment law). The cost we impose decides how competitve we are, different governments will increase/decrease this cost according to social policy. Looking at current unemployment levels vs 10 years ago I think this government has broadly got the cost correct (though Im no Labour supporter myself). [1] and/or other ancillary employment laws. You miss the point that doing business doesn't exist until someone actually creates the business. The country provides nothing. It's the people in it that provide the values that we each exchange for other values, e.g. your time for your wages, your products for their sales values... Looking at current employment levels is not possible by the conditions applicable 10 years ago because the "unemployed" are dispersed and hidden away in all sorts of cunningly formed places so they "don't count" anymore. richard
|
|
|
Post by guinea on May 4, 2006 5:01:28 GMT -5
The checks and balances would be that folk would simply refuse to take work they didn't think was a fair bargain. Unless I am missing the point that is what we've had for ever. If I get a better deal elsewhere I can leave, as can anyone else in employment. People forced to work long hours for no pay or a bullied at work could leave their jobs but they don't. For a great many people in this country there simply isn't another job for them to go to. The national minimum wage was brought in precisely because companies did not live up to their moral obligations to look after their workforce. Big business screamed blue murder before the minimum wage was implemented but it made no difference to emploment figure or company profits. There is no way you could convince me that the low skilled workers in this country would be better served if the businesses community dictated our employment law.
|
|