Why the Tories are bastards

Yes, but that's human nature. Very few people blame themselves, they usually blame others. That's why the parties do the usual yah-boo of blaming it all on the other side. They are in power for over a decade and they still blame it on what the other lot did 30 years ago.

I don't really know Germany, never been there. But I do wish politicians of all flavours would stop blaming people for the results of their policies- if you've got the balls to make the policy, accept the inevitable fall out.

Just look at Germany to see how different it could all have been.

It's got nothing to do with the workers. Historically, we had bad management and a lack of investment, followed by governemnt often turning a blind eye to our manufacturing industry as they followed the globalisation plan.

(Sorry, Peachy here- just rediscovered an old name I like)

I agree as long as the same parties accept it for what it is; Ms Gillan did herself no favours going on about our unemployment without seeming to know the historical causes, if they an;t do anything about it (and we just lost out in our bid to be an enterprise zone so very sore point right now) they should at least not throw the blame back on to struggling people who lost their jobs.

Yes, it's a tragedy. I think it's due to globalisation. I don't think it will change, as all parties follow the same plan.

Sounds about right.

My home town had no service industries, in the eighties it was not a good place to be; think police cars in threes (one to go on the estate, one to accompany it and one to wait at the entrance seeing as the residents had their own stinger device).

It's no surprise I fit in near Newport frankly; I think 20% unemployment was what Cheryl Gillan claimed at QT based here. And it is definitely not improving.

Yes, I think Thatcher started it, although it was probably already in decline due to bad management by her time. They all turned a blind eye to manufacturing and the jobs of its workers. They banked on service industries and financial services and the banks went belly up.

Something occurred to me over Dinner- in the last Budget the tories decided to change the 16 hours of work for WTC rule that includes non profitable / start up slow month business to 24 hours minimum wage work from 2013; therefore it's staying no?

Interesting Claig; I moved from a town decimated by cuts to business from both Maggie and later Labour to an area not far from the Welsh valleys. So yes, I agree with that. My gut from what I directly observed (and my father was a Manager for one of the bigger companies so saw quite a lot) was that it truly did start with Maggie and that precipitated everything, but warehousing has taken over and now those are closing too as the transport industry struggle with fuel costs and companies are merging. Fortunately for my old town which has an awful name for itself wrt employment a major name moved their hub in, otherwise I would fear for anyone growing up there.

The chancellor's honeymoon period is coming to an end ? there is a limit to how many times you can blame the last manager-

The life cycle of a chancellor of the exchequer mirrors that of the manager of a team struggling in the lower reaches of the Premier League. So when George Osborne arrived in office last year, there was hope that after an appalling run of results the team's performances would improve.

Osborne announced that the economy would go through the equivalent of one of Fabio Capello's infamous boot camps. The regime of spending restraint and tax cuts would get the economy back into shape.

For the past 17 months the people on the terraces have remained remarkably patient even though, judged by growth and unemployment, UK FC has slipped even closer to the relegation zone.

The chancellor's honeymoon period is now coming to an end. There is a limit to how many times you can blame the last manager for your problems, although there were plenty of digs at Gordon Brown and Ed Balls in Monday's speech in Manchester. The economy grew at 1.1% in the second quarter of 2010, the period when the coalition was formed, but it has underperformed ever since. In the nine months from October 2010 to June 2011 output expanded by just 0.2%.

Osborne is smart enough to know that before too long he is going to be faced with the familiar chant of "you don't know what you're doing", so his address had to offer a bit more than the grin-and-bear it mantra that marked his first few months as second Lord of the Treasury.

The government clearly knows it has to do something to boost growth, but Osborne's options are limited. Underspending by Whitehall departments means he can extend the freeze in council tax, but the net impact in terms of aggregate demand will be zero. Nor will planning system changes or toughening up the rules for industrial tribunals have any impact on the economy in the short run.

Instead, the idea seems to be that the Bank of England will compensate for the Treasury's fiscal austerity by restarting its quantitative easing programme this autumn. This will be buttressed by what Osborne called "credit easing". He is working on plans to "inject money directly into parts of the economy that need it, such as small businesses".

This is a tacit acceptance that monetary policy is not working and an admission that the government has so far failed to heed the message from small- and medium-sized companies that they are not being well served by the high street banks. It may also be spectacularly missing the point if the real problem in the economy is not a lack of new investment from companies, many of which are flush with cash, but of a collapse in consumer confidence caused by the squeeze on real incomes.

That said, it would certainly be welcome were Osborne to announce measures in next month's autumn statement that ensured money gets to the bits of the economy that need it. A double-dip recession this winter is a real threat and the chancellor knows it. Were that to happen, there would no longer be chants of "there's only one George Osborne". It would be: "You're getting sacked in the morning."

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/03/george-osborne-uk-fc-larry-elliott?newsfeed=true

aquashiv, the article wasn't about social mobility. It was about the decline in Britain's manufacturing industry. I never knew that manufacturing declined more under New Labour than under Thatcher. It is quite stunning news. Thatcher was responsible for starting the decline, but New Labour took it even further. Did you see the Newsnight programme recently where Mandelson admitted that they had made a mistake in neglecting Britain's manufacturing industry?

pants-

I can't believe, in the 21st Century, that there are still people arguing against the minimum wage.

Not me guv'nor, that'll be the Low Pay Commission - y'know, the experts at this sort of thing (as you would know if you read the linky in my earlier post).

Numerous studies time and again have shown that the minimum wage has no statistical effects on overall employment figures, while it has shown to help alleviate poverty for those in work and low paid.

Next they'll be arguing against discrimination and sexual harassment laws in order to 'make the UK more competitive' against countries like China and India.

Nice Strawman succesfully demolished.

You haven't demolished anything. You refer to 'the market' as some sort of measure of what is right or what 'should be done'. The 'market' doesn't necessarily produce just or desirable outcomes. If it did, we'd have a private army and private police service.

So the argument that we need to pay shit wages 'to be competitive' is a shit argument. It's not a straw man at all to suggest that there are other employment laws we could abolish in order to become 'more competitive'. In the end, we have to decide whether we want to return to the barbarism of the 19th Century, or we want to live in a free, fair, and democratic society.

The article you posted was written in America sometime prior to September 2000. Far be it from me to suggest you quote a more recent (and British) source but stuff like global economic meltdown, rocketing youth unemployment rates, deperate need to restart growth etc. all fundamentally change the game these days.

Yes, and the article refers to records spanning over a half-century. Citing a British source is not necessary, but I'll have a look around - not that it's likely to affect your opinion.

And once again, the public didn't cause the financial crisis and meltdown. They shouldn't be the ones to have to pay for it. In any case, just like the cuts, eliminating the min wage will have the opposite effect of kickstarting growth. It will send us spiraling deeper in to depression; the problem with the economy is fundamentally one of demand: nobody has any money to spend any more. Helping businesses with tax breaks isn't going to help them grow when there is no demand to fuel growth.

The problem is the shrinking middle-class with all the wealth accumulating at the top, and a lack of demand at the bottom. Put money in to the hands of the poor and middle-classes and you will help kickstart the economy.

@Claig thanks for the right wing media source hardly objective.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/29/social-mobility-inequality-conservative-thatcher

The rot had already set in started by her.

Earnings do not reflect worth. They are a reward for putting the hours in, no more no less - different rewards in different professions.

Every human being who works a full-time job is 'worth' a living wage. There should never be a situation in a civilised society where someone can work 9-5 for 40 hours per week, and not earn enough money to have a secure existence.

Haven't we learned yet that market values produce shit outcomes? How long are people still going to keep referring to 'the market' to determine political and economic policy?

paying someone £3.68 per hour when they can get £6 from unemployment is damn good motivation to not get a job. Perhaps if they were paid a decent wage they would be motivated to work and actually earn more.

Cart before the horse - it's madness to pay £6 to for someone to sit on their arse and only £6.08 if they go out to work.

I suspect (although I may be unfair in saying this) that you would prefer that the £6.08 would go up, whilst I would rather the £6 went down.

Yes, because you appear to be a right-wing cock.

If you have ever been on unemployment benefits, you might realise that what you get is barely enough to survive. Despite Daily Heil scare stories, 95% of claimants are legitimate, looking for work, and don't cheat the system.

With the money they get from unemployment, you just barely have enough to pay rent, food and bills, if even that. It's subsistence living.

No, the problem is that wages have been stagnating for three decades and have fallen way behind inflation. Coupled with neo-liberal attacks on employment rights, union rights, job security, etc., people are the lowest end of the spectrum are being utterly shafted by employers.

The cleaners at Buckingham Palace aren't even paid the London living wage, FFS. While the Royal parasites live off public money in palaces and castles, they pay their cleaners £6.45 per hour.

MrPants, again another fact you haven't mentioned, some 16 year are getting paid £2.50 an hour on a modern apprenticeship. Is that low enough?

Apologies if its already been mentioned I will read up later.

A minimum wage also has two other effects - firstly, it can be used to ensure that you don't get a benefits trap (where it pays more to not be employed than be employed), and secondly it acts as a way to ensure that inefficient and badly-run companies are not subsidising their own operations out of what should be their employees' wages.

Actually it does have a lot to do with SN in terms of literacy and numeracy, issues YOU raised. you may of course be using a 1983 definition of Sn, which is something you would benefit by updating.

£3.68 does not keep a human being. The state cannot afford to keep that person unless it absolutely has to. Unless you think those people do not deserve a roof and food then they deserve the wage that pays for that.

It comes down for me to the cost of living: it's not OK to pay someone less than that for work: who do you think should pick up the tab for the imbalance? state will lose in taxes on wages, or maybe we should be building shanty houses, saw a relevant system in Morocco a decade back where young people slept in shanty structures (well to be exact under corrugated metal sheets) until they had worked X years in apprentice jobs and could move to a bedsit.

Housing prices are high and there are no social houses left, locally there is a waiting list of £30K most of whom are working low paid families who will never rise to the top because emergency cases will always take priority. Food costs rise all the time. And who wants an employee who can't eat or has nowhere to live?

Not our business anyway. We'd rather pay minimum wage and get fed, housed people who could focus on their job rather than imminent bankruptcy.

paying someone £3.68 per hour when they can get £6 from unemployment is damn good motivation to not get a job. Perhaps if they were paid a decent wage they would be motivated to work and actually earn more.

Cart before the horse - it's madness to pay £6 to for someone to sit on their arse and only £6.08 if they go out to work.

I suspect (although I may be unfair in saying this) that you would prefer that the £6.08 would go up, whilst I would rather the £6 went down.

The main reason why our parliament is populated by independently wealthy individuals is because actually the salaries paid to MP's aren't that great.

Many heads of local councils earn more than the PM, I don't see that politics is going to attract the best and the brightest while they would be far better rewarded in business. I would like to see all politicians work outside of politics before they enter parliament. A good politician should prove his or her worth in their field of choice. That way they could actually bring some decent life experience to the table. They could also be given a cabinet placement in an area that they have some tangible experience in.

ttosca

I can't believe, in the 21st Century, that there are still people arguing against the minimum wage.

Not me guv'nor, that'll be the Low Pay Commission - y'know, the experts at this sort of thing (as you would know if you read the linky in my earlier post).

Next they'll be arguing against discrimination and sexual harassment laws in order to 'make the UK more competitive' against countries like China and India.

Nice Strawman succesfully demolished.

Right, onto the rest of it...

The article you posted was written in America sometime prior to September 2000. Far be it from me to suggest you quote a more recent (and British) source but stuff like global economic meltdown, rocketing youth unemployment rates, deperate need to restart growth etc. all fundamentally change the game these days.

Plus, $6.15 is around £3.95 - well below the British adult NMW anyway - so wouldn't that kind of prove my earlier points?

Keep on trying.

Pants-

Really? What about kids who just don't give a damn about work and would much rather be claiming off the state?

Errm... paying someone £3.68 per hour when they can get £6 from unemployment is damn good motivation to not get a job. Perhaps if they were paid a decent wage they would be motivated to work and actually earn more.

What about those with drug dependency issues? What about kids engaged in criminality? What about the illiterate? (They've had plenty of time in school and it hasn't done them any good so far, why force them to go back for even longer?) Would you want to employ them at £3.68 p/h?

These are social issues which should be addressed in the first place by social policy. It is largely social and economic policy which determines social outcomes, which is why literacy, criminality, and drug abuse problems vary greatly between countries. People's DNA is not significantly different; we're all humans.

Mr Pants I cannot see that someone who can do a job is not worth £3.68

PeachyWhoCannotType

Really? What about kids who just don't give a damn about work and would much rather be claiming off the state? What about those with drug dependency issues? What about kids engaged in criminality? What about the illiterate? (They've had plenty of time in school and it hasn't done them any good so far, why force them to go back for even longer?) Would you want to employ them at £3.68 p/h?

At the end of the day, employment in this country isn't a closed loop system. If an employer wants someone to put in the graft they aren't forced to use youth labour. Why take a chance on a young British person when for the same money an Eastern European (who has already shown some commitment to work by travelling halfway across Europe) will do the same job. The Eastern European only wants the money so the business owner can have some confidence that they'll turn up for work at 9AM every day. Who loses out? The young and the unskilled.

Then there are the countless jobs that are threatened by automation. Raise the cost of labour too high and the incentive to replace a worker with a robot becomes stronger. Who loses out? The young and the unskilled.

This has nothing to do with special needs.

I can't believe, in the 21st Century, that there are still people arguing against the minimum wage.

Next they'll be arguing against discrimination and sexual harassment laws in order to 'make the UK more competitive' against countries like China and India.

======

Minimum Wages and Poverty (Congressional testimony)

Today?s hearing questions whether increases in the minimum wage are a useful anti-poverty tool. In particular, the question is whether raising the minimum wage to $6.15 by September of 2000 will help those workers whose family incomes place them at or near the poverty line. As I will argue, the evidence unequivocally supports the view that increases in the minimum wage, by increasing the earnings of low-income workers without diminishing their employment opportunities, have historically helped to lower poverty rates. What?s more, this evidence is stronger in the 1990s, with large numbers of poor persons moving into the labor market. The facts clearly support the contention that if Congress wants to ?make work pay,? the current proposal to increase the minimum wage makes sense.

The following testimony elaborates these four points:

The historical record is quite clear on this point: increases in the minimum wage have consistently been shown to have their intended effect: they raise the wages of the lowest wage workers, many of whom reside in low-income families, and they do so without lowering their employment opportunities. In this regard, the policy solidly reinforces the ?make work pay? platform that Congress and the administration have recently emphasized;

Economists have evaluated the impact of minimum wage increases practically since the inception of the wage floor in the 1930′s. At this point, I think it is fair to say that the debate over the purported job-loss effect is a debate over whether this effect is slightly below zero, or at zero. While this debate may be an important one among econometricians, from the perspective of policy makers who are looking for ways to help the working poor, it is a distinction without a difference. Even if you were to accept the most negative findings from this research, you simply could not avoid the conclusion that the benefits of the increase far outweigh the costs.

There is no better example of these points than the most recent increase, which took place in 1996-97. Despite the same dire predictions we hear today, we have solid evidence that the last minimum wage increase lifted the earnings of low-wage workers without diminishing their employment prospects. This last point is key: the employment rates of low-wage workers have rarely been higher than they are today and their unemployment rates have rarely been lower.

Finally, from the perspective of the working poor, the minimum wage is a useful anti-poverty tool. It cannot and should not, however, be viewed as a sole solution against poverty. This is primarily due to the fact that many employable poor persons have only marginal attachments to the labor market. As the literature evaluating minimum wages and poverty reveals (as well as some new findings I will present regarding the last increase), raising the minimum wage is associated with small decreases in the poverty rate, but the poor need other income supports, such as the EITC and food stamps.

www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_minwagetestimony/