Confused re attitude to benefits and work experience

whenever I see comments like the one in the OP, I'M amazed at how unworldly some people are. They should try living in a country that doesn't provide decent benefits for the unemployed. It's grim. Obviously women and children are hit hardest in those countries etc etc.

Sorry, I mean cheap food doesn't relate to the downturn!

No, cheap food doesn't relate to the boom years. It relates to people not thinking beyond comparing prices between supermarkets and going for the cheapest, because their thinking doesn't get more sophisticated than that (it does get a bit complicated if you try to think of anything else, as there are so many competing considerations), or just going for the nearest supermarket, or in many cases genuinely thinking that they can only afford the cheapest that is on offer if they are to feed their families adequately (even in the boom years...). Nobody went on strike and stopped buying from the supermarkets when food was more expensive, because people still had to eat. It was the supermarkets that pushed prices down by competing with each other for greater market share, not consumers marching on stores and insisting that they would go on hunger strike unless something was done about prices.

People don't expect their food to be the product of slave labour - most think someone else has ensured fair competition and limited exploitation, so it's not their responsibility to think further on the matter. A lot of people think "Fair Trade" is just a bit of an expensive gimmick, because the big companies whose products they buy are sufficiently ethical and well regulated, otherwise how would they have gotten so big and been allowed to do what they do? Wouldn't the powers that be have stopped them? Surely any negative publicity against a much loved brand is just sour grapes from political activists and nutters? Or limited only to one type of that company's product? The brand owners always claim so.

Cheap food was wanted during to boom years. It does not relate to the down turn.

We are entitled to £3822, next year it will be £2080 if we haven't found work. Yep living it up.

Orwellian I am newly out of work and my salary was £14.300. I take it from your post I am in for a pay rise. Wayhay! Where do I sign?

Don't be dim, most won't get that amount in benefits. My income will go down according to the benefits advisor I saw.

Orwellian has a secret, burning desire for Margaret Thatcher's name to be mentioned (along with the words "evil," "baby eating" and "Tories"). Hence raising the subject, now.

Orwellian you do realise that most people get significantly less than 26K if they are getting benefits. Also AFAIK you are the first to mention Margaret Thatcher.

Hear hear catontheroof. However, you have entered Mumsnet, a land where a £26k benefits cap is considered draconian and likened to the Gulags/Holocaust. So expect a lot of frothing and not much sense being talked. Also, expect lots of personal attacks and Margaret Thatcher being mentioned 9323987239 times along with the words "evil", "baby eating" and "Tories".

Cheap food is more than a desire for many people. In the current climate of redundancy, wages freezes and wage cuts all happening at the same time as rising prices a growing number of people are faced with the choice of cheap food or no food. I think that's why shops like Lidl and Aldi are growing in popularity. The Co-op markets itself by raising ethical concerns but is significantly more expensive.

For many people today in the UK freedom of choice exists in name only. Their choices are so restricted by circumstances that in practice they have no real choice at all.

(Actually, no, when I come to think about it!)

(or affect)

I don't think most customers get what they want, as what most people want is unrealistic. They get the bit of what they want that is most profitable for the company providing it and either close their minds to how that is achieved or remain blissfully unaware of the reality, or think they can't afford it to be any other way. I'm sure most people would love fair trade food and for it to be very cheap and would rather that than cheap rubbish produced on the back of others' exploitation. Just as most people would like a world class education and health system, but without paying more tax to afford it. The link between the buyer at one end and the producer at the other is too far removed for the buyer to feel any great connection between his behaviour and its effects on others.

serial - i see the situation as customers as getting the type of business they want.

most people favour cheap food - so we ended up with a small numbers of suppliers selling cheap food & all the problems accociated with that.

tesco could meet a different demand for food, if it existed, in sufficient size. but it doesnt, hence their business is a reflector of our society.

'Oh and btw, the motivation for a lot of "moral things" is simply advertising'

Are you referiing to government spin doctors or things which businesses put back into a community. Let's not slag private enterprise off, just because some businesses are bad. The overall majority do good things and also make a profit. Free enterprise is part of a free system.

Not all governments are moral. Power corrupts and absolute power coirrupts absolutely. No business has absolute power, since it always has competitors. The majority of governments, like the majority of businesses do good, moral things.

Btw, I should say that I'm pro-business. I've personally funded various micro-businesses (not all of which have been successes) started by friends in countries where a few thousand pounds sterling go a very long way.

But I understand what business is for, and don't expect it to be a charity or the arbiter of public good.

Business interest is a damn good engine for a country. But you wouldn't want to let it drive.

"Many PLCs do lots of moral things"

And many don't. It's an optional extra, not their raison d'être.

If you kid yourself that morality is an indispensable part of the mix, you will be perpetually surprised every time a Union Carbide gasses a Bhopal.

Oh and btw, the motivation for a lot of "moral things" is simply advertising, brand building, etc. Enlightened self-interest if you like, but still self-interest.

It's nice when the public and company good overlap, like a company sponsoring a festival. But don't read more into the relationship than's actually there - he won't respect you in the morning.

Nothing wrong with companies making a profit.

Plenty wrong with deluding oneself that companies are acting for the public good. Generally speaking, they will act for their own good.

There are many areas where this naturally overlaps with the public good - and many areas where they have to be forced by regulation to remain within the public good (minimum wage, trading standards, H&S, accounting requirements, pollution control, etc).

Which is why companies lobby for de-regulation: regulations restrict their search for profit to this area of public good (or at least public not-harm).

The government role is to represent the people in this conflict of interests. When governments forget this, or kid themselves that company good is public good, we get the deregulation of the banking industry, the banking crash, and the biggest recession since the 1930s.

Banks act in their own interests. Wow, who knew?

'Quite why we persist in confuddling ourselves with a notion that PLCs should somehow be moral entities, is a mystery.'

Because they can do more than one thing at a time - they can make a profit and chew gum at the same time. They are not out to make a fast buck, to be here today and gone tomorrow. That is why they care about employee satisfaction, customer satidafaction, product quality and their interaction with the local, national and international community.

Many PLCs do lots of moral things, and often teh bigger the company is, the more cash and capacity it has to do good things for its staff and the community.

Serial what's wrong with companies making a profit?

Serial, I am current working on a small, well not as small as I would like, but vital part of merging two companies with a combined annual profit of £0.4 billion, so I l know what a plc is!

(and they pay tax in th UK)

Back to Tesco: so how does tesco generate its income? By shoppers choosing to spend in their stores. If tesco does not provide, what they want, shoppers will go elsewhere.

So who controls whether tesco sells Fairtrade & highwelfare or as cheap as possible?

Sorry, that sounded like I think privately-owned companies don't exist for profit.

They generally do, of course. But that's slightly different from existing to serve the share price.

Also, a small set of private owners can make the decision, if they so choose, that profit is not their raison d'être, eg a private school might be interested in profit only as far as it allows them to continue delivering their service.

Tilly, I've worked as a lawyer in the City and I didn't really like what I saw. I think it's because I've only ever worked for big business that I'm a bit anti-business, even though it always did very well by me, personally. I agree, the balance of power and philosophy in small businesses tends to be different - because everything is so much more personal (and personally risky).