To think that Owen Jones is a fraud.

[soul2000]

I watched the R.T.S Lecture he gave last night on representation of the Working Class on Television, i have never heard such opinionated rubbish.
There are three questions i would like to act Owen Jones

1. Despite having an Oxford Education why do you deliberately mispronounce

certain words, in a kind of "STOCKNEY" accent.

1. Which Comprehensive did he attend , anybody who knows Stockport knows there is a huge gap between Poynton/Bramhall and Brinnington.

3. What class does he think he is with is Oxford education and two University lecturer parents.

And it was the Mail on Sunday who gave us the story about Reverend Flowers. It was our free press that exposed what was going on, not our regulators or councillors or party politicians, mainly paid for from the public purse.

And some people want to regulate our free press.

In answer to your question, OP, you accused other posters of saying that only graduates were worth listening to when they had said no such thing. And I don't have any opinions on you personally one way or another. I don't know you. I do however have opinions about YOUR opinions, at least the ones you've posted about. You keep complaining about the amount of criticism you've got after coming on an Internet forum called "am I being unreasonable", posting something very opinionated (nothing wrong with that of course) and then failing to support your original post with any logical argument, displaying an astonishing level of ignorance about the exact topic you started, accusing anybody who referred to information/ideas you weren't aware of of not understanding the plight of "ordinary" people, criticising people for saying things they didn't and accusing others of not saying things they did. Seriously, what do you expect?!

garlictrivia

Let me turn that round. What entitles a small business owner to exploit her neighbours by paying a wage on which they cannot live?

Your post rambles all over several big issues. I'm replying to this point alone, because I fucking hate this mindless "justification" of exploitation.

Ever run a business?

"Ever run a business?"

I do, and I still agree with Garlic. Owning a business has not changed my mind about the concept of a fair days pay for a fair days work.

But how many businesses are there that don't pay a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?

Has Owen Jones had a word with Labour?

"Labour rising star Chuka Umunna employed unpaid interns while campaigning for fairer salaries, it emerged yesterday.

The party’s business spokesman was accused of ‘hypocrisy’ by pushing for a ‘living wage’ when some of own staff received only expenses such as the cost of lunch and travel."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486893/Labour-MPs-hypocrisy-interns-Chuka-Umunna-employed-unpaid-staff-campaigning-fairer-salaries.html

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed

"Ever run a business?"

I do, and I still agree with Garlic. Owning a business has not changed my mind about the concept of a fair days pay for a fair days work.

That wasn't what Garlic was saying, of course. Garlic wrote that any business which can't afford to pay its owner 'is a failure' and that businesses should pay a worker more than they are worth in order to meet some sort of arbitrary standard for wages.

There are problems with the cost of living for everyone. That can be dealt with. Rein in immigration and house prices and rents will stabilise. Raise interest rates and tame inflation. Scrap employers' NI (a stupid tax if ever there was one) which will cut labour costs by 10%.

Fantasy wage hikes for unskilled work to meet an arbitrary shifting target chosen out of a hat by this week's Token Leftist aren't the answer.

It is impossible to run a business and employ people without exploiting them. Look up the labour theory of value

I agree with Claig, if Jones was not part of establishment he wouldn't get the air play he does.

As regards Bilderberg, mainstream parties share common goals of a unified ruling authority, which creates an illusion of diverse interests.

"The left-right paradigm sets up a situation where two opposing political parties have a hold over the media to dramatise political distractions and engage in covert warfare and operations, in grand performances of bureaucratic rivalry meant to propagandize and divide the populace. Divisive issues are purposefully fed through the major media outlets to divert attention away from the ruling class's hidden and ulterior and sometimes global agendas" wiki ( not an academic resource OP, so don't use it)

But its worth bearing in mind that the press and all other media is not free, is not impartial and is itself part of the capitalist machinery with its own agenda...namely to perpetuate a situation where the likes of Rupert get fatter and richer and more powerful by the day.

'Divisive issues are purposefully fed through the major media outlets to divert attention away from the ruling class's hidden and ulterior and sometimes global agendas'

Exactly and issues such as 'chavs' etc are distractions and diversions which the media want to divert us with so that we do not discuss the real issue of being controlled and manipulated by plutocratic forces which are more powerful than the puppets in governments who are only allowed to act within a limited sphere. They are not allowed to go against EU green climate or immigration policies which the plutocrats have been instrumental in pushing through without asking for the vote of the public.

'It is impossible to run a business and employ people without exploiting them.'

Why? Businesses pay for people's services. Is the Independent newspaper exploiting Oxbridge educated 'Chav' author Owen Jones? If so, why doesn't the left winger tell us about the exploitation?

If you ask someone to decorate your house and pay them for their services, are you exploiting them? Is a business that employs painters and decorators to paint other people's houses exploiting the workers?

Businesses are structures that combine groups of people who provide a service to others. Very few exploit their workers and the workers are free to leave if they are exploited.

But paying people just travel expenses for a day's work, as some interns are paid, is what many people would call exploitation.

"That wasn't what Garlic was saying, of course. Garlic wrote that any business which can't afford to pay its owner 'is a failure' and that businesses should pay a worker more than they are worth in order to meet some sort of arbitrary standard for wages."

Yes, she did say the first part (and in a lot of cases she does have a point), but I didn't notice anything about paying people more than they are worth.

"It is impossible to run a business and employ people without exploiting them. Look up the labour theory of value smile"

No, it is not impossible. (And I know about the labour theory of value, I did A'level Sociology too)

"If you ask someone to decorate your house and pay them for their services, are you exploiting them?"

No, because they can set the rate they wish to be paid, you don't get to overrule that and pay them less.

"Is a business that employs painters and decorators to paint other people's houses exploiting the workers?"

That depends how much they pay them, what kind of hours they wish them to work, etc.

'No, because they can set the rate they wish to be paid, you don't get to overrule that and pay them less.'

Both parties strike a bargain and make a contract, and the payer will get different quotes and end up paying near the "market rate".

It is the same for a business hiring employees. It will have to pay the "market rate" or the employee will choose to work for another employer. It is a free market where the employee is free to choose to enter into a contract of employment or not.

We have laws that regulate employment precisely to prevent any type of exploitation.

It is a shame we don't appear to have laws about interns and that we allow some organisations to get away with paying people only for their lunch and travel expenses after they have provided a full day's work for an organisation.

The exploitation is inherent in capitalism because the worker is paid only a percentage of the value created- (the profit) or surplus value is taken by his employer. Nothing has a value beyond the labour in it.

If we both decorated houses or you decorate houses and I make mugs and we make an exchange of our goods/services or commodities even if several of us exchange, using money as the mode of exchange, there is no exploitation because we exchange like for like. There is no surplus created when we exchange for use values.

So in the case of the painter, you contract him as a free man to supply a service and he sets his rate. You are not extracting surplus value from his labour and using this money to enrich yourself or to invest as capital to continue the cycle... money-commodity-money

On the other hand if I employ several painters and I sell the product of their labour to you, I will only pay them a fraction of what their labour is worth. Otherwise I would be a piss poor capitalist.

In terms of people being free to sell their labour, this is true but labour cannot be sold unless it is required. It has a use value like all other commodities and in the case of the worker it is the only commodity he has to sell.

'The exploitation is inherent in capitalism because the worker is paid only a percentage of the value created- (the profit) or surplus value is taken by his employer. Nothing has a value beyond the labour in it.'

But this ignores risk. In most businesses, an employer has to pay an employee even if there is no work for a period. The employer bears the overheads and the risks and therefore the employer needs to be compensated for those overheads and risks. Therefore the employer must earn a percentage of what the employee is charged out for.

'If we both decorated houses or you decorate houses and I make mugs and we make an exchange of our goods/services or commodities even if several of us exchange, using money as the mode of exchange, there is no exploitation because we exchange like for like. There is no surplus created when we exchange for use values.'

But mugs and decorating houses are not 'like for like'. Instead we come to an agreement and make a contract that values our services. That is also what employment is, it is a contract between employer and employee that places a value on agreed services.

My business and my fathers business were in a industry that paid low wages.
This is unfortunate and in our case for the last 5 years we owned our businesses , we were losing lots of money . It is not surprising though when across our businesses we were paying £ 220K PA in Business rates . With the Bank loans, interest , we were struggling to pay wages that were 20% above the going rate for catering. These wages varied from £ 7 PH for kitchen porters and junior Chambermaids, up to about 45K PA for our senior Operations manager, baring in mind he was in charge of 145 staff and controlled a £ 6 Million pound turnover you can see that salaries are quite low.
As i said for the last 3 years , Myself , Brother and father took no salary and that at least enabled us to make no job cuts. As ordinary as some of these wages are, they are at least better than benefits.

'On the other hand if I employ several painters and I sell the product of their labour to you, I will only pay them a fraction of what their labour is worth. Otherwise I would be a piss poor capitalist.'

No, you will pay them what their labour is worth and you will charge extra for your risk and commission as the agent who negotiated the contract.

When a pop impresario negotaites a deal for their pop star performer, the manager will take a percentage of the fee for the work they have done in negotiating the deal. The singer turns up and sings, but there is a whole backroom legal and accounting and payment operation behind the scenes that facilitated the singer's gig.

'In terms of people being free to sell their labour, this is true but labour cannot be sold unless it is required. It has a use value like all other commodities and in the case of the worker it is the only commodity he has to sell.'

Yes, labour is a commodity that has value. One can only sell what one has. The labourer is free to take the risk of setting up a business and paying employer's national insurance and pensions and holiday pay and all the rest if the labourer has the skills to sell and market and manage staff, but if they do not have those skills, then they can only sell the labour skills that they have. Education will enable them to increase their skills and therefore charge more for their services.

This is not exploitation. It is just not a "free lunch" and it differs entrely from only paying interns for their lunch and travel expenses as some political parties appear to have done in the past.

Business is risky, it is about risk. It is not socialism with the taxpayer funding an operation however it performs. It is not like an MP getting expenses for bath plugs from the taxpayer without any risk.

Businesses fail, business owners sometimes can't sleep at night with worry about their business and the staff they employ. An employee can switch off and clock out, but a business owner can't. Often they have mortgaged their homes as collateral for loans.

Business is the lifeblood of a prosperous society and it is what pays the wages that pay the taxes for New Labour and Conservative politicians to be able to claim for their bath plugs.

Thank you Claig. Neither me or my father slept properly for three years. What salary equates to waking up at 5 am driving you car up to the peak district and wanting to drive over the cliff. ( I Say 5 Am because you are working to 3 Am) even when you not working, you are ( You can never relax or switch off).

Exactly, soul2000. Thank God you never did. But times are tough and they are toughest for those who run businesses and who are squeezed by the councils and bigwigs and think tanks and politicians and the great and the good who survive only on the wealth created by business people and the workers they employ.

That is why I say that privileged Oxbridge graduates and media pundits like Owen Jones should learn about the real world of work and business and taxes ad rates and rents, not in an Independent newspaper office opining on "capitalism" while not even mentioning the real fat cat plutocrats who control the puppet politicians.

Thank you again Claig. One of the symptoms of Dyspraxia is a lack of self belief , you tend to see the worst not the best in situations. Yes at times i felt liked driving over the cliff , but you drag yourself back from the abyss.

MissMiniTheMinx

It is impossible to run a business and employ people without exploiting them. Look up the labour theory of value

You'll forgive me if I set actual experience against what you once read in a book written by someone who hadn't run a business.

soul2000, we are all in it together and each of us plays an important part. What you do is important and others need you to contnue doing it. Never give up, never be beaten, there is always hope and we will kick the corrupt cheats and crooks out of office and achieve a better society for all the people.