First 100 days

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

whoever you voted for, what are your thoughts after the First 100 Days?
I didn’t vote for Labour, but I was quite excited in their first few weeks as Keir got his head down and I was excited fir change.

Now I just feel deflated. Same old….freebiegate, nitpicking, infighting. A bit depressing really.

i don’t even think there was a decent alternative really….and that’s even more depressing!!!!!

I disagree.

The ‘barriers to entry’ in terms of commitment to study and qualifications to become a doctor or a head teacher are much higher than a tube driver. Plus there is the social need element. Yes, tube and train drivers have responsibility for their passengers, but they are relatively low-skilled. 70k is a lot of money, so I am surprised you say that - many posters would love that kind of salary.

My point was also about the Govt settling with the unions, only to face fresh wage demands. That’s a rod made for their backs right there.

There are a few more dynamics that dictate wages. Supply and demand, as well as difficulty/effort/cost of gaining professional qualifications; and a ceiling of what ‘the market’ will tolerate paying.

I was suprised to learn how poorly paid vetinary medics are. A profession which requires exceptional grades and as study as arduous as human medicine.

https://thevetservice.com/how-much-do-vets-earn-on-average-in-the-uk/

If you want to find your ikigai then you need to;

enjoy your job
be good at your job
be valued and needed by others
be paid (well) for doing

Lots of people do not meet all four criteria; and are unsatisfied as a result.

How much do you actually know about what being a train driver, and especially an instructor, entails?

In any case it isn't helpful. Society's perceptions of which jobs are important need to change. And we should also look at why pay multipliers within organisations have got so wildly out of hand in the UK - there are people out there who earn more money in a year than they could spend in a lifetime. That isn't OK. I have no problem with people working hard, studying hard and getting wildly rich - but we're getting to the point where the money is just a way of keeping score in a game.

One measure of a job’s prospects and ‘value’ is whether the job can be done away with.

We shouldn’t really need train divers (or airline pilots): self-driving trains are trivial, technologically. I recognise that the infrastructure isn’t there yet, but with enough will it could be. It is on the DLR.

That will also be true of plenty of white collar jobs in the future too. It’s not a ‘simple’ v ‘complex’ job argument; it’s an observation that the fights will become about having a job, not the pay for a job. And the unionised public sector will oppose change far, far more than the private sector will.

OK, to go back one step and attempt to apply some logic.

What is another major distinction between a train driver, and, say a teacher or a hospital-based Dr? It’s the human interface, and one of the reasons turnover is so high in education and the medical profession. I would imagine driving a train is pretty routine and semi-automated (you tell me), whereas in the other sectors I mention, you have little idea what you will face day-to-day.

As to the spread in salaries between careers, that’s a free-market S&D based economy for you. One either gets on board with that, or doesn’t. Keeping score? I’m not sure what you mean by that.

Hence the unions fighting tooth and nail against automation, and reforms to working practices. QED.

@Rummly I agree - but society and governments are going to have to think and plan ahead for those people who will not have the jobs they used to be able to get and who will not be able to get into the 'complex' jobs of the future - because if you wilfully create a society where there is mass unemployment, that is not going to be stable.

Keeping score? I’m not sure what you mean by that.

It's simple. When you earn so much that your income is no longer relevant to meeting your needs, when you could buy a new pair of Louboutins for every day of the year, line your undies with diamonds, have a different car for every week of the year, NEVER have to even think about what you're earning because it has no bearing on your needs in life - then money is irrelevant and no more than a score counter in a game. Greed is not good. Pay differentials are too large.

AI and ML are already impacting a number of industries globally, and China is exporting deflation (look at EV’s and renewables etc). In the west, and elsewhere, you have ageing demographics, with improved mortality outcomes (plateau’d), and lower birth rates.

Politicians are by their very nature, short-termists, so I would not be inclined to look to our encumbents to solve much, beyond trying to impose further fiscal ‘reform’ (read hikes) on the 30th.

Sorry, this is wrong.

You ignore material risk takers, who have built companies from the ground up, and are innovators, and large employers - think Dyson.

Then you have wealth creators - some CEO’s who ‘create’ enormous shareholder value - which also gets filtered back into the real economy.

Greed is not good….. without ‘greed’, you wouldn’t have innovation, advances in medicine, in technology etc.

I keep saying this - life is not egalitarian, and never has been. People are not equal and nor are their caprices, their fears, their wants and needs.

Many new businesses fail. People take risks

How will you get advancement without those people taking risks?

No, it's you who is wrong. I have no problem with people like Dyson becoming fabulously wealthy, although he was quick enough to take his manufacturing processes out of the UK after supporting the madness that is Brexit. But there comes a point where people like him don't need more, don't want more, and don't deserve more because there are other people in the world.

Innovation is great and should be rewarded. But there comes a point beyond which wanting more, and more, and more is just plain greed. This is what is wrong with capitalism - it has no morals. Neither does pure socialism on the other end of the spectrum, but other models are available.

I have no problem with risks being rewarded. But there has to be a stopping point to that beyond which is is no longer ethical. Nobody needs to earn millions every year. Nobody needs to own billions in wealth. The kind of wealth inequality we have in the UK means people are not going to take risks, are not going to try - are in fact going to do nothing but eventually riot. There has to be a stopping point.

So, please enlighten us - what model would you propose, bearing in mind your morality hurdle?

If you’d like this then I think you need action across the board because people and companies can just go elsewhere

I tend to feel more comfortable with U.K. rather than a US gap but I can’t see the US changing this fundamental drive for them. Eg Silicon Valley bringing a lot of tech advancement, I was listening to someone talk about the EU countries lagging on this

I agree with this - it would have to be a global decision to build a world where everyone who works can afford to live in a safe, warm home, have enough to eat, have good healthcare and good education for their children. These are the basics everyone should have.

But beyond that it really is worth looking at countries where there is democracy and where there is also a lower level of inequality than we have in the UK. The US certainly isn't an example to follow.

I was watching a Rick Stein food programme the other night. It featured one of Dyson's farms and it was a strawberry farm with all year round yield. The energy needed to heat the greenhouses was wholly made from plants grown on the farm.
https://dysonfarming.com/strawberries/
He has poured millions into this.

@derxa that's lovely. How much do the people who work there earn?

Yeah. That’s nice and all but farms and all linked stuff is a pretty nice tax break - especially IHT. Pretty quick to make loads of staff redundant and move bases to Singapore. Not the greatest advert for British jobs. Innovation - yes. A prime example I’d say of what happens when a tax system becomes punitive.

How on earth should I know?

What do you do with the people who don’t want to work?

He could have bought his farms and done precisely nothing with them. Why didn't he?

I find some of the posts on here almost child-like in their naïveté. The real world is not ‘Imagine’ - it’s unfair, its tough, its competitive. There are several billion Chinese, Indians, and sub-Saharan Africans etc who want the kind of trappings of wealth we have enjoyed. We have conflict in several regions with its impact on supply chains, and inflation.

Those who wanted a ‘fairer’ UK (perception or reality), presumably voted for Labour. So, that’s what you have got - a socialist democracy.

And BTW, Labour recently schmoozed the ultra-wealthy CEOs who PointyThings so detests…

Wealth creation. Don’t get me wrong - we need innovators. If you know anything of my posts I am pro wealth creation. Pretending this person is some kind of hero we all need to look up to. Absolutely not. His company are a peak example of what happens when taxes on business and wealth become punitive. Look how his company treated his staff and the relocation of his operations to Singapore after the Brexit he championed. We need less of that, not more.

Quite. The awkward truth is / those in fairer democracies don’t have so many state dependents. Everyone had a buy in and everyone is expected to contribute. Success is celebrated.