Trump (Part 5)

[claig]

Continuation of the discussion on all things Trump and the people's revolutions

The long history of industrial accidents tells a very different story Missswatch.
Why do people put up with poor conditions on zero hours contracts, for example? Because the balance of power tips towards those with the money - the employers.
Sometimes the interests of the senior management, the shareholders and the employees of a company are in alignment and that's great. Sometimes they are in conflict. That's when regulations and employment rights are needed - to correct the imbalance in power.

This is a massive simplification but imagine there are two rival companies, both producing the same product to the same customer base. Company A is run by someone who pays workers fairly and prioritises health, safety and the environment. Company B is run by someone who does not, and is able to produce the same product much more cheaply by cutting corners and exploiting staff. With no regulations, company A will be driven out of business. I know that regulations can cause problems - they can be annoying, be badly written or have unforeseen consequences but the well written, carefully applied ones really are essential to protect "the people".

Then you work for company C

Missswatch I can absolutely see us going backwards - both in the US and the UK if certain politicians get their way. Plus, new technologies mean that we need new regulations to protect the public (particularly relevant to employee rights - look at whats happening with the gig economy due to rapid uptake of IT technologies).

So why did so many people put up with the conditions in the Sports direct warehouse?

Now there I agree squishy. I think universal basic income should at least be trialled. The first self driving HGV was successfully trialled not long ago. How many lorry drivers will be out of work soon? Bring on UBI

People were dieing in sports direct warehouses? Interesting...

"People were dieing in sports direct warehouses? Interesting..."
No, but one employee gave birth in one after being to scared to call in sick.
My posts weren't just related to Health and safety regulations but to wider employment regulationss as well.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-36855374

This from the link I provided earlier regarding Trump's attitude to construction industry regulations:
Several Polish construction workers who worked on the construction of Trump Tower sued the real estate mogul in 1983. The New York Times reported the men “often worked in choking clouds of asbestos dust without protective equipment.” Trump denied knowing about the working conditions, but 16 years later, he settled the case out of court

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-and-the-art-of-asbestos_us_581b2e4ee4b0570d6d6f0c1d

UBI would require higher earners and corporations to pay a very high amount of tax, Missswatch. I can't imagine that being popular, and I certainly can't imagine Trump supporting it.

Trump may not. It will be interesting to see how it plays out elsewhere though

The ridiculous thing is, that with many Jewish people living in the states, Happy Holidays covers both Christmas and Hannukah. As a Christian its not offensive to me in the slightest. Its their festival time as well.

Why am I not surprised that Trump is a fan of asbestos.

Missswatch I'd always thought of UBI as being something championed by the far left - a nice ideal but not practical. Who knows though? Within the next 50 years technology could change the way we work beyond all recognition, so I agree it is an interesting idea.

I think that what we are living through now is analogous to a second industrial revolution - exciting, innovative changes in technology (alongside globalisation) which sadly have the side effect of reducing the quality of life of many workers. That's why I don't think it is fair to blame immigrants for all economic problems - we need instead to make sure that the negative impact of technology on working conditions is reduced, whilst spreading the advantages and opportunities it brings amongst the population as a whole. I think this requires more workers rights and protections, not less. Trying to turn the clock back - or even trying to maintain the status quo of old industries is a fool's errand.

Kaija, he really is like an overdone caricature of an unscrupulous business man.

I find it rather fascinating. Technology is developing quicker than we can keep up. Jobs will be lost as it makes sense to an employer. However, people will still be needed to fix said technology, install it, programme it etc

The job market changes with technological development, and as people's interests change. That's natural, but there will always be those who are left out and then need to find new jobs or careers. That's partly where a good welfare system helps.
It's better than keeping jobs for the sake of it, or in damaging industries. For example, fishing if fish stocks are disappearing, or coal, if it's highly pollutent and better and renewable alternatives are available.

Absolutely Missswatch. The types of jobs available in the future will be different - it's not necessarily doom and gloom, but focusing on training and high quality education makes much more sense to me than empty promises to bring back industries that left for a reason (unprofitability). If competing with China, Mexico or Vietnam requires slashing the rights, pay and working conditions to the levels of those countries that is not a price worth paying. If it means punitive tarifs on imports then the public will see the cost of living rise.
It would be lovely to believe that all the world's problems can be fixed with the simple solutions of one man, but it's more complicated than that.

This may come across as goady Missswatch but I don't intend it to be so - I am surprised that a Trump supporter is also interested in UBI. My perception of UBI was that it is quite contradictory with right wing principles. But then my understanding of it mainly comes from the way some factions of the far left push it - as a mechanism of wealth redistribution.

Not goady at all. Guess it's good to know I can surprise someone

Missswatch, I am certain that you are absolutely able to surprise me!
I find many of the opinions put forward on here very hard to understand, and if I ask for further explanation it is not meant as trolling or goadyness, so I am glad you were not offended.
I am surprised that anyone can state with certainty that rights and regulations are not under threat from the Trump administration, just as on the last thread I was surprised that someone needed to ask for examples on how women's rights might be affected.

Having seen many threads on MN about politics there are lots of jumping to conclusions and hasty end of the world assumptions. Prime example: when the Tories won the last election posters here genuinely believed that workhouses were being brought back. A lot of people said many negative things actually thinking it was the end of the world. It's almost 2017 and I see no workhouse. There is no apocalypse. I am of the mind of lets give a chance, wait and see. It's not the end and things won't end up as bad as made out to be

I should be lurking around here within the next few years and I'll admit I am wrong if things truly do go south

Until then...

I don't feel all doom and gloom, but I am concerned.
And people expressing out loud their concerns can only be a good thing to keep politicians on the best path, wouldn't you say?

The most extreme concerns about anything are likely to be hyperbole Missswatch. If you lump all concerns in together, and then judge them all by the most histrionic, then you will wind up dismissing some very reasonable and real concerns.
And the best way to avoid the things many of us are concerned about is by scrutiny, discussion, and - if necessary - protest. That's not for everyone, but the day we all stick our heads in the sand and give up is the day we hand our leaders unlimited power.

Like Trump starting a nuclear war? I've seen that one thrown around. Lets be real here. Does anyone actually truly believe he will start one? Any leader with half a brain is aware of MAD. I'm betting Kim Jong Un for all his sabre rattling is aware of MAD

It isn't a real concern and it won't happen

I don't think it is likely, but it is more likely under Trump than anyone else. It is Trump's own language that has worried people ("why can't we just nuke em?").
And MAD only applies if you are bombing another nuclear armed country.

And we have discussed plenty of concerns on here other than nuclear war, which have been reasonable, and realistic and we have provided evidence for those concerns.