Could this simple view of the UK's and Europes problems have any credence?

[Silkflowersanne]

Could this general view of the UK and Europe?s problems have any credence?

I am a young Mum who just happened to be in Costa Coffee when I overheard this comment. Two guys were chatting about the problems in Greece and compared all the EEC countries to British Airways. Let me explain, he said that the EEC is like British Airways and that China is like Ryanair??sounded odd but as they chatted the simple point is that general overheads in Europe like 48 hour weeks, high social costs and a higher standard of living mean that we are too expensive to compete, In countries like China people work 70 or 80 hours a week and all the good UK EEC regulations and working practices do not exist. The summary was that who will deal with us when we are just too expensive, just like buying a seat on BA compared to Ryanair, all their overhead is lower. This actually scared me but thinking about it I thought maybe we will all have to work harder for the same wages and accept less social assistance. I have not heard any politicians say this quite as simply and of course none of them has mentioned what they plan to cut. Does anyone have any view which is opposite just to make me feel better.

Yes I think this view does have credence. This is the battle of ideas between globalisation and protectionism. All parties are for globalisation, and Thatcher used to openly say that she wanted us to be like Hong Kong, which would mean low wages and reduction in rights. Free markets and globalisation will benefit those at the top, but the employment prospects and standard of living of most of us will diminish.

Yes, it is all about globalisation. People are still arguing about how it'll all pan out. And as Claig says, there is a whole debate about protectionism and globalisation. And there is a whole question-mark about the direction the Thatcher administration seemed to take us in.

The whole role of the Thatcher administration in Britian's place in this is fascinating. I'd love to read a study of it. Were they instrumental in this? Were they simply responsive? Was it right? Far-sighted? Completely barking? Has anyone heard of one?

Some of the "ideas" around it:

The theory is that capital is global, and will be increasingly so as electronic media speeds up and extends.

As with British Airways v. Ryanair, there's stuff other than mere price to take into consideration.

In the UK we have, in theory, extensive education, and a health service, for eg. Therefore, in theory, we have the ability to sell an educated, healthy workforce.

There is also the (neo-liberal) argument that, as capital moves in on the "Ryanair" countries, their workers will demand the benefits that the "British Airways" workers enjoy, thus pushing up the price of tickets for the "Ryanair" countries. And also that the consumers in the "Britishairways" countries, who are theoretically the market for the "Ryanair" tickets will demand that the rights enjoyed by "BritishAirways" workers are extended to the "Ryanairways" workers, pushing up costs.

Personally, I think that a surprising amount of capital is still not availing itself of its potential to move around at will. It can be quite amazingly land-locked, for all sorts of reasons. But who knows what changes are to come.

I think England's biggest income-generating sector is now the management of global capital - is that correct? Which is interesting. That means that there is a place for British Airways-type things. But woe-betide the people in the British Airways countries that don't have the skills that get them employed by British Airways. Clearly, you will be living in a British Airways country, watching prices rocket because of the wages of the BA staff, when, in fact, you yourself are in a bubble of, perhaps, Ryanairways existence, on, relatively, Ryanairways wages. You'll be stuffed.

Though it can be argued that one of the "British Airways" "benefits" is democracy which means political, social, and economic stability and predictability. It is therefore in the interests of British Airways-style states to make sure the gap never becomes so huge that social volatility threatens. Hence rafts of ameliorative measures.

Personally, I do think that if capital is permitted to be global, then people should be, too. So I'm pro Open Borders re immigration. But I know lots of friends who argue for social protectionsim there - mine is a contentious, perhaps idealistic viewpoint. However, I just don't see that anything else is ethical. But I have heard one friend argue "we" have a historical debt to the working classes who died to get us our "British Airways" benefits. I don't see that that is a (fully) legitimate argument - we have always, in some senses, been global. And those rights were won against a backdrop of super-exploitation within colonialism. But there we go. It's a bigger issue than I am fully informed on.

It was a fun metaphor to use.

Not as pithy as Claig - who covered pretty much all of those points with greater brevity! It's a fascinating issue.

The end result of trying to compete though would be to reduce nearly everyone to abject slavery. Maybe the real point is that the current system doesn't work without slavery for the majority.

If you had a closed system (say we only traded with other western nations for example) and agreed universal minimum wages/conditions between us then we'd all be competing on the same level.

agree with onagar. Unfettered capitalism would lead to slavery for the majority. It is only in the interests of the super rich and powerful. The quality of life of the majority of the people needs to be a factor when determining trade policies.

I agree with both of you, Claig and Onagar, re. unfettered capitalism.

It is interesting, though, to contemplate how "we" are going to achieve that. You could say "we" are, kind of, achieving it at the moment. "We" live in democracies where we can exert limited pressure, at a national level, on our governments, with regard to how we, at a national level, interact with capitalism.

I do think we are in the process of finding out how much power we have to do that.

I used to find the (Thatcher) rhetoric about "competing" in a global market by cutting benefits and rights completely chilling. But it is ... alarming, maybe, to reflect on how Labour have not shielded us from some of the effects of globalisation. At the very least, it suggests a limitation on the idea of the power "we", the people, have to effect our national interaction with capitalism

In the meantime, I sometimes wonder if I should be standing over my ds at homework time ranting that an economics A level is the new writing. And they are just going to be completely screwed if they can't organise themselves some little position picking up crumbs from the plate of cake as it is passed around above their heads.

And then I start wishing I lived in Sweden.

I think you are right anumula. We the people have very little real power. All the major parties think in the same way on major issues, whatever they might pretend. Also the rich and powerful media influences us without us even realising it.

Just to throw another view into the ring ... .

This is reminding me of when I first became a mother, and started going along to mother and baby groups.

Warning: I lived in Brixton. Hot topic was globalisation. One of the other mothers argued that globalisation was not yet in existence, certainly not globally, and not in the form that we have been here discussing.

She argued that suggesting, and acting as though, it were was playing into the hands of the power elite, whose interests lay in bringing about just such a form of mobile, globalised capital. And that acting as though it were here already was actually a, small, act of bringing it into existence.

Eventually a sign appeared at a baby music group, asking parents and carers if they could "try to refrain from personal rapping" during the class, because it could be interpreted as "disrespectful towards the performers", and didn't aid the children's concentration.

I think this mother was right. The more it is discussed as if it is already here, the more de facto it becomes, the less powerful the people feel and there becomes no point in resisting the process, because it seems inevitable.

Part of globalisation is global governance, a favourite topic of Gordon Brown. To Gordon, everything is global. Global warming, global regulation, global consensus. Global supercedes national and that is how our rights will be removed and gloablisation will be introduced.

I do think that the embrace of the City, and capitalism by Labour, has brought us a bit closer to globalisation. It is true, I think, that we are a long way short of seeing a government that is seriously going to resist that.

I often mull over what the implications of Tony Blair's "Education, education, education" soundbite really were. I tend to see an accepting, ameliorative stance towards extreme capitalism behind it.

Wish some other people would add their tuppence worth. I find this subject v. interesting, but I know I am v, uninformed on it. Weird, when you think how important it is.

To go back to the OP, I think the comparison is valid, but I welcome it as a good thing.

We mostly grew up in an era when technology, and all its benefits were mostly concentrated in a handful of countries, and the majority of people in the world were working for peanuts in sweatshops or unskilled jobs or on farms, to keep us in the style to which we were accustomed, while their governments bought the high tech products that we manufactured.

That started to change in my industry (telecoms) in the late nineties, when work started to be offshored to India. Now, the situation is very different - there are large numbers of skilled and experienced engineers in India, to name just one country, which has become a big player. Next generation wireless technology is being developed in the far east.

I am actually happy about that - I never wanted to live and work in a sort of privileged fortress europe, with starving, uneducated millions just outside the door.

The downside is that as the rest of teh world comes up towards the average, we may have to go down towards the average. But isnt that a sacrifice worth making, for a fairer world?

nighbynight, that is exactly what is happening, they are going up and we are going down. That is what our capitalists want. They are going up with our money, pension funds and savings which are invested by the capitalists over there. The capitalists always invest where labour is the cheapest and they will run down our economies until we accept sweat shop labour conditions with no employment security. They will have us all on contracts and be able to fire us at will. It will become dog eat dog and they will destroy our National Health Service and other institutions which we have fought for over 100 years. It will be a disaster for us and we will be surplus to requirements in the global labour pool. The capitalists will be the winners, we will be the losers. The parties that bang on about global this and global that are precisely the parties that are working for the capitalists to achieve this nightmare scenario.

It won't be a fairer world. The super rich capitalists will become even richer and the rest of the world's population will be continually played off against each other in a downward spiral of who can produce more for less pay.

we are talking about 2 separate things here. If people have a better standard of living in Africa and India, the nightmare scenario you describe wont necessarily follow.
Britain is worse than other countries for this naked capitalism thing, the community is alive and well in other countries. Other countries will also want things like a good health service. It is not all doom and gloom.

I hope you're right, but I worry what will happen to us in Britain

so do I! We are currently in Germany, and I dont feel at home here, but dont feel at home in Britain either, partly for the reasons discussed on this thread.
Not sure I want to stay in DE, cant face going "home"....

Germany has better services than Britain, but I have read that even there the authorities are beginning to cut the Germans' excellent health treatment and are trying to push through the privatisation type programs we are so used to over here. They will have a tougher job to push it through in Germany, but these type of programs are a worldwide phenomenon.

Yes, but they will have to make a lot of cuts before it gets as bad as in the UK!
I have spoken to some germans who are leaving though, as they say it is not as good as it was in the 70s and 80s.

Yes I don't think the German people will accept cuts like that. Where are the Germans moving to? Where in the world is better? It's happening everywhere.

Canada, for example.
Some of my colleagues accepted a pay cut of 1/13 of their annual salary, plus an increase in their working hours from 35 to 40, which IMO is quite a hit - relatively speaking.
Others have accepted a shift from being perm to contract workers.

yes Canada is attractive to a lot of people.
Perm to contract is OK while the economy is booming, but when it dips, the contract workers lose their security and benefits.
God knows what will happen here after the election. With our deficit, they will have to make some serious cuts.

yes, I am watching with interest - especially anything that would make houses cheaper for me.
Euro is in a bit of sh*t at the moment too, as greece has called those loans in.

yes good point about the house prices. If the Euro holds up, that will be advantageous.
But after Greece, there is Portugal and Spain, and possibly Britain.