Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should be an eye opener for the Brexiteers amongst us...
#1
British Workers Wanted, Thursday on Channel 4 at 10.00pm.

All those jobs so cruelly stolen from good honest British ‘working class.’ Roll on the day the Brits get their jobs back...
Reply
#2
I had an interesting debate with a farmer on Twitter at the weekend. He was lamenting the fact that he couldn't get anyone to cut his cauliflowers at the "going rate" - I suggested the "going rate" was clearly not enough.

This is the great conceit of the FoM-lovers. The agricultural sector has grown fat on subsidies from CAP & poverty wages subsidised by tax credits. In a period of full employment would anyone be sorry to see those jobs go? or those types of business go under?

The sooner we adopt the New Zealand approach to agriculture the better.
Reply
#3
(11-14-2017, 01:03 PM)Protheroe Wrote: I had an interesting debate with a farmer on Twitter at the weekend. He was lamenting the fact that he couldn't get anyone to cut his cauliflowers at the "going rate" - I suggested the "going rate" was clearly not enough.

This is the great conceit of the FoM-lovers. The agricultural sector has grown fat on subsidies from CAP & poverty wages subsidised by tax credits. In a period of full employment would anyone be sorry to see those jobs go? or those types of business go under?

The sooner we adopt the New Zealand approach to agriculture the better.

So if you have no qualifications, an awful attitude to work and don’t want to start at the bottom in terms of career the solution is to cut the welfare state and low paid jobs? Unless you want crime to go through the roof your argument seems a little flawed. There is a hardcore of Brits who don’t want to work and have grown up in that culture. I don’t see a two or three pound rise in wages is going to solve that problem.
Reply
#4
You don't understand my argument then. Let me try again:

Businesses in any sector should not be dependent on subsidy and poor wages to survive.

Is that better?
Reply
#5
The
(11-14-2017, 01:24 PM)Protheroe Wrote: You don't understand my argument then. Let me try again:

Businesses in any sector should not be dependent on subsidy and poor wages to survive.

Is that better?

Those companies all pay the ‘living wage’ which your party implemented. If they don’t then close them down. Raising the aforementioned by two or three pounds won’t suddenly see a rush of Brits wanting to work for the first time.
Reply
#6
No, you're still missing the point.
Reply
#7
(11-14-2017, 01:29 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: The
(11-14-2017, 01:24 PM)Protheroe Wrote: You don't understand my argument then. Let me try again:

Businesses in any sector should not be dependent on subsidy and poor wages to survive.

Is that better?

Those companies all pay the ‘living wage’ which your party implemented. If they don’t then close them down. Raising the aforementioned by two or three pounds won’t suddenly see a rush of Brits wanting to work for the first time.

Strawman argument. Proth is saying that if employers, in this case farmers, aren't able to pay workers fairly without the workers being supported by the government then their business should not exist as it's an inefficient model.
Reply
#8
In the greater scheme of how the tax that I pay is invested, subsidising the wages of British/Polish/Latvian people to
pick cabbages, cauliflowers or cox's pippins is pretty low on my list. The farmers need to either pay the rate to attract
those without the use of tax subsidy or invest and mechanise the task. The dairy industry doesn't have thousands of
workers sitting on three legged stools pulling on each udder, they have had to adopt and either get out of the business
or invest in equipment to remove the labour costs from the process.
Reply
#9
(11-14-2017, 04:33 PM)BoringBaggie Wrote: Strawman argument. Proth is saying that if employers, in this case farmers, aren't able to pay workers fairly without the workers being supported by the government then their business should not exist as it's an inefficient model.

Precisely. Dropping agricultural subsidies, whether gradually or immediately is another good reason for getting out of the EU.

(11-14-2017, 04:38 PM)Beano16 Wrote: In the greater scheme of how the tax that I pay is invested, subsidising the wages of British/Polish/Latvian people to
pick cabbages, cauliflowers or cox's pippins is pretty low on my list. The farmers need to either pay the rate to attract
those without the use of tax subsidy or invest and mechanise the task. The dairy industry doesn't have thousands of
workers sitting on three legged stools pulling on each udder, they have had to adopt and either get out of the business
or invest in equipment to remove the labour costs from the process.

I was told that you cannot easily mechanise the cutting of cauliflowers as opposed to, say, carrots. I suggested in that case the farmer grow carrots if he didn't want to pay the market rate for cauliflower cutters.

Not sure any of this is exceptionally radical in business sense.
Reply
#10
(11-14-2017, 04:33 PM)BoringBaggie Wrote:
(11-14-2017, 01:29 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: The
(11-14-2017, 01:24 PM)Protheroe Wrote: You don't understand my argument then. Let me try again:

Businesses in any sector should not be dependent on subsidy and poor wages to survive.

Is that better?

Those companies all pay the ‘living wage’ which your party implemented. If they don’t then close them down. Raising the aforementioned by two or three pounds won’t suddenly see a rush of Brits wanting to work for the first time.

Strawman argument. Proth is saying that if employers, in this case farmers, aren't able to pay workers fairly without the workers being supported by the government then their business should not exist as it's an inefficient model.

Hang on there are huge assumptions here. One that the jobs offered in this documentary are exceptionally poorly paid. The second that if you raised the wage above the need for tax credits British unemployed would apply, get and show the aptitude to keep the job. 

There maybe a case for employers to offer better wages or go to the wall but I’d suggest that’s only part of the reason long term British unemployed and the under 25s find themselves without a job. It also doesn’t solve the problem of attracting people to do unattractive jobs that many in the UK seem beneath them.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)