Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should be an eye opener for the Brexiteers amongst us...
#11
(11-14-2017, 05:28 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(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 on this documentary are exceptionally poorly paid. The second that if you raised the wage above that say of 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.

Free cauliflowers?
Reply
#12
(11-14-2017, 05:28 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(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.

The jobs are poorly paid, end of story. They are of equal pay to service and retail jobs with fewer benefits and are more labour intensive. Why would I agree to do a job that I'm not particularly fond of for the same amount per hour at a place that is easier? Would you want to earn minimum wage in a climate controlled venue, easy to reach and with discounts or work in a field doing manual labour for the same wage? Increase the wage to a level that would make it worth while to employ me at. There is also the system of logistics, most farming based jobs are in the countryside away from the bulk of the unemployed young people. You don't tend find people on long term benefits living near farms, they're either in cities or industrialised towns. If the employers are worried about supply problems, increase the demand and make it worthwhile for them by either mechanising or increasing wages to fulfil supply issues. If a job is beneath someone it is out of date or not worthwhile.

As for youth unemployment, that isn't as big an issue as you make out. It's at a fairly stable level similar to what it was in the late 90s/early 2000s in terms of raw numbers and at a lower proportion of the population. Source: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/R...ry/SN05871. There isn't an overall supply issue with respect to work, it's that farming jobs aren't worthwhile to go into.

With respect to tax credits, that is to show the industry to be wholly inefficient that they need the subsidies to manage crops in the land and pay their workers before turning profit. If your business is relying on handouts to remain afloat then in a market economy it should disappear. We didn't prop up other dying and failing industries so why should we for farmers? Subsidies are to act as an incentive and welfare is to act as a safety net, not to abuse to allow you to make a profit and not pay your workers properly.
Reply
#13
(11-14-2017, 06:39 PM)BoringBaggie Wrote:
(11-14-2017, 05:28 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(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.

The jobs are poorly paid, end of story. They are of equal pay to service and retail jobs with fewer benefits and are more labour intensive. Why would I agree to do a job that I'm not particularly fond of for the same amount per hour at a place that is easier? Would you want to earn minimum wage in a climate controlled venue, easy to reach and with discounts or work in a field doing manual labour for the same wage? Increase the wage to a level that would make it worth while to employ me at. There is also the system of logistics, most farming based jobs are in the countryside away from the bulk of the unemployed young people. You don't tend find people on long term benefits living near farms, they're either in cities or industrialised towns. If the employers are worried about supply problems, increase the demand and make it worthwhile for them by either mechanising or increasing wages to fulfil supply issues. If a job is beneath someone it is out of date or not worthwhile.

As for youth unemployment, that isn't as big an issue as you make out. It's at a fairly stable level similar to what it was in the late 90s/early 2000s in terms of raw numbers and at a lower proportion of the population. Source: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/R...ry/SN05871. There isn't an overall supply issue with respect to work, it's that farming jobs aren't worthwhile to go into.

With respect to tax credits, that is to show the industry to be wholly inefficient that they need the subsidies to manage crops in the land and pay their workers before turning profit. If your business is relying on handouts to remain afloat then in a market economy it should disappear. We didn't prop up other dying and failing industries so why should we for farmers? Subsidies are to act as an incentive and welfare is to act as a safety net, not to abuse to allow you to make a profit and not pay your workers properly.

I’m pretty sure I didn’t mention farming or cauliflowers Wink
Reply
#14
(11-14-2017, 05:01 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(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.

Not sure if you agree with me but I would like if agricultural subsidies can be re purposed to act as a decentralised environmental protection scheme, similar to what Gove is proposing. Instead of subsidising the act of farming, offer subsidies on equipment such as all electric tractors, river turbines as well as offer grants on environmental protections such as habitats such as woodland and streams to reduce pollution, make them self sufficient and improve our landscape both in aesthetics and function like natural flood defences and preserving wildlife.

Derek, the point with farming is an example of an industry that is struggling to replace workers due to it not being worthwhile. Welfare isn't just applicable to farmers, nor are subsidies. If recruiters in Bognor Regis or wherever the documentary is filmed are struggling, instead of blaming workers which they are increase the incentive so demand increases to supplement supply. If recruitment agencies are advertising a warehouse job with long hours on minimum wage requiring manual labour but there is a position opening on the tills in town at the same wage which will you take? Young people move where the worthwhile opportunities are, we all support a club that is on the doorstep of a city with loads of opportunities and has a high amount of young people moving to it, they're not staying in seaside towns as it's pointless.
Reply
#15
I'd enjoy a bit of PYO.
Reply
#16
(11-14-2017, 05:01 PM)Protheroe Wrote: Precisely. Dropping agricultural subsidies, whether gradually or immediately is another good reason for getting out of the EU.


As an interim measure why not cap the acreage eligible for the primary payments, removing at least one of the disadvantages suffered by the smaller operators and discouraging the ranch-style aggregations of land, whose primary purpose is to accrue subsidy. 

I suppose the answers are that:
1). The rules, as they stand, don't allow for it, and
2). Big landowners have the ear of government and small independent hill farmers don't (which is why the rules, as they stand... ).
Reply
#17
If we can buy produce far more cheaply than we can produce it, why produce it? Comparative advantage is a wonderful thing.

I have deep and broad reservations about Gove's ideas BB. It's crazy that he's spent a political career criticising the unintended outcomes of EU central planning for the environment and now wants to go beyond it; People are not allowed to sue polluters for their air pollution because the government has designated itself sole judge and enforcer on the issue. Funnily enough, this has led to the UK government fending off a series of lawsuits for failing to provide clean air.

The government buys pristine land off people, taking away their incentive to protect it, and then claims the land has no voice to protect it. Good luck doing any illegal logging (or indeed dogging) on land owned by someone other than the government.

The government controls zoning of land through the planning system, taking away the rights of owners, and then wonders why they don’t invest in its protection. It’s hardly theirs if the government controls it.

The government creates environmental standards and then wonders why people do blatantly stupid things that technically comply with standards but worsen the environment dramatically. It’s because complying with the law protects you from accountability. “We comply with the law” is every offending firm’s line of defence, not matter the damage it caused.

By removing property rights from the environment, the government has sabotaged the incentives to treat the environment with respect. By taking ownership of sensitive parts of the environment, it has allowed the incompetence of government to infect attempts to protect places, species and resources. By making rules, it has created a compliance culture that doesn’t value accountability or outcomes - just process and regulation.
Reply
#18
(11-14-2017, 08:42 PM)TTM Wrote: I'd enjoy a bit of PYO.

Nose or ring piece?
Reply
#19
(11-14-2017, 06:39 PM)BoringBaggie Wrote:
(11-14-2017, 05:28 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(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.

The jobs are poorly paid, end of story. They are of equal pay to service and retail jobs with fewer benefits and are more labour intensive. Why would I agree to do a job that I'm not particularly fond of for the same amount per hour at a place that is easier? Would you want to earn minimum wage in a climate controlled venue, easy to reach and with discounts or work in a field doing manual labour for the same wage? Increase the wage to a level that would make it worth while to employ me at. There is also the system of logistics, most farming based jobs are in the countryside away from the bulk of the unemployed young people. You don't tend find people on long term benefits living near farms, they're either in cities or industrialised towns. If the employers are worried about supply problems, increase the demand and make it worthwhile for them by either mechanising or increasing wages to fulfil supply issues. If a job is beneath someone it is out of date or not worthwhile.

As for youth unemployment, that isn't as big an issue as you make out. It's at a fairly stable level similar to what it was in the late 90s/early 2000s in terms of raw numbers and at a lower proportion of the population. Source: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/R...ry/SN05871. There isn't an overall supply issue with respect to work, it's that farming jobs aren't worthwhile to go into.

With respect to tax credits, that is to show the industry to be wholly inefficient that they need the subsidies to manage crops in the land and pay their workers before turning profit. If your business is relying on handouts to remain afloat then in a market economy it should disappear. We didn't prop up other dying and failing industries so why should we for farmers? Subsidies are to act as an incentive and welfare is to act as a safety net, not to abuse to allow you to make a profit and not pay your workers properly.

Proth has successfully skewed this debate to agriculture. However the crux of the debate is a cultural one. Do unskilled Brits want to work? There are jobs out there but many who use immigration as an excuse are not willing to take those jobs, and the point is you can lift the wage to £10, 15 an hour and they still wouldn’t. Then the question is wtf do you do with those that choose not to work? Do you want to employ someone simply because they have been forced to by reduced benefits? Unless you change the anti-education, welfare dependency mindset of many of those blaming immigration for all their woes I can see nothing but social, political and economic turmoil in the next few years. 

Just like the government won’t have the pesky EU to blame neither will those who blame cheap labour from abroad. As the White Working Class kid who had never worked said to the Polish bank mabager “you work so I don’t have to!”
Reply
#20
(11-15-2017, 09:11 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Proth has successfully skewed this debate to agriculture. However the crux of the debate is a cultural one. Do unskilled Brits want to work? There are jobs out there but many who use immigration as an excuse are not willing to take those jobs, and the point is you can lift the wage to £10, 15 an hour and they still wouldn’t. Then the question is wtf do you do with those that choose not to work? Do you want to employ someone simply because they have been forced to by reduced benefits? Unless you change the anti-education, welfare dependency mindset of many of those blaming immigration for all their woes I can see nothing but social, political and economic turmoil in the next few years. 

Just like the government won’t have the pesky EU to blame neither will those who blame cheap labour from abroad. As the White Working Class kid who had never worked said to the Polish bank mabager “you work so I don’t have to!”

If people can't be arsed to work, I doubt they'll be arsed to create "social, political and economic turmoil". I also doubt that they could be arsed to vote in the referendum.

There will always be a rump of society who don't want to work. The state should provide a ladder out of relative poverty for those that wish to climb it, for the others it should pay benefits at a subsistence level. Is this really a debate anymore? Let alone the crux of one?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)