By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 22:56 - Feb 18 by Marshalls_Mullet
There's one problem with privatisation.... It's called TUPE!!
...forced to take the deadwood into the private sector.
Well, there's that, the utterly needless additional layer of management that costs upwards of £4bn a year, increased red tape, cost-cutting and its effects on efficiency and patient safetyin order to hit profit targets, a reluctance to take on anything remotely 'complicated and a total lack of transparency and willingness to share information in order to ensure joined-up care as well.
[Post edited 18 Feb 2020 23:10]
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 23:08 - Feb 18 by BlueBadger
Well, there's that, the utterly needless additional layer of management that costs upwards of £4bn a year, increased red tape, cost-cutting and its effects on efficiency and patient safetyin order to hit profit targets, a reluctance to take on anything remotely 'complicated and a total lack of transparency and willingness to share information in order to ensure joined-up care as well.
[Post edited 18 Feb 2020 23:10]
A few more posts like this and he'll 'beg to differ'.
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 22:56 - Feb 18 by Marshalls_Mullet
There's one problem with privatisation.... It's called TUPE!!
...forced to take the deadwood into the private sector.
That's a dilemma of modern capitalism. You want low unemployment and a late retiring age to avoid paying state benefits, yet jobs then have to be found for the 'deadwood', who are still people requiring paid work.
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 09:22 - Feb 19 by Guthrum
That's a dilemma of modern capitalism. You want low unemployment and a late retiring age to avoid paying state benefits, yet jobs then have to be found for the 'deadwood', who are still people requiring paid work.
eh ?
what on earth aree you on about !
a) 100 men make x amount of widgets - each paid £500
b) 80 men make x amount of widgets - each paid £500 the other are paid a vastly reduced amount (benefit) to retain social harmony
b) is not only cheaper but keeps the others on thwir toes as there is a ready supply of labour to replace them and those 20 also provide a pool of flexible labour
and it has nothing ro do with capitalism (ook up the work) - it is merely a means of employing people going back 1000s of years
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 09:22 - Feb 19 by Guthrum
That's a dilemma of modern capitalism. You want low unemployment and a late retiring age to avoid paying state benefits, yet jobs then have to be found for the 'deadwood', who are still people requiring paid work.
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 03:54 - Feb 20 by HARRY10
eh ?
what on earth aree you on about !
a) 100 men make x amount of widgets - each paid £500
b) 80 men make x amount of widgets - each paid £500 the other are paid a vastly reduced amount (benefit) to retain social harmony
b) is not only cheaper but keeps the others on thwir toes as there is a ready supply of labour to replace them and those 20 also provide a pool of flexible labour
and it has nothing ro do with capitalism (ook up the work) - it is merely a means of employing people going back 1000s of years
Yes. But governments don't want to pay benefits, as those are economically unproductive people being supported by taxpayers. Which is bad for their ability to bribe the electorate with tax cuts while not borrowing too much.
So they seek low unemployment as a major goal and "getting everybody back into work". Which includes the 'deadwood' to which the OP was referring.
I did say modern capitalism, not the whole philosophy.
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 19:11 - Feb 20 by Guthrum
Yes. But governments don't want to pay benefits, as those are economically unproductive people being supported by taxpayers. Which is bad for their ability to bribe the electorate with tax cuts while not borrowing too much.
So they seek low unemployment as a major goal and "getting everybody back into work". Which includes the 'deadwood' to which the OP was referring.
I did say modern capitalism, not the whole philosophy.
Capitalism is capitalism - something that has only been around for a few hundred years.
There is no more a modern version than there is a modern version of gravity.
Full employment is ectremely costly and efficient as I pointed out above - given that it costs more to produce the same goods with a greater number of employees
Which does explain why there is so wide a gap between out out per worker in France and the UK.
And the 'taxpayers' are NOT the employees but the capitalist class as a whole. Tax is not a reduction in wages but a charge on profits.
Hence 80 employed and 20 on benefits is always cheaper, all else being equal.
0
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 23:33 - Feb 20 with 1185 views
Privatisation; so often the answer: on 19:25 - Feb 20 by HARRY10
Capitalism is capitalism - something that has only been around for a few hundred years.
There is no more a modern version than there is a modern version of gravity.
Full employment is ectremely costly and efficient as I pointed out above - given that it costs more to produce the same goods with a greater number of employees
Which does explain why there is so wide a gap between out out per worker in France and the UK.
And the 'taxpayers' are NOT the employees but the capitalist class as a whole. Tax is not a reduction in wages but a charge on profits.
Hence 80 employed and 20 on benefits is always cheaper, all else being equal.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on my comment, which was more aimed at goverment policies than efficiency of production.
Capitalism - as in the investment of funds (including borrowing) to increase business or profit from trade - is as old as human civilisation. To think of the Medieval or Cassical systems as something entirely different is a typical 19th century (I'm looking at you, Marx) misappraisal of history. Plenty of Capitalism went on in those eras, too.