| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 08:44 - Feb 6 with 2564 views | Guthrum |
The deep sources of this issue are twofold.
Firstly, we have allowed everything to become too expensive - principally wages. Thus staff costs are draining away all the money which both business and government have to spend. More money in the pocket for workers has led to inflation in basic commodities and insistence on a higher standard of living. See fig 1 on this blog:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/real-wages-and-living-standards-the-lat
Because anything which involves employing people is so expensive, organisations (including the Government) want to save as much money as they can, by any means possible. Including putting vulnerable people out on the streets by closing hostels a month early.
Secondly, nobody wants to pay for anything. Ever since the 1980s, governments have been elected on platforms of minimising tax. Thus the authorities have found themselves perpetually short of money. At least Cameron had the honesty to point out that the shortfall would need to be covered by charity. The problem with that, however, is that much money goes to people's pet interests (trees, cats and dogs, sewage systems in Africa). All worthy causes, but not necessarily where the money is needed to cover government shrinkage (also, the charity sector suffers badly from duplication of effort, multiple organisations all doing the same thing and thus diluting funds).
Another factor in the long-term financial squeeze is the cost of fuel (which affects almost everything else). In the time the welfare state was established and right up to the 1970s, oil was relatively cheap. Then, fairly suddenly, it became a geopolitical weapon and a means for making certain individuals and families unimaginably wealthy. This sparked a burst of rampant inflation in the West which is what triggered the demand for massive wage increases to compensate.
In summary, we've priced ourselves out of the market, are unwilling to up our payments and are trying to cut back on spending everywhere because borrowing got out of control. |  |
|  |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 09:33 - Feb 6 with 2428 views | Pinewoodblue |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 08:44 - Feb 6 by Guthrum |
The deep sources of this issue are twofold.
Firstly, we have allowed everything to become too expensive - principally wages. Thus staff costs are draining away all the money which both business and government have to spend. More money in the pocket for workers has led to inflation in basic commodities and insistence on a higher standard of living. See fig 1 on this blog:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/real-wages-and-living-standards-the-lat
Because anything which involves employing people is so expensive, organisations (including the Government) want to save as much money as they can, by any means possible. Including putting vulnerable people out on the streets by closing hostels a month early.
Secondly, nobody wants to pay for anything. Ever since the 1980s, governments have been elected on platforms of minimising tax. Thus the authorities have found themselves perpetually short of money. At least Cameron had the honesty to point out that the shortfall would need to be covered by charity. The problem with that, however, is that much money goes to people's pet interests (trees, cats and dogs, sewage systems in Africa). All worthy causes, but not necessarily where the money is needed to cover government shrinkage (also, the charity sector suffers badly from duplication of effort, multiple organisations all doing the same thing and thus diluting funds).
Another factor in the long-term financial squeeze is the cost of fuel (which affects almost everything else). In the time the welfare state was established and right up to the 1970s, oil was relatively cheap. Then, fairly suddenly, it became a geopolitical weapon and a means for making certain individuals and families unimaginably wealthy. This sparked a burst of rampant inflation in the West which is what triggered the demand for massive wage increases to compensate.
In summary, we've priced ourselves out of the market, are unwilling to up our payments and are trying to cut back on spending everywhere because borrowing got out of control. |
Meanwhile Shell's profits for 2018 soar to £16billion. |  |
| |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 09:35 - Feb 6 with 2424 views | chicoazul |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 08:44 - Feb 6 by Guthrum |
The deep sources of this issue are twofold.
Firstly, we have allowed everything to become too expensive - principally wages. Thus staff costs are draining away all the money which both business and government have to spend. More money in the pocket for workers has led to inflation in basic commodities and insistence on a higher standard of living. See fig 1 on this blog:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/real-wages-and-living-standards-the-lat
Because anything which involves employing people is so expensive, organisations (including the Government) want to save as much money as they can, by any means possible. Including putting vulnerable people out on the streets by closing hostels a month early.
Secondly, nobody wants to pay for anything. Ever since the 1980s, governments have been elected on platforms of minimising tax. Thus the authorities have found themselves perpetually short of money. At least Cameron had the honesty to point out that the shortfall would need to be covered by charity. The problem with that, however, is that much money goes to people's pet interests (trees, cats and dogs, sewage systems in Africa). All worthy causes, but not necessarily where the money is needed to cover government shrinkage (also, the charity sector suffers badly from duplication of effort, multiple organisations all doing the same thing and thus diluting funds).
Another factor in the long-term financial squeeze is the cost of fuel (which affects almost everything else). In the time the welfare state was established and right up to the 1970s, oil was relatively cheap. Then, fairly suddenly, it became a geopolitical weapon and a means for making certain individuals and families unimaginably wealthy. This sparked a burst of rampant inflation in the West which is what triggered the demand for massive wage increases to compensate.
In summary, we've priced ourselves out of the market, are unwilling to up our payments and are trying to cut back on spending everywhere because borrowing got out of control. |
Good post. Petrol price rises dont affect me though, I always just put 20 quid in. |  |
| |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 09:46 - Feb 6 with 2390 views | Bluesquid |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 08:44 - Feb 6 by Guthrum |
The deep sources of this issue are twofold.
Firstly, we have allowed everything to become too expensive - principally wages. Thus staff costs are draining away all the money which both business and government have to spend. More money in the pocket for workers has led to inflation in basic commodities and insistence on a higher standard of living. See fig 1 on this blog:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/real-wages-and-living-standards-the-lat
Because anything which involves employing people is so expensive, organisations (including the Government) want to save as much money as they can, by any means possible. Including putting vulnerable people out on the streets by closing hostels a month early.
Secondly, nobody wants to pay for anything. Ever since the 1980s, governments have been elected on platforms of minimising tax. Thus the authorities have found themselves perpetually short of money. At least Cameron had the honesty to point out that the shortfall would need to be covered by charity. The problem with that, however, is that much money goes to people's pet interests (trees, cats and dogs, sewage systems in Africa). All worthy causes, but not necessarily where the money is needed to cover government shrinkage (also, the charity sector suffers badly from duplication of effort, multiple organisations all doing the same thing and thus diluting funds).
Another factor in the long-term financial squeeze is the cost of fuel (which affects almost everything else). In the time the welfare state was established and right up to the 1970s, oil was relatively cheap. Then, fairly suddenly, it became a geopolitical weapon and a means for making certain individuals and families unimaginably wealthy. This sparked a burst of rampant inflation in the West which is what triggered the demand for massive wage increases to compensate.
In summary, we've priced ourselves out of the market, are unwilling to up our payments and are trying to cut back on spending everywhere because borrowing got out of control. |
Cut the carp, vote labour and give Corbyn a chance. |  | | |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 10:11 - Feb 6 with 2285 views | CoachRob |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 08:44 - Feb 6 by Guthrum |
The deep sources of this issue are twofold.
Firstly, we have allowed everything to become too expensive - principally wages. Thus staff costs are draining away all the money which both business and government have to spend. More money in the pocket for workers has led to inflation in basic commodities and insistence on a higher standard of living. See fig 1 on this blog:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/real-wages-and-living-standards-the-lat
Because anything which involves employing people is so expensive, organisations (including the Government) want to save as much money as they can, by any means possible. Including putting vulnerable people out on the streets by closing hostels a month early.
Secondly, nobody wants to pay for anything. Ever since the 1980s, governments have been elected on platforms of minimising tax. Thus the authorities have found themselves perpetually short of money. At least Cameron had the honesty to point out that the shortfall would need to be covered by charity. The problem with that, however, is that much money goes to people's pet interests (trees, cats and dogs, sewage systems in Africa). All worthy causes, but not necessarily where the money is needed to cover government shrinkage (also, the charity sector suffers badly from duplication of effort, multiple organisations all doing the same thing and thus diluting funds).
Another factor in the long-term financial squeeze is the cost of fuel (which affects almost everything else). In the time the welfare state was established and right up to the 1970s, oil was relatively cheap. Then, fairly suddenly, it became a geopolitical weapon and a means for making certain individuals and families unimaginably wealthy. This sparked a burst of rampant inflation in the West which is what triggered the demand for massive wage increases to compensate.
In summary, we've priced ourselves out of the market, are unwilling to up our payments and are trying to cut back on spending everywhere because borrowing got out of control. |
Very good description of marginalism and private debt crisis. Would add that productivity gains have not gone to society. |  | | |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 10:19 - Feb 6 with 2254 views | Guthrum |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 09:46 - Feb 6 by Bluesquid |
Cut the carp, vote labour and give Corbyn a chance. |
Ha. What are they going to do about making high wages more affordable for employers (including governments)? About reducing the cost of living to make that possible? About effective tax changes (higher rates overall, instead of just token gestures aimed at a handful of high earners)?
Corbyn is nowhere near radical enough - or, rather, not in the right directions. [Post edited 6 Feb 2019 10:20]
| |
| |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 10:24 - Feb 6 with 2228 views | Whymarkmariner |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 09:46 - Feb 6 by Bluesquid |
Cut the carp, vote labour and give Corbyn a chance. |
Until we get an alternative Government the cycle will continue. Labour in spend money like it's gone out of fashion. Conservative in cut everything to save money. What this Country needs is a Government that doesn't just look after the rich or poor, but one that treats all it's citizens equally. Sadly I can't see this happening and as for Corbyn, he can't even make his party more attractive than the Conservatives who are in a right old mess. | | | |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:36 - Feb 6 with 2024 views | Bluesquid |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 10:19 - Feb 6 by Guthrum |
Ha. What are they going to do about making high wages more affordable for employers (including governments)? About reducing the cost of living to make that possible? About effective tax changes (higher rates overall, instead of just token gestures aimed at a handful of high earners)?
Corbyn is nowhere near radical enough - or, rather, not in the right directions. [Post edited 6 Feb 2019 10:20]
|
Your post was just excuse after excuse for the disastrous Tories, all part of the job though. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:38 - Feb 6 with 2002 views | No9 |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 09:33 - Feb 6 by Pinewoodblue |
Meanwhile Shell's profits for 2018 soar to £16billion. |
Shell is a Dutch company | | | |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:41 - Feb 6 with 1994 views | Guthrum |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:36 - Feb 6 by Bluesquid |
Your post was just excuse after excuse for the disastrous Tories, all part of the job though. |
Did Labour do any better between 1975 and 1979 or from 1997 to 2010? Plenty of time to address these issues, but didn't.
Edit: I'm not saying the Conservatives have done a better job. They haven't. [Post edited 6 Feb 2019 13:47]
| |
| |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:52 - Feb 6 with 1947 views | Bluesquid |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:41 - Feb 6 by Guthrum |
Did Labour do any better between 1975 and 1979 or from 1997 to 2010? Plenty of time to address these issues, but didn't.
Edit: I'm not saying the Conservatives have done a better job. They haven't. [Post edited 6 Feb 2019 13:47]
|
Look, i had a really interesting conversation with someone that said to me that Labour under Corbyn running the country would be an improvement for the vast majority of the population in England.
Not for some of the extremely rich tax avoiders though.
[Post edited 6 Feb 2019 14:05]
| | | |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:57 - Feb 6 with 1913 views | CoachRob |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:41 - Feb 6 by Guthrum |
Did Labour do any better between 1975 and 1979 or from 1997 to 2010? Plenty of time to address these issues, but didn't.
Edit: I'm not saying the Conservatives have done a better job. They haven't. [Post edited 6 Feb 2019 13:47]
|
Labour subsidised businesses with working tax credit, ran massive trade deficits (cheap goods) and had higher taxation. To compare a neoliberal government with a neoliberal government seems rather fruitless though unless you believe in the neoliberal nonsense. | | | |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 14:02 - Feb 6 with 1881 views | No9 |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:57 - Feb 6 by CoachRob |
Labour subsidised businesses with working tax credit, ran massive trade deficits (cheap goods) and had higher taxation. To compare a neoliberal government with a neoliberal government seems rather fruitless though unless you believe in the neoliberal nonsense. |
Subsidising businesses to encourage low wages was started by Ted Heath's government with Family Income Supplement (FIS) which really took off in the 80's.
Giving industry too much money was a feature of the tory governments in the 50's.
Heath said he would stop paying money to "lame Duck' industries, he only made things worse. | | | |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 14:46 - Feb 6 with 1805 views | Guthrum |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 13:52 - Feb 6 by Bluesquid |
Look, i had a really interesting conversation with someone that said to me that Labour under Corbyn running the country would be an improvement for the vast majority of the population in England.
Not for some of the extremely rich tax avoiders though.
[Post edited 6 Feb 2019 14:05]
|
That last is good, but how much does it bring in? The country needs a big, all round income boost, not token punishment of high earners. Everyone will need to be involved in this one.
Or, if they refuse, acknowlege that it will become a brutal, selfish society in which the poor starve and the rich are not safe from depredation. | |
| |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 15:19 - Feb 6 with 1725 views | CoachRob |
| If this is true then it is a disgrace on 14:02 - Feb 6 by No9 |
Subsidising businesses to encourage low wages was started by Ted Heath's government with Family Income Supplement (FIS) which really took off in the 80's.
Giving industry too much money was a feature of the tory governments in the 50's.
Heath said he would stop paying money to "lame Duck' industries, he only made things worse. |
Haven't done a huge amount of work on these types of subsidies but really interesting to understand how it started off in the context of today's right wing scapegoating of migrants.
Not against government support for business as long as the money is for genuine innovation(non-military). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
