A month ago Theresa May and her Tories seemed to have the election in their pockets already.
Corbyn leadership over the Labour Party, while enjoying strong support from its supporters was vehemently opposed by most of the party's MPs (the same MPs who just tried to stage a coup in the Brexit's wake and are currenltly praying for their party's failure in order to oust Corbyn).
Besides that Corbyn's media coverage had been abysmal, with him branded as a "terrorist sympathizer", a "caveman" or simply as "unelectable".
With 2 days to go before the general election happens it seems despite all odds, hostility and sabotage Corbyn and the Labour Party have actually managed to gain traction and polls give them decent numbers and Theresa May and the Tories stand to actually lose seats instead of gaining them as they had hoped when they decided to call for a snap election.
The election is 2 days from now and anything may yet happen. The Labour winning seems unlikely yet the latest polls don't rule that possibility out. If that happens, or as it seems more likely, if the Tories cannot rule Parliament alone anymore then we are going to see some exciting times with consequences and "ripple effects" on global scale.
This could mean a step for general policies to move leftward insted of rightward.
When were those polls being referenced taken? It'll be interesting to see what changes in opinion, if any, might come from this past weekend as well as Manchester.
When were those polls being referenced taken? It'll be interesting to see what changes in opinion, if any, might come from this past weekend as well as Manchester.
The polls being discussed yesterday and today are mostly post-Manchester but pre-London Bridge, just because polling takes time. You are not the only person interested in seeing the effects of the London Bridge attack.
There's a historical summary from the Torygraph -- excuse me, Telegraph -- at this site that shows the time course of change, but of course, there's not much new since the attack. And, of course, the Torygraph polls are strongly skewed, so I suspect you'd see an entirely different picture if you looked at a corresponding tracker from the Guardian.
My guess then is that we most likely won't get a great post-event poll until the election, which is ultimately the only poll that matters. I will say that watching May's and Corbyn's town hall-style meetings on C-SPAN has been a fairly entertaining addition to my dinners.
The poll I was referencing was the a recent study by YouGov/Times.
It found out the difference between Tories and Labour had reduced to a 5 point margin. It's a poll so it should be taken with a grain of salt yet YouGov actually predicted Brexit correctly
The general expectation is that if polls are wrong, they're likely to wrong in the direction the momentum was going. OTOH, the attacks could have swung things in a different direction.
Possibly, but the poll was taken after the Manchester attacks and it seems a lot of people connected them with weakness from May's leadership. Besides that it was pointed out how May actually cut down the number of officers employed by the police when she was Home Secretary
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This article does a good job of adressing the pre election situation. It's unlikely Labour will win but it's not impossible, and even if they lose a good performance could cause the Tories not to win.
It's not what I'd like to happen, but Mystic Limey predicts either a (small) Tory majority or maybe a hung parliament. Still, we'll see.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things went as I dared hope they'd go. Theresa May lost the majority lost seats to Labour and the Tories "landslide" wasn't diverted... it never happened.
This was mainly due to the exceptional effort put up by the Labour people and by Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour Party won seats despite being deemed an electoral disaster waiting to happen and Corbyn being described as "unelectable". They won seats despite facing the vicious hatred of 90% of the media and most of their own MPs, mostly center-right blairites who actively campaigned against Corbyn even during the elections after trying to oust him. Even now some of them are bitter, claiming that today's result is "realistically Corbyn at his peak", they want back in control of the Labour party and in the next few weeks will start making plans to once again undermine his leadership. Most of the media, the Tories and their powerful "behind the scenes" backers will start to take Corbyn seriously and plan accordingly to squash a party that now proposes an alternative to their dogmatic and self serving views and economy and society. Since Margharet Tatcher they thrived because they scammed people into believing There Is no Alternative to them and their interests. Corbyn challenged that and they will act accordingly against him and his party, probably making use of those blairite MPs perfectly alligned with their interests and ideology.
Therefore the difficult part comes now: Labour needs to find ways to keep young voters active within its party and represent a valid and REAL alternative to neoliberal policies. It won't be easy but at least there's hope as the lies about the left being unelectable have been dispelled.
This is The Jacobin's take on the election.
I believe what happened yesterday in the UK could be the footprint for left leaning parties in the whole western world, starting form the Democrats if they fo once can stop promoting self serving politicians and thinily veiled Wall Street employees and start listening to real people with real life issues.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This and France's results is a refreshing sign of hope that the Nationalism pulse we all feared may be more a blip than an ongoing trend.
Well... the UK has been there before. Before Thatcher, there was something lovely called the stagflation. No jobs and high inflation. Then the coal mines were shut down, the heavy industry was sent packing, replaced by high-tech and service jobs, but not populated by the coal mine workers. And the economy recovered.
Were the old industry jobs somehow "better" than those that replaced them? What would have happened to the economy if the UK had kept subsidizing the old industry jobs?
And now, there is mr Corbyn, who wants the old days back. Seems like a familiar pattern to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... the UK has been there before. Before Thatcher, there was something lovely called the stagflation. No jobs and high inflation. Then the coal mines were shut down, the heavy industry was sent packing, replaced by high-tech and service jobs, but not populated by the coal mine workers. And the economy recovered.
Were the old industry jobs somehow "better" than those that replaced them? What would have happened to the economy if the UK had kept subsidizing the old industry jobs?
And now, there is mr Corbyn, who wants the old days back. Seems like a familiar pattern to me.
Yeah... a really in-depth explanation.
Strangely enough despite all this wonderful "economic growth" (which didn't happen the way you think it did...) salaries in the UK keep decreasing as does the quality of healthcare and public infrastructure.Also note how the idea of giving up on industry for "service jobs" doesn't actually work in the long run. Service to what if you don't have industry and or agriculture of your own? This frame of thinking produced delocalization and that's the root of most of the problems faced by western countries today. The financial sector, unless regulated, goes wherever it's more profittable for it to go and immobilizes resources that could otherwise be used as investments for standard economy, and note how neoliberal policies running rampant the last 30 years built a western world where most people become poorer by the day while a small elite becomes richer, and this has nothing to do with merit (as we now know for a fact, wealth is almost always inherited).
This besides the fact the UK is a country with very limited social mobility which the Tories policies aimed to make even more difficult.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well... the UK has been there before. Before Thatcher, there was something lovely called the stagflation. No jobs and high inflation. Then the coal mines were shut down, the heavy industry was sent packing, replaced by high-tech and service jobs, but not populated by the coal mine workers. And the economy recovered.
Were the old industry jobs somehow "better" than those that replaced them? What would have happened to the economy if the UK had kept subsidizing the old industry jobs?
And now, there is mr Corbyn, who wants the old days back. Seems like a familiar pattern to me.
Corbyn has never suggested re-opening the coal mines. Part of the UK's problem is that the economy's dominated by the financial sector - it makes a great deal of money, certainly, but the jobs (and the cash) are both concentrated in and around London, and the other 50 million of us can't all stack shelves in Poundland. Politicians have been trying (but not very hard) to revitalise manufacturing for years - not just Labour politicians, either.
Well-paid, skilled, stable work that doesn't require a degree to do is something we're noticeably short on at the moment.
We had near full employment in the 60s and 70s - mass unemployment was a symptom of the Thatcher years.
The economy recovered after a recession in the early 80s, then collapsed again, then recovered (slightly) and so on. Things didn't exactly reach escape velocity after the Harrowing of the North.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad to see May take a hit, but (at least from the news over here across the pond) it seems like the late momentum largely turned on terrorism, and I wish it hadn't. I think that we have already granted terrorism too much influence over our societies. If 100% safety against terrorism becomes an electoral criterion then politicans will compromise other things in pursuit of it and perpetuate that.
OTOH, just a distant observer here, and I am sure other factors also played a role...
Okay... Well-paid, skilled, stable work that doesn't require a degree is not exactly available anywhere in the West as it is. For that matter, neither is well-paid, skilled, stable work that DOES require a degree. And why is that? I would say that things are moving far faster these days. Now the jobs change, the economy changes, the skills needed change, and everyone is replaceable. Still, a degree is still a powerful argument to get a job, if it's a tough one to get. Ask yourself, if you were a CEO, would you offer well-paid, skilled, stable jobs to people without degrees?
Globalization is not a good process to everyone, that is true. But now, the UK stands to see exactly how much fun it is not to be a part of it. London will likely survive as a financial center by some means. If not, that is a further 10-20 million people to share the jobs stacking shelves at Poundworld. Those who do not want to be part of that will leave... just as large portions of the UK has already done to find jobs in London.
|
I am glad to see May take a hit, but (at least from the news over here across the pond) it seems like the late momentum largely turned on terrorism, and I wish it hadn't. I think that we have already granted terrorism too much influence over our societies. If 100% safety against terrorism becomes an electoral criterion then politicans will compromise other things in pursuit of it and perpetuate that.
OTOH, just a distant observer here, and I am sure other factors also played a role...
I think this may be a misreading of the situation. Much of the campaign had been spent demonising Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser for meeting the IRA and how weak he was on islamic terrorism. Additionally, law and order issues traditionally tend to benefit the Conservative party rather than Labour.
Counterwise, May being the Home Secretary for 6 years before becomming PM and cuting police numbers did not help her, but it is a weak issue for Labour so something more complicated than just terrorist attacks would be going on.
Okay... Well-paid, skilled, stable work that doesn't require a degree is not exactly available anywhere in the West as it is.
However, that's a political issue, not an economic one. Well-paid, skilled, stable work that doesn't require a degree is available almost everywhere in the West, except that the people who are getting the high pay are the people employing the skilled workers and, not the workers themselves. For proof of this, look at how much money temp agencies charge to supply workers, and how much the workers themselves earn. It's not uncommon to see the temp agency bill your time out at more than double your own wages.
Which is directly related not to economic changes, but to political ones, and specifically to the increasingly hostile climate to labor and labor activism. The Pew foundation just released a study, for example, that showed that in only twelve counties in the United States are the housing costs low enough that a person on minimum wage can afford a one-bedroom house, and that in none, even of those twelve, can such a person afford a two-bedroom house. (This applies irrespective of the local minimum wage; the areas where the minimum wage are higher are also generally urban areas [think Seattle] where costs of living are also higher.)
Similarly, labor rights and the political effectiveness of unions have been systematically dismantled over the past fifty-odd years.
It's not surprising, then, that the work that is available is not particularly well-paid, even when there is a labor shortage, because "capital" is in a position to negotiate as a bloc, while "labor" is not.
Bring back the unions and you'll almost certainly see a return to well-paid and stable jobs, because top management won't be able to cherry-pick their hiring from the desperate.
Orfamay: If what you say is true, the solution is simple enough: Everyone who wants a well-paid, skilled, stable job without a degree needs to start their own company/hire themselves out as a consultant/etc. The reason they do not is that generally speaking, they are unwilling to take the risks inherent in that sort of work. Though, I have to say, presenting it as well-paid, skilled, stable work is strange. It is harsh work, with huge overtime, for several years, before you even begin to see the situation you describe.
thejeff: Complete agreement. Old solutions do not answer today's problems. And the reason they aren't is that people see the system, analyze it, and adapt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... Well-paid, skilled, stable work that doesn't require a degree is not exactly available anywhere in the West as it is.However, that's a political issue, not an economic one. Well-paid, skilled, stable work that doesn't require a degree is available almost everywhere in the West, except that the people who are getting the high pay are the people employing the skilled workers and, not the workers themselves. For proof of this, look at how much money temp agencies charge to supply workers, and how much the workers themselves earn. It's not uncommon to see the temp agency bill your time out at more than double your own wages.
Which is directly related not to economic changes, but to political ones, and specifically to the increasingly hostile climate to labor and labor activism. The Pew foundation just released a study, for example, that showed that in only twelve counties in the United States are the housing costs low enough that a person on minimum wage can afford a one-bedroom house, and that in none, even of those twelve, can such a person afford a two-bedroom house. (This applies irrespective of the local minimum wage; the areas where the minimum wage are higher are also generally urban areas [think Seattle] where costs of living are also higher.)
Similarly, labor rights and the political effectiveness of unions have been systematically dismantled over the past fifty-odd years.
It's not surprising, then, that the work that is available is not particularly well-paid, even when there is a labor shortage, because "capital" is in a position to negotiate as a bloc, while "labor" is not.
Bring back the unions and you'll almost certainly see a return to well-paid and stable jobs, because top management won't be able to cherry-pick their hiring from the desperate.
Sadly, I'm no longer so sure that's true. Bringing back unions and trying to drive up wages results in union busting and automation and offshoring.
Sadly, I'm no longer so sure that's true. Bringing back unions and trying to drive up wages results in union busting and automation and offshoring.
I'm starting to be afraid that unions were a solution to the old paradigm, but we're going to need to find a new solution.
In the history of humanity people in the upper social strata have always aimed to increase their wealth and power. This happened by waging war (openly or not) against other societies and taking away wealth from people inside their own societies.
Internally, when these processes of appropriation of wealth became unsustainable they caused revolts and social unrest, that was in turn violently repressed or diverted through war or scapegoating some alien element inside said societies (one good example of this could be the crusades, at least as explained by Marc Bloch, or the treatment of jews/gipsies in Europe during the middle ages).During the 19th - 20th century something different happened: the lower classes organized, gave themselves an ideology and even overthrew the social order in large parts of the world. This in turn made the upper classes afraid. After WW2, with an ideology directly opposed to the "old order" apparently gaining strength all over the globe, the upper classes were forced to make concessions. They actively sustained the formation of a middle class of people, neither truly rich nor really poor, who would oppose their ideological enemies. The so called "30 glorious" (years) were born from this.
Capitalism and Communism faced each other and that allowed for a middle ground between the two systems to exist. Then communism lost (the "end of history" according to Francis Fukuyama), and "class warfare" was won by the likes of Warren Buffett (“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning” - WB).
You see, once "There Is No Alternative" becomes a reality an not just a self fulfilling prophecy out of some witch's nightmares, things are going to get worse for the lower classes and improve for the upper classes (aka "business as usual").
That is what happened until now, but history hasn't really ended, "class warfare" goes on despite how much those on the winning side like to claim the contrary. The way it will develop is not yet written down, I hope it's possible to regulate the process through peaceful means like unionism and democratic representation, yet I also have to note how the disproportionate distribution of wealth, resources and above all knowledge implicit in the current system is currently being employed to weaken such institutions and any chance of real change. Manipulation of the media, corruption of public servants, "starving the beast strategies" are being actively used to make sure things don't change. It may very well be that unionism is a tool from a bygone era but the alternative I fear is the return to a cycle of violence, and given the current level of technological advancement I don't know how that could turn out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay: If what you say is true, the solution is simple enough: Everyone who wants a well-paid, skilled, stable job without a degree needs to start their own company/hire themselves out as a consultant/etc.
Not in the slightest. If you're a sole proprietorship, that doesn't actually adjust the negotiation disequilibrium at all. Look at how Wal*Mart treats its (corporate) suppliers -- they're notorious for offering you a supply contract for next year at a lower price than you got this year; if you don't want it, they'll simply contract to someone else. Wal*Mart is essentially a cartel unto itself (the formal term is monospony).
And the way to counter a monospony is not to create a corporate wrapper, but to create a cartel of your own.
Everyone who wants a well-paid, skilled, stable job without a degree needs to get together with everyone else who wants a well-paid, skilled, and stable job without a degree and agree that until the company in question is willing to pay 600 ducats an hour, no one will work for them at 300 ducats. Basically, what unions used to do if management tried to squeeze workers' wages to line their own pockets.
Today capital is managing to line its own pockets because they can approach every worker individually and say "we don't think what you do is worth 600 ducats, but we will let you stay on for 300," relying on the fact that there are, in fact, enough people willing to work for 300 that they don't need to pay more. Fire the ones who aren't desperate enough to accept poverty wages, and rely on the fact that you can always make more desperate people if you need to (for example, by cutting the social safety net).
Okay... Well-paid, skilled, stable work that doesn't require a degree is not exactly available anywhere in the West as it is. For that matter, neither is well-paid, skilled, stable work that DOES require a degree. And why is that? I would say that things are moving far faster these days. Now the jobs change, the economy changes, the skills needed change, and everyone is replaceable. Still, a degree is still a powerful argument to get a job, if it's a tough one to get. Ask yourself, if you were a CEO, would you offer well-paid, skilled, stable jobs to people without degrees?
If it's something that could be done perfectly well via apprenticeships, or learning on the job, why not? Most of the time, your degree is going to have a pretty loose relationship with what you actually do on a day-to-day basis, so the latter's what you'll be doing anyway.
So, from this side of the Pond, it's likely the May will be out soon as PM, correct? I'm hearing horrifying rumors that Boris Johnson might be your next PM?! WTF?! Is this possible?
Edit: Also, congrats for giving Nuttall the boot.
May has declined to resign (so far), so she's likely to stay on until she can form a government with the (Northern Irish) Democratic Unionist Party; that won't be much fun from my point of view, given that they're religious conservatives.
Boris wants to be PM; whether he has enough support in the Tory party to get the job I don't know.
EDIT: Yes, I know. He he he.
|
|
Possible. But the Conservative Party, or at least the MPs, do not like him much because he's a grand-standing oaf. and last time he was knifed in the back by a 'friend and supporter' so you can see how loved he is. As MPs have a say in the leadership, Boris needs to overcome that first.
Of course, who else they could vote for is an open question. None of the mediocrities seem that strong a contender.
As for May, she's still PM but when you call a snap election, specifically to give you personally a mandate, and you lose seats, it's hard to see that as a positive. The conservative party is historically ruthless at getting rid of failed PMs (the "men in grey suits" have a word).
Current estimation is that May will still be PM for a while, but not for that long.
EDIT: Such a shame. He seems like such a nice racist b+*~$@&smith. Of course it might mean we get BNigel Farage heading up UKIP (again) so not unadulterated good news.
Of course it might mean we get BNigel Farage heading up UKIP (again) so not unadulterated good news.
I had heard the Farage was still trying to land a job on this side of the Pond on Fox News. Personally, I'd prefer he just retire to his dacha and quietly fade away.
And if you do stick together and demand 600 ducats, very often they can go off to some other country and get workers for 20 ducats - enough to save even with the lower efficiency and shipping costs and all.Orfamay: If what you say is true, the solution is simple enough: Everyone who wants a well-paid, skilled, stable job without a degree needs to start their own company/hire themselves out as a consultant/etc.Not in the slightest. If you're a sole proprietorship, that doesn't actually adjust the negotiation disequilibrium at all. Look at how Wal*Mart treats its (corporate) suppliers -- they're notorious for offering you a supply contract for next year at a lower price than you got this year; if you don't want it, they'll simply contract to someone else. Wal*Mart is essentially a cartel unto itself (the formal term is monospony).
And the way to counter a monospony is not to create a corporate wrapper, but to create a cartel of your own.
Everyone who wants a well-paid, skilled, stable job without a degree needs to get together with everyone else who wants a well-paid, skilled, and stable job without a degree and agree that until the company in question is willing to pay 600 ducats an hour, no one will work for them at 300 ducats. Basically, what unions used to do if management tried to squeeze workers' wages to line their own pockets.
Today capital is managing to line its own pockets because they can approach every worker individually and say "we don't think what you do is worth 600 ducats, but we will let you stay on for 300," relying on the fact that there are, in fact, enough people willing to work for 300 that they don't need to pay more. Fire the ones who aren't desperate enough to accept poverty wages, and rely on the fact that you can always make more desperate people if you need to (for example, by cutting the social safety net).
For some jobs in some industries. But it is notoriously difficult to outsource cleaning staff, nurse's assistants, auto repair, lawn care, road maintenance, deli clerks, waitstaff, caddies, lineman, police, firefighting, et cetera. If we had strong labor in this country these job would be much better off. If we had strong labor, it would also be MUCH more difficult to outsource manufacturing jobs.
I.e. Service jobs, no?
I.e. Service jobs, no?
And construction, maintence, or anything that requires being done in a place rather than shipped to a place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you do stick together and demand 600 ducats, very often they can go off to some other country and get workers for 20 ducats - enough to save even with the lower efficiency and shipping costs and all.Everyone who wants a well-paid, skilled, stable job without a degree needs to get together with everyone else who wants a well-paid, skilled, and stable job without a degree and agree that until the company in question is willing to pay 600 ducats an hour, no one will work for them at 300 ducats. Basically, what unions used to do if management tried to squeeze workers' wages to line their own pockets.
Today capital is managing to line its own pockets because they can approach every worker individually and say "we don't think what you do is worth 600 ducats, but we will let you stay on for 300," relying on the fact that there are, in fact, enough people willing to work for 300 that they don't need to pay more. Fire the ones who aren't desperate enough to accept poverty wages, and rely on the fact that you can always make more desperate people if you need to (for example, by cutting the social safety net).
And that's where various other pressures come in, for example, when unions were able to persuade people to vote for politicians that would actually enforce treaties preventing that stuff. Or, for that matter, organize boycotts that actually worked. How long do you think that Wal*Mart would be able to sell cheap Ruritanian T-shirts at 20 ducats if no electrician would repair a faulty switch and none of the cash registers worked? (That's one of the things that made the AFL-CIO so powerful: while you might not care about the cafeteria workers -- hell, let people pack lunches -- you did care if the United Food Workers strike was joined by the Teamsters. If no trucks would carry raw materials into your plant, nor would carry finished products out of your plant, that would cut into your bottom line fairly quickly. Yes, in ten years there may be self-driving trucks, but unless there are self-driving electricians, the unions could still be a position to dictate that you need to treat your truckers and food service workers humanely.)
In either case, the key is that labor itself can have the economic power of a cartel, but the current political situation has deliberately stripped labor of that power, while eliminating the existing restraints on the cartel power of capital.
For some jobs in some industries. But it is notoriously difficult to outsource cleaning staff, nurse's assistants, auto repair, lawn care, road maintenance, deli clerks, waitstaff, caddies, lineman, police, firefighting, et cetera. If we had strong labor in this country these job would be much better off. If we had strong labor, it would also be MUCH more difficult to outsource manufacturing jobs.
And, more importantly, the cartel power of labor has not (historically) been broken down by industry or job type. The AFL-CIO consists of (currently) fifty-six member organizations, with the basic idea being that "labor" should stick together. If you tick off the United Food and Commercial Workers enough, you'll need to deal with the fact that the United Unions of Roofers, Waterpoofers, and Allied Workers may join in the strike, and you'll be standing in a puddle the next time it rains.
And good luck getting someone in Indonesia to fix your leaky roof for you.
Of course it might mean we get BNigel Farage heading up UKIP (again) so not unadulterated good news.I had heard the Farage was still trying to land a job on this side of the Pond on Fox News. Personally, I'd prefer he just retire to his dacha and quietly fade away.
The likes of Farage don't just "fade away". That's a dignified way to go. They much prefer being flashier and impose themselves onto normal people as long as they can.
P.S.
Boris & Donald standing together giving a speech somewhere would be priceless. Considering their personalities they would probably try to kill each other right before start talking...
For some jobs in some industries. But it is notoriously difficult to outsource cleaning staff, nurse's assistants, auto repair, lawn care, road maintenance, deli clerks, waitstaff, caddies, lineman, police, firefighting, et cetera. If we had strong labor in this country these job would be much better off. If we had strong labor, it would also be MUCH more difficult to outsource manufacturing jobs.And, more importantly, the cartel power of labor has not (historically) been broken down by industry or job type. The AFL-CIO consists of (currently) fifty-six member organizations, with the basic idea being that "labor" should stick together. If you tick off the United Food and Commercial Workers enough, you'll need to deal with the fact that the United Unions of Roofers, Waterpoofers, and Allied Workers may join in the strike, and you'll be standing in a puddle the next time it rains.
And good luck getting someone in Indonesia to fix your leaky roof for you.
This implies class solidarity to an extent which currently doesn't exist anymore anywhere in the western world.
As a side note salaries are also a way to redistribute wealth. People who can rely on a stable salary are happier, can spend money they can give to other people and this process makes society wealthier and happier by extent.A society where just a few people can hoard inordinate amounts of money, often hidden in offshore fiscal paradises, is a poor and nasty place, despite whatever increases of GDP it might boast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had heard the Farage was still trying to land a job on this side of the Pond on Fox News. Personally, I'd prefer he just retire to his dacha and quietly fade away.The likes of Farage don't just "fade away". That's a dignified way to go. They much prefer being flashier and impose themselves onto normal people as long as they can.
Well, I can't type what I actually think of Farage as that runs afoul of Paizo's TOS.
P.S.
Boris & Donald standing together giving a speech somewhere would be priceless. Considering their personalities they would probably try to kill each other right before start talking...
Nah, BoJo was born in the Upper East Side of Manhattan less than 50 miles from where Trump was born. They'd get along like cousins. Just put them both in the same room, seal all the openings, and let them use up all the oxygen talking to each other.
This implies class solidarity to an extent which currently doesn't exist anymore anywhere in the western world.For some jobs in some industries. But it is notoriously difficult to outsource cleaning staff, nurse's assistants, auto repair, lawn care, road maintenance, deli clerks, waitstaff, caddies, lineman, police, firefighting, et cetera. If we had strong labor in this country these job would be much better off. If we had strong labor, it would also be MUCH more difficult to outsource manufacturing jobs.And, more importantly, the cartel power of labor has not (historically) been broken down by industry or job type. The AFL-CIO consists of (currently) fifty-six member organizations, with the basic idea being that "labor" should stick together. If you tick off the United Food and Commercial Workers enough, you'll need to deal with the fact that the United Unions of Roofers, Waterpoofers, and Allied Workers may join in the strike, and you'll be standing in a puddle the next time it rains.
And good luck getting someone in Indonesia to fix your leaky roof for you.
I disagree. I think class solidarity is very much a thing (look at the Brexit vote, look at the election of Trump, et cetera), but that the conservative elite have done a better job of selling their ideas, counterfactual as they may be. The mine workers no longer have a union, and no longer have a job, but they are voting for someone who promises to give them those jobs back (even if it can't be done) rather than trying to find a way to establish themselves as the politically viable force that got them those jobs in the first place sixty years ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem of course is that they can't get those jobs back. They couldn't have kept those jobs, no matter how strong a union they had.
They couldn't have kept those jobs, no, but had the union been more visionary (and management as well), they could have helped to identify cost-cutting measures themselves and helped to move their own members into a position to take advantage of the new economic situation. That's one of the reasons that the Japanese auto industry did so well out of the 1970s; rather than management fighting against the workers, management partnered with them to develop new ways to improve production, essentially allowing the work force to adapt itself to the environment as it changed.
You can see something similar fairly clearly in retail. Costco does partner with labor; it pays a much higher wage than industry standard, offers better benefits, and as a result gets a much more productive and valuable workforce. Sam's Club (one of the Wal*Mart divisions), er, does not. Costco has historically been able to get a lot more sales per store. It saves a lot of money not only on turnover, but also on things like reduced "employee shrinkage." Annual revenue per employee at Costco is more than double that at Sam's Club.
However, cutting labor costs is a cheap, no-brainer management decision, even if short-sighted, and labor doesn't really get a seat at the negotiation table to see if there would be more effective ways to raise profitability.....
Which gets back to: it's political, not economic.
It's both. Economics today drives automation, product and service innovation, green energy replacing/supplementing fossil fuel energy, and so on. Politics ("management") in addition to the excellent points made above - bad and good for the population - also drives international factors. Trade agreements, covert and overt warfare being just three of these.
It's both. Economics today drives automation, product and service innovation, green energy replacing/supplementing fossil fuel energy, and so on.
But none of those factors reduce wages, enhance economic inequality, or produce job instability. The economic factors create more wealth, but they don't distribute it. As RV pointed out, "People who can rely on a stable salary are happier, can spend money they can give to other people and this process makes society wealthier and happier by extent" -- but the wealth distribution is almost entirely a political question.
It's both. Economics today drives automation, product and service innovation, green energy replacing/supplementing fossil fuel energy, and so on.But none of those factors reduce wages, enhance economic inequality, or produce job instability. The economic factors create more wealth, but they don't distribute it. As RV pointed out, "People who can rely on a stable salary are happier, can spend money they can give to other people and this process makes society wealthier and happier by extent" -- but the wealth distribution is almost entirely a political question.
Automation eliminates wages and sends people packing off to the unemployment line. New products replacing old products does the same thing. What was once a source of vast wealth in the past (coal, railroads) is no longer or much less the case now. Increasingly employing people as independent contractors is inherently destabilizing for many since a large part of the population have the money management skills of a doughnut.
Economics and politics go hand in hand.
Automation eliminates wages and sends people packing off to the unemployment line.It's both. Economics today drives automation, product and service innovation, green energy replacing/supplementing fossil fuel energy, and so on.But none of those factors reduce wages, enhance economic inequality, or produce job instability. The economic factors create more wealth, but they don't distribute it. As RV pointed out, "People who can rely on a stable salary are happier, can spend money they can give to other people and this process makes society wealthier and happier by extent" -- but the wealth distribution is almost entirely a political question.
Nope. Management does that. That's a political decision, not an economic one.
Automation eliminates wages and sends people packing off to the unemployment line.It's both. Economics today drives automation, product and service innovation, green energy replacing/supplementing fossil fuel energy, and so on.But none of those factors reduce wages, enhance economic inequality, or produce job instability. The economic factors create more wealth, but they don't distribute it. As RV pointed out, "People who can rely on a stable salary are happier, can spend money they can give to other people and this process makes society wealthier and happier by extent" -- but the wealth distribution is almost entirely a political question.
Nope. Management does that. That's a political decision, not an economic one.
What factors drive the decision to automate? Both economic (drastically increased labor costs, as one example) and political (automate in response so that they don't have to increase the price of a Big Mac).
What factors drive the decision to automate?Automation eliminates wages and sends people packing off to the unemployment line.It's both. Economics today drives automation, product and service innovation, green energy replacing/supplementing fossil fuel energy, and so on.But none of those factors reduce wages, enhance economic inequality, or produce job instability. The economic factors create more wealth, but they don't distribute it. As RV pointed out, "People who can rely on a stable salary are happier, can spend money they can give to other people and this process makes society wealthier and happier by extent" -- but the wealth distribution is almost entirely a political question.
Nope. Management does that. That's a political decision, not an economic one.
Not relevant. Once the decision to automate is taken, that doesn't automatically eliminate wages and send people to the unemployment line. Management could instead retrain people for other jobs, using the increased profits from the automation to enhance the productivity of the workers involved, and essentially investing the automation profits to generate even greater return for the business. The decision to use automation to cut costs instead of to grow revenues is a purely political one, taken by people, not by abstractions like "automation."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, now I get where you're coming from on automation. I stand corrected. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, now I get where you're coming from on automation. I stand corrected. :)
It takes a strong person to admit a mistake on the Internet. :)