faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 13:38:21 GMT
Lives "transformed" I doubt it by, what, a 50p an hour increase,? Anyway how many full time, on playing staff, does the club actually employ, less than a dozen? There's always a price to pay for wage increases and bearing in mind we made numerous staff redundant in the summer can the club, which usually loses around a £1m p.a. afford to hand out high rises w/o making other employees redundant? Given most of the jobs are probably catering/bar type roles are the local restaurants/bars paying the living wage in Horfield? It's a fair bit more than 50p and yes, when you live hand to mouth that kind of figure can make a huge difference. Part time workers are usually working other part time jobs to make up full time work so the same argument stands. Most local bars and restaurants are probably not paying it no - so it would be good if the local football club could lead the way. You can't expect individual businesses to take the burden on themselves. This can only be government directed.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 13:42:14 GMT
The Keynsian qualitative model of inflation has been pretty conclusively shown to be erroneous. The Smithsonian model is widely accepted as the standard - the shell example is a great simplification of that but is still indicative. You, and The Guardian, jumped a step: You accept the lower paid need more cash at hand and accept that that can't come from credit but you don't explore the element of just not taking it off them in the first place through taxation. The net effect is the same without the stagflation (since the evidence of the living wage destroying small businesses is already there and if that happens unemployment rises) that would occur. You jump straight to "make more money slosh around in the economy" without fully appraising the impacts of that. Never mind hyperinflation - I'll tell you what would make me hyper: an Ellis Harrison hat trick on Saturday. LJG - your assumption about increasing inflation ignores the following: - Any inflation rise would be spread across the whole economy, so increasing the minimum wage to the equivalent of the living wage (allowing for tax bands changes) would disproportionately benefit the working low-waged. - benefits paid to working people would be reduced, diluting any inflationary effect. The money saved could be invested in companies in a more targeted way - eg, reducing the tax burden on small businesses. - we live in a deflationary environment, especially for essentials such as food - thanks to greater competition. Working tax credits and the genre were a terrible idea, created by a government that were too afraid to set the minimum wage at an appropriate level. The money should have been put into raising tax bands, targeted tax breaks for small businesses, education and training. Its a shame that these are the things that the lib dems have been campaigning for for years, but they are likely to be hammered in the general election. Isn't the bulk of this what I was already saying? Tax credits are awful I agree - which is why the basic rate threshold should only enter at the point the minimum wage drops out. That way the tax, spend and return model is broken and low earners are better off.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 13:42:52 GMT
It's not about the poor having more money it's about interference with the market and directing value where the market says there is no more. The argument that this increased liquidity won't increase the rate of inflation has already been proven wrong by one of the proponents of it on this thread: The free availability of credit from mid/late 90s to mid-2000s meant greater liquidity throughout society. If that greater liquidity didn't drive up inflation we would have seen a fairly stable or low level of inflation over that period wouldn't we? Which is what 2008 and the last two years of the last Labour government was famous for; economic stability and low inflation ... wasn't it? Sorry can we just keep things simple. How is paying catering staff at Chelsea a living wage "directing value where the market says there is none"? Does the market insist in "its" wisdom that staff must/ should be paid the bare minimum? Baring in mind this works as an argument against the minimum wage as well so surely it would be better were they on less than that. That's an extreme example of the same argument, yes.
|
|
Nobbygas
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,787
Member is Online
|
Post by Nobbygas on Dec 12, 2014 13:42:59 GMT
With a couple of million unemployed and the country awash with migrants, why should a business pay more than is required to hire someone? I'm not wishing to sound harsh, but realistic!
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 13:49:05 GMT
It's not about the poor having more money it's about interference with the market and directing value where the market says there is no more. The argument that this increased liquidity won't increase the rate of inflation has already been proven wrong by one of the proponents of it on this thread: The free availability of credit from mid/late 90s to mid-2000s meant greater liquidity throughout society. If that greater liquidity didn't drive up inflation we would have seen a fairly stable or low level of inflation over that period wouldn't we? Which is what 2008 and the last two years of the last Labour government was famous for; economic stability and low inflation ... wasn't it? You are assuming that the market is rational. One of the roles of government it to provide long-term investment in people, as businesses can only be expected to think short-term. Lassiez-faire is dead old boy. Price inflation is low, and has been for 20 years. Are you referring to asset inflation? I don't understand the relevance of liquidity. Do you mean money supply? Not the same thing, you can increase liquidity without increasing the money supply. Personally I would like to see the minimum wage increased to the approximate level of working benefits. I can't see how that would significantly increase the money supply? Even the Tories have come to the same conclusion, as evidenced by the new universal state pension. As above - I think we're making broadly the same argument here. Agree on the terminology point. Yes - money supply not necessarily liquidity but not not liquidity since it's right to assume that an economy has some intrinsic capital value and there will be a saturation point of that so I think it can elementally be referred to in terms of liquidity. Markets are irrational I agree on that too. However, overburdening business in the opposite direction doesn't make them any more rational - The living wage is just too simplistic, the removal of tax burden for those people and in further cases having a negative income tax is a way more efficient way of addressing that. Sub-prime mortgages are a perfect example of redirecting value where there was none.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 13:53:50 GMT
It's not about the poor having more money it's about interference with the market and directing value where the market says there is no more. The market gets directed a thousand different ways every moment. It's bizarre to suggest we shouldn't direct it over one issue, when we're directing it over any number of others. Also, the market isn't some sort of objective system that we should serve. It's a tool that should serve us. I love* the way that people are ready to say 'oh noes the magic market can't be touched!' when talking about something like their fellow Gasheads getting 50p more an hour. *and by love, I mean not love. But the market exists - it's like the sea. You can redirect it and say "It needs to serve us" like King Knut but we have a global economy, there's only so much that can be done and we are washed along by it to a certain degree sadly. Unless we ignore all the money we've borrowed from China and return to a gold standard or similar. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have that extra 50p. The method of delivering it in the most efficient way is what i disagree on.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Dec 12, 2014 13:55:16 GMT
And meanwhile, we still don't know what BRFC pay to their full-time employees.....
I sound like Richard Littlejohn "and Meanwhile Jimmy Saville is still dead"
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 12, 2014 14:03:48 GMT
The market gets directed a thousand different ways every moment. It's bizarre to suggest we shouldn't direct it over one issue, when we're directing it over any number of others. Also, the market isn't some sort of objective system that we should serve. It's a tool that should serve us. I love* the way that people are ready to say 'oh noes the magic market can't be touched!' when talking about something like their fellow Gasheads getting 50p more an hour. *and by love, I mean not love. But the market exists - it's like the sea. You can redirect it and say "It needs to serve us" like King Knut but we have a global economy, there's only so much that can be done and we are washed along by it to a certain degree sadly. Unless we ignore all the money we've borrowed from China and return to a gold standard or similar. The market is directed all the time. Every tax, every tax relief, every public spend, every subsidy, every consumer protection, etc. The King Knut analogy is nonsense.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 14:07:26 GMT
You are assuming that the market is rational. One of the roles of government it to provide long-term investment in people, as businesses can only be expected to think short-term. Lassiez-faire is dead old boy. Price inflation is low, and has been for 20 years. Are you referring to asset inflation? I don't understand the relevance of liquidity. Do you mean money supply? Not the same thing, you can increase liquidity without increasing the money supply. Personally I would like to see the minimum wage increased to the approximate level of working benefits. I can't see how that would significantly increase the money supply? Even the Tories have come to the same conclusion, as evidenced by the new universal state pension. As above - I think we're making broadly the same argument here. Agree on the terminology point. Yes - money supply not necessarily liquidity but not not liquidity since it's right to assume that an economy has some intrinsic capital value and there will be a saturation point of that so I think it can elementally be referred to in terms of liquidity. Markets are irrational I agree on that too. However, overburdening business in the opposite direction doesn't make them any more rational - The living wage is just too simplistic, the removal of tax burden for those people and in further cases having a negative income tax is a way more efficient way of addressing that. Sub-prime mortgages are a perfect example of redirecting value where there was none. Maybe, by my conclusion is pro-living wage, but you are anti! Agree with your previous post about increasing the personal tax allowance to the minimum wage. You can then allow for that in setting the living wage. For me, sub-prime mortgages are not a good example. The problem there was that value was being miscalculated, do to a poor understanding, and measurement, of risk, poor direction of reward, and short-term thinking. I see nothing wrong in the government directing money where the market will not, due to capitalisation of the value being too long term for business. That, surely, is one of the roles of collective funding through taxation. If you want an example of government redirecting value where there is none, just look at primary school education. If you want an example of increasing liquidity without increasing the money supply, look at any tax on assets. When it comes down to it, inequality is bad. Is socially bad, morally bad, and economically bad. The money supply is still increasing, but at a lower rate than previous years due to the relative control of credit and reducing government deficit spending. Liquidity - or the rate of movement of money around the system- is decreasing because of increasing inequality, leading to concentration of the money supply in illiquid assets, and due to that reduction in government spending. Incentives to spend, without increasing the money supply through credit, are required. Its time for a redistribution of wealth, for the good of the economy.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 14:15:15 GMT
But the market exists - it's like the sea. You can redirect it and say "It needs to serve us" like King Knut but we have a global economy, there's only so much that can be done and we are washed along by it to a certain degree sadly. Unless we ignore all the money we've borrowed from China and return to a gold standard or similar. The market is directed all the time. Every tax, every tax relief, every public spend, every subsidy, every consumer protection, etc. The King Knut analogy is nonsense. Which is how Gordon Brown put an end to boom and bust just as he promised.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 14:24:47 GMT
As above - I think we're making broadly the same argument here. Agree on the terminology point. Yes - money supply not necessarily liquidity but not not liquidity since it's right to assume that an economy has some intrinsic capital value and there will be a saturation point of that so I think it can elementally be referred to in terms of liquidity. Markets are irrational I agree on that too. However, overburdening business in the opposite direction doesn't make them any more rational - The living wage is just too simplistic, the removal of tax burden for those people and in further cases having a negative income tax is a way more efficient way of addressing that. Sub-prime mortgages are a perfect example of redirecting value where there was none. Maybe, by my conclusion is pro-living wage, but you are anti! Agree with your previous post about increasing the personal tax allowance to the minimum wage. You can then allow for that in setting the living wage. For me, sub-prime mortgages are not a good example. The problem there was that value was being miscalculated, do to a poor understanding, and measurement, of risk, poor direction of reward, and short-term thinking. I see nothing wrong in the government directing money where the market will not, due to capitalisation of the value being too long term for business. That, surely, is one of the roles of collective funding through taxation. If you want an example of government redirecting value where there is none, just look at primary school education. If you want an example of increasing liquidity without increasing the money supply, look at any tax on assets. When it comes down to it, inequality is bad. Is socially bad, morally bad, and economically bad. The money supply is still increasing, but at a lower rate than previous years due to the relative control of credit and reducing government deficit spending. Liquidity - or the rate of movement of money around the system- is decreasing because of increasing inequality, leading to concentration of the money supply in illiquid assets, and due to that reduction in government spending. Incentives to spend, without increasing the money supply through credit, are required. Its time for a redistribution of wealth, for the good of the economy. Yes, anti the living wage mechanism, not the sentiment. Sub-prime mortgaging certainly became a short-termist tool and one used for greed. The initiative was developed by Bill Clinton's administration to stimulate housing markets in Michigan. As far as inequality being bad - I think we live in a society of envy. We used to live in a society of greed, we still do but in a mutated way now. We have the terminology of relative poverty which is really no more an indication of actual poverty than saying "The kid next door has a new football and I want one". The attitude that wealthy = bad is just nonsensical to me. Where's the incentive for everyone to grow if you can't ultimately blossom? I don't think the arguments of "We need to address poverty and help the people at the bottom of the scale" has to be one that says "We need to undermine those at the top of the scale".
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 12, 2014 14:30:27 GMT
I don't think the arguments of "We need to address poverty and help the people at the bottom of the scale" has to be one that says "We need to undermine those at the top of the scale". And yet the living wage is one that tries to help the people at the bottom of the scale without undermining those at the top.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 14:31:26 GMT
Maybe, by my conclusion is pro-living wage, but you are anti! Agree with your previous post about increasing the personal tax allowance to the minimum wage. You can then allow for that in setting the living wage. For me, sub-prime mortgages are not a good example. The problem there was that value was being miscalculated, do to a poor understanding, and measurement, of risk, poor direction of reward, and short-term thinking. I see nothing wrong in the government directing money where the market will not, due to capitalisation of the value being too long term for business. That, surely, is one of the roles of collective funding through taxation. If you want an example of government redirecting value where there is none, just look at primary school education. If you want an example of increasing liquidity without increasing the money supply, look at any tax on assets. When it comes down to it, inequality is bad. Is socially bad, morally bad, and economically bad. The money supply is still increasing, but at a lower rate than previous years due to the relative control of credit and reducing government deficit spending. Liquidity - or the rate of movement of money around the system- is decreasing because of increasing inequality, leading to concentration of the money supply in illiquid assets, and due to that reduction in government spending. Incentives to spend, without increasing the money supply through credit, are required. Its time for a redistribution of wealth, for the good of the economy. Yes, anti the living wage mechanism, not the sentiment. Sub-prime mortgaging certainly became a short-termist tool and one used for greed. The initiative was developed by Bill Clinton's administration to stimulate housing markets in Michigan. As far as inequality being bad - I think we live in a society of envy. We used to live in a society of greed, we still do but in a mutated way now. We have the terminology of relative poverty which is really no more an indication of actual poverty than saying "The kid next door has a new football and I want one". The attitude that wealthy = bad is just nonsensical to me. Where's the incentive for everyone to grow if you can't ultimately blossom? I don't think the arguments of "We need to address poverty and help the people at the bottom of the scale" has to be one that says "We need to undermine those at the top of the scale". Ok, that's your opinion from a moral standpoint and that's fair enough. My main concerns are the economic problems caused by inequality - asset price inflation and inactive money.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 12, 2014 14:53:29 GMT
Reading through this thread started me thinking. Wasn't the Current Affairs section closed down a few months ago, because some posters didn't like the toxic mixture of football and politics/economics et al, on what they claimed was a football forum? But the way in which this topic is developing and attracting comments, leads me to believe that we may be somewhere close to the reintroduction of the Current Affairs section. It's only logical, ennit?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 15:10:51 GMT
Reading through this thread started me thinking. Wasn't the Current Affairs section closed down a few months ago, because some posters didn't like the toxic mixture of football and politics/economics et al, on what they claimed was a football forum? But the way in which this topic is developing and attracting comments, leads me to believe that we may be somewhere close to the reintroduction of the Current Affairs section. It's only logical, ennit? Was thinking the same thing myself. Funnily, I never looked at the current affairs forum
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 12, 2014 15:28:50 GMT
Personal comment as a moderator (without speaking on behalf of anyone else)
You cannot direct the flow of any particular thread. Yes this one has veered into current affairs, but what I have read has been debated sensibly. If the current affairs section had been debated along these lines then it wouldn’t have become an issue
Current affairs was never the issue, it was the way that sub section was used
|
|
Nobbygas
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,787
Member is Online
|
Post by Nobbygas on Dec 12, 2014 15:34:44 GMT
I agree with your sentiment Peter Parker, but what is missing from this debate is the effect the Lizard people have on the market!
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 15:52:08 GMT
I agree with your sentiment Peter Parker, but what is missing from this debate is the effect the Lizard people have on the market! Good point. Why is human food so expensive, while insects, mice and third world children are so cheap? Eh?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 12, 2014 16:13:35 GMT
It's not about the poor having more money it's about interference with the market and directing value where the market says there is no more. The argument that this increased liquidity won't increase the rate of inflation has already been proven wrong by one of the proponents of it on this thread: The free availability of credit from mid/late 90s to mid-2000s meant greater liquidity throughout society. If that greater liquidity didn't drive up inflation we would have seen a fairly stable or low level of inflation over that period wouldn't we? Which is what 2008 and the last two years of the last Labour government was famous for; economic stability and low inflation ... wasn't it? Sorry can we just keep things simple. How is paying catering staff at Chelsea a living wage "directing value where the market says there is none"? Does the market insist in "its" wisdom that staff must/ should be paid the bare minimum? Baring in mind this works as an argument against the minimum wage as well so surely it would be better were they on less than that. Oh so simple. The market works on supply and demand whilst there is a supply of labour willing to work for minimum wage why would the market pay more? The last Labour government instead of incentivising the unemployed to work instead invited poor East Europeans to do the work cheaply. That cheap supply of labour will exist as long as the EU retains control of immigration and businesses will happily continue paying minimum wage. I'd suggest the quickest way to a 'living wage' is to vote UKIP, of course you won't then still be getting 4 pints of milk for a quid at lidl. Oh did someone already say that you the consumer will have to pay for a 'living wage'?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 12, 2014 16:25:26 GMT
Reading through this thread started me thinking. Wasn't the Current Affairs section closed down a few months ago, because some posters didn't like the toxic mixture of football and politics/economics et al, on what they claimed was a football forum? But the way in which this topic is developing and attracting comments, leads me to believe that we may be somewhere close to the reintroduction of the Current Affairs section. It's only logical, ennit? Was thinking the same thing myself. Funnily, I never looked at the current affairs forum An independent thinker eh? A rare breed.
|
|