Does inequality matter?

First topic message reminder :

In May 2011, the High Pay Commission reported that, if current trends continue, by 2030 the highest 0.1% of earners in the UK will see their remuneration rise to 140 times average income. The last time someone in the top tenth of one per cent of the income distribution was deemed to be worth 140 other people was when we had a fully functioning aristocracy and Queen Victoria was on the throne.

In 1998, Peter Mandelson stunned many of us on the left by declaring: "We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich". Maybe that didn’t seem to matter so much in the good times; the UK economy grew continuously from 1995 until 2008, the longest period of sustained growth for at least 200 years. Inequality in Britain is the fourth highest in the developed world, after the USA, Portugal and Singapore, but in those good years most people were slightly better off than previously, and public services, which the poor use more than the rich, were receiving vast injections of cash. Under thirteen years of Labour rule (1997-2010), spending on the NHS trebled and spending on education doubled. (Despite all the Tory lies to the contrary, the percentage of our GDP spent on welfare actually fell between 1997 and 2008.) So does it matter if some are much, much better off than most?

Economically, Britain was at its most equal ever in either 1968 or 1976, depending on which figures you use. Inequalities have been rising since Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979. The highest paid 10% received incomes that were eight times higher than the lowest paid 10% in 1985 – by 2008 they were twelve times higher. It is also reported that income inequality has grown faster in the UK than anywhere else. Now, the wealthiest 10% receive 40% of total UK income, while the poorest 10% get 1%. Since 1979, the share of the national income going to wages and salaries has fallen, while the proportion going to profits has risen. If the share had increased at the same rate as national income, incomes in the middle would now be nearly £3,000 higher.

Just before he became Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg lamented that between 1997 and 2007 the wealthiest 20% had seen their post-tax incomes rise so much more than others that they were receiving 7.2 times the incomes of the poorest 20% by the time Tony Blair left office (as opposed to 6.9 times as much when he became Prime Minister). Before he weedled his way into power with Clegg’s help, David Cameron commented on ‘The Spirit Level’, a book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. He said it showed "that among the richest countries, it's the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality-of-life indicator". That implied that he thinks inequality does matter, but much of what his vicious government has done has only made things more unequal.

The 2011 statistics from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggested that inequalities were increasing substantially again and in a far shorter period of time, not least because incomes at the bottom are now falling in real terms. An IFS report in September 2011 revealed that the least well off 20% of British households will lose 6% of their income per year between 2011 and 2014 due to government cuts. The charity ‘Save The Children’, best known for helping some of the world's poorest families, has now launched an appeal to help UK children. The charity says the UK's poorest children are bearing the brunt of the austerity measures, with some missing out on regular hot meals or new shoes. IFS figures estimate that there are 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK and predict a steep rise in the numbers in coming years.

Meanwhile, the 1,000 richest people in Britain saw their average personal wealth rise from £336 million each in 2010 to £369 million by 2011, and then to £414 million by 2012. In 2010/11, the incomes of the chief executives of the largest 100 companies in the UK increased by nearly 50%, while the average pay rise in the private sector was just 2.7%. Because prices increased by 5.2%, most private sector workers actually became poorer and pay freezes meant that many public sector workers did even worse. Author and commentator Owen Jones has written: “The coalition’s mantra that ‘we’re all in this together’ has shifted between the ludicrous and the offensive ever since it came to power: while the average Briton faces the most protracted squeeze in living standards since the 1920s, the Sunday Times Rich List reveals an ever-booming elite.”

The only countries (for which there are comparable statistics) in which the richest 1% ‘earn’ more than in Britain are Argentina, Singapore, South Africa and the USA. In Finland, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Spain the richest 1% earn only nine times average earnings (or less) – in Switzerland only 7.8 times; in Sweden 6.7 times; and in the Netherlands only 5.4 times the average income. As Professor Danny Dorling says: “The Swiss have bankers, the Swedes industrialists, and the Dutch host multinational companies; they all just don’t tolerate such excess.”

Admittedly it’s in a different economic climate, but Ed Miliband clearly isn’t so “relaxed” as Mandelson was about the filthy rich. In September 2010, in his first major speech as Labour leader, Ed said: "I do believe this country is too unequal and the gap between rich and poor doesn't just harm the poor, it harms us all." Greater inequality does matter. Owen Jones argues that inequality weakens social cohesion and a sense of community, and produces more crime and violence. He quotes the example of the riots of August 2011, pointing out that London is one of the most unequal cities on earth, where the richest 10% receive 273 times more than the poorest 10%.

It’s ironic that greater inequality, which right-wing policies always cause, increases the need for big government, which right-wing politicians so detest. Inequality creates the need for more police, more prisons and more health and social services of every kind. (The USA imprisons people at fourteen times the rate of Japan, the UK some five times.) Most of these services are expensive and only very partially effective.

Most companies produce goods or services for the general public, such as houses, clothes, household goods, foodstuffs and insurance. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer people, demand falls; the rich might buy luxury goods, but not enough of the things that most companies offer. Increasing inequality means that many can no longer afford to consume, or can only do so by getting into too much debt, as in the USA subprime mortgage crisis that sparked off the global crunch. Borrowing works for a while, but not for ever. Where no one can borrow any more money, goods and services cannot be sold, factories and businesses close, jobs are lost, and the world goes into recession.

Professor Dorling sums up: “Pay restraint at the top saves more money than any programme of government cuts to public sector jobs can ever achieve. Pay and benefit increases at the bottom are the most efficient means of increasing consumer demand. It was redistribution of wealth which changed this country from thirties misery to swinging sixties.”

Sources used:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/11/inequality-social-health-essay

http://classonline.org.uk/docs/Why_Inequality_Matters.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19478083

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/rack_of_inequality

Man's inhumanity to Man has a long and well-recorded History.

That's easy for you to say

Strangely enough Boatlady, for everybody that worries over their job, there are another nine that are content, so nothing much has changed over the last 50 years.

I beg to differ - my observation leads me to the conclusion that job security for those at the lower end of the job market has become a thing of the past.
When I was at school leaving age, people got a contract when they started a job which provided them with a measure of security and some rights in the workplace - it also provided some guarantee of hours, so people coukld plan their future, find a place to live, think about getting married - stuff like that.
If you look again at my post, you will see descriptions of three employmewnt practices that, twenty years ago, were very rare indeed, and which greatly increase the risk of unemployment for people on minimum wage and sometimes higher pay.
There is also the issue of jobs being downgraded - twenty years ago, looking after vulnerable people was quite a high status occupation, which provided the basis for many a professional career in nursing, education, social work and sometimes even law or medicine- these days, those roles are paid at minimum wage and on the same terms of insecurity as unskilled factory labour.
In my opinion, as well as being extremely unfair, these practices lead to a lowering of standards across the board.
The social contrac t in the past used to be - you started off at the bottom, selling your labour cheap, and rose within the workplace so eventually even mediocre workers had a chance of raising a family and living with some dignity - now the aim seems to be to keep everyone at the bottom, except those who have the good fortune to have money behind them and therefore never have to be in the low paid jobs unless they want to.

Indeed, when I worked for a large company in the 1980s, the management would arrange once or twice a year a little celebration dinner for some ageing employee who had provided the company with forty years continuous service. There would be a Presentation, usually a carriage clock.

I always felt it showed that some people have a singular lack of ambition.

So how is that clock still running ,ow...?

I have consulted Mrs Hornby on the thread topic, and she informs me that equality is not a matter about which I should be concerned - if I know what is good for me...

Boatlady.

I think you have summed up things pretty well. The only thing I would disagree with is your last paragraph.
It seems to me that in the past - apart from apprenticeships - many ordinary workers would learn their 'trade' by practise and 'on the job'. Todays society and workplace demands a more 'skilled' approach to many jobs, while others less.
Those demanding more rely on computer operators and programmers and modern techniques which demand more than 'on the job' learning. The common market has produced the necessity of greater knowledge by many sections of society. Etc. Etc.
Those demanding less are in the 'mundane' jobs - retailing etc. As an ex Store Manager it was my duty to make sure department heads taught their staff all there was to know about the goods they were selling to enable a good SERVICE. Today it's help yourself, parttime staff who know where things are but little about them.

Circumstances change. You may start at the bottom today, but without going 'outside' the job you are not so likely to succeed.
I'm not sure the 'social' contract of the past can, in general, still apply.

As to 'mediochre' workers. A term I have always disliked and which is hard to define in terms of human endeavour.
My father gave me this advice when I first started work. 'Go out there, do your very best. If it is not as good as others don't be ashamed. It is your best. No-one can ask more of you than that'.

So who are 'mediochre' workers? Those of lesser ability who do their very best, or those of greater ability who do less than their best.



Still that's only my view, and what do I know.

Great view Trev and as true today as it was then, those that aspire and have ability, will through their own endeavour move up the ladder. Some are not happy about their promotion prospects yet are willing to do little to improve them.

tlttf wrote:Great view Trev and as true today as it was then, those that aspire and have ability, will through their own endeavour move up the ladder. Some are not happy about their promotion prospects yet are willing to do little to improve them.

Why shouldn't it be possible to earn a decent living and have a decent, comfortable life just for doing a good job of whatever it is you do? Don't know about 'politics of envy', but all this pressure to 'aspire' is just 'politics of never-content'. Lots of people just want that - a decent life. They shouldn't have to be poor so that a few restless, dissatisfied people can 'aspire' to having a lot - and maybe get it if they're very lucky.

A lot has been made of "starting at the bottom and working your way up," but the bottom has to be sufficiently high enough off the ground that you're not spending the first half of your career just breaking even.

For instance, a teacher in my state of North Carolina will not see $40,000 per year until the 30th year on the job. The average income in the US is $42,000 per year. This means that a teacher spends roughly 85% of her career fighting and clawing her way up the ladder just to be average. They say that welfare reduces the incentive to succeed ... yeah, so does crappy wages.

skwalker1964 wrote:

tlttf wrote:Great view Trev and as true today as it was then, those that aspire and have ability, will through their own endeavour move up the ladder. Some are not happy about their promotion prospects yet are willing to do little to improve them.

Why shouldn't it be possible to earn a decent living and have a decent, comfortable life just for doing a good job of whatever it is you do? Don't know about 'politics of envy', but all this pressure to 'aspire' is just 'politics of never-content'. Lots of people just want that - a decent life. They shouldn't have to be poor so that a few restless, dissatisfied people can 'aspire' to having a lot - and maybe get it if they're very lucky.

I have no problem with everyone having a decent life. On the other hand I do not have a problem with aspiration. It is the aspirations of individuals and groups that enable man to progress. A man should be able to aspire to whatever he wishes. The problem comes when that aspiration becomes all consuming. Many have aspired to great things, positions and even riches, and have provided employment for the unemployed, housing for their workers and sometimes healthcare too.

2 quotes from Richard Branson, son of a Barrister. He had a poor academic record and I believe he is dyslexic, but he once said 'There is no point in starting your own business unless you do it out of a sense of frustration."
In his autobiography he says 'My interest in life comes from setting myself huge, apparently unachievable challenges and trying to rise above them...from the perspective of wanting to live life to the full, I felt that I had to attempt it.'

In an ideal world we would all be living 'decently', in comfortable homes with enough food. But human nature is not so. The more we have the more we want. And we can't wait for better times.

I'm quoting a Biblical parable. Not because of its religious significance, but it's relevance to today.
The rich man had a fantastic harvest. He built a lot more barns and stored it away. 'I'm rich. I can sit back and enjoy the rest of my life in comfort' he thought. 'Thou fool' came the reply 'this night shall thy soul be required of thee, then whose shall all this be'. Perhaps if he had shared with the less fortunate the Jewish way of the time things may have been different.

Britain's supermarkets generate 300000 tonnes of food waste every year
The food industry produces large amounts of food waste, with retailers alone generating 1,600,000 tonnes of food waste per year
Britons overspend by an average of £30 every food shop
And people are going hungry in this country!

Number of hungry people in the world

925 million hungry people in 2010 :

Developed countries 19m
Near East and North Africa 37m
Latin America and Caribbean 53m
SubSaharan Africa 239m
Asia and the Pacific 578m.


Just some interesting statistics.

I'm not a political activist. I take an interest and vote according to my views when the time comes. I am not an economist and don't offer a way out.
I am a realist. Something has to be done about the situation we are in. You who are 'into' such things will have your views. All I do know is that easy times are over for a good while. Our past profligacy has caught up with us and others countries.

Blimey. Don't I go on

Interesting comments here - don't necessarily disagree with any
As you say, Shirina, starting at the bottom is OK if the bottom is not so low down as to make breaking even a lifetime endeavour.
Trevor, by mediocre I mean your run of the mill fair day's work for a fair day's pay sort of type - you know, those who used to be the backbone of most workplaces. I guess i would count myself among such - in a 30 year career I remained at a fairly basic grade in my chosen profession - but I venture to believe the teams I worked in would have struggled to manage without my contribution.

I have always found it interesting that to move up the 'ladder of success' you often have to stop doing the job your best at and enjoy the most.....

For many years I was a hands on nurse but in order to make a gain for my family I needed to move up the 'Ladder' to be better paid...

I therefor applied for a post as a Charge Nurse which resulted in only 50% of my work time being spend providing 'hands on care' to the patients I was responsible for, the other 50% was spent on paperwork such as regular audits of the paper work staff were doing.....

My next move was to be a Ward Manger, with the responsibility for a £750,000+ budget and all the paper work associated, and a further reduction in the amount of time being able to be spent in hands on care......

I like to think I am a good nurse who care's about those I look after I am now back working on the shop floor but I am only able to do this on a 'part time' (36 hours a week) because I have my pension to top up my current wage.......Which in-spite of all the claims of generous NHS pensions would not allow me to even survive.........

I work hard but I enjoy the real nursing I do rather than the 'Management' job I used to do.......

I have always found it interesting that to move up the 'ladder of success' you often have to stop doing the job your best at and enjoy the most.....

Western society doesn't place much value on the "hands-on" people - those who draw the blood, swing the hammers, drive the trucks, patrol the streets, make the goods, cook the food, plow the fields ...

It's the pencil pushers, the desk jockies, the bean counters, the suits ... they're the ones who get all of the credit and most of the reward. President Obama tried to point out this very fact during one of his speeches, telling the rich that they didn't get rich all by themselves. Someone builds the roads, drives the trucks, maintains the waterworks and electrical grid, builds the buildings, takes out the trash, and empties the ashbins that allowed the rich to make their money. Of course the right-wingers spun that into something negative because the rich - and those that support the rich - just couldn't bear the fact that they, personally, didn't do all of that. Instead of nodding their heads and offering up a big "thanks" to those whose sweat made it possible for a person to get rich, they snarled and growled and said, "How DARE you imply that my wealth isn't all my own doing?!"

Nonetheless the old Yorkshire saying, "Clogs to clogs in three generations" may still hold surprisingly true.

boatlady wrote:Interesting comments here - don't necessarily disagree with any
As you say, Shirina, starting at the bottom is OK if the bottom is not so low down as to make breaking even a lifetime endeavour.
Trevor, by mediocre I mean your run of the mill fair day's work for a fair day's pay sort of type - you know, those who used to be the backbone of most workplaces. I guess i would count myself among such - in a 30 year career I remained at a fairly basic grade in my chosen profession - but I venture to believe the teams I worked in would have struggled to manage without my contribution.

I have to say that my views are somewhat more jaundiced than yours.

'A fair days work for a fair days play' is/was a meaningless statement in most peoples lives. Having a job and being able to pay the bills is/was the uppermost thought in most people's minds.
Most factories had/have production lines. Others piecework rates. Others targets to be met. If you have bills to pay you meet those targets, like it or not.
On the clerical side most departments have the same pressures to meet targets.
The Emergency Services are slightly different for obvious reasons. You have to be mad to put up with the sh.. they have to put up with from the public. Mostly they join as a chosen vocation.
All in all I would suggest that most people who could earn their money by doing less would happily do so. And that those with any aspirations would leave for better prospects, when they become available.

When leaving the RAF after 5 years service I could not return to my former occupation. To pay my bills I worked in a factory for a while on piecework.
A soon as the opportunity came I moved out into retail management. Initially less money but more congenial.

I don't believe man has evolved to be stifled by production lines. But millenia of subservience to the 'ruling' classes, whether conquerors, kings or rulers has made this possible. I believe we are just beginning to think for ourselves. When, as individuals, we use our minds as freethinkers, unfettered by what we are taught to believe, we will move on.

By the way, this is not a dig at Royalty. In this country we are not subservient to such, despite what many think. Royalty has no right to control my life. The Government does - unfortunately

As you can see I am a freethinker. If someone asks me what I think I don't charge them for advice.

What you say seems to make sense, but I do value my less 'jaundiced' views - I do think most of us, if we could do what we love, and make a living at it, would work willingly and give the extra 10% which sort of makes the difference between OK and awesome.

boatlady wrote:What you say seems to make sense, but I do value my less 'jaundiced' views - I do think most of us, if we could do what we love, and make a living at it, would work willingly and give the extra 10% which sort of makes the difference between OK and awesome.

I agree. It's just finding that which we love doing. A problem often faced by the undecided when they finish their education.

Don't get me started on education

I do think most of us, if we could do what we love, and make a living at it, would work willingly and give the extra 10% which sort of makes the difference between OK and awesome.

I'm a gamer - meaning I play a lot of games on the computer both on and offline. Most games are "moddable" which means they can be modified by the fans who play them. People frequently program new and better code to make games run better, they create bug fixes, change up the rules, even construct new graphics and improved environmental effects. Almost always, the new additions created by the fans are far and away superior to what the actual gaming company created, and I believe this is because, for the fans, it is a labor of love. They don't get paid. Sometimes they don't even get much recognition. They do it because they want to, because they want to make a good game better. They don't have to do it. They do it because they want to.

I think, for many of us, the moment "choice" is removed from the equation, so too does a lot of motivation and enthusiasm. Game "modders," as they're called, have the liberty of choosing if they want to work on additions to a game. They can decide when, for how long, and on which days they want to work. I know that's not necessarily feasible in the workforce, but it sure would be nice, wouldn't it, if we could make those kinds of decisions for ourselves. Our work certainly would be better.

But even more to the point - if you're doing something you love, if you think your work makes a difference, if you think your work actually matters, your enthusiasm and desire to be the best at what you do is certainly greater. In the modern world, your wages often do not depend on how successful the company is or whether or not a customer comes back to do business again. Workers often have no connection to the Big Picture and thus really don't care much about the quality of their work aside from just wanting to keep their job. It really doesn't matter to the cashier at the grocery store if your "shopping experience" was a good one because they're going to get paid whether you come back or not. They have no stake in the success or failure of a business. That makes it difficult to strive hard to succeed for more than yourself. The rewards for success are carefully guarded by the top 1% and you get paid the same whether you bust your rump doing a good job or simply do just enough to keep your job.

So much regarding promotions and raises are as much about office politics as it is about performance, work ethic, or evalutation reports. Sometimes if you do a job TOO well, your bosses won't want to move you from that position. Instead, someone less competent or less hard working will get kicked upstairs. Thus, even the desire for a promotion does not always inspire one to work all that hard to care all that much.

Oh yes!!!

Shirina quote.

So much regarding promotions and raises are as much about office politics as it is about performance, work ethic, or evalutation reports. Sometimes if you do a job TOO well, your bosses won't want to move you from that position. Instead, someone less competent or less hard working will get kicked upstairs. Thus, even the desire for a promotion does not always inspire one to work all that hard to care all that much.

While the above may happen I don't believe it is widespread.

In a small firm it is to the advantage to have the brightest promoted. In most cases the 'boss' is the owner and under no threat from below. In fact it is an advantage to have such an employee who will boost the business.
With suitable renumeration, of course.

For the intermediate firm where appointments are made by employees a couple of steps up it can happen. A bright employee can be seen as a threat to their position and thus passed over. This has four dangers for the persons making the decision.
1. It will eventually become evident to management that the newly appointed is not of the right quality.
2. When this becomes obvious it will call into question the judgement and reasoning of those who appointed him/her.
3. Talent does not go un-noticed.
4. The overlooked may himself find another position quoting the reason for his resignation.

Anyone who is afraid to promote another is aware of his own limitations. Either he should seek to improve himself, or accept the fact of those limitations for they will find him out in the end.
The old saying is 'YOU CAN'T KEEP A GOOD MAN DOWN'.

In an International company Personnel departments play a large part in seeking and appointing.

But then what do I know.

Mrs Hornby has reminded me that today is International Women's Day.

I have told her that she is not an international woman and so she should not bother herself with the matter.

Can anyone recommend me a good hotel for a few days...?

You are two sad men and will suffer much pain

LOL

Would you vote for it and is it fair, to have the Illuminati pay their share?

IF the Illuminati are real and who is in control is the real question.


Of late, the Illuminati have been getting fat on the middle taxpayer’s tit.
Is it time to change the demographic pyramid and send some of that wasted wealth down below where it is needed most?

Is it not time to give the calf the tit?


We are wealthy as never before.
Should the bottom not share in this great wealth?


The Illuminatus are a generous bunch. This needs be if you are to grow a demography whose goal is to enrich us all.
That is the goal of a Timocratic man.

That generosity has paid off. Kudos .Perhaps the Illuminati could be persuaded to have more of us enjoy their good fortune and trim the fat. So to speak.

Should we ask our political masters to have a chat with the heads of the Illuminati?
If they are as real as we know the oligarchs to be.

I think a chat is fair play and in order on redistribution.

Do you?

If you agree that a chat and sharing is due, why not -------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZxHAZChcYU

Regards
DL

I think the Illuminati is real. And I'm not a big fan in believing in conspiracy theories.

I think the purveyors of BS know no limits.

Back in the real world……

An OECD report entitled ‘Divided we stand: why inequality keeps rising’ has indicated that inequalities are increasing in almost all developed countries, and that this is a continuation of the trend which begain in the 1980s. The gap between the richest and poorest households continues to grow, even in more ‘egalitarian’ countries such as Sweden.

Towards the top of the income scale, there has been an increase in the wealth held by the richest 1% (and even more so amongst the richest 0.1%). Top rates of income tax have generally been reduced, but in many OECD countries, the role of social benefits and taxes in minimising inequalities has been weakened.

More details here:-
http://www.inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article63

Towards the top of the income scale, you tend to know the right people who can influence the factors governing your income, and whose own interests are often in alignment.

Our current economic model is doomed, anyway. Someone once asked me what we can do about it, and I simply said we'll handle it like we always do - clean up the rubble rather than defuse the bomb. Nothing will change until it has to, and there will be a lot of misery between now and then.

I say this because there is an immutable truth: World populations are increasing while technology is constantly reducing the number of jobs available. Even Obama is placing most of his focus on high-end tech jobs instead of jobs "most" people can do with a little education and training. The kind of jobs he's gunning for are the kind you need degrees from MIT or Cal Tech in order to have much of a chance.

The problem is that most people are average. Yeah, that's why it's called "average." It's where most people fall on the bell curve denoting ability in math and science. Sooner or later, the only jobs that pay above a poverty income will be jobs only the best and brightest can do. The few remaining jobs will be bottom-of-the-barrel variety such as waitresses, cashiers, customer service, and call center jobs. You know, the kind of jobs where people insist on human interaction.

Machines do not need breaks, vacations, holidays, sick days or even a salary. They don't get tired, need sleep, or to use the bathroom. They don't bring their personal problems to work, go on strike, get pregnant, ask for raises, gossip, steal from their employers, commit sexual harassment, or are insubordinate. The initial cost of a machine can be great, but they usually pay for themselves in the long run with savings on labor costs. All machines really need is engineers to design them, a tech guy to run them, and a repair guy to fix them. You don't need legions of employees working an assembly line.

This is where we're headed. As fewer and fewer people can find jobs that pay a livable wage, fewer and fewer people will be buying products and services. This will, in turn, force companies to make cut-backs which will translate into companies buying increasing number of machines with which to replace employees. This is where the spiral of degeneration begins.

Eventually, there simply won't be enough people with disposable incomes to keep businesses afloat. The economy will crash, etc. etc.

We will have to find an economic model that is not based on reciprocity, a model that does not involve payment, money, or needing to scratch your back simply because you scratched mine. It's the only way, and I believe that, in the long run, we will be forced into such a model whether we like it or not.

"Sooner or later, the only jobs that pay above a poverty income will be jobs only the best and brightest can do."

Fortunately, Shirina, the destination is always the Consumer - for which all of us possess the necessary qualifications. The PRODUCT of a machine must be necessary for us or attractive to us before a value can be placed upon it, so there will always be employment for we lesser mortals as salespersons, advertisers, deliverers and record-keepers, not to mention the inevitable leeches from the Tax-gathering monster who all derive an income.

There will always be SOME employment, but as I said in a post quite some time ago - I was reading an article that discussed how, with existing technology, 5% of the population could support the other 95%.

The consumer is not the primary factor any more. Especially the individual consumer. Today, people are divided up into huge blocks and demographic sets and thats what marketers look at, not individuals. An example of this involves the petition by religious groups against Lowes Hardware - a massivly huge retail corporation. Religious groups, spurred on by that hate group American Family Asssociation, managed to get over 300,000 people to boycot Lowes if they did not amend their gay-friendly hiring and firing policies. The CEO of Lowes pretty much told those 300,000 people precisely where to stick it, if you know what I mean.

Now, I'm glad the CEO took that stance, but it shows you just how large companies are that they can ignore the possibility 300,000 potential customers never coming back.

Another example is the infamous call center, especially for tech support. I know several people who work in one and I worked in one myself some time ago. The companies that offer call center support don't really care about the consumer. Call center employees are straitjacketed by rigid rules that focus on keeping call times short - even if the customer needs more time in order to get his problem fixed. In other words, call centers are in the business of getting as many paying customers through the call mill as possible so that the company can get as much money as it can. They're not interested in helping, only in taking your money. That's why I never pay extra for tech support. You'll have better luck searching for a solution on the internet.

When I was a directory assistance operator for Verizon, our call times had to AVERAGE 30 seconds or less. A customer calls, they want a number, you give it to them, wish them a good day, and hang up. However, sometimes it isn't that simple. I received five commendations while working there, and I NEVER received one for actually following company policy. If my bosses had known that they were giving me commendations for taking extra time and care to help a consumer, I would have been reprimanded, not rewarded.

For most businesses these days, you need a truly massive block of organized angry citizens for companies to change policies. An individual doesn't have a voice.

As we saw in 2008, global capitalist companies are now more powerful than any individual Government. How big would a massive block of angry citizens need to be?

How big would a massive block of angry citizens need to be?

I suppose it depends on the size of the company, but angry protests DO work from time to time. For instance, Bank of America (a HUGE bank) tried to institute new ATM fees, but enough people rose up and yelled at them that Bank of America backed down. I can't say how many were outraged by banks, who had just received billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded bailouts, charging even more fees, but it was in the millions.

It's really tough to get that many people organized and fighting for a singular cause. It's even tougher to keep the impetus going. Companies are very aware that people will bitch, and they count on most people doing their bitching and then accepting the new policy or fees albeit begrudgingly. In fact, that's what usually happens. People are usually too lazy to switch banks or phone companies, etc. Yet even if they did, all of the other companies will inevitably follow the original comapany's lead. If prices go up here, they'll eventually go up over there, too. When companies work in collusion like that, consumers have no choice but to accept the higher prices or go without - and most accept the higher prices. The poorer folks end up going without because the price is now simply too high.

The difference between the poor in the west and the poor in the east is pretty high. Should we have a world government?

Shirina wrote:
I suppose it depends on the size of the company, but angry protests DO work from time to time. For instance, Bank of America (a HUGE bank) tried to institute new ATM fees, but enough people rose up and yelled at them that Bank of America backed down. I can't say how many were outraged by banks, who had just received billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded bailouts, charging even more fees, but it was in the millions.

It's really tough to get that many people organized and fighting for a singular cause. It's even tougher to keep the impetus going. Companies are very aware that people will bitch, and they count on most people doing their bitching and then accepting the new policy or fees albeit begrudgingly. In fact, that's what usually happens. People are usually too lazy to switch banks or phone companies, etc. Yet even if they did, all of the other companies will inevitably follow the original comapany's lead. If prices go up here, they'll eventually go up over there, too. When companies work in collusion like that, consumers have no choice but to accept the higher prices or go without - and most accept the higher prices. The poorer folks end up going without because the price is now simply too high.

This is seen often with the power companies, not sure what it's like in the US but the UK have a really bad rep for this, they may not follow suit by increasing at the same %, but they do follow each other. However in this instance it took Government intervention to bring the Power companies to heel and make their tariffs more easily understandable, regardless of how much customers complained, what seemed more important to the Power companies was to keep their exorbitant level of profits than keeping their customers with them or happy.

tlttf wrote:The difference between the poor in the west and the poor in the east is pretty high. Should we have a world government?

I'm gonna say NO on this, an interesting idea in theory however, the implications would be dangerous to say the least. Working from the assumption that both the US and UK would assume positions near the very top, if not at the helm, considering the concept of establishing a world government would be to narrow the gap in poverty between the East and West it may make it worse, depending on the political model which would be used.

First proper post in political section

tlttf wrote:The difference between the poor in the west and the poor in the east is pretty high. Should we have a world government?

The fact that there are even worse injustices somewhere doesn't reduce the injustice of what's happening here, tlttf. Or 'landy' - I quite like that!

Deadly - welcome to the party!