Globalisation

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

Sidicks ....how do you do that ?.....separate my post into bite size segments .....and then pass comment .
Easy boy...simple explanation please.

Just add:
quote=username at the start and /quote (both in square brackets) at the end of each chunk of text you want to use.

Thanks sidicks ,I'll try it out ,but it might be beyond my meagre skills.

[sidicks]

avinalarf said:

Thanks sidicks

No problem.

avinalarf said:

,I'll try it out ,

Go for it!

avinalarf said:

but it might be beyond my meagre skills.

I'm sure you'll work it out!

[avinalarf]

To those of you that say " you make your own choices and breaks in life .....so live with it ".
In some respects I agree but, with respect that's an over simplification of the subject.
However let's move on.....
Is it in the interest in the long term future of a society that the rich keep getting richer and the less abled get further left behind.
How can a discontented,disallusioned populace be in anybody's interest ?

[Yipper]

avinalarf said:

Is it in the interest in the long term future of a society that the rich keep getting richer and the less abled get further left behind.
How can a discontented,disallusioned populace be in anybody's interest ?

A widening income-gap between rich and poor is actually a sign of a stable, peaceful world. It is a good, not bad, thing.

Income-gaps widen in peacetime... and narrow in wartime, as the rich spend all their cash on paying poor people to protect their assets.

[mcdjl]

avinalarf said:

To those of you that say " you make your own choices and breaks in life .....so live with it ".
In some respects I agree but, with respect that's an over simplification of the subject.
However let's move on.....
Is it in the interest in the long term future of a society that the rich keep getting richer and the less abled get further left behind.
How can a discontented,disallusioned populace be in anybody's interest ?

It isn't. The old country land owners knew this and as a result while they may have had mega pads (of which they rarely occupied the whole place and also shared with a good number of servants) also did jut about enough to buy off the locals who lived/worked on their land. Every once in a while their dependence on the lower classes was forgotten and they'd be chase out. In the industrial revolution the clever factory owners realised this and looked after their workers, Rowntree etc building good houses, time off etc. This led to the pull away from the old agricultural economy and the old estates started to crumble. WW1 and 2 reminded the industrial owners of the need to look after their workers and their co-dependence. this has started to be forgotten again and we're about due the next reminder.
saying fix it is all well and good, but no one knows how, while maintaining the lifestyle we all want. Saying adapt is all well and good, but anyone can read FAQs over the phone and run a help desk, while profit is the bottom line do it in the country where it costs least. Until we all realise that the contribution of the man emptying the bin is more directly useful and will be missed sooner than the CEO then we can't even start to fix the issue.

[avinalarf]

mcdjl said:

avinalarf said:

To those of you that say " you make your own choices and breaks in life .....so live with it ".
In some respects I agree but, with respect that's an over simplification of the subject.
However let's move on.....
Is it in the interest in the long term future of a society that the rich keep getting richer and the less abled get further left behind.
How can a discontented,disallusioned populace be in anybody's interest ?

It isn't. The old country land owners knew this and as a result while they may have had mega pads (of which they rarely occupied the whole place and also shared with a good number of servants) also did jut about enough to buy off the locals who lived/worked on their land. Every once in a while their dependence on the lower classes was forgotten and they'd be chase out. In the industrial revolution the clever factory owners realised this and looked after their workers, Rowntree etc building good houses, time off etc. This led to the pull away from the old agricultural economy and the old estates started to crumble. WW1 and 2 reminded the industrial owners of the need to look after their workers and their co-dependence. this has started to be forgotten again and we're about due the next reminder.
saying fix it is all well and good, but no one knows how, while maintaining the lifestyle we all want. Saying adapt is all well and good, but anyone can read FAQs over the phone and run a help desk, while profit is the bottom line do it in the country where it costs least. Until we all realise that the contribution of the man emptying the bin is more directly useful and will be missed sooner than the CEO then we can't even start to fix the issue.

I agree Daniel....at its crudest a form of Paternalistic Capitalism.
But seriously, if we want a fully functioning society and wish to maintain the social equilibrium then it is only common sense to allow all the population a chance to achieve a decent standard of living.
The logical outcome of those that say "sink or swim" will take us back to the days of serfdom.
In a modern capitalist society there needs to be swings and balances so that all have a fair share of the dividends of their efforts.
I am not suggesting that the indolent and feckless are given a free ride.
I am suggesting that when a society promotes greed and rewards selfishness it will eventually fail.
Certainly let the entrepreneurs,leaders of industry,etc enjoy their status and wealth but don't allow them to st on the rest of society.

[sidicks]

avinalarf said:

I agree Daniel....at its crudest a form of Paternalistic Capitalism.
But seriously, if we want a fully functioning society and wish to maintain the social equilibrium then it is only common sense to allow all the population a chance to achieve a decent standard of living.
The logical outcome of those that say "sink or swim" will take us back to the days of serfdom.
In a modern capitalist society there needs to be swings and balances so that all have a fair share of the dividends of their efforts.
I am not suggesting that the indolent and feckless are given a free ride.
I am suggesting that when a society promotes greed and rewards selfishness it will eventually fail.
Certainly let the entrepreneurs,leaders of industry,etc enjoy their status and wealth but don't allow them to st on the rest of society.

Out of interest, who are you ascribing this opinion to?

[RYH64E]

avinalarf said:

Certainly let the entrepreneurs,leaders of industry,etc enjoy their status and wealth but don't allow them to st on the rest of society.

You should try employing 'the rest of society', it's not much fun. Getting decent staff at all levels is really hard, it's a significant limiting factor in our growth and I know it's the same for many other companies.

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

Out of interest, who are you ascribing this opinion to?

Certainly not you sidicks you are truly a model of altruism

[sidicks]

avinalarf said:

Certainly not you sidicks you are truly a model of altruism

I certainly don't think the options are as binary as you appear to be suggesting!

[Derek Smith]

One way of limiting the effects of globalisation on those at the bottom, and soon to be those in the middle, is to join a big group of trading nations. That way you can set competition requirements. If a company exporting to the group, let's call it an Economic Union, or EU for short, in udercutting by government subsidy then a tariff can be put on the products to ensure things are fair.

I don't think it will catch on though. Not here.

[avinalarf]

RYH64E said:

avinalarf said:

Certainly let the entrepreneurs,leaders of industry,etc enjoy their status and wealth but don't allow them to st on the rest of society.

You should try employing 'the rest of society', it's not much fun. Getting decent staff at all levels is really hard, it's a significant limiting factor in our growth and I know it's the same for many other companies.

i can sympathise with that.
Retailing on the high street,the business I'm in,has to face huge exes ,most of which are unavoidable.
The one expense that is relatively controllable is staff.
Unfortunately retail wages are relatively low but I do offer good incentives and when the profit is there the staff have a share in it.
In return for that I expect loyalty ,honesty and professionalism.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

One way of limiting the effects of globalisation on those at the bottom, and soon to be those in the middle, is to join a big group of trading nations. That way you can set competition requirements. If a company exporting to the group, let's call it an Economic Union, or EU for short, in udercutting by government subsidy then a tariff can be put on the products to ensure things are fair.

I don't think it will catch on though. Not here.

How well are 'those at the bottom' doing in Southern Europe?

[avinalarf]

Derek Smith said:

One way of limiting the effects of globalisation on those at the bottom, and soon to be those in the middle, is to join a big group of trading nations. That way you can set competition requirements. If a company exporting to the group, let's call it an Economic Union, or EU for short, in udercutting by government subsidy then a tariff can be put on the products to ensure things are fair.

I don't think it will catch on though. Not here.

I alluded to that in an early post.
Problem is what we were sold as a group of trading nations morphed into an idealistic political experiment.

[RYH64E]

avinalarf said:

In return for that I expect loyalty ,honesty and professionalism.

I pay good wages, even the warehouse staff are on a minimum of £8/hr and most on a lot more, they went home today leaving 10 pallets of goods outside in the yard, the warehouse manager and my good self had to bring them in. At 5pm they just went home, mid-job, all of them except the apprentice. Managing staff is like trying to herd cats. There will be words said tomorrow, they'll all look sheepish, be on their best behaviour for a few weeks then revert to type.

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

Certainly not you sidicks you are truly a model of altruism

I certainly don't think the options are as binary as you appear to be suggesting!

No of course not,there are a variety of options,none of which will satisfy all the people all the time.
The dramatic side of me gets carried away sometimes.
It's achieving a balance where the talented and entrepreneurial are adequately rewarded whilst the less able but also hardworking folk that contribute to the well being of that society get a fair crack of the whip.

[Derek Smith]

sidicks said:

How well are 'those at the bottom' doing in Southern Europe?

What, such as the south of Italy? I was there recently. They seem to be doing OK. I'm sure they'd appreciate your concern though.

On top of that, I think you are confusing the Eurozone with the EU.

[FredClogs]

sidicks said:

Out of interest, who are you ascribing this opinion to?

Rising tide stinks all ships, int that what the architect said Sidicks?

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

What, such as the south of Italy? I was there recently. They seem to be doing OK. I'm sure they'd appreciate your concern though.

On top of that, I think you are confusing the Eurozone with the EU.

I'm doing no such thing.

[sidicks]

FredClogs said:

sidicks said:

Out of interest, who are you ascribing this opinion to?

Rising tide stinks all ships, int that what the architect said Sidicks?

You're a very strange individual.