Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Jockman said:
Scary.loafer123 said:
Jockman said:
Scary.https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/chuka...
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Why is the minimum wage based on age anyway?
Presumably it is based on the theory that you become more useful as you become more experienced, so very low rates for the under 16 group are to encourage employers to give youngsters work experience, the next layer up is a form of apprenticeship and then you hit the full rate.loafer123 said:
Presumably it is based on the theory that you become more useful as you become more experienced, so very low rates for the under 16 group are to encourage employers to give youngsters work experience, the next layer up is a form of apprenticeship and then you hit the full rate.
To a degree I can see that, but something I posted on the dedicated thread which I hadn't noticed when I made my earlier post.I didn't know what the minimum wage was or the age bands so I had a look, I'm sure many here will already be familiar.
Even though they're all doing the same thing, and each may have absolutely zero experience, on day one their hourly rates are:
16 y/o £4.05
18 y/o £5.60
21 y/o £7.05
55 y/o £7.50
A year later you might have a 17 year old training the new member of staff who is 27.. and on day one that person is making more money simply because they're older.
It seems a strange situation
Beware the law of unintended consequences. The 16yo is currently probably more likely to get hired than the 21yo. And the reverse is true if the NMW is a single number. Do you want the 16yo to exist purely on benefits or get in the habit of working? With 5 years of experience, I'd hope the 16yo, now 21, could earn more than the NMW and train a new 16yo in the same path.
Central planning and government diktat rarely create good systems however. I don't have a problem with the concept of a NMW but whatever that system is, it will create negative (and positive) distortions in the labour market
Central planning and government diktat rarely create good systems however. I don't have a problem with the concept of a NMW but whatever that system is, it will create negative (and positive) distortions in the labour market
dimots said:
Burwood said:
Morning Dimots- so can you answer this. £10 for 16 yo kids. Good idea?
Personally I'm more inclined towards the universal living wage, but £10 minimum is progressive, as is extending it to 16 year olds...so I'm in favour of it.Rich_W said:
It's just fluff designed to boost his ego.
Why would they emulate that?
Corbyn is playing a blinder here. After Trump, he figured out that facts don't matter at all. Why would they emulate that?
Look at a crowd with iPhones and spending hundreds to go to Glastonbury. To watch Corbyn.
He and his lot have figured out that the youngest voters are disenfranchised and completely illiterate when it comes to finance and economics. With that demographic at hand (see the charts a couple of pages back) all he has to do is to wait for the retirees to die out, whilst continuing his propaganda about a magic money tree and taxing the "rich".
By the flipside, the conservatives look like headless chicken.
Unfortunately, it now becomes a top trumps (pun intended) game on the next election cycle, much to the detriment of the generations to come.
loafer123 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Why is the minimum wage based on age anyway?
Presumably it is based on the theory that you become more useful as you become more experienced, so very low rates for the under 16 group are to encourage employers to give youngsters work experience, the next layer up is a form of apprenticeship and then you hit the full rate.It doesn't quite sit right with me, but then I only had a minimum wage job when I was under 18.
stuckmojo said:
Rich_W said:
It's just fluff designed to boost his ego.
Why would they emulate that?
Corbyn is playing a blinder here. After Trump, he figured out that facts don't matter at all. Why would they emulate that?
Look at a crowd with iPhones and spending hundreds to go to Glastonbury. To watch Corbyn.
He and his lot have figured out that the youngest voters are disenfranchised and completely illiterate when it comes to finance and economics. With that demographic at hand (see the charts a couple of pages back) all he has to do is to wait for the retirees to die out, whilst continuing his propaganda about a magic money tree and taxing the "rich".
By the flipside, the conservatives look like headless chicken.
Unfortunately, it now becomes a top trumps (pun intended) game on the next election cycle, much to the detriment of the generations to come.
The Conservative party need another leader. The Tories do not HAVE to be the antithesis of youth and hope; they just are now... and May is a large part of that.
Moonhawk said:
durbster said:
Companies making vast profits like this is exactly what they're objecting to. Their beef is with the poor legislation that allows companies to make vast profits, not with the companies themselves.
And where do these profits go? Either reinvested in the company (leading to growth and more jobs) - or they go into the hands of shareholders.
And who are shareholders?
Pretty much anyone - from those holding actual shares, to all those people who have investments that rely on shares (which is most private sector workers for a start).
Of course, some people, who's gold plated public sector pensions are guaranteed by the state (like Mr Corbyn) probably don't give a monkeys about this trifling detail.
dimots said:
poo at Paul's said:
I'm guessing you don't and never will, actually "employ" someone!. (Perfect Corbyn fodder).
You guess wrong.
Being someone's line manager, (and not having to pay the bills) is not "employing" someone....
Oh and ordering a taxi doesn't count neither.
Edited by poo at Paul's on Sunday 25th June 11:47
poo at Paul's said:
Chinny rec!! Come on then, how much do you pay "your" staff. £10 per hour....??
Being someone's line manager, (and not having to pay the bills) is not "employing" someone....
Oh and ordering a taxi doesn't count neither.
I have four businesses, two of which employ people. One is a retail business (clothing and sporting goods) and has 2 PAYE who earn c.£18k per annum (pro rata) and the other is an online marketing business all made up of contractors who get an hourly rate of minimum £20/hour (when they are doing hourly billable stuff).Being someone's line manager, (and not having to pay the bills) is not "employing" someone....
Oh and ordering a taxi doesn't count neither.
Edited by poo at Paul's on Sunday 25th June 11:47
skahigh said:
TheChampers said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Limited socialism is not a bad thing,.
But many here (and I detect a Corbynite or two in the crowd saying similar), are not wrong when they suggest that the Tories have to sell something more positive than 'more of the same plus a little bit worse' like some kind of insolvency practitioner managing a voluntary arrangement to a deadline.
The Tories also need to return to solid conservative ideas and values. As I've said before - that does not include Snooper's Charters and handy adjustments to human rights. To any thinking/educated person, these things smack of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
There is not a word in that (albeit edited) that I can find to diagree with. The Tories also need to connect with the way people actually worry about their jobs, their kids, their ageing parents and how we are all supposed to all muddle along to make it work.But many here (and I detect a Corbynite or two in the crowd saying similar), are not wrong when they suggest that the Tories have to sell something more positive than 'more of the same plus a little bit worse' like some kind of insolvency practitioner managing a voluntary arrangement to a deadline.
The Tories also need to return to solid conservative ideas and values. As I've said before - that does not include Snooper's Charters and handy adjustments to human rights. To any thinking/educated person, these things smack of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
There was more "we're in it together" in south Birmingham in the early 80s when we were all poor compared with mow, than there is now; we seem far more divided on wealth/class/religion/race/sexuality/gender than then; what happened?
When in my late 20s, I was called a 'reactionary' and a 'communist' in the same week. I can assure you, my views had not changed one bit from one day to the next that week.
Different people, different generations, different experiences, different views.
I grew up in western Canada. Logging, fishing, mining; the sort of industries that attract immigrants and refugees with little or no language skills.
Consequently, a good third of my school classroom had a 'ski' or a 'ska' at the end of their family names, and many of their parents spoke strongly accented English, and that often not too well.
I met and spoke to people who had escaped Stalin's purges and collectivisations (our Ukrainian neighbours for one), the refugees from communist Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Russia, not to forget Germans, some few of which had been in the Wehrmacht, and others who had been in the Hitler Youth (these last two groups would speak less freely).
Many stories were from the parents of my classmates, but some were even of my own generation, recently allowed out or escaped with their parents; they had witnessed first hand (at least the post-Stalinist era).
Some Russian families were third generation Kulak refugees. The ones that were headed for the gulags simply for owning a couple of cows, and employing a farm hand (dirty capitalists!)
Trust me, it wasn't a f
king Utopian love-fest, and there was no chance of it ever becoming one.Sadly I did not write down any of their stories or histories. It was so fresh, the importance of what they had to say was lost on me, and in any case, I was just a kid.
Since arriving in the UK some 35 years ago, I have met many more people of roughly my own age that lived through the last decades of communism, as well as those whose families never returned to their home countries after the war, because they already understood the Bolsheviks. It had been on their doorsteps before the war.
Again, I did not write their stories down.
Fortunately, many others have. The books are out there.
There are many people from Russia and the former eastern block countries, now living in the UK that grew up and were educated under the Soviet jackboot. Many, many of them still have strong socialist leanings, few are outright true Marxists (they were forced to read his rubbish in school), and very, very few are supporters of communism.
Even immigrant Marxists will usually grant you that they would cherry pick from his ideas, to which I reply; "why call it 'Marxism' then? His 'good' or 'least harmful' ideas were not original, who need him and all of the baggage that comes with his murderous extremist ideology?"
And thus the core of my dislike for and complete distrust of Corbyn, McDonnell and their ilk.
Why can they not openly disavow their Marxism and just be socialists? Why does McDonnell still thirst for revolution?
Because they have never believed the truth of the stories of the people who escaped. They have an ideology that has been the core of their reason for existence and it has utterly consumed them to the point that the person is indistinguishable from the ideology and the ideology similarly indistinguishable from the person.
It is hard to get rid of that much hatred, as we clearly see exhibited by McDonnell. If Corbyn is truly more moderate and willing for peaceful democracy, then why does he stay closely associated with, and constantly defend McDonnell?
If it was all Stalin's doing in Russia, then why did all the other regimes so closely resemble the Soviets?
How is it that China's experience was again so similar? And Cuba and North Korea?
This does not in anyway diminish my criticism of the Tories.
They have truly lost their way, and their message.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Even though they're all doing the same thing, and each may have absolutely zero experience, on day one their hourly rates are:
16 y/o £4.05
18 y/o £5.60
21 y/o £7.05
55 y/o £7.50
A year later you might have a 17 year old training the new member of staff who is 27.. and on day one that person is making more money simply because they're older.
It seems a strange situation
No, because they are minimum rates not compulsory rates. You can always pay the skilled 17yr old more, and if the 27 year old is totally unskilled why not employ a 19 or 17 year old instead?16 y/o £4.05
18 y/o £5.60
21 y/o £7.05
55 y/o £7.50
A year later you might have a 17 year old training the new member of staff who is 27.. and on day one that person is making more money simply because they're older.
It seems a strange situation
dimots said:
Personally I'm more inclined towards the universal living wage, but £10 minimum is progressive, as is extending it to 16 year olds...so I'm in favour of it.
Is it still progressive if companies realise a 25yo is likely to be more reliable and productive than a 16yo and as such youth unemployment rises?'Progressive' is a crock of utter s
t. Meaningless pish from people who want to be seen as fluffy and caring but espouse ideas which are neither.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff