Who's next?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
bob sterman
Catbabel
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Who's next?

Post by bob sterman » Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:13 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:57 pm
Yep. The cost of living crisis - if it's not smothered - should shake people out of b.llsh.t jobs. And lure them into more rewarding jobs that boost self esteem and give a career path.
Not sure I get this? Being desperately short of money will make people MORE selective in the jobs they are willing to do? Rather than thinking about taking on extra b.llsh.t jobs to pay the bills?

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 4778
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Who's next?

Post by lpm » Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:47 am

Of the 38 coffee shops on a town's High Street, 19 will go under and chuck their b.llsh.t-job workers back into the job market.

Resources are going to be redirected from indulgence consumerism to essential consumerism.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5532
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Who's next?

Post by dyqik » Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:29 am

bob sterman wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:13 am
lpm wrote:
Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:57 pm
Yep. The cost of living crisis - if it's not smothered - should shake people out of b.llsh.t jobs. And lure them into more rewarding jobs that boost self esteem and give a career path.
Not sure I get this? Being desperately short of money will make people MORE selective in the jobs they are willing to do? Rather than thinking about taking on extra b.llsh.t jobs to pay the bills?
That's the thing, businesses are short of staff and looking to hire, at the same time as people are short of money. That means that people can easily get better jobs, or multiple job offers, and pick the best option.

This isn't a recession caused by collapse in confidence where people stop spending because they've lost their jobs because people aren't buying because they've heard about job losses.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 5410
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Who's next?

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:52 am

lpm wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:47 am
Of the 38 coffee shops on a town's High Street, 19 will go under and chuck their b.llsh.t-job workers back into the job market.

Resources are going to be redirected from indulgence consumerism to essential consumerism.
Yes, a return to mass unemployment would mean the end to labour national shortages.

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Who's next?

Post by IvanV » Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:05 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:52 am
Yes, a return to mass unemployment would mean the end to labour national shortages.
An increase in unemployment doesn't, of itself, solve the shortage of plumbers or doctors. Nor probably even seasonal agricultural labour.

These are examples of labour sectors where the shortages of labour are due to specific problems, which an increase in the general supply of labour does not, in itself, address.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 4778
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Who's next?

Post by lpm » Thu Aug 04, 2022 3:25 pm

No, not mass unemployment. There's demand for labour, so shaking labour loose doesn't lead to unemployment.

Very different to the 80s, when decayed jobs in northern manufacturing were killed off, but without demand to lure them elsewhere.

The scale of the required redirection of resources is enormous. It will produce plumbers, nurses, teachers etc. The training time is so short, only 1 to 3 years. Even doctors can be produced within a decade.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
bob sterman
Catbabel
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Who's next?

Post by bob sterman » Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:49 am

Hmmmm...so with an interest rate rise that should reduce some demand in the economy, and inflation reducing people's ability to spend on indulgences so they'll only spend on essentials - this is going to produce a higher skilled, higher wage economy??? :?

Is it all part of Bozza's masterplan after all?

https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/ ... ling-short
16 February 2022
Boris Johnson’s plan for “high-wage, high-skill” Britain is falling short. Despite jobs growth across the economy, those in low-skill, low-pay work are struggling to move into higher-paid roles.
Not to worry - Liz will solve the labour shortage problem by slashing public services - so all the sacked civil servants can fill the barista slots or train to become plumbers.

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4016
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Who's next?

Post by jimbob » Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:57 am

https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status ... Q_a51PkIEg
EXCLUSIVE: In a leaked video, Rishi Sunak boasted to Conservative Party members that he was prepared to take public money out of “deprived urban areas” to help wealthy towns.

@REWearmouth
reports:
https://t.co/uZMpjKm6rG
Not a fluffing of his lines but saying that he altered the funding formula "inherited from Labour" that put a load of funding "into deprived urban areas" which he was boasting about undoing.

I see a Labour election video in the Red Wall at least.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
TopBadger
Snowbonk
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Who's next?

Post by TopBadger » Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:08 am

"Will the real Liz Truss please stand up" :lol: - what a line from Burley!
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 5410
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Who's next?

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:32 am

IvanV wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:05 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:52 am
Yes, a return to mass unemployment would mean the end to labour national shortages.
An increase in unemployment doesn't, of itself, solve the shortage of plumbers or doctors. Nor probably even seasonal agricultural labour.

These are examples of labour sectors where the shortages of labour are due to specific problems, which an increase in the general supply of labour does not, in itself, address.
I agree, and there have always been labour shortages in specific fields, especially jobs that require high skill levels, or are particularly arduous.

But, IMHO the situation is still different now because a significant increase in employment in one sector necessarily means a decrease in others. Its a zero sum game. Whereas during the period from the 1980s onwards that wasn't the case. Ultimately, at a national level the slack could be taken up by reducing the reserve army of the unemployed in the UK or by hiring people from the EU. At the moment those options aren't available.

This current situation is better for everyone who does or can work. They can look forward to employers competing for their labour with improved pay and conditions. But it poses a problem for government and the delivery of essential services and products. lpm seems to assume that people will naturally flow from the jobs she doesn't value to those she does (eg waiters quitting and training to become nurses. I'm not so sure that will happen. Perhaps the private sector will be able to out compete and offer better pay and conditions. EPD's comment there is apt. Nursing might pay more than serving coffee, but nursing can be a very arduous job.

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Who's next?

Post by IvanV » Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:29 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:32 am
Nursing might pay more than serving coffee, but nursing can be a very arduous job.
Today, nursing requires a degree, a big change from the time my mother went into nursing with 3 O-levels. Nursing is relatively badly paid for a job requiring that much education, even if it is better paid than waiting table - which is also an arduous job with (often) antisocial hours.

There are also many lower skilled jobs in the health and social care sectors, but they rarely pay much better than waiting table.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 4778
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Who's next?

Post by lpm » Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:56 pm

I think this is missing how bad it will be. It's not just the bottom two deciles thrown into abject poverty. The 20% to 60% are also going to be drained of savings/credit capacity.

At the moment random people asked by the BBC reach for "I'll have to cut back on coffee". They haven't grasped that cutting back to necessities runs all the way to cars and holidays. It's a hole of £3,000 to £5,000 a year.

People are going to be shaken out of their jobs. When trade dries up, private enterprises can't compete for labour because they're going under. Public sector can and should grab those freed up labour resources.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 9279
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Who's next?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Aug 06, 2022 11:46 pm

Tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality. But they do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Evidence for 18 OECD countries over 1965-2015 in this new paper published in Socio-Economic Review: https://t.co/J3tCt8b1Fs
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20 ... ogin=false
The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across the advanced democracies. There is still fervent debate in both political and academic circles, however, about the economic consequences of this sweeping change in tax policy. This article contributes to this debate by utilizing a newly constructed indicator of taxes on the rich to identify all instances of major tax reductions on the rich in 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries between 1965 and 2015. We then estimate the average effects of these major tax reforms on key macroeconomic aggregates. We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.
Via https://twitter.com/heimbergecon/status ... EJ9iw&s=19
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4016
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Who's next?

Post by jimbob » Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:05 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 11:46 pm
Tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality. But they do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Evidence for 18 OECD countries over 1965-2015 in this new paper published in Socio-Economic Review: https://t.co/J3tCt8b1Fs
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20 ... ogin=false
The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across the advanced democracies. There is still fervent debate in both political and academic circles, however, about the economic consequences of this sweeping change in tax policy. This article contributes to this debate by utilizing a newly constructed indicator of taxes on the rich to identify all instances of major tax reductions on the rich in 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries between 1965 and 2015. We then estimate the average effects of these major tax reforms on key macroeconomic aggregates. We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.
Via https://twitter.com/heimbergecon/status ... EJ9iw&s=19
Good to have the numbers - but not a surprise to anyone who thinks that an increase in income for the wealthy just means they save more, and that includes outside the country
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

philbo
Stargoon
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:06 am

Re: Who's next?

Post by philbo » Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:39 pm

TopBadger wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 11:08 am
"Will the real Liz Truss please stand up" :lol: - what a line from Burley!
It would be a good one from a political opponent, but I found it an annoying thing to watch: in any job, not just as a politician, changing ones mind when circumstances change, new evidence comes in, or in at least one of Truss' volte faces (voltes face?) believing that albeit wrong, the people have chosen so they deserve to get what they voted for (& get it good and hard*). But instead of giving Truss a chance to show that she's a vacillator with no decent reason for changing her mind, Burley went for the soundbite. Good clickbait, but not good journalism, IMHO.



*With a nod to HL Mencken

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2112
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Who's next?

Post by Little waster » Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:35 pm

The Gradgrind is running a story that all-round wonderful human being, Suella Braverman"s campaign was partially funded by £10k from a noted "climate sceptic".

I wonder at what point the style guide will change to correctly label these people as "climate change denialists" rather than the increasingly erroneous "sceptic"?

The reality of AGW has reached the point even the so-called "sceptics" have stopped even attempting to dispute it*, instead preferring the "alternative facts" approach from the far-rights current play book; don't even try to argue it isn't happening, just assert it isn't and then move on quickly and hope nobody does anything inconvenient ... like point out the window. #DontLookUp.

*seriously when was the last time there was any concerted effort from the denialists to publicly challenge the scientific consensus, the Climategate damp squib perhaps? I mean even the paid shills at the NIPCC (the N apparently standing for "Numpty" IIRC) haven't bothered to do anything significant since a widely-ignored pamphlet 2015 claiming "No Consensus" signed by a total of THREE scientists, two of them out-of-specialism and the remaining one only barely qualifying as a "climate scientist".
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

Post Reply