Foreign Workers [Merged]

[carryfast]

Rjan:
I agree, bosses are to blame, not immigrants, because bosses have got themselves into the unsavoury habit of wanting things that they simply aren’t willing to pay for. You make it sound so reasonable, but it’s little more than childishness - of pointing at everything in the shop, and then stamping your feet when the retailer asks for a price which you can’t even begin to afford.

^ This.
Although the East Euro workforce has shown itself as being more willing to cave in to the ‘tantrums’ than the western ones at least until Reaganism and Thatcherism hijacked the US and UK economies.On that not we can blame the immigrant workforce for preferring to help in the cheap labour scam than sort out their own countries wage levels.

While it’s anyone’s guess as to why the unions here would wish to support the idea in the form of opening up western markets to cheap exploitable east european labour and imports in the form of the EU.Where the ‘tantrums’ go as far as not only the stamping of feet but breaking every window in the shop in the form of Polish and Romanian etc wage levels for example.Although no doubt they see it as the bigger picture of the road to Merkel’s Socialist Eurasian Utopia.

[dolph]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
I agree, bosses are to blame, not immigrants, because bosses have got themselves into the unsavoury habit of wanting things that they simply aren’t willing to pay for. You make it sound so reasonable, but it’s little more than childishness - of pointing at everything in the shop, and then stamping your feet when the retailer asks for a price which you can’t even begin to afford.

^ This.
Although the East Euro workforce has shown itself as being more willing to cave in to the ‘tantrums’ than the western ones at least until Reaganism and Thatcherism hijacked the US and UK economies.On that not we can blame the immigrant workforce for preferring to help in the cheap labour scam than sort out their own countries wage levels.
While it’s anyone’s guess as to why the unions here would wish to support the idea in the form of opening up western markets to cheap exploitable east european labour and imports in the form of the EU.Where the ‘tantrums’ go as far as not only the stamping of feet but breaking every window in the shop in the form of Polish and Romanian etc wage levels for example.Although no doubt they see it as the bigger picture of the road to Merkel’s Socialist Eurasian Utopia.

How do you sort that out?

[carryfast]

Dolph:

Carryfast:
On that not we can blame the immigrant workforce for preferring to help in the cheap labour scam than sort out their own countries wage levels.

How do you sort that out?

The same way that we ‘sorted out’ taking the country from the Victorian wage regime to that of the 1960’s/early 70’s.Which in this case translates as the East European workforce forming strong unions and calling for Western European wage rates in Eastern Europe.

It seems strange why Solidarity in Poland for example seemed to be happy enough to do that as part of the Polish Nationalist cause.But then obviously didn’t want to use the same idea regards improving Polish wages when they joined the EU.Preferring instead to either over supply the West European labour markets using EU free movement rules or under cut them thereby reducing wage levels and employment opportunities here.

[eagerbeaver]

A strange take on the ’ FLT ’ example. I was a FLT driver prior to doing my class 2 and class 1.

The money used to be quite good years ago, however EE’s all seemed to have FLT licences and the pay plummeted when they came over.

Also, in the vast majority of cases, once the loading/unloading is done you are expected to do ’ other ’ work. The days of sat on your counterbalance reading the newspaper for £10 per hour are a distant memory.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
^ This.
Although the East Euro workforce has shown itself as being more willing to cave in to the ‘tantrums’ than the western ones at least until Reaganism and Thatcherism hijacked the US and UK economies.On that not we can blame the immigrant workforce for preferring to help in the cheap labour scam than sort out their own countries wage levels.

Why do you suppose that the immigrant workforce has any underlying political agenda? That is, of making a choice to engage in a “scam”?

Market supply and demand is enough to explain their behaviour.

And very frequently, the Brits they encounter have the same apparent political naivety and self-serving agenda. The Brits wouldn’t engage in self-sacrifice for the immigrants, why expect the immigrants (who are better workers relative to their price, and therefore darlings of the bosses) to self-sacrifice for the Brits?

After all, the Eastern Europeans didn’t put this Tory government in. When we’re choosing to throw our own elderly and disabled into the streets to cut inheritance taxes for the wealthy. If we’ll do that to people who are Brits, it’s a bit rich to say to immigrants at the door “please be civilised and have some consideration for those already here”.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
^ This.
Although the East Euro workforce has shown itself as being more willing to cave in to the ‘tantrums’ than the western ones at least until Reaganism and Thatcherism hijacked the US and UK economies.On that not we can blame the immigrant workforce for preferring to help in the cheap labour scam than sort out their own countries wage levels.

Why do you suppose that the immigrant workforce has any underlying political agenda? That is, of making a choice to engage in a “scam”?

Market supply and demand is enough to explain their behaviour.

And very frequently, the Brits they encounter have the same apparent political naivety and self-serving agenda. The Brits wouldn’t engage in self-sacrifice for the immigrants, why expect the immigrants (who are better workers relative to their price, and therefore darlings of the bosses) to self-sacrifice for the Brits?

After all, the Eastern Europeans didn’t put this Tory government in. When we’re choosing to throw our own elderly and disabled into the streets to cut inheritance taxes for the wealthy. If we’ll do that to people who are Brits, it’s a bit rich to say to immigrants at the door “please be civilised and have some consideration for those already here”.

I don’t think that telling them to stay at home and form strong unions like Solidarity to sort out there own wage problems,instead of them putting the burden of their resulting basket case economies onto us,has anything to do with asking them to be ‘considerate’.As for market supply and demand yes demand for the supply of cheap exploitable East European labour at the expense of the domestic workforce.The way to fix that obviously being to stop the supply of that cheap exploitable immigrant workforce thereby increasing demand for the indigenous domestic one.

[peterm]

The-Snowman:
Jesus, who started him off again?

Sorry mate, looks like it was me.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
I don’t think that telling them to stay at home and form strong unions like Solidarity to sort out there own wage problems,instead of them putting the burden of their resulting basket case economies onto us,has anything to do with asking them to be ‘considerate’.

Their wage problems are being sorted, because the exodus of their skilled workers creates shortages, together (one would like to think) with the back-transmission of the civil and working culture of a more advanced economy, and indeed the effect of remittances to support their local markets and infrastructure, will be having a beneficial effect.

I wouldn’t say Eastern European economies are basket cases (in the sense of suffering backwardness or dysfunction), they are just less developed - even Stalin couldn’t bring formerly agrarian economies into the modern world any quicker.

As for market supply and demand yes demand for the supply of cheap exploitable East European labour at the expense of the domestic workforce. The way to fix that obviously being to stop the supply of that cheap exploitable immigrant workforce thereby increasing demand for the indigenous domestic one.

A lot of the fix could be achieved by simply imposing the necessary regulations, or by settled workers organising into strong unions (in the same manner you say immigrants should at home!).

Most immigrants are not replacing settled workers like-for-like - in other words, they are not really doing a better job within the constraints of existing pay and conditions. What they frequently are doing is working for less than a settled worker would demand, or working under conditions that a settled worker would not accept, or perhaps usually a combination of both.

In other words, immigrants are replacing settled workers because immigrants don’t have the same expectations as to pay and conditions - they offer bosses higher profitability, rather than higher quality.

Either of these problems could be remedied (even within the context of free movement of labour) by wage floors and other regulations which would reinforce the existing accepted conditions of work.

The reality is that by excluding foreign workers from the market, that is a kind of regulation and market manipulation anyway. The difference is that excluding foreign workers is a kind of class war by proxy which pits workers against each other according to nationality, whereas wage floors pursue the class war directly by mandating the level of pay and conditions which an employer must meet (which is what the fundamental issue is!).

If a wage floor and regulated condtions were in place, immigrants would still have a chance of finding jobs, but they would have to compete with settled workers who already have native-quality language skills, have local knowledge, training and experience at British standards, and so forth.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
I don’t think that telling them to stay at home and form strong unions like Solidarity to sort out there own wage problems,instead of them putting the burden of their resulting basket case economies onto us,has anything to do with asking them to be ‘considerate’.

Their wage problems are being sorted, because the exodus of their skilled workers creates shortages, together (one would like to think) with the back-transmission of the civil and working culture of a more advanced economy, and indeed the effect of remittances to support their local markets and infrastructure, will be having a beneficial effect.

I wouldn’t say Eastern European economies are basket cases (in the sense of suffering backwardness or dysfunction), they are just less developed - even Stalin couldn’t bring formerly agrarian economies into the modern world any quicker.

As for market supply and demand yes demand for the supply of cheap exploitable East European labour at the expense of the domestic workforce. The way to fix that obviously being to stop the supply of that cheap exploitable immigrant workforce thereby increasing demand for the indigenous domestic one.

A lot of the fix could be achieved by simply imposing the necessary regulations, or by settled workers organising into strong unions (in the same manner you say immigrants should at home!).

Most immigrants are not replacing settled workers like-for-like - in other words, they are not really doing a better job within the constraints of existing pay and conditions. What they frequently are doing is working for less than a settled worker would demand, or working under conditions that a settled worker would not accept, or perhaps usually a combination of both.

In other words, immigrants are replacing settled workers because immigrants don’t have the same expectations as to pay and conditions - they offer bosses higher profitability, rather than higher quality.

Either of these problems could be remedied (even within the context of free movement of labour) by wage floors and other regulations which would reinforce the existing accepted conditions of work.

The reality is that by excluding foreign workers from the market, that is a kind of regulation and market manipulation anyway. The difference is that excluding foreign workers is a kind of class war by proxy which pits workers against each other according to nationality, whereas wage floors pursue the class war directly by mandating the level of pay and conditions which an employer must meet (which is what the fundamental issue is!).

If a wage floor and regulated condtions were in place, immigrants would still have a chance of finding jobs, but they would have to compete with settled workers who already have native-quality language skills, have local knowledge, training and experience at British standards, and so forth.

Blimey Rjan there’s so much typical Socialist naivety in that it’s unbelievable.

Firstly if as you say ‘their own’ domestic wage issues ‘are being sorted’ how do you explain a Polish minimum wage of 409 Euros ‘per month’ or Romanian one of 217 Euros ‘per month’ ?.

As for the idea of letting them all in.The reality of that is the worst of all worlds situation of already weak domestic unions caused by Thatcherite economics together with then putting Socialist ideals above the laws of supply and demand.Which weakens their bargaining power even less.

Especially when that incoming flood of immigrant workers doesn’t even have the type of wage expectations of the indigenous workforce.In which case it seems clear that yet more Socialism isn’t the answer to yet more Thatcherite economic policies.When as I’ve said we need a Nationalist solution within a Fordist Capitalist economic environment.

While as usual what we’ve got is a Labour Party hell bent and stuck in the former ideological direction when we clearly need the latter.Which unbelievably is obviously allied with and playing into the hands of the interests of the Thatcherite economics driven CBI.Hence both being on the same side regards EU free movement rules among all the other EU downsides.Which obviously puts you on the same side as such notables as Callaghan,Jenkins,Blair and Brown and against others like Heffer,Benn and Shore.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Blimey Rjan there’s so much typical Socialist naivety in that it’s unbelievable.

Firstly if as you say ‘their own’ domestic wage issues ‘are being sorted’ how do you explain a Polish minimum wage of 409 Euros ‘per month’ or Romanian one of 217 Euros ‘per month’ ?.

And what were the figures before the joined the EU? You can’t seriously expect any economy to grow thousands of percent overnight?

As for the idea of letting them all in.The reality of that is the worst of all worlds situation of already weak domestic unions caused by Thatcherite economics together with then putting Socialist ideals above the laws of supply and demand.Which weakens their bargaining power even less.

You sound like a very confused bunny indeed. Thatcherite economics might well be described as putting the “laws of supply and demand” above all else - and immigrants are simply responding to current supply and demand!

Then you criticise “socialists” (which presumably includes me) for taking a position contrary to putting supply and demand above all else!

You either have to accept the verdict of the market on wages, or you don’t. There’s no honest middle ground where you just re-jig the extent of the marketplace (i.e. by restricting freedom of movement to some degree or another) until you get the “market” verdict you want!

If there is a chance that the market will produce an unacceptable verdict, or if it already has, why do we have the market? If you begin by ruling out shooting yourself to death, and aren’t willing to accept the verdict of the revolver barrel, then the game you do not play is Russian Roulette.

Especially when that incoming flood of immigrant workers doesn’t even have the type of wage expectations of the indigenous workforce.In which case it seems clear that yet more Socialism isn’t the answer to yet more Thatcherite economic policies.When as I’ve said we need a Nationalist solution within a Fordist Capitalist economic environment.

There is no such thing as “Fordist capitalism”, and if nationalist solutions to global economic problems ever looked attractive on paper, then you can rest assured they have already been tried and failed (not just in 20th century Europe, but also for example in Japan prior to the mid-19th century).

The bottom line is, if the settled workforce has wage expectations which are reasonable, and take primacy over any market verdict, then the simple answer to the problem is to legislate the market verdict away (and replace it, for example, with the verdict of an occupational wage council, or a workforce union).

In practice we already have a national minimum wage, which limits the range of verdicts available to the market. I think frankly there has only ever been a brief period in modern times when the state had nothing to say about wages, and that was in the mid-1990s. In fact, checking my facts, it seems wage councils were introduced by Winston Churchill in 1908, and abolished under Major in 1993.

While as usual what we’ve got is a Labour Party hell bent and stuck in the former ideological direction when we clearly need the latter.Which unbelievably is obviously allied with and playing into the hands of the interests of the Thatcherite economics driven CBI.Hence both being on the same side regards EU free movement rules among all the other EU downsides.Which obviously puts you on the same side as such notables as Callaghan,Jenkins,Blair and Brown and against others like Heffer,Benn and Shore.

I don’t follow you. Corbyn is an anti-EU politician, him seeing the place as a pro-capitalist bureaucracy. What the left are united on, however, is that the EU is a lot more liberal and socially progressive than our own current national government (and many other European national governments). I think I posted the other day (I think the post got lost though) that it’s like asking what Rome ever did for us - it’s done a lot, and everyone is agreed that what we want is a reformed Rome, not no Rome at all.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Blimey Rjan there’s so much typical Socialist naivety in that it’s unbelievable.

Firstly if as you say ‘their own’ domestic wage issues ‘are being sorted’ how do you explain a Polish minimum wage of 409 Euros ‘per month’ or Romanian one of 217 Euros ‘per month’ ?.

And what were the figures before the joined the EU? You can’t seriously expect any economy to grow thousands of percent overnight?

As for the idea of letting them all in.The reality of that is the worst of all worlds situation of already weak domestic unions caused by Thatcherite economics together with then putting Socialist ideals above the laws of supply and demand.Which weakens their bargaining power even less.

You sound like a very confused bunny indeed. Thatcherite economics might well be described as putting the “laws of supply and demand” above all else - and immigrants are simply responding to current supply and demand!

Then you criticise “socialists” (which presumably includes me) for taking a position contrary to putting supply and demand above all else!

You either have to accept the verdict of the market on wages, or you don’t. There’s no honest middle ground where you just re-jig the extent of the marketplace (i.e. by restricting freedom of movement to some degree or another) until you get the “market” verdict you want!

If there is a chance that the market will produce an unacceptable verdict, or if it already has, why do we have the market? If you begin by ruling out shooting yourself to death, and aren’t willing to accept the verdict of the revolver barrel, then the game you do not play is Russian Roulette.

Especially when that incoming flood of immigrant workers doesn’t even have the type of wage expectations of the indigenous workforce.In which case it seems clear that yet more Socialism isn’t the answer to yet more Thatcherite economic policies.When as I’ve said we need a Nationalist solution within a Fordist Capitalist economic environment.

There is no such thing as “Fordist capitalism”, and if nationalist solutions to global economic problems ever looked attractive on paper, then you can rest assured they have already been tried and failed (not just in 20th century Europe, but also for example in Japan prior to the mid-19th century).

The bottom line is, if the settled workforce has wage expectations which are reasonable, and take primacy over any market verdict, then the simple answer to the problem is to legislate the market verdict away (and replace it, for example, with the verdict of an occupational wage council, or a workforce union).

In practice we already have a national minimum wage, which limits the range of verdicts available to the market. I think frankly there has only ever been a brief period in modern times when the state had nothing to say about wages, and that was in the mid-1990s. In fact, checking my facts, it seems wage councils were introduced by Winston Churchill in 1908, and abolished under Major in 1993.

While as usual what we’ve got is a Labour Party hell bent and stuck in the former ideological direction when we clearly need the latter.Which unbelievably is obviously allied with and playing into the hands of the interests of the Thatcherite economics driven CBI.Hence both being on the same side regards EU free movement rules among all the other EU downsides.Which obviously puts you on the same side as such notables as Callaghan,Jenkins,Blair and Brown and against others like Heffer,Benn and Shore.

I don’t follow you. Corbyn is an anti-EU politician, him seeing the place as a pro-capitalist bureaucracy. What the left are united on, however, is that the EU is a lot more liberal and socially progressive than our own current national government (and many other European national governments). I think I posted the other day (I think the post got lost though) that it’s like asking what Rome ever did for us - it’s done a lot, and everyone is agreed that what we want is a reformed Rome, not no Rome at all.

Firstly Poland and Romania for two examples have been EU members since 2004/7 respectively.In which case wage parity with Western Europe by now wouldn’t exactly be a case of ‘overnight’ and even if it was why not assuming the EU is supposed to be so good for workers rights.

If there’s no such thing as Fordist Capitalism feel free to explain the definition of the term Fordism and ‘post Fordism’ as they apply/ied within western Capitalist economies ?.

As for the laws of supply and demand in either case it’s obvious that both Fordism and Thatcherism are both a form of artificial manipulation of free markets.The former being all about maximising wage levels ( together with the bonus of enforcing trade balance ) by using trade barriers.

While the latter is all about minimising wage levels,in the form of race to the bottom free markets.Which just take advantage,of the exploitation of the cheapest labour,by conveniently ignoring or even dissolving national borders as in the case of the EU,or trade with exploitative regimes like China.In all cases you can’t legislate the laws of supply and demand out of existence by trying to apply an unsustainable minimum wage within a saturated over supplied labour market or in which we have free trade based on exploitation of foreign cheap labour in the form of imports.

As for Corbyn he’s just a typical Socialist who certainly does believe in the EU and race to the bottom free markets project because he is ideologically opposed to the idea of the nation state.He’s obviously also willing to ally himself with the CBI and its continuation of Thatcherite economics.Just like Callaghan and Blair before him.

Which isn’t surprising being that the aims of Socialism are all about the centralisation of power and removal of the nation state in the form of Federations whether it be the Soviet Union,Yugoslavia or now the EU.While pretending that it’s all about ‘being good for the working class’.When the alliance between Thatcherism and Socialism,as in the case of Corbyn’s pro EU stance,let alone the comparison between the fortunes of the American working class of the 1950’s and 60’s v their Soviet and Chinese counterparts,proves that it’s anything but.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly Poland and Romania for two examples have been EU members since 2004/7 respectively.In which case wage parity with Western Europe by now wouldn’t exactly be a case of ‘overnight’ and even if it was why not assuming the EU is supposed to be so good for workers rights.

The UK has been a single political entity since say the 16th century, and yet there are still regional inequalities. The only way parity would be achieved is if the likes of Poland were subject to the same economic investment as the advanced economies have already made, AND the advanced economies themselves ceased to grow any further.

When Germany reunified for example, West Germany basically pushed a few trillion across the table to the East to bring it up to standard, and nevertheless the East still has a legacy of lower productivity. (I’d speculate the reason for that, incidentally, is that the USSR started from a much lower level of development across its territories - with the more advanced parts in Western Europe having to fund the improvement of the undeveloped areas - and spent it’s last 20 years in economic crisis and dysfunction prior to collapse.)

If there’s no such thing as Fordist Capitalism feel free to explain the definition of the term Fordism and ‘post Fordism’ as they apply/ied within western Capitalist economies ?.

They’re your terms! I recognise “Fordism” as a kind of industrial policy, not as a bygone form of capitalism. The problem with ‘returning to Fordism’ is that it is already fully implemented and we never left it behind - Western economies have ample productive capacity to meet all current needs.

The problems we have today are in the dysfunctional distribution of wealth. We aren’t facing a crisis of production like famine - we’re facing a crisis of a farmer with a farm and a grain store who refuses to dole out any food or grow any crops! Just like the 1930s, when there were hunger marches, whereas under conditions of war in the 1940s everyone was fed sufficiently. It’s not that bombs make crops grow better, it’s that the crops were always growing well (or had the potential to grow well), and it was only under war conditions that the politicians finally had to pull the levers and ensure people were fed (and IIRC after the war, there was extensive land reform to raise agricultural productivity further and reduce the reliance on foreign trade).

As for the laws of supply and demand in either case it’s obvious that both Fordism and Thatcherism are both a form of artificial manipulation of free markets.The former being all about maximising wage levels ( together with the bonus of enforcing trade balance ) by using trade barriers.While the latter is all about minimising wage levels,in the form of race to the bottom free markets.Which just take advantage,of the exploitation of the cheapest labour,by conveniently ignoring or even dissolving national borders as in the case of the EU,or trade with exploitative regimes like China.In all cases you can’t legislate the laws of supply and demand out of existence by trying to apply an unsustainable minimum wage within a saturated over supplied labour market or in which we have free trade based on exploitation of foreign cheap labour in the form of imports.

If you can’t legislate supply and demand away, then what are you complaining about? And why attempt the supposedly doomed scheme of trying to restrict supply across national borders?

Why is it that you think national borders are a special kind of restriction on the labour market which is sustainable in the long term? And why restrict the free movement of labour, when the narrower problem is simply that of undercutting? Why not just outlaw undercutting?

As I’ve said, the volume of migrants would be significantly curtailed if employers had to hire them at the rate demanded by settled workers and under the conditions that settled workers demand, because in that case there would be an abundance of settled workers already motivated to work at those rates, and why then would employers prefer migrants (i.e. migrants who would be prevented from either accepting a lower rate, or from working under any conditions not acceptable to settled workers)?

We also have the technology these days so that you could analyse recruitment into an industry on an ongoing basis, and if there are spikes in migrant recruitment in particular industries, that could be used as an indicator that the minimum wage needs to be raised or that conditions need to be improved to preserve the attraction of those industries to settled workers (unless of course there is an absolute shortage of labour due to a roaringly healthy economy).

As for Corbyn he’s just a typical Socialist who certainly does believe in the EU and race to the bottom free markets project because he is ideologically opposed to the idea of the nation state.He’s obviously also willing to ally himself with the CBI and its continuation of Thatcherite economics.Just like Callaghan and Blair before him.

Well Corbyn isn’t a revolutionary, that is true.

Which isn’t surprising being that the aims of Socialism are all about the centralisation of power and removal of the nation state in the form of Federations whether it be the Soviet Union,Yugoslavia or now the EU.While pretending that it’s all about ‘being good for the working class’.When the alliance between Thatcherism and Socialism,as in the case of Corbyn’s pro EU stance,let alone the comparison between the fortunes of the American working class of the 1950’s and 60’s v their Soviet and Chinese counterparts,proves that it’s anything but.

The fortunes of the American working class were greatly enhanced by the threat of a communist revolution. The capitalist West was more developed than the USSR to begin with, and appropriately incentivised could provide people with good lives, and it did so. These days, we increasingly have a mixture of the evils of capitalism and the evils of communism - today it’s taken for granted that the state has a file on everyone, something that used to be a sign of the tyranny of the USSR.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly Poland and Romania for two examples have been EU members since 2004/7 respectively.In which case wage parity with Western Europe by now wouldn’t exactly be a case of ‘overnight’ and even if it was why not assuming the EU is supposed to be so good for workers rights.

The UK has been a single political entity since say the 16th century, and yet there are still regional inequalities. The only way parity would be achieved is if the likes of Poland were subject to the same economic investment as the advanced economies have already made, AND the advanced economies themselves ceased to grow any further.

When Germany reunified for example, West Germany basically pushed a few trillion across the table to the East to bring it up to standard, and nevertheless the East still has a legacy of lower productivity. (I’d speculate the reason for that, incidentally, is that the USSR started from a much lower level of development across its territories - with the more advanced parts in Western Europe having to fund the improvement of the undeveloped areas - and spent it’s last 20 years in economic crisis and dysfunction prior to collapse.)

If there’s no such thing as Fordist Capitalism feel free to explain the definition of the term Fordism and ‘post Fordism’ as they apply/ied within western Capitalist economies ?.

They’re your terms! I recognise “Fordism” as a kind of industrial policy, not as a bygone form of capitalism. The problem with ‘returning to Fordism’ is that it is already fully implemented and we never left it behind - Western economies have ample productive capacity to meet all current needs.

The problems we have today are in the dysfunctional distribution of wealth. We aren’t facing a crisis of production like famine - we’re facing a crisis of a farmer with a farm and a grain store who refuses to dole out any food or grow any crops! Just like the 1930s, when there were hunger marches, whereas under conditions of war in the 1940s everyone was fed sufficiently. It’s not that bombs make crops grow better, it’s that the crops were always growing well (or had the potential to grow well), and it was only under war conditions that the politicians finally had to pull the levers and ensure people were fed (and IIRC after the war, there was extensive land reform to raise agricultural productivity further and reduce the reliance on foreign trade).

As for the laws of supply and demand in either case it’s obvious that both Fordism and Thatcherism are both a form of artificial manipulation of free markets.The former being all about maximising wage levels ( together with the bonus of enforcing trade balance ) by using trade barriers.While the latter is all about minimising wage levels,in the form of race to the bottom free markets.Which just take advantage,of the exploitation of the cheapest labour,by conveniently ignoring or even dissolving national borders as in the case of the EU,or trade with exploitative regimes like China.In all cases you can’t legislate the laws of supply and demand out of existence by trying to apply an unsustainable minimum wage within a saturated over supplied labour market or in which we have free trade based on exploitation of foreign cheap labour in the form of imports.

If you can’t legislate supply and demand away, then what are you complaining about? And why attempt the supposedly doomed scheme of trying to restrict supply across national borders?

Why is it that you think national borders are a special kind of restriction on the labour market which is sustainable in the long term? And why restrict the free movement of labour, when the narrower problem is simply that of undercutting? Why not just outlaw undercutting?

As I’ve said, the volume of migrants would be significantly curtailed if employers had to hire them at the rate demanded by settled workers and under the conditions that settled workers demand, because in that case there would be an abundance of settled workers already motivated to work at those rates, and why then would employers prefer migrants (i.e. migrants who would be prevented from either accepting a lower rate, or from working under any conditions not acceptable to settled workers)?

We also have the technology these days so that you could analyse recruitment into an industry on an ongoing basis, and if there are spikes in migrant recruitment in particular industries, that could be used as an indicator that the minimum wage needs to be raised or that conditions need to be improved to preserve the attraction of those industries to settled workers (unless of course there is an absolute shortage of labour due to a roaringly healthy economy).

As for Corbyn he’s just a typical Socialist who certainly does believe in the EU and race to the bottom free markets project because he is ideologically opposed to the idea of the nation state.He’s obviously also willing to ally himself with the CBI and its continuation of Thatcherite economics.Just like Callaghan and Blair before him.

Well Corbyn isn’t a revolutionary, that is true.

Which isn’t surprising being that the aims of Socialism are all about the centralisation of power and removal of the nation state in the form of Federations whether it be the Soviet Union,Yugoslavia or now the EU.While pretending that it’s all about ‘being good for the working class’.When the alliance between Thatcherism and Socialism,as in the case of Corbyn’s pro EU stance,let alone the comparison between the fortunes of the American working class of the 1950’s and 60’s v their Soviet and Chinese counterparts,proves that it’s anything but.

The fortunes of the American working class were greatly enhanced by the threat of a communist revolution. The capitalist West was more developed than the USSR to begin with, and appropriately incentivised could provide people with good lives, and it did so. These days, we increasingly have a mixture of the evils of capitalism and the evils of communism - today it’s taken for granted that the state has a file on everyone, something that used to be a sign of the tyranny of the USSR.

Firstly Fordism is an economic model based on the idea that you have to pay the workforce well so that it can sustain a high rate of consumption of the products it is turning out.It’s obvious that can only work in a regulated trade environment in which we don’t allow imports or immigration to under mine employment demand in the domestic economy and as a bonus also controls trade balance figures.That’s the secret of the German economic miracle in that their trade barriers were just hidden in the form of Germans generally buy German made goods.While the same applied to an extent in America at least during those 19650’s/60’s boom years there.

While Socialism is a flawed model crippled by the politics of envy.As you’ve shown in your thinking that wealth ‘distribution’ is the answer.As opposed to the wealth ‘creation’ that takes place as a matter of course within the Fordist system.Bearing in mind that Soviet Russia’s problem was the same old bs that everyone has to be brought down to an enforced state rationed level based on the politics of envy and the flawed idea that it’s all about dealing with the symptoms of low wages.Instead of reversing the cause by massively increasing wages and with it domestic consumption of domestic products.Which explains why the American worker of the 1960’s drove to work in a big V8 Chevy etc and owned a decent house to live in.

As opposed to their Soviet counterpart who lived in a poky state allocated high rise flat and used the bus or train to get anywhere.With the better things in life reserved for the chosen few.IE just like Victorian style non Fordist,or Thatcherite post Fordist,‘Capitalism’.

People like Corbyn just being in it to take advantage of the wrong type of Capitalism to push their own same old bs Federalistic dictatorial Socialist Soviet type agenda.Not the interests of the indigenous working class.Hopefully the Labour vote will realise that concerning the choice between going with Hoey v Corbyn regards the EU.

[evil8beezle]

peterm:

The-Snowman:
Jesus, who started him off again?

Sorry mate, looks like it was me.

Is it Groundhog day again?

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly Fordism is an economic model based on the idea that you have to pay the workforce well so that it can sustain a high rate of consumption of the products it is turning out.

We’ve had this one before. Ford could pay such high rates because his production lines were so massively more productive compared to the bespoke methods of the time. Secondly, his production lines were so massively productive that the unit cost of each car tumbled compared to the bespoke methods, but meeting the fixed overheads of a production line required a greatly increased consumption of cars (compared to the existing number who were consuming the bespoke models).

With wages doubled (say) and prices halved, his own workers (and other workers using these new high-productivity methods in other industries - it wasn’t confined to the car industry) then soaked up a substantial proportion of the cars that were shooting off the lines.

It wasn’t, as I think you often seem to imply, simply a case of Ford unilaterally putting up wages and somehow creating his own demand. It was the improved productivity and the dramatically reduced cost of cars that also went into the equation.

Nowadays, people on modest incomes aren’t really short of cars or short of anything material. Shortages that exist are the result of political policy and inadequate social security and so forth. Even good quality houses are relatively cheap to build - the prohibitively expensive component being the land itself (which is a political policy - to pander to the better-off wanting rural scenery as far as their eyes can see from the bedroom window - and can’t be solved with Fordist production methods). The environmental toll of capitalist production is also a new spectre.

It’s obvious that can only work in a regulated trade environment in which we don’t allow imports or immigration to under mine employment demand in the domestic economy and as a bonus also controls trade balance figures.That’s the secret of the German economic miracle in that their trade barriers were just hidden in the form of Germans generally buy German made goods.While the same applied to an extent in America at least during those 19650’s/60’s boom years there.

What a load of bunkum. During the time of Henry Ford, America had a completely open-door approach to immigration - the place is almost entirely populated by immigrants!

As for Germany, they are ahead because they started the 20th century ahead, and they have generally tried to maintain a progressive economic policy of increasing productivity, increasing quality, and increasing wages. British bosses, by contrast, have never wasted an opportunity to cut wages and undercut quality production with low-cost production.

While Socialism is a flawed model crippled by the politics of envy.As you’ve shown in your thinking that wealth ‘distribution’ is the answer.As opposed to the wealth ‘creation’ that takes place as a matter of course within the Fordist system.Bearing in mind that Soviet Russia’s problem was the same old bs that everyone has to be brought down to an enforced state rationed level based on the politics of envy and the flawed idea that it’s all about dealing with the symptoms of low wages.Instead of reversing the cause by massively increasing wages and with it domestic consumption of domestic products.Which explains why the American worker of the 1960’s drove to work in a big V8 Chevy etc and owned a decent house to live in.

If I burgle your pension, cut your pay in half, and still expect you to work 7 days a week, and then throw you on the streets at retirement, whilst the spivs and the industrial carpetbaggers sail the seas on private yachts and stash trillions in secret bank accounts and paying less tax than the women who clean their toilets, it is not “the politics of envy” to call for such grotesque inequalities to be redressed and to call for secure jobs and a decent standards of living in a civilised society.

As opposed to their Soviet counterpart who lived in a poky state allocated high rise flat and used the bus or train to get anywhere.

The Soviets to whom you refer were, a generation or two before, living in rural huts and using shank’s pony to get anywhere. Latter discontent, with high-density housing, with shops that resembled empty stockrooms, and so forth, was generated by comparison to Western standards of living (to which the Soviet system was supposedly superior) and by the fact of the faltering Soviet economy. People certainly weren’t crying for a return to the backward standards of living that the Soviet system abolished.

And now they’ve all had a taste of the free market, their wages have dropped, their savings consumed by schemes run by fraudsters and gangsters, and now governed by the same old authoritarians who don’t even have to pay lip service to socialist principles anymore.

The rest of your post is so incoherent that there can be no sensible response.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly Fordism is an economic model based on the idea that you have to pay the workforce well so that it can sustain a high rate of consumption of the products it is turning out.

We’ve had this one before. Ford could pay such high rates because his production lines were so massively more productive compared to the bespoke methods of the time. Secondly, his production lines were so massively productive that the unit cost of each car tumbled compared to the bespoke methods, but meeting the fixed overheads of a production line required a greatly increased consumption of cars (compared to the existing number who were consuming the bespoke models).

With wages doubled (say) and prices halved, his own workers (and other workers using these new high-productivity methods in other industries - it wasn’t confined to the car industry) then soaked up a substantial proportion of the cars that were shooting off the lines.

It wasn’t, as I think you often seem to imply, simply a case of Ford unilaterally putting up wages and somehow creating his own demand. It was the improved productivity and the dramatically reduced cost of cars that also went into the equation.

Nowadays, people on modest incomes aren’t really short of cars or short of anything material. Shortages that exist are the result of political policy and inadequate social security and so forth. Even good quality houses are relatively cheap to build - the prohibitively expensive component being the land itself (which is a political policy - to pander to the better-off wanting rural scenery as far as their eyes can see from the bedroom window - and can’t be solved with Fordist production methods). The environmental toll of capitalist production is also a new spectre.

It’s obvious that can only work in a regulated trade environment in which we don’t allow imports or immigration to under mine employment demand in the domestic economy and as a bonus also controls trade balance figures.That’s the secret of the German economic miracle in that their trade barriers were just hidden in the form of Germans generally buy German made goods.While the same applied to an extent in America at least during those 19650’s/60’s boom years there.

What a load of bunkum. During the time of Henry Ford, America had a completely open-door approach to immigration - the place is almost entirely populated by immigrants!

As for Germany, they are ahead because they started the 20th century ahead, and they have generally tried to maintain a progressive economic policy of increasing productivity, increasing quality, and increasing wages. British bosses, by contrast, have never wasted an opportunity to cut wages and undercut quality production with low-cost production.

While Socialism is a flawed model crippled by the politics of envy.As you’ve shown in your thinking that wealth ‘distribution’ is the answer.As opposed to the wealth ‘creation’ that takes place as a matter of course within the Fordist system.Bearing in mind that Soviet Russia’s problem was the same old bs that everyone has to be brought down to an enforced state rationed level based on the politics of envy and the flawed idea that it’s all about dealing with the symptoms of low wages.Instead of reversing the cause by massively increasing wages and with it domestic consumption of domestic products.Which explains why the American worker of the 1960’s drove to work in a big V8 Chevy etc and owned a decent house to live in.

If I burgle your pension, cut your pay in half, and still expect you to work 7 days a week, and then throw you on the streets at retirement, whilst the spivs and the industrial carpetbaggers sail the seas on private yachts and stash trillions in secret bank accounts and paying less tax than the women who clean their toilets, it is not “the politics of envy” to call for such grotesque inequalities to be redressed and to call for secure jobs and a decent standards of living in a civilised society.

As opposed to their Soviet counterpart who lived in a poky state allocated high rise flat and used the bus or train to get anywhere.

The Soviets to whom you refer were, a generation or two before, living in rural huts and using shank’s pony to get anywhere. Latter discontent, with high-density housing, with shops that resembled empty stockrooms, and so forth, was generated by comparison to Western standards of living (to which the Soviet system was supposedly superior) and by the fact of the faltering Soviet economy. People certainly weren’t crying for a return to the backward standards of living that the Soviet system abolished.

And now they’ve all had a taste of the free market, their wages have dropped, their savings consumed by schemes run by fraudsters and gangsters, and now governed by the same old authoritarians who don’t even have to pay lip service to socialist principles anymore.

The rest of your post is so incoherent that there can be no sensible response.

Firstly your description of the German economic model contradicts your previous description of the Fordist model.Fordism actually being a better description of 1960’s America and post war Germany than pre WW2 America although it was obviously Ford who introduced the link between decent wages and consumption.That was obviously not just meant to be confined to his own workers but across the economy as a whole for it to work.IE the highly paid workers producing Fridges bought the products made by the highly paid workers producing cars and vice versa etc etc etc in the form of everyone from US steel makers to US dockers.

As for the US immigration situation as it applied pre war you’ve obviously not heard of inconvenient facts like the 1924 Johnson Reed Act among others.Which effectively wasn’t changed until more or less the 1960’s by Kennedy’s,arguably badly advised,‘reforms’ which to this day are still draconian by the ridiculous UK open door immigration standards.

As for politics of envy.Your comments,regarding the idea of the working class supposedly wanting to live in an urban zb hole built on yet more of what remains of Surrey’s Green Belt for example,as opposed to sharing the view of knowing when to say enough no more,says it all in that regard.Which like Corbyn’s zbwit ideas just plays into the hands of the cheap labour agenda which says if that’s what you want you can have it.The usual result being the same Socialist vote then fleeing the resulting Soviet style urban zb hole that they’ve made for themselves together with everyone else.The difference being that the Socialists are stupid enough to then make the same mistake repeatedly over and over again until they’ll finally reach the English Channel and realise that they’ve wiped out some of the best farm land,in terms of both its fertility and climate,in the country.All as part of the same bs politics of envy crusade which I’ve described.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly your description of the German economic model contradicts your previous description of the Fordist model.Fordism actually being a better description of 1960’s America and post war Germany than pre WW2 America although it was obviously Ford who introduced the link between decent wages and consumption.That was obviously not just meant to be confined to his own workers but across the economy as a whole for it to work.IE the highly paid workers producing Fridges bought the products made by the highly paid workers producing cars and vice versa etc etc etc in the form of everyone from US steel makers to US dockers.

I’m not entirely familiar with the “German economic model”, so I’m responding quite loosely to that.

The rest of what you refer to I think goes by the name “mass consumption”. But high progressive rates of tax, spectacular rates of public and private capital investment, and fearless regulation of markets by the state, were also a feature of capitalism in the 1960s.

Today, we still have mass production and mass consumption - we haven’t really returned to bespoke production. What we have returned to though is spectacular inequality, low wages and increasingly poor working conditions, low rates of tax on the rich (and relatively high rates of tax on the poor), low levels of capital investment, and markets devoid of regulation (or the marketisation of activities that were previously done efficiently by organisational fiat).

Democratic politicians have almost completely moved out of the economy, leaving it to be administered almost entirely by the rich on the basis of one-pound-one-vote, and driven by the ideology of self-interest. It’s no surprise therefore that the economy has not been working so well for private profit, and so poorly for ordinary people, since the early 20th century. And now, like the 1930s, this woefully imbalanced and unmanaged system has seized on account of its own contradictions and excesses.

As for the US immigration situation as it applied pre war you’ve obviously not heard of inconvenient facts like the 1924 Johnson Reed Act among others.Which effectively wasn’t changed until more or less the 1960’s by Kennedy’s,arguably badly advised,‘reforms’ which to this day are still draconian by the ridiculous UK open door immigration standards.

The fact remains that the US was historically very liberal indeed about immigration, even once quotas were introduced.

As for politics of envy.Your comments,regarding the idea of the working class supposedly wanting to live in an urban zb hole built on yet more of what remains of Surrey’s Green Belt for example,as opposed to sharing the view of knowing when to say enough no more,says it all in that regard.

There might be areas of the country that are more crowded than others, but we are not remotely short of land. Promoting improved civility, and developing public infrastructure, also allows a higher density of people to be accommodated in the same area (and to do so without creating squalor).

Which like Corbyn’s zbwit ideas just plays into the hands of the cheap labour agenda which says if that’s what you want you can have it.The usual result being the same Socialist vote then fleeing the resulting Soviet style urban zb hole that they’ve made for themselves together with everyone else.The difference being that the Socialists are stupid enough to then make the same mistake repeatedly over and over again until they’ll finally reach the English Channel and realise that they’ve wiped out some of the best farm land,in terms of both its fertility and climate,in the country.All as part of the same bs politics of envy crusade which I’ve described.

You go on these tirades now at the end of every post, and I don’t know where to begin with the questions to try and pick apart what you actually mean by what you say. I’m a socialist of some description, although I don’t subscribe to any particular thinker or bible on the subject. What is it exactly that you think “socialist” means? It certainly doesn’t mean that I like sharing grey underpants with strangers, or living in brutalist tower blocks.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly your description of the German economic model contradicts your previous description of the Fordist model.Fordism actually being a better description of 1960’s America and post war Germany than pre WW2 America although it was obviously Ford who introduced the link between decent wages and consumption.That was obviously not just meant to be confined to his own workers but across the economy as a whole for it to work.IE the highly paid workers producing Fridges bought the products made by the highly paid workers producing cars and vice versa etc etc etc in the form of everyone from US steel makers to US dockers.

I’m not entirely familiar with the “German economic model”, so I’m responding quite loosely to that.

The rest of what you refer to I think goes by the name “mass consumption”. But high progressive rates of tax, spectacular rates of public and private capital investment, and fearless regulation of markets by the state, were also a feature of capitalism in the 1960s.

Today, we still have mass production and mass consumption - we haven’t really returned to bespoke production. What we have returned to though is spectacular inequality, low wages and increasingly poor working conditions, low rates of tax on the rich (and relatively high rates of tax on the poor), low levels of capital investment, and markets devoid of regulation (or the marketisation of activities that were previously done efficiently by organisational fiat).

Democratic politicians have almost completely moved out of the economy, leaving it to be administered almost entirely by the rich on the basis of one-pound-one-vote, and driven by the ideology of self-interest. It’s no surprise therefore that the economy has not been working so well for private profit, and so poorly for ordinary people, since the early 20th century. And now, like the 1930s, this woefully imbalanced and unmanaged system has seized on account of its own contradictions and excesses.

As for the US immigration situation as it applied pre war you’ve obviously not heard of inconvenient facts like the 1924 Johnson Reed Act among others.Which effectively wasn’t changed until more or less the 1960’s by Kennedy’s,arguably badly advised,‘reforms’ which to this day are still draconian by the ridiculous UK open door immigration standards.

The fact remains that the US was historically very liberal indeed about immigration, even once quotas were introduced.

As for politics of envy.Your comments,regarding the idea of the working class supposedly wanting to live in an urban zb hole built on yet more of what remains of Surrey’s Green Belt for example,as opposed to sharing the view of knowing when to say enough no more,says it all in that regard.

There might be areas of the country that are more crowded than others, but we are not remotely short of land. Promoting improved civility, and developing public infrastructure, also allows a higher density of people to be accommodated in the same area (and to do so without creating squalor).

Which like Corbyn’s zbwit ideas just plays into the hands of the cheap labour agenda which says if that’s what you want you can have it.The usual result being the same Socialist vote then fleeing the resulting Soviet style urban zb hole that they’ve made for themselves together with everyone else.The difference being that the Socialists are stupid enough to then make the same mistake repeatedly over and over again until they’ll finally reach the English Channel and realise that they’ve wiped out some of the best farm land,in terms of both its fertility and climate,in the country.All as part of the same bs politics of envy crusade which I’ve described.

You go on these tirades now at the end of every post, and I don’t know where to begin with the questions to try and pick apart what you actually mean by what you say. I’m a socialist of some description, although I don’t subscribe to any particular thinker or bible on the subject. What is it exactly that you think “socialist” means? It certainly doesn’t mean that I like sharing grey underpants with strangers, or living in brutalist tower blocks.

It’s reasonable to say that the German economic model post WW2 was based of Fordist principles.IE high wages resulting in high consumption of domestic made products.Thereby creating a high economic growth high employment regime.

As for US immigration policy the 1924 Immigration Act was anything but 'liberal.In fact it’s precisely what we’ve needed long before now.While even now it’s as difficult for a Brit to emigrate to America as it is for a Mexican.Unlike our open door immigration policy.

As for your ideas regards housing.Yet more London suburbs built in what remains of the Surrey’s and the South East’s countryside are as bad as the Soviet style high rise blocks built in former market towns like Kingston.On that note feel free to build new cities in the northern wilderness of Northumbria,North Yorkshire,Scotland and ■■■■■■■ to house Corbyn’s immigrant vote.

[tommy_t]

■■■■ me is this a competition as te who can quote a full page or something?

Sat here and thinking about all this ■■■■ and more, and what occurred to me is we need a revolution of the people, Yes i know Thatcher (a previous tory government of toffs ) eventually killed off any real power that the unions had , and maybe the unions policies were in part to blame ,(i really dunno) But it is clear to me that what the people of the uk really need is a peoples revolution , We need to end this tory parties goal of dividing and rule, which is why they are running the uk in to the ground right now, They have preached about the lazy work-shy neighbour who is twitching the curtains as you go out to work at silly o’clock, ect ect(more bull excrement in this space) when in reality they have been very busy removing, or doing their very best to remove those safety nets, AKA state benefits,ESA/JSA /PIP But should the company you work for suddenly cease trading, and as a result you become unemployed (perish the thought) or should you heaven forbid suffer life changing injuries or illness rendering you unfit for work ,(become according to the tort mantra become a sponger , you are f****d if their ideals prevail
That is what the tories are really about, They have even changed the goalposts to prevent them getting removed from office early (very undemocratic)
And when talking about what you pay your NI & P.a.y.e for, pensions? free at the point of use heathcare? if this lot have their way there will not be any state pensions when we reach that ever extending retirement age or Free at the point of use health care , and have you noticed the deafaning silence on this from the other sad excuses of political parties , yes i have little ,no trust.faith in any of them, with good reason, why because all they really care about is their-selves and close buddies , that is what we really have allegedly representing us a big lie

The people need proper representation, by that we can represent ourselves(yuck, go and be a politician) or each other (not just drivers) I ain’t no rabbit or whatever my peoples revolution would be free , WE just need to unite instead of divide and we can win , get our way it is we who really have the power, those tory , labour,. lib dumb, uk kip. pricks all work for us please do not forget that. We are their masters not the other way around as they I’m sure would like

Reality check over lets do this lets unite against them, and at least ry and make this country a better place for us to live

So if anyone has any constructive ideas how we can progress this ideology please feel free, you have as much right to your input as i do

[peterm]

I don’t want to mess in the house, so I’m going outside to shoot meself… goodbye CF and Rjan.