Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by byron78

  1. 1/ first of all the people on benefits are very often paid more than people on minimal wage - just 1 child makes the difference

    2/ there is no economical theory or historical evidence that labour provided by unemployed or prisoners is causing unemployment. again this labour is not free at all. BTW a typical cost for houisng a prisoner is in a range of 4* hotel

    Can I just ask what you think the people who worked in shops on NMW who you would replace with free workfare Labour will go off and do in your bizarre hinterland?

    I've offered up firsthand evidence of how they are displaced and left out of work by this scheme yet you just ignore it?

    Seriously... where does the workforce you've just displaced go and what do they do?

  2. And what do we do with the estimated 1m empty properties?

    Aren't most of them up North?

    Bit of a problem being as all the jobs are down South.

    But yeah, the original poster is spot on.

    Build, build, build.

    Let the state lead the way in terms of big new developments in and around London, make it easier for folks to build themselves, and if the private developers still choose to sit on their parcels of land and price fix let them die for doing so.

  3. If wages had kept pace with productivity since 1980, we'd be looking at roughly an 80% rise; average wages would be in the high 40k region. Coincidentally, the extra taxes would mean a much smaller deficit, as would smaller in-work benefits.

    The alternative is that we try and tax the excess profits generated by the lower wages. Problem is locating these excess profits in today's wonderful world of finance..

    And before anyone declares this impossible.. globalization was a choice; destroying collective bargaining was a choice; mass immigration is a choice.

    Astute summary.

    I've come round to the idea a state economy totally reliant on the free market is just as dangerous as one totally controlled by the unions to be honest.

    For one, the free market isn't really free and doesn't operate as such because it doesn't have to.

    For two, you end up with monopolies all over the place, with the voter unable to do anything directly to change anything, priced out, or marginalized.

    The 80s f**ked everything really. The generation that voted it all in was subsidized by North Sea Oil and state sell-offs and away they went, but now the subsidizes and sell offs have ended I don't think anyone would argue we're in a better place than we were. New Labour did f-all to change things whilst in power other than quick fixes for long-term problems that aren't going anywhere now globalization rules, and their letting the housing market spiral like they did was as much a bribe to the generation that benefited in the 80s (and actually bothers to vote) as anything else.

    I'd take an Old Labour government now. People will kick and scream and denounce that, but we're hardly better off for not having an effective left-wing opposition for the past 35 odd years. The current red-party and about as red as Maggie Thatcher's old bedsheets, and they're move to the middle has made things worse not better.

  4. Surely you can see without a job you would be a drain on society?

    I also fully realise banks, politicians, etc... are also drains on society.

    I get this completely, but must reiterate the point new jobs are not being created as a result of this scheme - society remains drained, and in fact this scheme probably makes the drain bigger.

    Old paid private NMW jobs are being replaced by state subsidied cheap labour, with private companies getting state money to instigate this and private firms benefiting at the expense of the taxpayer.

    By forcing those out of work to work for less than NMW you are actually forcing those on NMW out of work or onto shorter hour contracts.

    The focus needs to be on job creation not statistical manipulation and wonky moralising.

  5. Ok, google gives this as a source for numbers..


    From which we see the 1946-73 belle epoque; when we had constant state intervention to maintain full employment. And of course, with full employment (reasonably paid jobs that allow a life..) your welfare bill is that much lower.

    This is something I don't understand: people are okay with state-subsidied taxpayer funded workers contracted by private companies to work for private companies, where the worker keeps a low percentage of the total taxpayer spend, the private contracter a large percentage, and the private company a big taxpayer funded advantage at the expense of a "real" private job they now no longer need to provide.

    Yet suggest direct taxpayer funded public jobs to these people and their eyes start to swivel as they swipe at you with a rolled up copy of the Daily Mail...

  6. great. so you agree that the workforce is not a bad idea at all. so let's now improve what we have with shops and look at hte local councils and charities. they should be included in the workforce as well.

    the moral bottom is that sitting at home idle is wrong and it will also badly effect your mental and physical health

    Please don't put words in my mouth.

    Here's a direct quote for you so you can avoid incorrectly paraphrasing me in the future:

    Workfare is a shambles, a farce, and an enormously counterproductive waste of taxpayers money.

    Anyone who can't see that has no direct experience with it, or is a dim, bitter, twisted moralist with the brain of a retarded monkey.

  7. Mind providing more details on this?

    Not sure I can provide much.

    It's not offered directly by the job centre, it's offered by A4e and Maximus round here (or rather, subsidiaries of).

    I wasn't even asked if there was work for them longterm or anything like that, and technically the inquiry wasn't even made through an official channel.

    What I think people will overlook is that cosy private relationships exist or will be built between employers and local workfare providers - as I say, it was pitched as a something for nothing to me by someone with an attitude only slightly less backward and Victorian than Damek's at a private function.

    As for other local employers in my area using free labour I can confirm many are, and I can also confirm this has (very obviously) resulted in less people being employed properly at financial cost to the employer and not the state. It's achieving the opposite of what it purports to be achieving in my area at least.

    The problem is most people who support this have Damek's attitude - you can point out this schemes shortcomings and how it's actually costing them more money (real jobs disappearing, thousands of "their" tax payers money paid to these workfare companies to place state subsidied workers in positions to replace those real jobs) until you're blue in the face - it simply doesn't register on their bizarre moral compass at all. According to them there is no negative to all this free labour - new employers are popping up to pay minimum wage to those the workfare drones replaced. Except they're not. At all. At the rate it's going round here there will be more workfare workers than minimum wagers within 5 years. Business is competitive, and if one employer is lowering theirs costs at the state's expense more will follow. Simple economics really. I may even have to eventually. To be honest, if dum dums like Damek want to pay my workers instead of me, perhaps I should let them?

  8. yes, both my mother and my mother in law have been punished by working whole their lives as the shop assistants ... punished ... with a big stick ... beaten ...

    now they have almost same pension as people who have never worked ...

    you are a clear example why democratic societies collapse aka Greece ... no responsibility, just rights ...

    Are you Paulo Di Canio by any chance?

  9. Anyone else here a local employer offered workfare/dole freebie staff BTW?

    I've two paid staff at the moment. I get the impression Ian Duncan Myth would like me to sack them to make his unemployment stats look better. I know plenty of other stores who have gone down this route, but being as I was signing on myself under 8 years ago I can't quite bring myself to exploit people who have done nothing wrong at the expense of those I already employ. Call me old fashioned like.

  10. people should provide services to other people. sitting at home and watching TV is not one of them. working in a shop is a good start. not sure why it is so difficult to undertsand it for you

    Russian prisoners make uniforms and furniture for Russian state. should they instead do nothing and watch TV?

    my mother and mother in law have been working in shops for whole their lifes. why is not it good for you? are you too posh? then you need to find the job your self

    The point has already been made dozens of times but you keep missing it.

    Your mother and mother in law would find it much harder to find paid shop work if everyone working in a shop was being subsidised by the state.

    Giving away low paid jobs people need to people out of work to do for free doesn't create any new jobs, it just puts people out of paid jobs.

    Got it yet?

  11. I would prop up the banks further, offer big tax cuts to the rich corporations and individuals who fund my party, allow a swivel-eyed bald nutjob to spend billions on benefit reform that doesn't work economically but allows us to be economic with the truth (and focus blame on the poor, not the rich), nod in the House of Commons whenever my posh-mate with the big red moonface made of meat says something crap like "calm down dear", and spend further billions trying to re-inflate a housing bubble that has already bubbled beyond all logic.

    I'd probably snort some cocaine with a black hooker in my spare time to relax whilst looking smugger than previously thought humanly possible in every photo taken of me. Oh, and if I hadn't already done it, I'd change my outrageously posh name to something ever so slightly less posh and pay off all those people I was in the Bullingdon Club to bury all those unfortunate drug/sex/posh buffoonary type stories.

  12. because it is not a real job/work

    In many cases it used to be.

    Many of the shops on my High Street (including several notable coffee chains) are now staffed by those on Workfare, in fact there are a few places where everyone but the manager isn't directly employed by the employer (they just rotate workfare staff, with no permanent jobs created and new workfare bods coming in every few months).

    Were the jobs real jobs before those people doing them were laid off to be replaced by those on workfare? If not why not? If they were, at what point did they cease to be real jobs and start to be "unreal" jobs - at the point the employer stopped paying them properly at the expense of the state?

  13. In china there is no benefits, people save 40% of their income instead.

    This isn't actually what I've been told by folk out there.

    No central state benefit, but there are actually local benefits (sent by individual provinces/municipalities) in China that pay a sort of minimum living allowance apparently.

    It's obviously not very much, and I'm told it's criticized over there for not being centralized and being a real mess to have to navigate through.

    Either way the black market booms to the point many don't bother with it or paying the taxes that might fund it anyway, but if that alternative "black" economy didn't exist it would almost certainly be more of an issue.

    I can see our black market thriving in the next decade or so given the way things are going.

  14. +1

    And anyone one who says it won't happen they're wrong ,my daughter has just been made unemployed after first having her hours reduced ,it`s no coincidence they now have two workfare slaves opposed to just the one that was engineered for the busy time of the year

    Also know folks who have been replaced by free workfare bods round this way.

    The people at the bottom trying to work their way up won't even be able to get on the bottom rung in the first place.

    Having seen the unemployed figures for places like Liverpool and Glasgow, I can seriously see bigger firms relocating to these areas (and sacking employed people elsewhere) to take advantage of this "free" Labour if this came into effect.

    It's such an obvious Homer Simpson "Doh!" of a point it makes you wonder how on earth folk miss it!

  15. Saw this on the Beeb. Thought "what a bloody daft idea".

    Almost seems like the opposite of what we need - reems of free (well state-subsidied) Labour for business to exploit, rather than actual jobs that would remove the need for any state-subsidy. The job market is already so dire many in work are already on benefits anyway, this would just further nail-shut the coffin.

    Being as the Tax Payers Alliance are mainly composed/paid for by rich tax avoiding millionaires and retired boomers anyway, you could probably sue them for false advertising...

  16. He's undoubted worked bloody hard, but he had a fair few advantages others didn't.

    Such as not having to pay rent in London (because your parents have moved there) and the Beeb filming a documentary in the kitchens where you can afford to work for F-all as a nipper (because you don't have huge housing overheads).

    Give 99% of working people something to aim and work for and you'd be surprised how hard they work.

    The reason immigrants work harder? Because they can see all the money they earn and save here being worth a lot more when they take it back home again, and are prepared to live cheap/studenty in the short-term. Has bugger all to do with race or nationality.

    I know a lot of nippers who want to work (and do wherever they can find it), but have the will sucked out of them slowly when they hand over 60% of that weeks wage to a landlord and can see absolutely no prospects for improvement or advancement out of said situation in the future.

  17. Too many Labour MPs whose Register of Interests include the phrase '... property from which rental income is received ...'

    To be fair that's a cross-party problem, but yes you're spot on.

    Add to that the Tories angling for job in the city afterwards and you've not got a happy recipe.

    Off topic a bit, but is this the result of politics as a career straight after university BEFORE moving into work elsewhere (rather than the traditional method of work first, then moving into a career in politics, followed by retirement)?

  18. There is only one way to go without blowing out the foundation stone and to allow things to naturally build up again gradually from the bottom....what we are doing at the moment is keep adding more and more floors to the already unstable building which is becoming ever more dangerous and precarious, the winds are blowing strongly, the crash of the ivory tower when it comes will therefore be further from the ground thus causing more damage and covering a far wider area than it would have done if acted sooner before it was too late to do anything about it...... ;)

    There are many many things I'd blame Gordon and Blair for, but oddly these never seem to come up in popular criticism of them.

    Every one of the Tory leaders since Major is still on their front bench, and every one would have unleashed the free market bank driven credit frenzy we suffered (in fact they are all in a position to try and do something to fix the previous fallout, and instead seem more focused on trying to rekindle it).

    When the BTL explosion happened under Labour there was a opportunity to offset this will a state house building program, and many more jobs continued to head overseas (with immigration putting pressure on the remaining job/housing stock).

    If New Labour practised socialism it's of the all party 'bailout the top not the bottom' brand that has continued under the current coalition (who have brought a rather unsavoury "this is all the poors fault anyway" Daily Mail appeasing politics and spin in as well).

    It continues to get more idiotic with every successive government to be honest.

    I long for a proper Labour opposition at the moment too. "We would build a million houses" would be a start.

  19. I agree that was his tactic. He had seen what globalisation had done to wages.

    What industrial policy would have made a practical, credible alternative to his actions, in your opinion?

    ^^^ This.

    I don't think the Tories would have done much differently to be honest. They certainly haven't come up with a credible or effective alternative in 3 and a half years. The only alternative offered at present seems to be divert cash from the poor to the middle classes via BTL and distract with propaganda and stastical spin. The pyramid is being propped in the middle AND at the bottom now.

    The problem now is that we've several generations of political problems and can-kicking that can't be solved without hitting the reset button (several times probably) and no political party will do that because it's essentially political suicide.

    We've 80s housing stock, a service based economy that only really services London (again ushered in during the 80s), and no real solution as to how to effectively house and employ the majority. Those problems have been allowed to balloon and bubble, and right now we've a government desperately trying to make them balloon and bubble more for some short term (purely statistical) economic stimulus. Utter utter madness.

  20. Si

    I'm a lefty and I might agree in part what you saying, but I don't have any emotional issues such as jealousy regarding my politics . Why do you think everyone who disagrees with you are as base and judgemental as and you seem to be?

    I'm a rightie (not a Tory mind) and I'm not sure what point he's trying to make.

    The national debt is soaring under the Tories at the moment. Their solutions to solve things?

    1) Start a new house price boom.

    2) Demonise the poor whilst doing little to curb the excesses of the banking/city sector (that are the originators of this crisis).

    3) Zero hour contracts all round.

    4) Ian Duncan Myth murdering statistics.

    5) Blame the Lib Dems for anything wrong with the coalition.

    6) Blame Labour for everything else.

    Finger pointing and statistic bludgeoning a plenty, but not one proactive solution amongst them.

  21. I know for a fact (friend in department) HB claims are soaring in my area.

    As is tenant debt and council tax arrears.

    Not really a surprise as the Tories are more concerned with demonising the poor than solving the UK's chronic housing shortage/jobs shortage.

    Incidentally this has nowt to do with Tax Credits round this way.

    There is work, but it's zero hour, min wage, seasonal part time work. In other words, it will keep you off the unemployment stats, but it won't pay the rent. Goes a bit deeper, in that anyone laid off from full time work over the past 3 years or so is also doing this sort of work by and large. Hence the jump in HB (as anyone unemployed before would probably already have been getting this anyway).

  22. It was a stupid program for all sorts of reasons.

    Not least because it simplified an issue that goes far deeper than "young folks these days are just lazy scroungers", which is exactly what stupid papers read by stupid people will simplify it down to.

    Comparing a time of maximum employment and rapid reconstruction of a country's industry and housing stock (after a world war) with today is frankly beyond daft.

    There were jobs back then for a start, and much of what we consumed was made in the UK by folk in the UK (including energy). My mum and dad were a bit too young to have been working in 1949 (1950s/1960s - both gone now sadly), but they remember being able to walk in and out of any job they didn't like in the morning and have a new one come the afternoon. My dad ended up in the Navy by accident pretty much - not because he couldn't find work elsewhere (he was already an apprentice undertaker at 15, on a decent weekly wage) - he just wanted to see the world and meet women of easier virtue (I don't think he was relating this to his previous working position, but perhaps the corpses were playing hard to get). :blink:

    There's an entire boomer generation that don't understand it's not like that any more, and this just inadvertently pandered to their prejudices IMHO.

  23. its not what you say but what you do.

    Gordon Brown, 1997: ‘I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery"

    1997 to 2007 saw the biggest housing boom ever seen.


    This happened WORLDWIDE though - certainly wasn't a UK only thing.

    Not meaning to defend Gordon The Moron, but he alone didn't have the power to fuel all that.

    What definitely has happened since 2008 is that some countries have let their housing markets correct., some haven't, and some have actually implemented policies that would directly inflate the bubble more (Gidiot Osbourne I'm looking at you).

    I can't believe we've somehow managed to elect a shower of idiots more idiotic than the shower of idiots they replaced, but there you go. A lot of voters are idiots.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.