Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/09/precariat-charter-denizens-citizens-review

This article raises a few questions about the current socio-economic system we are all trying to exist within and calls for a minimum citizen wage as advocated by many on here. When you think about it its absolutely bonkers. We are all forced to work short-term contracts in unstable jobs. As a result most people no longer care for their employers/ jobs and define themselves in other ways looking for stability outside work with a sidelines or hoping to win big gambling/investing. At the same time the government is pontificating about lazy scroungers everywhere and gaming the system for the well off few.

What will happen when the secure boomers die off and this precariat class dominates the polling booths? Current mainstream politicans (Liblabcon) will not be elected and a new paradigm will be brought about-providing people are smart enough to figure out an alternative can happen.

The corporations can force us to work under the old dysfunctional system for so long but when we continually boot out there politican shills they will be forced to abandon neoliberalism and look for a fairer way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardi...citizens-review

This article raises a few questions about the current socio-economic system we are all trying to exist within and calls for a minimum citizen wage as advocated by many on here. When you think about it its absolutely bonkers. We are all forced to work short-term contracts in unstable jobs. As a result most people no longer care for their employers/ jobs and define themselves in other ways looking for stability outside work with a sidelines or hoping to win big gambling/investing. At the same time the government is pontificating about lazy scroungers everywhere and gaming the system for the well off few.

What will happen when the secure boomers die off and this precariat class dominates the polling booths? Current mainstream politicans (Liblabcon) will not be elected and a new paradigm will be brought about-providing people are smart enough to figure out an alternative can happen.

The corporations can force us to work under the old dysfunctional system for so long but when we continually boot out there politican shills they will be forced to abandon neoliberalism and look for a fairer way.

Good post.

I read this the other day and was thinking of linking it on here. It reveals the industrial struggle in the 19th century, and how all the things we took for granted in had been hard fought for over a hundred years. We've allowed LabourTory to dismantle it over 2/3 generation without barely a fight. Many of the fears we have now, they had back then Our ancestors would be ashamed of us. Not sure its entirely relevant to your thread, so apologies for that, but interesting nevertheless. I bang on about stuff like 'secure tenancies' which at one time were taking for granted and some of the younger ones must thing WTF? But unstable societies are not happy societies and eventually become dangerous societies.

https://undergroundhistories.wordpress.com/dangerous-societies/

Although there was some alleviation in conditions, the economic distress resulting from the bank crash of 1825/26 continued to fuel radicalism. Huddersfield PU condemned the claim made in parliament by the county MP J. Johnstone in February 1831 that conditions had improved in the manufacturing districts and that there was now full employment, while the manufacturer, John Wood, on behalf of Kirkheaton reformers wrote to the MP affirming that ‘…the labouring poor in this parish have been in great distress for the last five years with the exception of those employed in factories…’ It was not the fault of the labourers but of taxation, the corn laws and other legislation which had caused the distress. Johnstone’s reply, blaming the operatives for their improvidence and having ‘ encumbered themselves with children.’ , caused further grave offence and George Beaumont and Samuel Dickinson offered to show him the distressed homes they had visited on their survey of local weavers’ conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.

I read this the other day and was thinking of linking it on here. It reveals the industrial struggle in the 19th century, and how all the things we took for granted in had been hard fought for over a hundred years. We've allowed LabourTory to dismantle it over 2/3 generation without barely a fight. Many of the fears we have now, they had back then Our ancestors would be ashamed of us. Not sure its entirely relevant to your thread, so apologies for that, but interesting nevertheless. I bang on about stuff like 'secure tenancies' which at one time were taking for granted and some of the younger ones must thing WTF? But unstable societies are not happy societies and eventually become dangerous societies.

https://undergroundhistories.wordpress.com/dangerous-societies/

Thanks I'll have a shufty at that after I have read the guys book available for free if you register..

http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/The-Precariat/book-ba-9781849664554.xml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrapping all benefits and replacing them with a guaranteed fixed non-means tested income is a fundamentally good idea with almost no downsides, and it removes most of the market distortions and dead-weight loss created by typical benefit programs. Economists have been advocating this for decades, it was one of Milton Friedman's better known ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

The reasons why it's a good idea have nothing to do with stuff about "saving people from being 'slaves to their employers" though (in fact, this is one of the [wrong] arguments used against it - creating disincentives to work is a bad thing). The main argument in favour is that giving poor people money and allowing them to choose what to buy is far less distortionary than buying them things they may not want (eg someone getting £20k/year of housing benefits to rent Zone 1 London when they would be happier with a £10k/year place in Zone 4, and an extra £5k/year in cash to compensate).

Itll never happen though; people are generally unable to think about these things rationally and you would just get arguments about "why is the government giving the same income to a doctor earning £100k as they are giving to someone earning only £10k?" that totally miss the point.

Edited by Smyth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, it was the secure boomers who created the precariat class through their creation of a welfare state. The cost of employing people in the developed world is now so high that employers have an incentive to reduce both the volume and the stability of their workforces, and to treat them as a just-in-time commodity, just like the other inputs into their production process. The same debate is now playing out here in the US in relation to Obamacare and the proposed raising of the minimum age, with Obama's detractors arguing that every time you increase the cost of employment, you reduce both the number of jobs, and the quality of most of them.

I am currently working as a freelance consultant, and having to charge rates that reflects the fact that I can be out of work for weeks at a time and have to buy private healthcare insurance. Many of the companies and organizations that hire me for specific jobs would actually probably end up paying less if they simply hired someone like me on a full-time contract. But the bottom line is that they want the flexibility to bring specialist workers like me in and out as and when they want them. Were they to put me on a full-time contract, they would lose that flexibility immediately, and risk having someone on their payroll with no work for them. Admittedly, most of the work I do is for organisations that will want a one-off job done and then have no further need for my expertise (I design and manage projects for the preservation and digitisation of archival document, digital media/data and audiovisual collections), and so the line of work I'm in is not one that lends itself to traditional employment patterns. But this is increasingly happening in all walks of life from low-skilled supermarket workers to specialists making a thousand an hour, and I suspect that the high cost of employing people that results from western-style welfare state infrastructures is a major part of the reason.

Itll never happen though; people are generally unable to think about these things rationally and you would just get arguments about "why is the government giving the same income to a doctor earning £100k as they are giving to someone earning only £10k?" that totally miss the point.

Why is it missing the point? Doctors (and other professionals who have six-figure earning power) are queuing up to emigrate/defect from communist countries, most notably Cuba.

Edited by The Ayatollah Buggeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it missing the point? Doctors (and other professionals who have six-figure earning power) are queuing up to emigrate/defect from communist countries, most notably Cuba.

Ignoring the fact that isnt really true, it misses the point because the people earning £100k+ are the ones paying all the tax to support the benefits or guaranteed income system in the first place, so giving them the guaranteed income without means-testing just means that the level of taxation required to support the system rises, so the £100k+ people pay more tax to compensate and arent 'really' getting more. In order for the negative income tax to work, everyone has to be given the same amount, down to the last penny. Once you start screwing around with that and trying to introduce means-testing, you are back to the current welfare system with all its huge distortions.

The entire point of the system is that you give everyone the same amount of basic income and charge everyone the same flat rate income on anything else they earn, but you choose both the amount given and the tax rate based on the amount of redistribution you want.

Edited by Smyth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the fact that isnt really true, it misses the point because the people earning £100k+ are the ones paying all the tax to support the benefits or guaranteed income system in the first place, so giving them the guaranteed income without means-testing just means that the level of taxation required to support the system rises, so the £100k+ people pay more tax to compensate and arent 'really' getting more. In order for the negative income tax to work, everyone has to be given the same amount, down to the last penny. Once you start screwing around with that and trying to introduce means-testing, you are back to the current welfare system with all its huge distortions.

The entire point of the system is that you give everyone the same amount of basic income and charge everyone the same flat rate income on anything else they earn, but you choose both the amount given and the tax rate based on the amount of redistribution you want.

They get the benefits of a precariat "just in time" workforce. They can't have their cake and eat it, and if they do they just might end up hanging from a lampost.

I think at the moment, they are testing to see how far they can push things before it kicks off. Home ownership and debt slavery and access to guaranteed lottery of HPI payola was genius. Things would have got very interesting by now, if it were not for housing imaginary wealth.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They get the benefits of a precariat "just in time" workforce. They can't have their cake and eat it, and if they do they just might end up hanging from a lampost.

I think at the moment, they are testing to see how far they can push things before it kicks off. Home ownership and debt slavery and access to guaranteed lottery of HPI payola was genius. Things would have got very interesting by now, if it were not for housing imaginary wealth.

This post is a good example of why it isnt possible to have a sensible discussion about welfare reform in the UK at the present time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is a good example of why it isnt possible to have a sensible discussion about welfare reform in the UK at the present time.

:lol:

The topic isn't about 'welfare reform.' Its about the precariat becoming a dominant social class.

You are trying to move it onto benefit reform so you can rant about single mums again, like you do on every topic.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is a good example of why it isnt possible to have a sensible discussion about welfare reform in the UK at the present time.

Can I ask why the post makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is a good example of why it isnt possible to have a sensible discussion about welfare reform in the UK at the present time.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask why the post makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion ?

Because rather than having a sensible economic discussion about a) the best economic way to provide a basic income/benefits system to low paid workers without creating market distortion, and B) how to reduce the frictions that come from people being stuck in short-term jobs they cant afford to leave even if they could get paid better elsewhere if they had time to regroup, it instead turns into some delusional paranoid rant about how elites are exploiting precariat workers and should be hung from lampposts or whatever.

Edited by Smyth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because rather than having a sensible economic discussion about a) the best economic way to provide a basic income/benefits system to low paid workers without creating market distortion, and B) how to reduce the frictions that come from people being stuck in short-term jobs they cant afford to leave even if they could get paid better elsewhere if they had time to regroup, it instead turns into some delusional paranoid rant about how elites are exploiting precariat workers and should be hung from lampposts or whatever.

Apart from the OP none of us have read this book yet, so it might be best one of us at least does.

And its not a delusional paranoid rant, because history tells us that gilded elite are eventually brought down. We only got 'reforms' in the 19th and 20th century due to constant unrest and strife and people being prepared to fight for them.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/09/precariat-charter-denizens-citizens-review

This article raises a few questions about the current socio-economic system we are all trying to exist within and calls for a minimum citizen wage as advocated by many on here. When you think about it its absolutely bonkers. We are all forced to work short-term contracts in unstable jobs. As a result most people no longer care for their employers/ jobs and define themselves in other ways looking for stability outside work with a sidelines or hoping to win big gambling/investing. At the same time the government is pontificating about lazy scroungers everywhere and gaming the system for the well off few.

What will happen when the secure boomers die off and this precariat class dominates the polling booths? Current mainstream politicans (Liblabcon) will not be elected and a new paradigm will be brought about-providing people are smart enough to figure out an alternative can happen.

The corporations can force us to work under the old dysfunctional system for so long but when we continually boot out there politican shills they will be forced to abandon neoliberalism and look for a fairer way.

On the subject of "lazy scroungers" taxpayers will soon be receiving a statement showing how their tax money is spent. Included is this image -

taxtable1_2871685b.jpg

Lovely bit of propaganda isnt it? Goebbels would be proud.

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of "lazy scroungers" taxpayers will soon be receiving a statement showing how their tax money is spent. Included is this image -

taxtable1_2871685b.jpg

Lovely bit of propaganda isnt it? Goebbels would be proud.

Is your objection that those figures are false, that those figures are misleading, or that people should not be told the figures?

Edited by Smyth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of "lazy scroungers" taxpayers will soon be receiving a statement showing how their tax money is spent. Included is this image -

taxtable1_2871685b.jpg

Lovely bit of propaganda isnt it? Goebbels would be proud.

I'd like to see the welfare figure broken down into benefits paid to non working people and benefits paid to those in work.

A lot of people think that welfare refers to benefits paid to non working. So yes I think the information is propaganda to further fuel disdain towards those who claim welfare.

There aren't enough jobs in UK to enable more people to manage without benefits. And I only see it getting worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the welfare figure broken down into benefits paid to non working people and benefits paid to those in work.

A lot of people think that welfare refers to benefits paid to non working. So yes I think the information is propaganda to further fuel disdain towards those who claim welfare.

There aren't enough jobs in UK to enable more people to manage without benefits. And I only see it getting worse.

The slice given over to debt interest repayment will soon be bigger than education and defence combined!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slice given over to debt interest repayment will soon be bigger than education and defence combined!

Yes I can see that being a strong possibility.

I'm used to being frugal and managing on not a lot but I think a lot of people are going to founder as the UK continues to decline. I fully expect a tough economic future so can prepare.

Interesting times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.

I read this the other day and was thinking of linking it on here. It reveals the industrial struggle in the 19th century, and how all the things we took for granted in had been hard fought for over a hundred years. We've allowed LabourTory to dismantle it over 2/3 generation without barely a fight. Many of the fears we have now, they had back then Our ancestors would be ashamed of us. Not sure its entirely relevant to your thread, so apologies for that, but interesting nevertheless. I bang on about stuff like 'secure tenancies' which at one time were taking for granted and some of the younger ones must thing WTF? But unstable societies are not happy societies and eventually become dangerous societies.

https://undergroundhistories.wordpress.com/dangerous-societies/

Interesting first two posts, thanks.

I can see UK becoming more and more unstable and broken. If one wants to move around and travel well that's fine but if one wants a long term home in a community, well that is becoming more and more unattainable. I don't know what most people want but I would want the latter.

Perhaps populations are easier to manage if there are a lot of nomadic wanderers, little community and families scattered? Or perhaps people will adapt to life like that? I don't know.

I believe the standard of living will continue to fall for the majority in UK. Then there might be a lot of anger and danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrapping all benefits and replacing them with a guaranteed fixed non-means tested income is a fundamentally good idea with almost no downsides, and it removes most of the market distortions and dead-weight loss created by typical benefit programs. Economists have been advocating this for decades, it was one of Milton Friedman's better known ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

The reasons why it's a good idea have nothing to do with stuff about "saving people from being 'slaves to their employers" though (in fact, this is one of the [wrong] arguments used against it - creating disincentives to work is a bad thing). The main argument in favour is that giving poor people money and allowing them to choose what to buy is far less distortionary than buying them things they may not want (eg someone getting £20k/year of housing benefits to rent Zone 1 London when they would be happier with a £10k/year place in Zone 4, and an extra £5k/year in cash to compensate).

Itll never happen though; people are generally unable to think about these things rationally and you would just get arguments about "why is the government giving the same income to a doctor earning £100k as they are giving to someone earning only £10k?" that totally miss the point.

handing out freebies is never a good idea

even though your friendly credit merchant/crack dealer might like to dish out freebies.there is always an ulterior motive.

then you find out they weren't quite so friendly after all.

(tbh that's precisely what I think of unscrupulous lenders)

..and there are lots of junkies out there now....it's not entirely their fault they are junkies.

..but, ces la vis......we're going to have to deal with quite a few people with withdrawal symptoms, and it won't be pretty.

...the dealers are by far the most guilty party.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I can see that being a strong possibility.

I'm used to being frugal and managing on not a lot but I think a lot of people are going to founder as the UK continues to decline. I fully expect a tough economic future so can prepare.

Interesting times!

To arrest a runaway deleveraging collapse our debts private and public will have to be inflated away, that much is inevitable even if the reflationary dynamic is presently unclear. A useful exercise might be to try to work out how much current price inflation will be needed over the next ten years to restore the UK's debt trajectory to sustainability. 10% p.a. gives us a cpi of 235% over a decade vs maybe 10-20% average wage inflation (constrained by soaring unemployment). Is that sufficient? Calculating the asset price deflation that would result from it is far from straightforward, but one thing is guaranteed: The UK will be very much poorer than it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your objection that those figures are false, that those figures are misleading, or that people should not be told the figures?

I'm rather more interested in how well it is spent.

..at present,I would say pretty abysmally.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your objection that those figures are false, that those figures are misleading, or that people should not be told the figures?

They are false and misleading. Compare those fractions for welfare, healthcare and pensions with those shown here which are shown as fractions of total spending.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/economy/budget-2014/57700/budget-2014-what-we-want-vs-what-well-get-osborne

2013_-_budget.jpg

The government has in essence totaled up only direct taxes and said we spent the lions share of those on welfare. They have not included indirect taxes, nor have they said that to balance their pie chart 50%+ of all indirect taxes would have to be spent on healthcare and pensions. Not that they should have split the data in that way in the first place. All taxes go into the same pot. Taxes are not ring fenced for certain types of spending. They never have and never will be. So they lied then used that lie to tell further lies.

Moreover if we are going to talk about welfare in terms of "scroungers". Then welfare spending should be split up to show that going to pensioners, working folk, and non-working under 65's. So even more miss-direction.

As I said Goebbels would be proud!

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spot a problem- how is a debt based financial system going to operate if the workforce are unable to qualify for credit due to income insecurity?

I read that RBS is advising employers on how to introduce zero hours contracts- do these banking morons not realize that their business model depends on lending money to people who are not on zero hours contracts? :lol:

Seriously the quality of elite leadership has deteriorated in the past few thousand years- even the Ancient Babylonian's realized that you could not bleed the people dry forever and had the sense to wipe of out debts every so often with a Jubilee.

But the current crop of morons at the top seem to imagine that they can eliminate both wage growth and the ability to borrow and somehow hang onto to their IOU based 'wealth'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   217 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.