Inequality

[VladimirIlyich]

6 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

The reality is the worker shows up for a check. Only the very best companies get the worker to care about who the check comes from.

Ironically the further you move a society to the "left" the less the worker cares about who the check comes from, much less the quality of the work.

How is that true? You could argue that the UK's NHS is as far left as you can go in term's of policy yet most of it's workers care deeply about where their pay cheques come from.

[Jairzinho]

Yes, and also the move from capitalism to corporatism means more people working for Amazon or Tesco rather than the local record shop or town's greengrocers, and therefore more people giving zero shits about their work.

[VladimirIlyich]

24 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

How is that true? You could argue that the UK's NHS is as far left as you can go in term's of policy yet most of it's workers care deeply about where their pay cheques come from.

Apologies for the entirely unnecessary apostrophe in there.

[Anubis]

It was apostrostrophic.

[SasaS]

6 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

Yes, and also the move from capitalism to corporatism means more people working for Amazon or Tesco rather than the local record shop or town's greengrocers, and therefore more people giving zero shits about their work.

If you are not well paid or motivated in some other way, you would still give zero shits about your work for a local greengrocer.

It's partly due to technology, partly to incentives, if your pay is performance-linked what difference does it make who are you working for? If you worked for John Lewis you probably cared much more than if you worked in some Amazon's warehouse.

Similarly to what TheHowieLama said, in old Eastern European socialism workers often didn't care where they paycheck came from, unless they were paid well and/or had a performance-linked wages in which case they had to beat them with sticks to go home when the shift was over. Figuratively. 

[Jairzinho]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

If you are not well paid or motivated in some other way, you would still give zero shits about your work for a local greengrocer.

It's partly due to technology, partly to incentives, if your pay is performance-linked what difference does it make who are you working for? If you worked for John Lewis you probably cared much more than if you worked in some Amazon's warehouse.

Similarly to what TheHowieLama said, in old Eastern European socialism workers often didn't care where they paycheck came from, unless they were paid well and/or had a performance-linked wages in which case they had to beat them with sticks to go home when the shift was over. Figuratively. 

Not everyone is quite as robotic as you are suggesting.

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

Not everyone is quite as robotic as you are suggesting.

What does that mean? You'd be quite happy to be exploited by the owner of the local shop, but making good money working for a corporation would be robotic?

[Jairzinho]

Just now, SasaS said:

What does that mean? You'd be quite happy to be exploited by the owner of the local shop, but making good money working for a corporation would be robotic?

No. No that's not what that means.

 

Just that there is difference in the work beyond simply what you are paid. The conditions of work, the effect on society, etc, etc.

 

And the situations aren't in a vacuum, they are intrinsically linked. The existence of Tesco ensures that pay is shit everywhere else. It has to be. 

 

[SasaS]

5 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

No. No that's not what that means.

 

Just that there is difference in the work beyond simply what you are paid. The conditions of work, the effect on society, etc, etc.

 

And the situations aren't in a vacuum, they are intrinsically linked. The existence of Tesco ensures that pay is shit everywhere else. It has to be. 

 

 

Of course there is a difference, but why would the existence of Tesco ensure that pay is shit everywhere else? Pay is generally shit when workers are easily replacable.

[Jairzinho]

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Of course there is a difference, but why would the existence of Tesco ensure that pay is shit everywhere else? Pay is generally shit when workers are easily replacable.

Because Tesco takes over a town and ensures every baker, florist, and butcher has to lower their wages to compete. It's either that or go out of business. 

 

Tesco pays off the local govt to ensure they get prime locations and cheap land and then builds a store that transforms a town. Everyone soon has to shop there, go there as a supplier (a farmer for example) and work there if they need a job.

 

My town's food bank was, aptly, outside Tesco. Many of the workers had to go there.

[Duff Man]

15 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Because Tesco takes over a town and ensures every baker, florist, and butcher has to lower their wages to compete. It's either that or go out of business. 

 

Tesco pays off the local govt to ensure they get prime locations and cheap land and then builds a store that transforms a town. Everyone soon has to shop there, go there as a supplier (a farmer for example) and work there if they need a job.

 

My town's food bank was, aptly, outside Tesco. Many of the workers had to go there.

Yep, it's rare that local authorities say no to these cunts. Usually takes a considerable amount of effort from the community to stop it.

[Jairzinho]

9 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Yep, it's rare that local authorities say no to these cunts. Usually takes a considerable amount of effort from the local community to stop it.

Yes, and it's often done on the quiet. Local papers, which are dying a death as it is, rarely cover it in much detail (and they have a tiny readership anyway). 

 

Bit different in southern Europe. I remember in Italy a supermarket chain almost literally being chased out of a small town once when they were meeting local govt to discuss the possibility of opening a shop in the town. 

 

I think, understandably so, many people just think the power of the likes of Tesco is such that it can't be defeated. They're often right.

 

Wetherspoons is the same. 

 

Most towns now are Tesco, Wetherspoons, cash for gold type shops, charity shops, middle class tat shops almost indistinguishable from charity shops, and bizarre shops that last about six months (two examples from my town - a milkshake shop and a dog groomer). Basically shops that do stuff Tesco doesn't actually cover. Sadly, and predictably, the reason Tesco don't bother is because there isn't the market for it.

[SasaS]

16 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Because Tesco takes over a town and ensures every baker, florist, and butcher has to lower their wages to compete. It's either that or go out of business. 

 

Tesco pays off the local govt to ensure they get prime locations and cheap land and then builds a store that transforms a town. Everyone soon has to shop there, go there as a supplier (a farmer for example) and work there if they need a job.

 

My town's food bank was, aptly, outside Tesco. Many of the workers had to go there.

Well, retail is not the only industry. If the town is so small that arrival of Tesco means there will be no competition, in that case the local council should not let them come.

[Jairzinho]

Just now, SasaS said:

Well, retail is not the only industry. If the town is so small that arrival of Tesco means there will be no competition, in that case the local council should not let them come.

That's a lovely thought. 

 

The reality is that these enormous corporations own the country, they sweep their competition in to the bin, force populations to accept jobs there (or be unemployed) force suppliers to sell to them (or not sell at all), and force people to shop there (because no-one has any fucking money).

 

The cycle of shit as corporatism makes Adam Smith turn in his grave.

[Duff Man]

4 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Yes, and it's often done in the quiet. Local papers, dying a death anyway, rarely cover it in much detail (and they have a tiny readership anyway). 

 

Bit different in southern Europe. I remember in Italy a supermarket chain almost literally being chased out of a small town once when they were meeting local govt to discuss the possibility of opening a shop in the town. 

 

I think, understandably so, many people just think the power of the likes of Tesco is such that it can't be defeated. They're often right.

 

Wetherspoons is the same. 

 

Most towns now are Tesco, Wetherspoons, cash for gold type shops, charity shops, middle class tat shops almost indistinguishable from charity shops, and bizarre shops that last about six months (two examples from my town - a milkshake shop and a dog groomer). Basically shops that do stuff Tesco doesn't actually cover. Sadly, and predictably, the reason Tesco don't bother is because there isn't the market for it.

Sainsbury's have been fought off twice by the good people of [a place near me], but that sort of community action is, sadly, for the reasons you mention, the exception rather than the norm.

[SasaS]

17 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

That's a lovely thought. 

 

The reality is that these enormous corporations own the country, they sweep their competition in to the bin, force populations to accept jobs there (or be unemployed) force suppliers to sell to them (or not sell at all), and force people to shop there (because no-one has any fucking money).

 

The cycle of shit as corporatism makes Adam Smith turn in his grave.

 

In some cases, it is determined by technology and business logic, if a faceless corporation takes away your customers, you are not giving them anything the corporation cannot easily replicate, which would mean, what is the point of your business? It's ridiculous when a corporation is that big it can dictate its own terms because it is the only buyer, but retail has long time gone the way of supermarket and hypermarket chains because in most cases it makes sense and it is now increasingly going the way of on-line which will probably push the current market incumbents out to be replaced by something else. Same as with faceless record chains and film rental chains which stifled local stores only to be put out of business themselves. On a national level, how would you prevent supermarket chains, restaurant chains etc., when it makes economic sense? If I remember correctly, there are cooperative in Italy which combine local producers but again result in a chain of big shops, Spar I think began as some kind of cooperative and so on. It's difficult to restrict organic growth.

[lifetime fan]

59 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Because Tesco takes over a town and ensures every baker, florist, and butcher has to lower their wages to compete. It's either that or go out of business. 

 

Tesco pays off the local govt to ensure they get prime locations and cheap land and then builds a store that transforms a town. Everyone soon has to shop there, go there as a supplier (a farmer for example) and work there if they need a job.

 

My town's food bank was, aptly, outside Tesco. Many of the workers had to go there.

 

Or an old favourite Tesco trick of building the supermarket and applying for planning permission retrospectively. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

23 hours ago, A Red said:

Investing is like gambling, you take a risk, if it works you get hopefully good rewards. Your guy was either very lucky or was clever but either way he "earned" his money because he took the risk in the first place. 

Investing - properly defined - is more akin to work.  An investor would be someone who buys something, does something to increase its value (e.g. renovating an old house) and sells at a profit. That's the sort of activity an efficient economy should incentivise.

 

What we're talking about here is speculating; an activity which is often incorrectly described as "investing".  That is, absolutely, akin to gambling.  The lucky cunt adds no value, has no influence over whether the gamble pays off or not, does nothing productive and in no way can be said to earn the money they get.  An economy that incentivises that sort of behaviour rewards inefficient and socially harmful practices (such as land-banking).

 

From bits of evidence I've seen over the years, it seems clear that rich people today (in the UK, at least) tend to acquire their fortunes more through speculating and gambling than through work and investing.  

[Jairzinho]

Economic sense for who?

 

I can buy a cheaper chicken in Tesco than the butchers. Yes.

 

But this dynamic also means that if I want to buy a chicken it has to be from there. If I want a local job my options are severely restricted. If I want to sell the chickens in my garden it has to be to Tesco. 

I'm repeating myself, I know. But the fact is that this pattern of business doesn't make economic sense for anyone bar a small number of very rich people. 

 

And it isn't capitalism. This is something the Labour party should be stressing. It's dirigism on the sly.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

23 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Sure, but most assets don't appreciate massively in value for no other reason than luck, was my point. It normally requires someone to add value to them.

But that's often not  the person who owns the assets.  

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Economic sense for who?

 

I can buy a cheaper chicken in Tesco than the butchers. Yes.

 

But this dynamic also means that if I want to buy a chicken it has to be from there. If I want a local job my options are severely restricted. If I want to sell the chickens in my garden it has to be to Tesco. 

I'm repeating myself, I know. But the fact is that this pattern of business doesn't make economic sense for anyone bar a small number of very rich people. 

 

And it isn't capitalism. This is something the Labour party should be stressing. It's dirigism on the sly.

As I said, retail is not the only industry. If you lived in a small town of, I don't know, 5 or 10 thousand people dominated by local shops and worked as, I don't know, software engineer, you'd be better off when "Tesco" comes to your town if they can offer lower grocery prices (provided they don't do it to put locals out of business and then put their own prices up). Supermarket chains mostly don't buy what they sell locally. Most affected are the local retailers. If they sell you a carton of milk for 10 or 20 percent more the same carton costs in the nearest "Tesco", you are paying a premium to them so they can run a local shop, probably lot less cost-effectively then the supermarket chain, which uses economy of scale. In that way it makes economic sense to have supermarket chains because they can use economy of scale, if no other value is offered to the customer. The economy is no longer restricted to small communities which trade within themselves and most jobs are not created by such trade. The problems begin when corporations become too big on a national or international level so they can do what they want. 

 

[Alan Sex]

 

[VladimirIlyich]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

If you are not well paid or motivated in some other way, you would still give zero shits about your work for a local greengrocer.

It's partly due to technology, partly to incentives, if your pay is performance-linked what difference does it make who are you working for? If you worked for John Lewis you probably cared much more than if you worked in some Amazon's warehouse.

Similarly to what TheHowieLama said, in old Eastern European socialism workers often didn't care where they paycheck came from, unless they were paid well and/or had a performance-linked wages in which case they had to beat them with sticks to go home when the shift was over. Figuratively. 

I wish you wouldn't call a despotic Eastern European regime socialist as it simply wasn't. Like the fascist Nazis the word gets thrown in to simply try to give it some credibility when it has little or none at all.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

21 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

Most companies would collapse without workers. That's not really an answer to the question.

 

Let's put it another way - if the people at the bottom are the ones adding the value, why do they need the people at the top at all?

 

Either the people at the top are adding something crucial, or they're not.

But it's not exactly meritocratic, is it?

 

A few decades ago FTSE 100 CEOs were paid about 30-odd times the salary of their average workers; today the ratio is something like 120:1.  This isn't because they've become so much more productive.  In fact, their pay has continued to rise as the performance of their companies has fluctuated.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

The reality is the worker shows up for a check. Only the very best companies get the worker to care about who the check comes from.

Ironically the further you move a society to the "left" the less the worker cares about who the check comes from, much less the quality of the work.

Is there any evidence at all to back up this ironic "reality" of yours?