* News * Politics * Economic policy Ministers admit family debt burden i

[Chrysalis]

to an extenct, governments can do things that business and individuals cannot tho. They can certianly do a lot more than previous ones have done but its political reasons like wanting to stay in power that stop them.

But the previous government didn't - it spent money it didn't have, and eventually the free-for-all has to stop, and we have to live within our means as a country (slightly frightening that borrowing over £140 million per day to stand still can be called "living within our means....).

[mertle]

Ignitionnet it all right blowing the trumpet of Jobs and more Jobs but where is these jobs going to come from when Private sector not creating them. Especially when they are driven to excessive profits which they have no intention off using to expand create jobs. The Greed mentality is just as damaging as the the mentality to live with the jones as they say.

Not talking about these stupid jobs like telephones sales which seem to irritateg people on cold calling. Proper jobs which will get the country back on the feet. I read an analyst say that most jobs are temp and part time but very few full time long term jobs are being made. Which has too be worry for the country.

You got to remember why all these quango jobs and increase public sector jobs was created to alievate those lost Private sector jobs. The unemployed would be horrendous without the drive which actually initially started by the tories. Sadly we may have to accept some will always be unemployed with modern society. I think full employment is impossible dream. There lots factors which I posted in another thread mechanism, 12 hour shifts it all erodes jobs.

Those issue wont go away its been worse when companies will move jobs to abroad where labour market is cheaper. Unitl we do something about Land and housing false economy JOBS wont come unless the following but is morally right.

Aha we might solve it by making english slums where very poor live in tents and shacks. Dont get anything so willing to work for a pound a week in work houses and go begging in the streets or worst robbing rich and murdering.

It was called the victorian period and it seem some people want it to return.

Nothing like a tirade full of emotive statements to liven up the debate.

Nobody want the Victorian period to return, but neither do we want to be in the same boat as Eire or Greece.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But the previous government didn't - it spent money it didn't have, and eventually the free-for-all has to stop, and we have to live within our means as a country (slightly frightening that borrowing over £140 million per day to stand still can be called "living within our means....).

not the same situation, the government has the means to pay back what its borrowing, I agree the deficit is at a high level but its unrealistic to expect to have no deficit. It also has mechanisms it can call up on for a increase of tax revenue should it be needed. Quite simply put a government shouldnt be compared to a business, another mistake tories tend to make they try to run it like a business.

Mertle made a point which you havent answered, he basically saying the same as me in that these jobs are not going to just appear. It is a global market.

erm, how has the government the means to pay back what it is borrowing?

The only money the government has is taxes, and we have a shortfall on those at the moment - should we raise those?

Re the jobs - encourage private industry to thrive, which will create more jobs; like it or not, we are a service/creative industry hub, as we cannot compete in (many) manufacturing areas. Just creating more public sector jobs builds a larger deficit - we need a reasonable sized public sector, but over 50% is not, imho, reasonable sized.

[Chrysalis]

The government could raise taxes tommorow if they wanted to. The reason they not is quite simply there is no real need to for how they want to run the country.

Dont think you think its a sad state of affairs we only have a service sector, which is basically supermarkets, takeaways ,that sort of thing. A nation full of shopkeepers A creative industry is and never will be a mass employer.

Ultimately if we didnt vie blueprints to chinese factories there wouldnt be a need to compete either, thats just simply companies getting greedy and wanting to cash in on the cheaper labour. Why the UK was viable for manufacturing in the 80s and before and suddenly not now is a question that should be raised, our wage inflation has been low since then compared to historical data.

If I owned a company that was able to make a profit using a uk workforce but then suddenly told me that if they dont go offshore they will go under I would be asking a lot of questions.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Mertle made a point which you havent answered, he basically saying the same as me in that these jobs are not going to just appear. It is a global market.

Yes it is a global market and how do you suggest UK PLC competes with that global market unless we make efficiencies, drive costs down and start creating wealth as opposed to borrowing? Having already lost so many jobs (service sector, manufacturing, hi-tech etc.) to the likes of India and China you appear believe that UK workers can still be insulated from the harsh reality and have a God given right to jobs, better pay and conditions. The only way for this to happen is if sufficient wealth is created to fund those jobs, salaries and conditions and why would companies competing in your global market choose to employ people here if the cost of so doing (via tax, regulation etc.) is so much greater than elsewhere? The countless £billions being paid in interest on our debt every year aren't generating any jobs, building any schools or anything else are they. It's money wasted.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But the previous government didn't - it spent money it didn't have, and eventually the free-for-all has to stop, and we have to live within our means as a country (slightly frightening that borrowing over £140 million per day to stand still can be called "living within our means....).

The current level of UK debt is due to the twin evils of gross over spending by the last government and banking stupidity but it is not and never has been the end of the world.

Countries like many of the largest companies operate on a permanent debt basis. The ways of eradicating debt are, paying it down, inflation or liquidation. A combination of inflation and growth has always taken care of debt in the past and unless the coalition has also stopped the economic cycle inflation will help in the future. Growth is the coalition's responsibility but anything in that direction is on their "hope for" list with the last budget showing a small element of afterthought.

IMO we are being conned with the real agenda being wealth re-distribution. There was too much easy distribution of wealth towards the poorer in society but I have no doubt that if all the coalition's agendas are followed through everybody up to the super rich will be a heck of lot poorer but the super rich will see the wealth once again moving towards the concentration of the most in the hands of the few.

Notice how many companies are showing record profits whilst raising prices in the face of austerity. We should be in a deflationary environment where companies compete for the reduced spending power of consumers but somehow suppliers of essential services are bucking the trend. IMO it is blatant wealth distribution.

These are charts which show that the "end of our financial world is nigh" is nothing but political rhetoric to push an agenda. We are led to believe that our AAA rating was under threat. Rubbish abetted by an agency already thought to be worthless as it signed off AAA rating on the USA banks debts that went on to cause a global banking crisis.

We are being conned on the cause and if the public are long term stupid enough to go along with the path to the consequences then welcome to the world of my early life where the poor were poor and the rich incredibly rich with almost nothing in between.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk...national-debt/

Look at the lower chart and see the power of inflating debt away whilst simultaneously growing an economy. The much maligned Boomers paid that debt down at tax levels that hurt.

---------- Post added at 10:53 ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

erm, how has the government the means to pay back what it is borrowing?

The only money the government has is taxes, and we have a shortfall on those at the moment - should we raise those?

Re the jobs - encourage private industry to thrive, which will create more jobs; like it or not, we are a service/creative industry hub, as we cannot compete in (many) manufacturing areas. Just creating more public sector jobs builds a larger deficit - we need a reasonable sized public sector, but over 50% is not, imho, reasonable sized.

We need lots and lots of people prepared to slave away in factories for minimum wage. The fact that they cannot live on what they will earn is an unfortunate detail but at least they will have a job.

We also need to stop silly aspirations and close universities wholesale as that gives people aspirations way beyond what the economy needs.

I still do not see how we can compete in many areas as consumer electronics are so cheap that for something like a computer hard drive the largest percentage cost factor is not production or shipping half way round the world but the local white van man delivery.

I live in an area where everybody wants to get rich off of every job they do whether it be window cleaning, gardening, plumbing etc etc etc. They have to learn to be poor and realise that their value is counted in small change. Will it happen... of course not but the consequences of trying to make it happen may not be pretty. The Chinese curse of "may he live in interesting times" is just beginning for all of us.

Will the last person to leave UK plc please turn out the lights ( in case the power ever comes back on).

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Osem

Yes it is a global market and how do you suggest UK PLC competes with that global market unless we make efficiencies, drive costs down and start creating wealth as opposed to borrowing? Having already lost so many jobs (service sector, manufacturing, hi-tech etc.) to the likes of India and China you appear believe that UK workers can still be insulated from the harsh reality and have a God given right to jobs, better pay and conditions. The only way for this to happen is if sufficient wealth is created to fund those jobs, salaries and conditions and why would companies competing in your global market choose to employ people here if the cost of so doing (via tax, regulation etc.) is so much greater than elsewhere? The countless £billions being paid in interest on our debt every year aren't generating any jobs, building any schools or anything else are they. It's money wasted.

how does driving wages down whilst having high inflation create wealth?

In truth to compete we need deflation, the dole in the UK is more than the average salary in romania. The difference between ourselves and some countries is immense. But we cannot drive wages down without the cost of living going down with it, it doesnt compute. Taxes for the vast majority of people only makes up a minorty of living costs, so cutting taxes wont be sufficient if the idea was to deflate living costs via cutting taxes. Things like housing costs, food, electric, gas, petrol all need to go down as well.

The truth tho is these jobs didnt need to go, companies were making money without taking such action, however in a capitalist fashion where profit growth is demanded boss's under pressure have made such moves to improve the bottom line. I seen the tricks they pull, when I used to work for walkers crisps in a management position there used to be briefings with shop floor staff and the story went like this. They were told the company made a loss/profit not based on actual profit but rather on profit targets. So eg. if the target was 100million profit and we made 86 million profit the staff were told we made a 14 million loss and hence a reduction of staff on the shop floor as well as compulsary overtime (without overtime wages). Those who didnt sign up for the work time directive were simply let go. Each year the profit target went up without a realistic reason justifying how it could be achieved, it simply went up. Occasionally automation coming in (which reduced the staffing levels) could justify it but not every year.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

how does driving wages down whilst having high inflation create wealth?

In truth to compete we need deflation, the dole in the UK is more than the average salary in romania. The difference between ourselves and some countries is immense. But we cannot drive wages down without the cost of living going down with it, it doesnt compute. Taxes for the vast majority of people only makes up a minorty of living costs, so cutting taxes wont be sufficient if the idea was to deflate living costs via cutting taxes. Things like housing costs, food, electric, gas, petrol all need to go down as well.

The truth tho is these jobs didnt need to go, companies were making money without taking such action, however in a capitalist fashion where profit growth is demanded boss's under pressure have made such moves to improve the bottom line. I seen the tricks they pull, when I used to work for walkers crisps in a management position there used to be briefings with shop floor staff and the story went like this. They were told the company made a loss/profit not based on actual profit but rather on profit targets. So eg. if the target was 100million profit and we made 86 million profit the staff were told we made a 14 million loss and hence a reduction of staff on the shop floor as well as compulsary overtime (without overtime wages). Those who didnt sign up for the work time directive were simply let go. Each year the profit target went up without a realistic reason justifying how it could be achieved, it simply went up. Occasionally automation coming in (which reduced the staffing levels) could justify it but not every year.

How does losing more and more jobs to the likes of India and China because we can't compete with them create anything except unemployment? Nobody wants lower wages but some wages are better than no wages don't you think? Whilst acknowledging the fact that people in many other countries have to work much harder for much less, you still seem to think that people here have a divine right to a certain standard of living even if we don't create the wealth to support that. We're clearly not generating the revenue to match our spending and although it'd be lovely if we could borrow more and more money to keep people's standards of living up we can't do that. Something has to give.

Portugal is now requesting an emergency bail-out as we speak. They've failed to tackle their problems and are now going cap in hand to Brussels to keep them afloat. Do you really think that can't happen here?

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35207852-post43.html

[Chrysalis]

Think of it this way.

in terms of GBP for simplicity sake.

Worker in uk gets paid £6 an hour.
Worker in china 60p an hour.
Outsource due to massive saving.

Uk tries to compete drops to £4 an hour.
China still at 60p an hour.

Is that going to stop the jobs been outsourced? unlikely.

What would stop it however is taxing outsourcing or making it illegal. However that would be illegal in itself with eu countries and probably damage trade with others

What can hope for is large inflation in likes of india and china so the gap gets closed and somehow deflation to occur here. Unlikely whilst interest rates are pegged down tho.

Thinking about this in the bigger picture the plan was probably more than about saving money, I expect various large companies considered the uk and usa saturated markets, so they deliberatly started a policy of shifting wealth to poorer countries which opens up new markets once the people there get wealthy enough to buy products.

In terms of unemployment I agree increasing it doesnt add wealth, so ask the tories why sacking people is helping the economy as they the ones increasing unemployment deliberatly. Their impatience has led to bad decisions, they should have waited for a recovery and the private sector to pick up (to prove their point) then to start shrinking the public sector.

[Osem]

What HMG is having to do is save money. They're trying to do that by cutting costs and improving efficiency in those areas funded directly by the public purse. At the same time they're trying to create the conditions in which the private sector can take up some of those jobs and create new ones which don't come at a huge cost to the public purse. It's not rocket science but it does take time and sadly involve redundancies amongst those who've been led to believe their jobs/conditions etc. were secure. The very fact that the markets aren't imploding is the best possible evidence that this action is what the international financiers want to see and that's why our credit rating hasn't yet been devalued significantly. Put Brown back in office with a populist mandate to spend and that'll change and we'll be where Portugal is now.

The reality is that we cannot make companies operate here and we cannot prevent them from leaving if they so wish. There are plenty of countries competing with the UK for jobs, tax revenues etc. It may not be palatable but the only areas in which savings can be made are those over which HMG has control i.e. the public sector. Yes they can try to raise extra revenue from corporation tax and cut avoidance to bring in more money but, as popular as that may be to some, it certainly isn't going solve our problems and may well lead to us losing more jobs and more revenue as companies choose to relocate elsewhere. They've been doing this on quite a scale in recent years so let's not delude ourselves that this won't escalate if the burden on them is significantly increased. The net result of that will be the need for even more cuts in government spending and matters being taken out of our hands. If you think what's being done now is tough just contemplate what that would be like.

We had a government which, for over a decade, led everyone to believe they'd broken the cycle of boom and bust. They had us believe we could spend our way to everlasting growth and prosperity. What a nice thought that is, how popular amongst the electorate to make them believe we can spend money we don't have and get better off in the process. A grand Ponzi scheme if ever there was one! Of course, it didn't work and rather and we're now facing the massive problems we see elsewhere in Europe.

If HMG was like New Labour they'd pretend it can all be done painlessly of course. They're doing that now. Criticising cuts but refusing to say who'd really suffer in their hands. The architects of our 'bust' haven't even got the balls to accept the responsibility for what went wrong, let alone deal with it. In their hands the only growth industry would be begging bowls and they'd be made in China.

[mertle]

Osem

Simple question do you hand on heart believe private sector will make 2 to 3 million jobs this country needs. We talking PROPER jobs here not part time not temp but proper jobs.

You do realise why Torries and Labour built the public sector is because widespread Autistcy from private sector. Many factors have happened to weaken our Private sector workforce some down to developing countries, some down to Pure Greed.

To exasperate issues the government forcing the retirement UP how the hell that going to help churn of labour. Thats going to really help just because they want people to die at work saving them paying a pension. Firms already saying its wrong to force them to keep workers upto these retirements. It should come down NOT UP. Those in skilled jobs should be kept to possibly give there experience to younger hands. Basically those who got something to give in experience to train others should retire when they see fit to do so else I would have the retirement 60 for all others.

Simply the reality is we going to be faced with massive unemployment burden which for no fault will be blamed as the new lazy people in the coming decades. No doubt hoping to deliberately force them to break rules so only pay them hardship grants save money. Read that they now a deliberate ploy to force people to apply jobs they cant do and try get people to get infractions. Not withstanding the issue about forcing loads incapable disabled into market now employer will ever take on with masses of free labour.

Everything which is going on is absolute oposite what is needed yes the Public sector needs to be rasionalised as it way too much burden on purse. However many places are top heavy with idividuals getting rich milking the cow with stupid horrendious wages. However there not losing there jobs its services and bottom workers. Which SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

There was case about spending £200 for light bulbs etc I would say it was possibly businesses abusing the situation of guaranteed income from public sector. Not completely convinced it was labour it happen during tory stewardship too. Lots firms abuse the public sector charging more than they should.

You can see right through the deceit of this government and it STIINKS

[Chrysalis]

If it wasnt so serious I would laugh at the thought of the private sector creating so many jobs, but I wont laugh as it is very serious.