The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (56 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

Are you suggesting Britain made no concessions in the original negotiations? I don't believe that for a minute, the same as I don't believe May's WA is the final word from the EU either.
Anyone can see that we are still (or have gone back to) the rhetoric & posturing side of things.
It will all end in smile, handshakes & pats on the back though.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

What concessions did we make? Which red lines did we cross? At most the backstop, but as no one can think of a better solution that doesn’t cross a red line or break the integrity of the EU border, I can’t see that changing so it’s hardly a concession.

If there’s a better deal to be had, where is it? Why is no one campaigning for it? Why isn’t Boris negotiating it?

There’s four options and there has been for months:
- Pass the deal
- Revoke
- No Deal
- Change our red lines (not have a “proper” Brexit, according to many Brexiters)

This image has been around for ages, and the Brexiters have been unable to pick from the menu:

 

---

[Astute]

If you can’t afford to pay a living wage your job isn’t viable. Any job is viable at slave wages. I could run an arse wiping business at 2p a time if you let me pay my employees 1p an hour.

The cost of Human Resources is the cost of living a healthy, fulfilled life. Just like the cost of steel is made up of the cost of digging it out the ground and smelting it. If supplier prices go up, you adapt or go out of business.

If no one is willing to pay the wages, then there’s not an economic incentive to do that work.

You want jobs subsidised, either directly through the benefits system, or indirectly through the health care and other public services, if they aren’t economically viable. You said so yourself. You don’t want to pay a wage that allows for a healthy and fulfilling life.

You been on the beer or are you just making stuff up again?

Our minimum wage is more than most of the EU. It is more than most of America. Yet now you make out it is slave wages and the jobs should be abolished. So what are you going to do about America and Europe?

Exactly.

 

[Astute]

What concessions did we make? Which red lines did we cross? At most the backstop, but as no one can think of a better solution that doesn’t cross a red line or break the integrity of the EU border, I can’t see that changing so it’s hardly a concession.

If there’s a better deal to be had, where is it? Why is no one campaigning for it? Why isn’t Boris negotiating it?

There’s four options and there has been for months:
- Pass the deal
- Revoke
- No Deal
- Change our red lines (not have a “proper” Brexit, according to many Brexiters)

This image has been around for ages, and the Brexiters have been unable to pick from the menu:

As you know it was designed this way. If they would have been willing to talk trade at an early time we would have known what was beeded in Ireland. But it was sort out problems that might not exist and work out how many billions we would have to hand over before we could talk trade.

 

[skybluetony176]

As you know it was designed this way. If they would have been willing to talk trade at an early time we would have known what was beeded in Ireland. But it was sort out problems that might not exist and work out how many billions we would have to hand over before we could talk trade.

But we know we’re going to get a good trade deal because we hold all the cards. As you’ve repeatedly claimed yourself the French still want to sell us cheese and wine and the Germans still want to sell us cars.

 

[shmmeee]

You been on the beer or are you just making stuff up again?

Our minimum wage is more than most of the EU. It is more than most of America. Yet now you make out it is slave wages and the jobs should be abolished. So what are you going to do about America and Europe?

Exactly.

Cost of living is different as are benefits systems. Though I’d hardly say the US is a beacon of functioning society. They have massive social problems.

Simple point: if the government is subsidising your wages either directly or indirectly, then you need a pay rise or your job isn’t economically viable. Address that point rather than blathering on about beer and other countries. You really are obvious when you’ve lost an argument.

 

[shmmeee]

As you know it was designed this way. If they would have been willing to talk trade at an early time we would have known what was beeded in Ireland. But it was sort out problems that might not exist and work out how many billions we would have to hand over before we could talk trade.

We knew what was needed in Ireland since before the referendum. It’s hardly a new problem.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You been on the beer or are you just making stuff up again?

Our minimum wage is more than most of the EU. It is more than most of America. Yet now you make out it is slave wages and the jobs should be abolished. So what are you going to do about America and Europe?

Exactly.

To be fair he didn't say that the wages were slave wages, he said "any job is viable at slave wages", It was a theoretical argument taken to its conclusion that if the business cannot produce at a viable cost but you wish to protect the jobs you reduce the wages until such point as it becomes viable. But if that then makes the jobs being paid next to nothing and a person cannot survive of those wages, what is the purpose of protecting the jobs? That is protecting the business, not the people.

Lets say a company have a robot doing a job in their factory and they are only willing to pay £x per robot. However for that price the robot can't be kept in working order because things like oil, lubricant, power etc cost more than that. Thus the robots are unable to function. Would it be fair to expect the government to cover the extra cost to keep the robots running just so they can maintain their profit margin?

Using capitalist thinking they can either:
- up their prices to cover the extra cost and suffer the decrease in demand;
- find a new way to produce the product at that cost
- reduce their profit margin to maintain sales

if none of these are possible then the product they're making is not economically viable, it is a waste of resources and it should no longer be produced.

If you take any other material/cost apart from wages and suggest the government should contribute towards it then it would instantly be called subsidised industry.

 

[shmmeee]

To be fair he didn't say that the wages were slave wages, he said "any job is viable at slave wages", It was a theoretical argument taken to its conclusion that if the business cannot produce at a viable cost but you wish to protect the jobs you reduce the wages until such point as it becomes viable. But if that then makes the jobs being paid next to nothing and a person cannot survive of those wages, what is the purpose of protecting the jobs? That is protecting the business, not the people.

Lets say a company have a robot doing a job in their factory and they are only willing to pay £x per robot. However for that price the robot can't be kept in working order because things like oil, lubricant, power etc cost more than that. Thus the robots are unable to function. Would it be fair to expect the government to cover the extra cost to keep the robots running just so they can maintain their profit margin?

Using capitalist thinking they can either:
- up their prices to cover the extra cost and suffer the decrease in demand;
- find a new way to produce the product at that cost
- reduce their profit margin to maintain sales

if none of these are possible then the product they're making is not economically viable, it is a waste of resources and it should no longer be produced.

If you take any other material/cost apart from wages and suggest the government should contribute towards it then it would instantly be called subsidised industry.

Perfectly put. Thank you.

 

[Grendel]

To be fair he didn't say that the wages were slave wages, he said "any job is viable at slave wages", It was a theoretical argument taken to its conclusion that if the business cannot produce at a viable cost but you wish to protect the jobs you reduce the wages until such point as it becomes viable. But if that then makes the jobs being paid next to nothing and a person cannot survive of those wages, what is the purpose of protecting the jobs? That is protecting the business, not the people.

Lets say a company have a robot doing a job in their factory and they are only willing to pay £x per robot. However for that price the robot can't be kept in working order because things like oil, lubricant, power etc cost more than that. Thus the robots are unable to function. Would it be fair to expect the government to cover the extra cost to keep the robots running just so they can maintain their profit margin?

Using capitalist thinking they can either:
- up their prices to cover the extra cost and suffer the decrease in demand;
- find a new way to produce the product at that cost
- reduce their profit margin to maintain sales

if none of these are possible then the product they're making is not economically viable, it is a waste of resources and it should no longer be produced.

If you take any other material/cost apart from wages and suggest the government should contribute towards it then it would instantly be called subsidised industry.

Successive governments have made numerous alterations to taxation policy and other influencers on peoples spend.

Schmeee has s very simplistic argument and does not factor in other considerations

The other factor of course is the huge subsidies that make many business work and to encourage investment

As well of course if we do not allow government involvement of propping up loss making industries do we extend that to public owned industries? Should we adopt private ethos on those?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Successive governments have made numerous alterations to taxation policy and other influencers on peoples spend.

Schmeee has s very simplistic argument and does not factor in other considerations

The other factor of course is the huge subsidies that make many business work and to encourage investment

As well of course if we do not allow government involvement of propping up loss making industries do we extend that to public owned industries? Should we adopt private ethos on those?

Of course governments tax or control certain things to influence demand and/or prevent harm to the people from them. That is the supposed job of government - to protect the people.

Governments do also 'subsidise by stealth' (or more openly in other economies like China) with grants, reduced rates, tax breaks etc, but it is amazing how the free-market capitalist advocates find this acceptable as it goes completely against their ethos. Apart from when they're the beneficiaries of course.

Many public owned industries are such because the private sector want them but don't see any means of profit in those specific parts. Without infrastructure businesses would be unable to operate, but for them to be run at a profit by the private sector would up their costs. If there were no healthcare they would have a very unstable workforce due to illness and disease increasing days off etc. At its most extreme you argue people would die then the supply of workers decreases and so the cost of wages increases - many increases in rights/wages etc for common people follow a catastrophe like war, plaque etc.If the businesses wish to keep wages low they want an increasing, healthy population but they're not willing to pay towards getting it via healthcare.

 

[Grendel]

Of course governments tax or control certain things to influence demand and/or prevent harm to the people from them. That is the supposed job of government - to protect the people.

Governments do also 'subsidise by stealth' (or more openly in other economies like China) with grants, reduced rates, tax breaks etc, but it is amazing how the free-market capitalist advocates find this acceptable as it goes completely against their ethos. Apart from when they're the beneficiaries of course.

Many public owned industries are such because the private sector want them but don't see any means of profit in those specific parts. Without infrastructure businesses would be unable to operate, but for them to be run at a profit by the private sector would up their costs. If there were no healthcare they would have a very unstable workforce due to illness and disease increasing days off etc. At its most extreme you argue people would die then the supply of workers decreases and so the cost of wages increases - many increases in rights/wages etc for common people follow a catastrophe like war, plaque etc.If the businesses wish to keep wages low they want an increasing, healthy population but they're not willing to pay towards getting it via healthcare.

So you are against subsidising private industries only. Ok. All private companies? So in your example you are against subsiding a company to repair its aged machinery - if such an example exists?

 

[Sick Boy]

She’s a laughing stock

Says the guy deflecting and making excuses for Johnson.

 

[Astute]

Cost of living is different as are benefits systems. Though I’d hardly say the US is a beacon of functioning society. They have massive social problems.

Simple point: if the government is subsidising your wages either directly or indirectly, then you need a pay rise or your job isn’t economically viable. Address that point rather than blathering on about beer and other countries. You really are obvious when you’ve lost an argument.

Obvious when you consistantly make out I have said things I haven't. Then when I pull you up on it you don't show what doesn't exist then come out with more crap.

You are much better than this. It shows what this Brexit debacle has done to you.

 

[shmmeee]

Obvious when you consistantly make out I have said things I haven't. Then when I pull you up on it you don't show what doesn't exist then come out with more crap.

You are much better than this. It shows what this Brexit debacle has done to you.

I could be wrong but I thought the convo went:

Me: morally I feel the NMW should provide for a decent life
You: No, raising the NMW would lead to job losses
Me: then those jobs aren’t viable
You: I never said that

If that’s wrong, fair enough. I’ve got the wrong end of the stick

 

[Grendel]

I could be wrong but I thought the convo went:

Me: morally I feel the NMW should provide for a decent life
You: No, raising the NMW would lead to job losses
Me: then those jobs aren’t viable
You: I never said that

If that’s wrong, fair enough. I’ve got the wrong end of the stick

I assume then on the basis of jobs not being viable we should close all businesses that rely on state subsidies to exist?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I assume then on the basis of jobs not being viable we should close all businesses that rely on state subsidies to exist?

Why should the state subsidise low wages?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Says the guy deflecting and making excuses for Johnson.

Won’t discuss Johnson’s bollocks ideas if they don’t affect him

Does discuss minimum wage though he doesn’t earn it

 

[Grendel]

Why should the state subsidise low wages?

Interesting - I assume you’d also agree with the poster that says we wouldn’t subsidise a business that could not afford to maintain its own plant and machinery.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Interesting - I assume you’d also agree with the poster that says we wouldn’t subsidise a business that could not afford to maintain its own plant and machinery.

Answer the question G

 

[Grendel]

Answer the question G

Well I think it is necessary yes

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Well I think it is necessary yes

It is necessary to maintain dependence on the state for support?

 

[Grendel]

It is necessary to maintain dependence on the state for support?

For some businesses clearly it’s vital

 

[skybluetony176]

For some businesses clearly it’s vital

Out of pure morbid curiosity which businesses/industries are you talking about specifically?

 

[Grendel]

Out of pure morbid curiosity which businesses/industries are you talking about specifically?

Let’s start with agriculture

 

[Astute]

I could be wrong but I thought the convo went:

Me: morally I feel the NMW should provide for a decent life
You: No, raising the NMW would lead to job losses
Me: then those jobs aren’t viable
You: I never said that

If that’s wrong, fair enough. I’ve got the wrong end of the stick

You know exactly what I said as have already explained it all once. And what I said was clear enough for most people.

There has been calls for the minimum wage to go up to a tenner an hour. What I said......and others agree I said......is raising it too quickly would increase inflation. Prices would go up. This would increase inflation. Before you know it the pay rise would be lost to inflation.

Do you have a mortgage? It has been kept artificially low for years. If i flation gets going like when Labour were in power before....not the Bliar years as he was Tory in disguise.....your mortgage repayments could easily double.

If the low paid were to get a massive payrise by the % many others would also want one. Then if it was given to all inflation would be out of control. Millions would lose their homes.

At least they could try and blame it on Brexit......

 

[Astute]

Why should the state subsidise low wages?

If that is the case why should the state subsidise housing?

You love to pick and choose the rules depending on the topic at the time.

Should we just close everywhere not making a big profit? Should we force new startups into paying higher wages than they can afford?

Yeah shut em down and throw millions onto the scrap heap. Great idea

 

[Grendel]

If that is the case why should the state subsidise housing?

You love to pick and choose the rules depending on the topic at the time.

Should we just close everywhere not making a big profit? Should we force new startups into paying higher wages than they can afford?

Yeah shut em down and throw millions onto the scrap heap. Great idea

Brighton is advocating closing every farm in the uk

 

[Astute]

Let’s start with agriculture

It seems to have gone a bit quiet. I wonder why.

Can't be anything to do with untold billions of subsidised money from the EU going to rich landowners to keep food prices up can it? The last tume I looked about half of the total EU budget went on this.

 

[Astute]

Brighton is advocating closing every farm in the uk

But never says a word about EU subsidies. Yes I know. Then he accuses me of bullshit.

This is what pisses me off about the outspoken remainers. Ignore the bad unless it is about the UK and then shout as loud as you can. Ignore the good unless it is about the EU. Then shout as loud as you can.

What is good for one side is good for the other. What is bad for one side is bad for the other.

If our minimum wage must be set as a tenner an hour why doesn't the rest of the EU have to put the minimum wage to a tenner?

 

[Grendel]

But never says a word about EU subsidies. Yes I know. Then he accuses me of bullshit.

This is what pisses me off about the outspoken remainers. Ignore the bad unless it is about the UK and then shout as loud as you can. Ignore the good unless it is about the EU. Then shout as loud as you can.

What is good for one side is good for the other. What is bad for one side is bad for the other.

If our minimum wage must be set as a tenner an hour why doesn't the rest of the EU have to put the minimum wage to a tenner?

It’s also amusing as the fruit picking industry benefits from freedom of movement with workers who’ve the opportunity to actually make more money as the wage in many countries is far less.

The increase would bankrupt these businesses overnight probably or mean some uk workers may commit to these jobs. Either way it will ruin the quality of life for many in the Eu - it’s beyond parody

 

[skybluetony176]

Let’s start with agriculture

So who’s going to subsidise the farms when we leave? There’s plenty of articles out there where farmers are now concerned that they could be the next coal industry post Brexit.

 

[Astute]

So who’s going to subsidise the farms when we leave? There’s plenty of articles out there where farmers are now concerned that they could be the next coal industry post Brexit.

So do you agree or disagree with subsidies?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

What concessions did we make? Which red lines did we cross? At most the backstop, but as no one can think of a better solution that doesn’t cross a red line or break the integrity of the EU border, I can’t see that changing so it’s hardly a concession.

If there’s a better deal to be had, where is it? Why is no one campaigning for it? Why isn’t Boris negotiating it?

There’s four options and there has been for months:
- Pass the deal
- Revoke
- No Deal
- Change our red lines (not have a “proper” Brexit, according to many Brexiters)

This image has been around for ages, and the Brexiters have been unable to pick from the menu:

Well there is the backstop to begin with.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

So who’s going to subsidise the farms when we leave? There’s plenty of articles out there where farmers are now concerned that they could be the next coal industry post Brexit.

Er I think it’s brighton and schmeee you need to address this to - they think any non self sufficient business needs closing? Where have I said this?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So you are against subsidising private industries only. Ok. All private companies? So in your example you are against subsiding a company to repair its aged machinery - if such an example exists?

No, I'm not necessarily against subsidising private industry as a blanket rule - in some cases it does prevent a big shock to local or national economies that would have knock-on effects down the line. I'm more for subsidising infrastructure and services that are beneficial to society as a whole but predominantly the people though. If private businesses also benefit then that's fine but it shouldn't be the main or intended beneficiary.

My point is that if these free-market capitalist advocates truly believed in the system they wouldn't request or even accept such intervention even if offered because it skews the outcome.

America have started this trade war with China due to state subsidy creating artifically low prices, but the US subsidies it's own industry as well in certain ways. There was a documentary a few years ago where some businesses were being kept competitive because they were allowed to use prisoners as a workforce - pretty much slave labour.

The 2008 crisis was a disaster created by the financial services sector. Many individuals knew it was coming and rather than trying to prevent it positioned themselves to profit personally and then added fuel to the fire. So when it all eventually went tits up and the businesses they controlled had been put on the brink you'd imagine this epitome of capitalism would be adamant that it wouldn't want state aid as govt had no place interfering in the market. But amazingly they were immediately cap in hand asking for bailouts which were way in excess of anything other industries had required before. Then once they'd got the money all of a sudden it's back to the mantra of 'no state intervention' when the likes of regulation and bonuses are questioned.

Capitalists are far quicker and happier to accept financial help than most of those on income support. That is the irony.