[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 14235)
Message
File  []
close
catparl17.png
142351423514235
>> No. 14235 Anonymous
21st December 2017
Thursday 11:47 pm
14235 Catalexit Episode 3: Revenge of the Sí
Those pesky Catalans have been voting again.

The main pro-Leave alliance has picked up 66 seats, one short of a majority. As before, they could get CUP on board, since they also support independence, but they're a bit like the Kippers of the independentist movement - they're anti-EU populists, whereas nationalists have been quite vocal about securing an independent Catalonia within the EU. However, because Vice-President Junqueras pulled the Republican Left (ERC) out of fugitive President Puigdemont's united front (JxSi/JxCat), neither is the single largest party. That honour, together with the privilege of getting first crack at forming a government, goes to the pro-Remain liberal Citizens' Party (Cs), though that'll be difficult if the big pro-Leave parties won't put the status issue aside to work with them.

tl;dr: It's popcorn time in Barcelona again
Expand all images.
>> No. 14236 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 12:01 am
14236 spacer
>>14235
I have a couple of friends who are Catalan born and bred - they talk about this stuff, all the time, in a far more convincing way than most of the ScotNats do - seems like there is much more solidarity among the Catalan population.

Given all the mad things that have happened politically recently, and the economic mess that Spain is in generally, I can see this happening.
>> No. 14237 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 12:37 am
14237 spacer
>>14236

>and the economic mess that Spain is in generally

Spain is one of the biggest growth regions of the EU presently though.

Then again, if you are growing from shit, that still means you started out as shit and may take a long time really leaving shit behind.

Meaning, if your economy has been in the crapper for years, it can happen that you will see a recovery that will at some point outpace the growth of other regions. But you will still be on a low level in general. It's only your growth that will be noteworthy, but not things like your actual current GDP and what-have-you.
>> No. 14238 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 12:45 am
14238 spacer
>>14237
Both Spain and Portugal are still recovering from the impact of their respective dictatorships. Some of the backwater regions were barely better off at Restoration than they were at the start of WW2.
>> No. 14239 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 1:55 am
14239 spacer
>>14237
> if you are growing from shit

I heard a stat earlier in the year that had youth unemployment in Spain at around 23%.
>> No. 14240 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 3:48 am
14240 spacer
>>14239

It's even worse than that. It's currently 39.8% and peaked in 2014 at 55.8%.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS?locations=ES-GB-1W
>> No. 14241 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 4:29 pm
14241 spacer
>>14240
Excellent data, thank you.

Those numbers are frightening - how can up to half the youth population be unemployed, thats a disaster.
>> No. 14242 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 4:40 pm
14242 spacer

logo_eu.png
142421424214242
>>14241
>how can up to half the youth population be unemployed, thats a disaster
>> No. 14243 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 4:48 pm
14243 spacer
>>14242
You're going to have to do a bit better than that Nige. Why is Spain special compared to other European countries?
>> No. 14244 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 5:24 pm
14244 spacer
>>14243
It's all over the Mediterranean.

Greece - 43.3%
Spain - 38.7%
Italy - 35.1%
Cyprus - 26.3%
Croatia - 26.1%
Portugal - 24.6%
France - 23%

It's almost as if having a single currency is detrimental to certain regions whilst others, such as Germany, are able to gain an unfair advantage from it.
>> No. 14245 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 6:05 pm
14245 spacer
>>14244
Instead of acting like it's the most obvious thing in the world why don't you explain to those of us who aren't smartarse economists why that is the case?
>> No. 14246 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 6:10 pm
14246 spacer
>>14244
I like your theory about the Med, but you're going to have to flesh it out a bit. What about the other 19 countries (excluding us, obviously)?
>> No. 14247 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 6:48 pm
14247 spacer

Unemployment-EU-February-2017.png
142471424714247
>>14244
>It's almost as if having a single currency is detrimental to certain regions whilst others, such as Germany, are able to gain an unfair advantage from it.

How simplistic of you. If only the data was a perfect fit and we didn't have rather more obvious causes such as German labour market reform and contrasted to relative entrenchment up until recently in the likes of Italy.
>> No. 14248 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 7:10 pm
14248 spacer
>>14246
It's well known that Med folk are greasy and lazy.

It's not like the Spanish have ever invented anything.
>> No. 14249 Anonymous
22nd December 2017
Friday 7:54 pm
14249 spacer
>>14248
The Greeks invented Gayness, and they're the greasiest and laziest of the lot.
>> No. 14250 Anonymous
23rd December 2017
Saturday 7:33 am
14250 spacer

S03E01-MsOOnqQq.jpg
142501425014250
>>14249
>> No. 14251 Anonymous
23rd December 2017
Saturday 1:42 pm
14251 spacer
>>14240

>It's even worse than that. It's currently 39.8% and peaked in 2014 at 55.8%.

But that still means that youth employment has grown considerably since 2014. It's still worse than in many of the most shit places in Britain, but hey, there is improvement.

But again, don't let rapid growth fool you as to where a country is coming from. I've made good friends with a few locals on my holidays in the Canaries in recent years, and you've got an entire generation there of under-30s and by now even over-30s who have never held a steady long-term job in accordance with whatever their respective professional training was. Many of them are highly educated and may even have university degrees, but are forced to live with their parents into their 30s and work any number of unskilled low-profile jobs.

The Canary Islands have always been one of Spain's less prosperous regions. That said, according to Spain's national office of statistics, in the last one or two years, the Canaries have outperformed the rest of Spain - and Europe - in GDP growth and other dynamic economic indicators. They're still a shithole regarding the static indicators though.
>> No. 14252 Anonymous
23rd December 2017
Saturday 2:29 pm
14252 spacer
>>14251
>But that still means that youth employment has grown considerably since 2014.

No it doesn't. Employment is not the inverse of unemployment.
>> No. 14253 Anonymous
25th December 2017
Monday 12:40 am
14253 spacer
>>14250
Yeah you got his reference, well done champ.
>> No. 14254 Anonymous
27th December 2017
Wednesday 12:37 pm
14254 spacer
>>14252

Either way, the situation for young people still appears dire in Spain:

http://www.elmundo.es/sociedad/2017/06/28/5953af3246163fe1508b45c2.html

If you don't know enough Spanish: the article's key points are that less than 20 percent of young people under 30 lead financially stable, independent adult lives with their own place and a steady job that would allow them even a modest young adult lifestyle. The key problems being scarce employment on the one hand, and a virtually inaccessible housing market on the other hand, where a month's rent amounts to almost 70 percent of their monthly income. 57 percent of under-30s are in temp work, and 55 percent are employed in jobs that are below their level of education.

It really seems like there is a lost generation of young people growing up in Spain today.
>> No. 14255 Anonymous
27th December 2017
Wednesday 1:06 pm
14255 spacer
>>14254

How does that compare to the UK, from interest? It sounds like we have similar problems here, but to a different degree.
>> No. 14256 Anonymous
27th December 2017
Wednesday 2:51 pm
14256 spacer
>>14255
A completely different degree - our rates of unemployment are less than a quarter of those that the Spanish see.
>> No. 14257 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 12:27 am
14257 spacer
>>14256

And by and large, if you put up a minimal amount of effort and aren't dolescum, you will find a steady job as a young person in Britain that may not be great but will enable you to do some sort of work in your field that you trained for, and you will get to move out from your parents' and rent a small flat. It appears that for many young people in Spain, very basic things like this are nearly unattainable.
>> No. 14258 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 1:12 am
14258 spacer
>>14257
>and you will get to move out from your parents' and rent a small flat.
Where? In fucking Bangor?
>> No. 14259 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 3:13 am
14259 spacer
>>14257
I would agree actually. There is plenty of work out there, it's just that most people have unrealistic expectations of how much they are worth when they start out (but, I have a degree darling... etc).
>> No. 14260 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 6:24 am
14260 spacer

http _com.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com_92.png
142601426014260
>>14259
ONS statistics put it at 774,000 job vacancies and between 1,426,000 and 1,564,000 unemployed, of which 562,000 are 16-24. (Including students looking for part time work.)
88% of the vacancies are in the service sector, with the industri(es) with the most vacancies being accommodation and food service, and those with the least being public administration and defence.
Which to me paints a relatively grim picture even if not as grim as the one in mainland Europe, but then anything short of postwar-consensus level statistics (i.e. 1.6% unemployment) tends to do that to me. You could instead read the 1.5m unemployment as "the lowest since the 1970s" and thus brilliant, ignoring the usual thing where the 1970s are a horrible place that incompetents will return us to.

Truthfully I'm coming to realise my concern about unemployment rates is slightly misplaced as we've started getting the numbers down - where the misery comes now is precarious employment, underemployment, and wage stagnation. It's pretty impressive to see Britain alone amongst developed countries in having economic growth and wage decline. (Yeah, the chart only goes as far as 2015, but we've not seen a magical pay explosion in the last 2 years so whatever.)
>> No. 14261 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 7:00 am
14261 spacer
>>14259

I take issue with the "starting out" bit. The problem IMO is that most of the available jobs are totally dead-end. There's no route up from the shop floor in most companies, least of all the sort of companies that constantly have vacancies for entry-level positions. Sure, you could take that job as a night shift warehouse operative or a zero-hours barista, but you'd only be marginally better off than if you stayed on the dole and you can pretty much guarantee that it won't lead anywhere better.

Casualisation has had a devastating effect on the prospects for young people. The social contract is broken. Employers expect loyalty from their staff, but offer no loyalty in return. Corporations talk about "dynamic HR policies" and "a flexible labour market", but what they really mean is an environment where they can hire and fire at will or outsource everything to India, regardless of the impact on their workers. They talk about "self-starters" and "people with a passion for customer service", but they're really saying that they don't bother to train people, they don't offer any real prospects of promotion and the sole motivation on offer is the fear of unemployment.
>> No. 14262 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 12:31 pm
14262 spacer
>>14261

>but you'd only be marginally better off than if you stayed on the dole and you can pretty much guarantee that it won't lead anywhere better.

It's still a job though, at the end of the day. Your employability in other, more demanding jobs won't increase by sitting at home, refusing such menial labour and complaining that the job market is fucked. It is simply the series of hoops you have to jump through in order to make it to the top. It's kind of a Darwinian selection process, when you think about it. The fittest will survive this bumpy start into the job market, and think of something in order to build a career for themselves despite starting out as a shop floor lackey.


> Corporations talk about "dynamic HR policies" and "a flexible labour market", but what they really mean is an environment where they can hire and fire at will or outsource everything to India, regardless of the impact on their workers.

This is true actually. Part of the reason why (we are led to believe) the economy is doing so well is because companies have managed to do away with all that pesky workers' rights malarkey and all the job security what-have-you. Global sourcing, they call it. And it should be noted that the foundations for all this chipping away at workers' rights and job security were laid by New Labour, not by some cold-hearted cynical capitalist Tory government. Tony Blair set job market "reforms" in notion that you really only would have expected from Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher.


> "a flexible labour market"

This is the biggest ignominy of it all. It just means employers can fuck with you any way they want. Talk to somebody with a mortgage and two kids about labour market flexibility, I dare you. Let them tell you just how flexible they really are.
>> No. 14263 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 12:52 pm
14263 spacer
>>14262

>It is simply the series of hoops you have to jump through in order to make it to the top.

I think that for many people, there is no route to the top. They don't have a career ladder, just a career step-stool marked "minimum wage". If you take a job in a shop, the chances are that you'll never be offered a management traineeship, because they all go to graduates. If you're a labourer, very few companies will pay for you to get a BTEC in a trade and get your blue card. The labour market is increasingly polarised into "high-skilled graduates" and "everyone else", with people in the latter camp getting totally shafted.

Thirty years ago, it was undoubtedly possible to get a job on the shop floor and work your way up over a decade. I think that the mechanisms that fuelled that mobility have been deliberately destroyed. FE colleges are systematically under-funded and employers aren't encouraged/coerced by government to provide proper training opportunities. Changes to HE funding have massively reduced the number of part-time students. A huge proportion of graduates are under-employed and working in unskilled roles, so people with lesser qualifications need to be doubly exceptional to break through.

Ultimately, I think it's a supply and demand issue. There aren't enough decent jobs to go around. Unemployment, underemployment, casualisation, poor working conditions and a lack of advancement are all symptoms of that. Employers can afford take the piss, because they know that there'll be a queue of people applying for whatever shit vacancy they throw onto Universal Jobmatch. Austerity has forced people to take whatever job they can find and be grateful for it; that keeps the benefits bill down, but it's also stifling economic growth. It's good for the economy if graduates can spend six months on the dole while they find a job that makes use of their skills, rather than just taking anything out of desperation. It's good for the economy if employers are expected to invest in their staff rather than shifting the burden of training onto the state.
>> No. 14264 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 1:34 pm
14264 spacer
>>14261
> There's no route up from the shop floor in most companies, least of all the sort of companies that constantly have vacancies for entry-level positions.

Certainly agree with the general argument you make, and the point the previous poster made about casualisation and zero-hours - they are clearly not good.

But I take great issue with the sentiment you express here - and you are not alone in expressing it. When starting out, the main thing you are doing is getting a job and going to work and that demonstrates a great deal to a future employer. My first two jobs were at Tesco and Morrison - I knew full well that they weren't my chosen career and I wasn't going to end up long term there, but you do it, because it gives you money, self-respect and is marginally better than being on the dole. Most people who take a job in a service role or work in a shop aren't going to move much further than the "shop floor" - thats part of the job. If you want to be senior in those places, you go and do a degree in it (and then find out its monstrously tedious, probs).

> If you take a job in a shop, the chances are that you'll never be offered a management traineeship, because they all go to graduates.

Exactly this, but you don't take a job in a shop because you want to run it, you do it because you need a job and some money.
>> No. 14265 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 2:17 pm
14265 spacer
>>14263

>If you take a job in a shop, the chances are that you'll never be offered a management traineeship, because they all go to graduates.

So then become a graduate.

You're missing my point in my post that in the end, a career is rarely just handed to you on a silver platter. Nobody is going to give you the opportunity to just rise through the ranks from being a humble "retail sales consultant" or whatever bullshit term they've got knocking about for a shop assistant that year. You are the one who is going to have to make it happen. And if advancing on the career ladder in your line of work requires a degree, then it is your responsibility to go back to school and get that degree.

A dead end job tends to be a dead end job because you allow it to be a dead end job for you. There are always ways to break out of something like that.
>> No. 14266 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 2:58 pm
14266 spacer
>>14265
>a career is rarely just handed to you on a silver platter
That sounds like the sort of thing someone in their 40s or older with no self-awareness would say.
>> No. 14267 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 3:03 pm
14267 spacer
>>14266
He's not wrong though. If you're stuck on Tesco shop floor and nothing's moving then obviously you have to make a move yourself. I'm 25.
>> No. 14269 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 3:04 pm
14269 spacer
>>14266
Not him, but when you get to your 40s, you have this thing called experience which he is sharing. I wouldn't phrase it like that, but totally agree with >>14265 - younger people seem to believe that every job they take entitles them to a well-paid and long career in it. That is just weird expectation.

Some jobs are just a transaction, a step along the way of life.
>> No. 14272 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 3:08 pm
14272 spacer
>>14267
I think Tesco actually has/had a few senior executives that started out on the floor - I believe one of the previous CEOs was - in organisations where you see senior people moving up, in most cases they have done 20 - 30 years there. That is extremely exceptional in todays job market, few people have such loyalty.
>> No. 14273 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 3:40 pm
14273 spacer
>>14269

> younger people seem to believe that every job they take entitles them to a well-paid and long career in it.

This.

(I'm >>14265 lad)

It takes long and persistent dedication to build a successful, respectable career for yourself. You are not just going to get dragged along by somebody who will miraculously see your true potential and help you climb the ranks. That, too, happens, but you are better off not believing the fairytales. Besides, most people who are only where they are because of good connections tend to be harrowingly shit at the actual job they are doing, because they tend to lack the hard-skill qualifications that their job would actually require, and which somebody who rose through the ranks the hard way will have picked up more often than not.

I am actually in my early 40s, and I don't envy young people today. When I was getting my first job(s) out of uni, it was during the tail end of John Major's premiership, going into Tony Blair's reign. Those were different times, before successive Labour and Tory governments made it increasingly difficult for young people to land steady jobs worthy of their level of education. We really had it much better, although even back then, you were beginning to sense changes a-coming. All those job market reforms were and are really just a way of fucking the middle and working classes out of their fair share of the economic growth which they helped create through the work of their own hands.
>> No. 14274 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 4:14 pm
14274 spacer
>>14273

I'm not trying to be overly critical, but it seems like there's a clear contradiction in your post - on the one hand young people are entitled for wanting real career prospects, but on the other they've clearly got far worse prospects than previous generations. I think that young people just want the same opportunities that their parents had, which doesn't make them spoiled in the slightest. Society is supposed to advance, it's supposed to widen opportunities and increase prosperity, not leave ordinary people fighting over a shrinking slice of the pie.

I think that "you've got to hustle for things, it's not just handed to you on a silver platter" is perilously close to "poor people are just lazy, they'd be OK if they worked harder". Not everyone has the connections to wangle themselves a job, not everyone has the confidence to bullshit their way in through the back door. A fair society should offer good opportunities to everyone, not leave people fighting against the odds.

It seems like a scarcely-believable cliche, but back in the 70s you really could leave school at 15 with no qualifications and walk into an OK job. You would expect to be offered training in almost any job, including day-release - it was invariably part of the union agreement. You had a realistic opportunity to work your way up from the factory floor to management. If you wanted to go to university, you'd get all your fees paid and a grant for living expenses. FE was fully funded, so anyone could walk into their local college and take a vocational course without worrying about fees and loans. That's all dead now, because the baby boomers pulled the ladder up after they had climbed it. Young people have every right to be outraged at the injustice they have been dealt - frankly, I'm amazed that there hasn't been a repeat of the 2011 riots.

>>14272

It's a bit of a cock-and-bull story. Philip Clarke was CEO of Tesco and did do some shelf stacking, but his father was a store manager, he went to the best grammar school in the north west and got an economics degree. Terry Leahy was also a grammar school boy, earned a degree in management and started in the company as a marketing executive.
>> No. 14275 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 4:54 pm
14275 spacer
>>14274
>is perilously close to "poor people are just lazy, they'd be OK if they worked harder". Not everyone has the connections to wangle themselves a job, not everyone has the confidence to bullshit their way in through the back door. A fair society should offer good opportunities to everyone, not leave people fighting against the odds.

Agreed - the argument is not that young people need to work harder or bullshit or hustle but that they have overly optimistic expectations when starting out - we were much more realistic. The entitlement that older generations feel is there is rooted in that. You might become a billionaire blogger or the next huge tuber, make all the money by 25 and be the next big thing in a field we haven't even thought of, without even leaving your pyjamas. I really hope you do. But you probably won't and so get the fuck back to going to college and stacking shelves and washing dishes and delivering shit like everyone else did at that age and stop whining.

>you really could leave school at 15 with no qualifications and walk into an OK job

An OK job at that time - not necessarily one that people would want to do now. I am quite sure that the coalminers, shipbuilding, steel industries and all the other great things we have lost had wonderful unions who trained and looked after their charges, as you suggest. I admire your nostalgia.
>> No. 14276 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 5:31 pm
14276 spacer
>>14274

My ex's dad left school at 16 to go work at Ford in Dagenham. This being the late 60s, he was offered a training scheme during his second year there to become a machine fitter. He completed that training and then spent nearly his entire career being in charge of machine repairs at Dagenham, and then later overseeing that kind of work at the plant in some sort of lower to middle management capacity. He never needed to worry about job security, his pay was really not bad, and he only retired at 60 at his own request because his health was deteriorating badly.

I'm not sure that kind of career is still in the cards for young people today, where even as a call centre first level support employee you will at least need a liberal arts degree, it seems.
>> No. 14277 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 5:42 pm
14277 spacer
>>14276
Do people who became 16 during 2017 want to leave school and go to an industrial manufacturing job that they will be expected to keep for most of their lives? Ask some, see what they say.
>> No. 14278 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 5:56 pm
14278 spacer
>>14275
>I am quite sure that the coalminers, shipbuilding, steel industries and all the other great things we have lost had wonderful unions who trained and looked after their charges, as you suggest. I admire your nostalgia.

Not the poster you're replying to, but this is a bit of a hand-waving response. The position presented wasn't that all industrial jobs were lovely and had uniformly wonderful coverage, but that unionisation and associated benefits were more common in the 1970s.

Whether that's better or worse than largely unprotected service sector work is up for discussion. And whether this progression from one form of work to the present form was desirable or correct is another conversation again.
>> No. 14279 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 6:09 pm
14279 spacer
>>14278
You could say that we have a greater diversity of jobs than in the past, and that makes it difficult to unionise than before.

We have swapped working in a factory for most of our lives, with working in an office in rows on a computer/phone/headset for most of our lives.
>> No. 14280 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 6:43 pm
14280 spacer
>>14279

The diversity of jobs is not the main reason that unionising is difficult. They were very deliberately dismantled from the 1970s/80s and on.
>> No. 14282 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 6:53 pm
14282 spacer
>>14279

Would it be that difficult to have a broad union of customer service reps or administrative bods or whatever though? Both Unison and Unite seem to cover a broad spectrum of workers, so why not?

It's a bit disheartening that there isn't a strong catering and service union, those people need it more than anyone.
>> No. 14283 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 8:29 pm
14283 spacer
>>14275
>but that they have overly optimistic expectations when starting out - we were much more realistic.
Yet again, no self-awareness. You weren't "more realistic". The reason you get the impression young people expect a career to be served up to them is that in your day and before, careers were served up to people. New entrants to the workforce could expect job security with good progression prospects that they could depend on to eventually deliver decent pay - even if they had to stick at it for a decade or two, they could rely on it happening at some point. Contrast that with now where people with skills and qualifications are fighting over zero-hours contracts in coffee shops.

Young people are entitled, and very rightly so. The notion of the "British promise" is that each generation should be better off than the one before, so it's not even remotely unreasonable to expect to be handed the same things that were handed to the generation before, nor to be pissed off at having to earn things that were previously gifted.
>> No. 14284 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 9:43 pm
14284 spacer
>>14275

> I am quite sure that the coalminers, shipbuilding, steel industries and all the other great things we have lost had wonderful unions who trained and looked after their charges, as you suggest.

Well, yes. These jobs were physically demanding and occasionally dangerous, but they offered security and benefits that would be scarcely imaginable today. If you worked for British Steel or the NCB in the pre-Thatcher era, you had a guaranteed job for life. If you were an apprentice, you had a right to paid training on day release. Management and technical staff were overwhelmingly recruited and trained from the shop floor, as per union agreements. You almost certainly had a council house on an assured tenancy. The nationalised industries provided leisure facilities and funded bands, sports teams and adult education groups. Most collieries had a Miners' Institute with its own library and lecture hall. At its peak, nearly two million people were members of the Workers' Educational Association.

I wouldn't want to undo half a century of economic growth, but I would quite like to reverse some of the Thatcher-era policies that have eroded the security and dignity of the working class. I like having a big telly, but I'd also like an affordable flat that my landlord can't evict me from on a whim. I see no economic reason why we can't have both.
>> No. 14285 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 9:47 pm
14285 spacer
>>14283

> Young people are entitled, and very rightly so. The notion of the "British promise" is that each generation should be better off than the one before, so it's not even remotely unreasonable to expect to be handed the same things that were handed to the generation before, nor to be pissed off at having to earn things that were previously gifted.

At this stage, I think most young people would settle for things not getting worse. I think they'd settle for pay keeping pace with inflation, rather than standards of living being continually squeezed. I think they'd settle for rent increases in line with inflation. I think they'd settle for tuition fees remaining at £9,000, rather than creeping up to £9,250. I think they'd settle for workplace rights staying the same, rather than being stripped en masse post-brexit in the name of "cutting Brussels red tape".

It's one thing to believe that things aren't going to get better. It's quite another to expect that things will just get worse, bit by bit, year after year.
>> No. 14286 Anonymous
28th December 2017
Thursday 11:26 pm
14286 spacer
>>14284

>You almost certainly had a council house on an assured tenancy. The nationalised industries provided leisure facilities and funded bands, sports teams and adult education groups. Most collieries had a Miners' Institute with its own library and lecture hall. At its peak, nearly two million people were members of the Workers' Educational Association.


This was truly a different era. Nationalisation had its own problems, mainly ones of gross inefficency, but a company's profits were nonetheless still largely understood to belong to those who had helped gain them. It is my personal belief that the reason why all that went to shit when those industries were privatised again is that suddenly you had private shareholders who had helped in no way at all to earn that company's profits, but expected to receive an increasingly large share of its revenues. After all, every quid of profit that is paid out to shareholders is a quid that is taken out of that company and funneled into the pockets of those who own the company as per the stocks they hold, but usually have no other affiliation whasoever with that company, save for a few shares that its executives may hold. And much more rarely these days, even workers who are partly paid in company stock. And especially in our time post-2008 and post-quantitative easing, the pressure is on companies to keep paying dividends on grossly overpriced stocks that somehow still make those stocks a worthwhile investment for the financial elite. And that money is then missing to fund things like company leisure facilities or other expenditures that aren't within a company's core function as a business entity. Instead, there is a tireless race to make yet more cuts and save yet more costs. You could argue that that is also the main motivation behind all those job market "reforms". To enable shareholders and the financial elite to yet more squeeze out companies like a lemon.

Not to get too marxist or anything, but I think that is the real reason why people have it so hard these days. Granted, not all commercial companies are publicly listed corporations, but there is a trickle down effect. If a large publicly listed industrial corporation has to make cuts at every turn, then that will also affect the financial health of their suppliers and their workforce, who will have less money to spend as consumers, which again puts more pressure on all commercial companies as suppliers of goods and services.

Socialist authors and intellectuals as far back as the early 1800s foresaw this towering, all encompassing power of an emerging industrial and post-industrial financial elite. Who would contribute nothing to an economy's actual output, but would only live off its profits like parasitic leeches.
>> No. 14287 Anonymous
29th December 2017
Friday 1:12 am
14287 spacer
>>14286

It is a great irony that we are taught to see the the poor, unskilled, welfare dependant section of society as parasites, despite how clear and obvious it is that the wealthy are the far bigger leeches.

Our economy functions to siphon money from the working and middle classes and to put it in the hands of the elite. Having money makes it much easier to make even more money, while contributing very little. Everything is geared towards this, and they call it "growth". A company has to be seen to be growing to attract new investors, but what that means in English is that it has to put more money back into the hands of investors than they put in to start with.

Really one can only worry about the implications for our future if things carry on this way. The gulf between the haves and have nots is going to keep growing, and if you think working in a a cosy middle class office job in a first world country will protect you forever, you are wrong.

Alas, the state of the political left these days is beyond tragic.
>> No. 14289 Anonymous
29th December 2017
Friday 1:33 am
14289 spacer
>>14285
I find this post nauseating.
>> No. 14290 Anonymous
29th December 2017
Friday 1:59 am
14290 spacer

UK bankruptices.png
142901429014290
>>14275
>An OK job at that time
Something that has always stuck with me was watching a documentary from the late 70s/early 80s about videogames and seeing Americans being the ones to assemble the cartridges. On the one hand, it looked unspeakably dull and repetitive as a task. 8 hours of snapping a PCB into a bit of plastic, then snapping that onto another bit of plastic and tossing it down the production line - or inserting and removing cart after cart after cart once the screen came on to confirm it worked.
But the thing that hit me is that if you assume stable work hours (or increasing predictably, such as a big push before delivery dates for big orders.), even with a shit wage it would be a relatively relaxing job, even enjoyable provided they let you have a headphone in. (Or even stuck a radio in the corner.) Almost the kind of place it'd be calming to go and get out of the house. Compare and contrast working insecure hours, working retail or even working in a warehouse which seems like it's far less predictable and secure in terms of what you have to do any day. Bit disappointing that such simple-scale manufacturing isn't a notable source of employment anymore. You can also read this as me being an asocial git who wants to sit with blocks of plastic instead of the general public, which is true.

An interesting side-fact, I've had as conviction for a while that the really monstrous thing Thatcher did wasn't the dismantling of the nationalised industries so much as it was the early 1980s recession (basically intentionally started with high interest rates, though it was the style at the time) destroying private companies, especially manufacturing ones which had to contend with the high borrowing costs and a pound rising in value. When I looked this up, I learned UK corporate bankruptcies peaked in 1992. (Although there's the caveat that this graph doesn't go back to 1973, when you could expect a spike in bankruptcies due to the oil crisis which may have made 1976-9 look unduly calm.) Sadly I couldn't find any breakdown of bankruptcies by sector, but it's always been my unfounded impression that it was after Major that the destruction of "Britain doing stuff" was completed, while Thatcher was a period of "Breaking stuff."
>> No. 14291 Anonymous
29th December 2017
Friday 3:44 am
14291 spacer
>>14290
Companies dying is not necessarily a bad thing.
>> No. 14292 Anonymous
29th December 2017
Friday 5:45 am
14292 spacer
>>14291
It is if you're working for one of them at the time.
>> No. 14293 Anonymous
29th December 2017
Friday 7:51 am
14293 spacer
>>14290
There tends to be more companies going bust when the economy is doing well, as more people are tempted to try and run their own business.
>> No. 14294 Anonymous
29th December 2017
Friday 12:01 pm
14294 spacer
>>14293
Maybe now, but the peak in 1992 was during bad times was it not?
My expectation would be that lots of people start in the good times, then struggle on for a bit until the bad times come. For 1992, my completely speculative guess would be lots of people/companies who got into housing-related stuff during the Lawson boom suddenly found they weren't in sustainable circumstances when the music stopped.
>> No. 14295 Anonymous
29th December 2017
Friday 1:16 pm
14295 spacer
>>14294

>My expectation would be that lots of people start in the good times, then struggle on for a bit until the bad times come.

The thing is that during times of considerable economic growth, the market is forgiving towards those that don't allocate resources efficiently. Healthy growth rates can overshadow the fact that somebody who starts their own company or business might not really have the required business acumen to survive long-term. You may be making good money from the word go, but again, there are times when turning a profit is like shooting fish in a barrel. It is usually when growth rates and revenues in an industry decrease that the market will shake out those again who aren't using their resources efficiently enough. If you survive your first recession with your newly founded business, then that might be an indication that your business is here to stay. There is such a thing as Darwinian selection in the business world, where startups (but also established companies) will only survive if they are among the fittest, and where frequent catastrophes will hone the survival skills of those who make it past such a catastrophe. Just look at all those dotcom companies. Only a scarce handful of them survived the Internet boom of the late 1990s. The overwhelming majority of them really had no sound business model whatsoever, they had often quite harebrained business ideas, and they were really just along for the ride, because banks and other investors where throwing huge amounts of money at you if you even so much as had a fancy sounding, portmanteau-derived name and your business plan mentioned the words "New Economy", "Internet", "e-commerce", or ".com".

One prominent term in those days was the cash burn rate. It signified the rate at which you were burning through your liquid assets that had been injected into your pseudo company by giddy banks and stock investors who believed the lie. There are stories of startup founders using that money to fly to New York on the Concorde for lunch and champagne, and then back the same night. Just because they could, with the money that banks and investors had entrusted in them. While they were really not (or not yet) turning a single penny of profit on their actual business model. And really ended up not ever turning a penny of profit.

Boom phases are typically also when a successful change of career for somebody who has worked in industry x but wants to work in industry y is most likely. In recessions, you often have people wanting to retrain because nobody is hiring in their line of work, but it's really at times when the economy is booming, or beginning to boom that you should think about a career change. Because at some point, the existing resources in an industry, including skilled and eperienced workers and employees, will be operating at their maximum capacity, and because there will be no more trained personnel to hire, employers will be ready to make compromises and hire people who haven't worked in a particular field before as such. Going back to the Internet boom again, there were times when advertising agencies were so desperately looking for people who could compose web pages that it was enough if you had spent a few weekends at home teaching yourself HTML and had a cursory understanding of graphics design from fiddling around with a pirated copy of Photoshop.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password