DS Forums

 
 

Has any improvement in worker's rights, pay or conditions ever cost jobs?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 23:23
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,648

It seems that every time someone fights to improve the lot of workers, there is always someone, (normally a rich person) who says it will be bad for the country and cost jobs.

But from what I've seen things have only improved and people have always been employed.

If anything it was the Tories in the 80s taking away rights and manufacturing that cost this country jobs.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 23:52
rusty123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 20,693
It must have cost jobs - here at least, because whilst we all like the improved rights, the better conditions and the wage rises, as consumers we don't like paying for stuff and will gladly buy anything if it's cheap enough without a second thought for the rights, conditions and wages of the poor sods in far off lands who now make the stuff we no longer produce.

Our desire for things hasn't gone, but our desire to pay for them flew south for the winter and never came home again years ago.

The longest queues at the tills in our city centre are consistently found in our growing number of pound shops. Somehow I doubt ours is a unique city centre in that regard.
rusty123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:01
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,722
It seems that every time someone fights to improve the lot of workers, there is always someone, (normally a rich person) who says it will be bad for the country and cost jobs.

But from what I've seen things have only improved and people have always been employed.
Debatable. One could argue that less jobs may have been created - but I think it might be difficult to prove.

If anything it was the Tories in the 80s taking away rights and manufacturing that cost this country jobs.
And what of Blair/Brown - manufacturing jobs were lost at 5 times the rate under Blair/Brown. Not only that but even discounting the credit crunch manufacturing GDP was stagnant under the Blair/Brown years and increased by 20% during the Thatcher/Major years.

If anything has cost jobs - it is the failure of British business to adapt to changing market conditions. This was particularly a problem when they were nationalised. We now have a record number of people employed in this country, and many of the nationalised industries are in private hands.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:46
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
It seems that every time someone fights to improve the lot of workers, there is always someone, (normally a rich person) who says it will be bad for the country and cost jobs.

But from what I've seen things have only improved and people have always been employed.

If anything it was the Tories in the 80s taking away rights and manufacturing that cost this country jobs.
You might be interested in this good news

Brexit will allow the UK to halve net migration, a major study finds today.

The cut will provide a long-term boost to wages and help ease the national housing crisis, say Cambridge University researchers.

Any negative impact on growth will only be tiny and would probably have happened even without a vote to leave, their report reveals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mongering.html
Annsyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:02
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
"Capitalists" and "Socialists" should recognise that they want the same thing and that the obsessions of the other are both necessary.

A good work-life balance, job stability, quality public services and a disposable income. In what way is that a problem for capitalism?

And if a business is making good profits and it's executives paid millions how does that negatively affect any individual person?
Tassium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:32
johnny_boi_UK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,038
Yes thousands if not millions of jobs...

Just to clarify why is the far east manufacturing the bulk of the world goods?
johnny_boi_UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:49
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,648

And if a business is making good profits and it's executives paid millions how does that negatively affect any individual person?
As long as they are not exploiting the workers, I don't mind how much profit or pay the execs are getting.

I just think the lowest paid should have a decent living.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:51
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,648
Yes thousands if not millions of jobs...

Just to clarify why is the far east manufacturing the bulk of the world goods?
Because they pay way less and they have poor conditions.

We shouldn't be racing to the bottom.

And those jobs are obviously not necessary to our economy as we are doing well even without them.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:54
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,961
The trend has been to outsource jobs overseas where labour is cheaper and to import 'cheaper' workers.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:59
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,648
The trend has been to outsource jobs overseas where labour is cheaper and to import 'cheaper' workers.
Which is about taking away worker's rights and paying less.

So it is not because of rights that those jobs have been lost it is because of greedy uncaring employers.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:06
johnny_boi_UK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,038
The trend has been to outsource jobs overseas where labour is cheaper and to import 'cheaper' workers.
It's not to import cheaper workers per say.

It's to flood the market with a commodity which drives the price down.
johnny_boi_UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:53
worzil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
It seems that every time someone fights to improve the lot of workers, there is always someone, (normally a rich person) who says it will be bad for the country and cost jobs.

But from what I've seen things have only improved and people have always been employed.

If anything it was the Tories in the 80s taking away rights and manufacturing that cost this country jobs.
Every piece of new machinery that needs less bodies to man it cost jobs.
We now have machines run by computers.
Three D printers doing what was done by plastic molders.
I could go on and on.
worzil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:05
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,961
Which is about taking away worker's rights and paying less.

So it is not because of rights that those jobs have been lost it is because of greedy uncaring employers.
Importing workers by its very nature will tend to put downward pressure on wages, I'm not sure what workers' rights you are saying have been taken away.

You are also ignoring the impact of consumers who as a rule buy based on price and not the country of origin or much else while lumping all the blame on employers for the loss of jobs.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:23
johnny_boi_UK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,038
Which is about taking away worker's rights and paying less.

So it is not because of rights that those jobs have been lost it is because of greedy uncaring employers.
Or our desire for cheap goods
johnny_boi_UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:19
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
Banning children from being chimney sweeps cost jobs
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:41
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
It seems that every time someone fights to improve the lot of workers, there is always someone, (normally a rich person) who says it will be bad for the country and cost jobs.

But from what I've seen things have only improved and people have always been employed.

If anything it was the Tories in the 80s taking away rights and manufacturing that cost this country jobs.
Obviously The only way you can have higher wages is to improve productivity, That means working harder, better, or being replaced by faster machines. Other wise you have increased money chasing a fixed supply of goods and services - qhich means they just cost more. There's a debate about whether better conditions mean more productivity, but there's an obvious point when there's a time trade off between enjoying many right, s and producing something less..


No . destroying the miitant unions, that were striking, continually, to take leach other's worker's money, was the necessary precondition of climbing from economic failure to success. Britain was collapsing by the 1970s. And manufacturing industry was already a historical anachonism. The Germans , Japanese, and South Koreans do it far better - with better educated,and skilled workers , better management, better design, less disruptive unions, and a far stronger work ethic. The developing world does it far more cheaply - with lower wage rates, masses of employable labour , lower taxes and no benefits culture. And there was no way that British coal or steel production could possibly compete - with more readily available resources, cheaper energy costs, and miners not led by revolutionary marxists. Propping up those dead industries, would have just made anything else made from their products too expensive to sell too, and crippled the economy- subsidising people to effectively do nothing worthwhile.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:43
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
Every piece of new machinery that needs less bodies to man it cost jobs.
We now have machines run by computers.
However, we still (at least for now) need actual people to design, build, program, test, install, configure, repair, advertise, sell and distribute those computers and the software they use - plus all of the support roles that those positions require to do their jobs Your laptop didn't invent itself.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:50
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
Importing workers by its very nature will tend to put downward pressure on wages, I'm not sure what workers' rights you are saying have been taken away.

You are also ignoring the impact of consumers who as a rule buy based on price and not the country of origin or much else while lumping all the blame on employers for the loss of jobs.
Not necessarily. Waiters might be paid more in London, if there were no EU waiters .

But it would make no difference to wages, or unemployment in Blackpool, Scunthorpe or Newcastle - because those people effectively exist in another economy - they won't move from, and many don't possess the skills to be waiters. .

But the macro economic consequences of there being fewer waiters in London is that there's less spending in restaurants - or a meal takes longer. That means less money spent, or longer lunch hours, less growth, less tax. And that means less spending and employment - which means lower wages, not higher.

Same if you didn't have Bulgarian farm workers, Polish plumbers. or Pakistani brain surgeons - the jobs just wouldn't get done.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:06
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
Because they pay way less and they have poor conditions.

We shouldn't be racing to the bottom.

And those jobs are obviously not necessary to our economy as we are doing well even without them.
We also have created a whole new range of service jobs that exist because enough people have enough money to buy them . And the people in those jobs now earn enough to pay others.

I am struck by two recent cases seen on the roads locally - the van advertising the owners profession as an equine artist, and another belonging ot the polo farm. Both jobs require enough people, with enough money, to have a horse, and to buy their services for it - neither probably existed 20 or 10 years ago. What pays for them - well the B Gas man now has two horses, the area has become an commuting option for London with a high speed train link, and the local area now has 40,000 students bringing in probably 700 million a year .

The problem is where there's no one doing well, and spawning off demand for new services, or supporting businesses, and no external source of high paid jobs, or extra spending.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:03
worzil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
We also have created a whole new range of service jobs that exist because enough people have enough money to buy them . And the people in those jobs now earn enough to pay others.

I am struck by two recent cases seen on the roads locally - the van advertising the owners profession as an equine artist, and another belonging ot the polo farm. Both jobs require enough people, with enough money, to have a horse, and to buy their services for it - neither probably existed 20 or 10 years ago. What pays for them - well the B Gas man now has two horses, the area has become an commuting option for London with a high speed train link, and the local area now has 40,000 students bringing in probably 700 million a year .

The problem is where there's no one doing well, and spawning off demand for new services, or supporting businesses, and no external source of high paid jobs, or extra spending.
I think in the end it all boils down to being cheaper to buy in the people we need than to train people for the jobs that need doing.
worzil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 21:49
mRebel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,171
Debatable. One could argue that less jobs may have been created - but I think it might be difficult to prove.



And what of Blair/Brown - manufacturing jobs were lost at 5 times the rate under Blair/Brown. Not only that but even discounting the credit crunch manufacturing GDP was stagnant under the Blair/Brown years and increased by 20% during the Thatcher/Major years.

If anything has cost jobs - it is the failure of British business to adapt to changing market conditions. This was particularly a problem when they were nationalised. We now have a record number of people employed in this country, and many of the nationalised industries are in private hands.
Most companies that were nationalised were bust, and close to ceasing to exist, hence the nationalisation. Even by Tory governments, as with Rolls-Royce and Rover. And while I share your disdain for Blair and Brown, reducing the issue to partisan slagging off is pointless. One of the mistakes New Labour made was placing it's faith in the banks, and then having to bail them out, fully or partially nationalising four of them.
mRebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:21
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
Obviously The only way you can have higher wages is to improve productivity...
Or distribute profits more equally. We are in a situation where many companies make hundreds of millions of pounds in profit annually whilst wages have gone down in real terms and workers' rights and in-work benefits have been stripped away.
Morlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:57
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,648
Or distribute profits more equally. We are in a situation where many companies make hundreds of millions of pounds in profit annually whilst wages have gone down in real terms and workers' rights and in-work benefits have been stripped away.
Exactly, IMO no company in the world should be allowed to trade unless it can pay it's employees a decent wage.

If that means prices go up then so be it. Eventually they'll even out but we need to pay the price for allowing people in 3rd world countries to be abused for our cheap imports.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:07
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,670
The problem is where there's no one doing well, and spawning off demand for new services, or supporting businesses, and no external source of high paid jobs, or extra spending.
That's the problem. I now live in a part of the country with virtually full employment (around 1%), high immigration and which voted Remain. New shops, bars and restaurants are opening all of the time and the only time you almost ever see a shopfront boarded up for more than a few weeks.

Then when I go back to see family in the North East, I see a part of the country with an unemployment rate of over 8% and those in jobs are in low pay positions or working in the public sector. The local population is 99% white British and they voted to leave the EU.
LostFool is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41.