Workers in the UK have suffered the biggest fall in wages among the world's richest countries since the financial crisis, research has suggested.
Between 2007 and 2015 wages in the UK fell by 10.4%, a drop equalled only by Greece, the analysis by the TUC [Trades Union Congress] found.
Women's pay in particular needs to be boosted, the union body said. Women earn on average 19.2% less than men, according to the latest official data.
The Treasury said the TUC's analysis did not fully reflect living standards.
The UK is the joint biggest faller on pay in 29 countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) - a forum for wealthy countries who work together to promote financial growth and social wellbeing.
The UK, Greece and Portugal were the only three OECD countries that saw real wages fall, according to the research complied by the TUC.
Source: BBC News
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 29 2016, @03:49PM
If society wanted, it could pass laws to compel employers to treat employees better. The sacred Market has no interest in doing so. We have done the experiment and we observe the result.
What would be the point? It'd make matters worse. You create enough "compelling" laws and people will be forced to work off the record in order to survive because there won't be enough employers to employ them. The problem here is not enough employers. You need to create an environment and infrastructure that encourage business growth and creation. In the resulting more competitive labor market, businesses will have to offer better deals than merely the legal minimum.
What's particularly vexing is that the general population don't see this in great enough numbers to bring about meaningful change. In fact the opposite seems to be happening. Things are getting worse. The rise of the likes of Farage and Trump and the Brexit vote demonstrate this. We're heading back to 19th Century social and economic policy, and xenophobia as well, to the claps and cheers of the very people who stand to lose the most.
Their delusion is just slightly different than yours.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday July 29 2016, @04:00PM
Like I said, we've done the laissez-faire capitalism experiment and it's only any good for the people already at the top.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 30 2016, @12:30AM
Like I said, we've done the laissez-faire capitalism experiment and it's only any good for the people already at the top.
An obvious counterexample is the late 19th century "Gilded Age" in the US (which was part of a long period of fairly laissez faire capitalism), which resulted among other things in a substantial improvement in the well being of the general public, the elevation of the US to superpower status, the creation of a world-class educational infrastructure, and immense labor power.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday July 31 2016, @10:44AM
I just googled the Gilded Age. The first link was to the Wikipedia article. The second was to this site [uh.edu]:
Is this really what we should be aspiring to?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 31 2016, @01:42PM
Is this really what we should be aspiring to?
I say yes. For all its flaws, that era created this one. And Mark Twain would have similar observations about our own time. I think in particular he would loathe the top-down nanny impulse that strips so much vitality out of our society.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday July 31 2016, @04:19PM
And I say you don't make progress by going backwards. All eras have their problems.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 31 2016, @09:16PM
I just propose going with a system that worked better than what we have now. For all the flaws of the US's Gilded Age, they had a system that enabled enormous economic growth (including absorbing massive immigration from the rest of the world for over a century!), development of world-class education and science, and creation of a superpower state. They did so with a central federal government that spent about a factor of ten less money per GDP than the current US government.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday July 31 2016, @10:14PM
They also needed a lot of manual labour, which is not needed nowadays because of mechanisation and automation. Seriously, fewer people should be working nowadays, and those that do should be working fewer hours, and on scientific progress. There is no need to let the old, sick and disabled starve or be worked to death.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 01 2016, @12:04AM
They also needed a lot of manual labour, which is not needed nowadays because of mechanisation and automation.
We still do. You don't get the world's high levels of employment if there wasn't a huge demand for manual labor. Also, there are other sorts of labor which are also in high demand.
Further, it's worth noting that there was a lot of mechanization and automation in the Gilded Age too. Yet despite that, they had a growing need for manual labor (and other sorts of labor).
What has changed is that the developed world discourages employment by making it more costly and more onerous for the employer. The developing world generally doesn't have that problem.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 01 2016, @08:46AM
We are on the verge of having a society where most jobs are done by robots. The profits need to be for the common good, not hoarded by those who are already wealthy.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Monday August 01 2016, @01:03PM
We are on the verge of having a society where most jobs are done by robots.
Sure, we are. The same automation that makes robots more useful as workers also makes humans more useful as workers.
The profits need to be for the common good, not hoarded by those who are already wealthy.
Then the common good better do more common good in order to deserve those profits over the already wealthy.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 01 2016, @01:30PM
Who deserves what? Why do the mega-rich deserve to get ever richer, usually at everyone else's expense? You sound like a misanthrope. What have you got against ordinary people?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 01 2016, @01:45PM
Who deserves what? Why do the mega-rich deserve to get ever richer, usually at everyone else's expense? You sound like a misanthrope. What have you got against ordinary people?
This crap where theft is spun as some "common good". If something is not important enough for you to spend your own money on, but rather some rich dude who didn't have a say in it, then it's not very important.
Second, a "megarich" person might employ hundreds of thousands of people. How many people does an ordinary person employ?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 01 2016, @02:13PM
Soon the mega-rich won't need to employ very many people at all. They will own the land, the buildings, the machines, the robots and the "intellectual property." Then what are we supposed to do? Eat each other? Build illegal shanty towns out of rubbish?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2016, @03:31PM
Soon the mega-rich won't need to employ very many people at all. They will own the land, the buildings, the machines, the robots and the "intellectual property." Then what are we supposed to do? Eat each other? Build illegal shanty towns out of rubbish?
That vision of the future has to happen first. I find it remarkable how the people who claim to be concerned about human labor becoming obsolete, try very hard to make that a reality. If human obsolescence is so bad, then don't do that. That brings me to what I've been saying for a while now. Let's encourage employment rather than discourage. And don't fantasize about the end times.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 01 2016, @02:41PM
It's going to be really funny when Trump gets in, and this rabid me-me-me attitude is allowed to run unhindered to its logical conclusion. All you American Libertarian types have firearms and you're going to find yourself so desperate for resources you're going to be liberating them from each other at gunpoint. It will be truly fascinating to watch and amusing too. Since you have no empathy for your fellow human beings don't expect us to feel sorry for you :-)
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:00AM
It's going to be really funny when Trump gets in, and this rabid me-me-me attitude is allowed to run unhindered to its logical conclusion. All you American Libertarian types have firearms and you're going to find yourself so desperate for resources you're going to be liberating them from each other at gunpoint.
' There are several things to note. First, Trump isn't libertarian. He's not our baby. Nor did libertarians nominate Clinton which is one of the best candidates Trump could run against. Second, all you've talked about for the past half dozen posts is how to steal wealth from the rich people. Funny, how the thieves accuse others of having a rabid "me-me-me" attitude.
Since you have no empathy for your fellow human beings don't expect us to feel sorry for you :-)
For another example of this projection, you gloat about suffering to others simply because they don't fully share your beliefs. Such "empathy" you show!
My take is we in the US tried your approach for the last half century and it doesn't work. We need to create more employment and wealth rather than phony dilemmas (like the alleged net job loss from automation which only seems to effect countries which are trying hard to put people out of work, your repeated calls for "survival" in a developed world where it's just not that hard to provide for yourself, or the ridiculous price inflation of things you deem needs).
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:25AM
Trump has picked a Tea Party loony as his running mate. And no, you haven't tried anything I suggest in any way shape or form. America has always been right wing, "free" (rigged in favour of the rich) market, and creeping rightward all the time. You're heading for a huge fall. Trump is going to be interesting.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:37AM
What's so noble about hoarding wealth acquired through luck or corruption, force, coercion, dishonesty and a rigged system?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2016, @03:46PM
What's so noble about hoarding wealth acquired through luck or corruption, force, coercion, dishonesty and a rigged system?
What's "hoarding"? I think this right here betrays your profound ignorance of modern business and economics. "Hoarding wealth" is here employing people, making investments, and generally making the world a better place.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 01 2016, @02:23PM
And please define what "more common good" the "common good" (us members of the Great Unwashed, the Useless Eaters) need to do to deserve to survive?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:38AM
And please define what "more common good" the "common good" (us members of the Great Unwashed, the Useless Eaters) need to do to deserve to survive?
You don't. You already have more than enough to survive. And if you want more than that, well, there work, employing others, and investments that come to mind in a capitalist society as ways to contribute to the common good.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:30AM
You guys want to reduce us to being like wild animals: constantly hungry and desperate, in fear of predators, cold, sick, in pain etc. You think it makes your economy stronger. You see us as a resource to be exploited for your personal gain whatever the cost to us. You want a law of the jungle society.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2016, @03:44PM
You guys want to reduce us to being like wild animals: constantly hungry and desperate, in fear of predators, cold, sick, in pain etc. You think it makes your economy stronger. You see us as a resource to be exploited for your personal gain whatever the cost to us. You want a law of the jungle society.
Congrats, I haven't been that outrageously misrepresented in a while. I think it needs some Friedman on Trump action though. It's just not hot enough to wank to.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:34AM
Many millions of people don't have enough to survive, though. I'm one of the lucky ones.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:07PM
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday August 03 2016, @07:10PM
Er, no. Think a bit harder. People are produced at a certain rate. People are also dying at another rate.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].