We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
No 10 Adviser Attacks 'Socialist' Vince Cable
Comments
-
And that aim is partly achieved by having motivated, healthy and productive employees.
The firm I work for (private sector) has a generous pension plan, excellent private medical cover, subsidised gym, etc...
With your logic they should scrap all of that because it would increase shareholder value for sure?
Not at all.
If the business plan involves a highly rewarded and motivated workforce, that is great. My point is that, it is not the case for all businesses and the owners should have the right to decide how they wish to run the venture.0 -
MacMickster wrote: »This is exactly why red tape exists.
It is a duty of a company's directors to achieve the best possible return for their shareholders.
If they can do this by paying employees £1 per hour for an 80 hour week, allow no holidays (well go on then - maybe Christmas Day Mr Scrooge), no pension provision and ignoring their health and safety then, without that red tape, that is what they must do. Unfortunately that is a little Dickensian for most people's tastes.
The red tape ensures that business goals are tempered by an element of social responsibility, and that businesses in this country compete on a level playing field with each other.
And we have masses of people on the dole.
Guess it's all a matter of degree.
Would anybody work for £1.00 per hour?0 -
And we have masses of people on the dole.
Guess it's all a matter of degree.
Would anybody work for £1.00 per hour?
People did, before the national minimum wage was introduced.
The reason that they did was that their income was supplemented by means tested benefits (in the way that tax credits and income support do now). This meant that the taxpayer was subsidising the wage bill, and hence the profits, of the unscrupulous employer giving that business a competetive advantage over others who tried to pay a living wage."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
MacMickster wrote: »People did, before the national minimum wage was introduced.
The reason that they did was that their income was supplemented by means tested benefits (in the way that tax credits and income support do now). This meant that the taxpayer was subsidising the wage bill, and hence the profits, of the unscrupulous employer giving that business a competetive advantage over others who tried to pay a living wage.
That is another argument. if it was down to me this indirect subsidy would be removed and the market left to find it's own level. (With certain exceptions)0 -
Wouldn't last two minutes. I haven't got that dog-eats-dog instinct or the urge to exploit other people for my own benefit.
What a strange view of the world you have where you cannot conceive of someone who runs a business as being anything other than the above.
I assume you're happy to either take a job of of one of these lowlife employers though? Or do you live on benefits?0 -
What a strange view of the world you have where you cannot conceive of someone who runs a business as being anything other than the above.
I assume you're happy to either take a job of of one of these lowlife employers though? Or do you live on benefits?
I would suspect public sector.0 -
Those that work in the public sector seem to think it just arrives by magic though, and anyone that tries to make a profit (which they pay tax on) is some kind of baby eater.Shurely not. 100% of the money that funds the public sector comes directly or indirectly from lowlife employers.0 -
You mean, where "successful" businessmen are proud of their amorality? We'd be better off without them. Most of them don't create any wealth, they just lift it out of other people's pockets. But they set the tone of a broken society.But, back in the real world.........."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
You mean, where "successful" businessmen are proud of their amorality? We'd be better off without them. Most of them don't create any wealth, they just lift it out of other people's pockets. But they set the tone of a broken society.
I take it you would prefer something like the N Korean model?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards