We all pay your benefits

N1AK

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

And what would I be at worst? Funny how some people need to resort to demeaning others just to make a point.

Earning a reasonable living, and using streamlining/technology to do so is very different to streamlining people out of jobs to make millions/billions £'s profit.

At worst? Probably lying would top my list but there may be other more egregious sins I haven't considered though I expect naivety is still more likely.

I made my point perfectly clearly in the extensive explanation I gave of why your assertion didn't match with reality.

You've now tried to segue from your original, flawed assertion that farmers took advantage of technology for the greater good not for personal benefit, to an argument defending using technology to remove labour, and thus workers, if it is done in the pursuit of a 'reasonable' living. Funny how some people will do anything to avoid holding there hand up and admitting they were wrong.

Who decides what a 'reasonable' living is? Many, many farmers have incomes that would make politicians, doctors, head teachers look like minimum wage workers by comparison.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

Who decides what a 'reasonable' living is? Many, many farmers have incomes that would make politicians, doctors, head teachers look like minimum wage workers by comparison.

Like these?;)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328270/A-Britain-STILL-belongs-aristocracy.html

rabbit_burrow

But you're talking about modern day farmers N1ak, I'm talking about when farmers were working the land in the old open top tractors. They bought into it to save hours of back breaking work, which yes would've taken jobs from people, but wouldn't have been saving them thousands of pounds (the equivalent to today's millions)

That is very different to cutting staff to make huge profits.

You took one part of my whole post, but my post was meant to be viewed as a whole. Why should I admit I'm 'wrong', I was comparing the use of streamlining/technology to make things a bit easier, to the use of streamlining when profits are already huge just to squeeze out a bit more.

Yes, companies need profits to keep the shareholders happy/get through tougher times/grow, but I stick by my original thought that there is only so much that can be done in the name of profits before it gets to the point where taxes from profits are negated by the amount of people needing to claim benefits.

Why on Earth would I be lying? What is it in my original post that I could lie about?

CLAPTON

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

But you're talking about modern day farmers N1ak, I'm talking about when farmers were working the land in the old open top tractors. They bought into it to save hours of back breaking work, which yes would've taken jobs from people, but wouldn't have been saving them thousands of pounds (the equivalent to today's millions)

That is very different to cutting staff to make huge profits.

You took one part of my whole post, but my post was meant to be viewed as a whole. Why should I admit I'm 'wrong', I was comparing the use of streamlining/technology to make things a bit easier, to the use of streamlining when profits are already huge just to squeeze out a bit more.

Yes, companies need profits to keep the shareholders happy/get through tougher times/grow, but I stick by my original thought that there is only so much that can be done in the name of profits before it gets to the point where taxes from profits are negated by the amount of people needing to claim benefits.

Why on Earth would I be lying? What is it in my original post that I could lie about?

The vast majority of farming land is owned by a small number of very big farmers (i.e. it's big business)

They are driven by the same cost drivers as any other big business


If UK business doesn't introduce efficiency measures then they will be driven out of business by a flood of foreign imports.

Your standard of living is all possible because companies are continually making improvements (cost savings) and product improvement.


Would you want to go back to the awful UK car manufacturers making rubbish unreliable expensive cars?


New jobs are being created all the time.

grizzly1911

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

Yes, companies need profits to keep the shareholders happy/get through tougher times/grow, but I stick by my original thought that there is only so much that can be done in the name of profits before it gets to the point where taxes from profits are negated by the amount of people needing to claim benefits.

Part of the problem is that we don't actually see the many of the taxes from their real net profits any more.

rabbit_burrow

CLAPTON wrote: »

The vast majority of farming land is owned by a small number of very big farmers (i.e. it's big business)

They are driven by the same cost drivers as any other big business


If UK business doesn't introduce efficiency measures then they will be driven out of business by a flood of foreign imports.

Your standard of living is all possible because companies are continually making improvements (cost savings) and product improvement.


Would you want to go back to the awful UK car manufacturers making rubbish unreliable expensive cars?


New jobs are being created all the time.

I can only go by what I have seen for myself. Where I grew up we were surrounded by farms, not owned by one farmer, but rather several. The farmers' kids went to the school I went to, and I stayed at a few of their farms (drinking milk whilst it's still warm from the cow is an experience, not one I'd particularly like to repeat though!). Whilst some of them were 'comfortable', the were far from being über rich. My ex's grandad was a smallholding farmer with some woodland, but was also very very far from being rich, and only really had any money when they sold their farm after he had a stroke, by then it was too late to enjoy their money.

No I wouldn't want an unreliable expensive car, but then I do drive an 18 year old Ford Escort Equipe. Might upgrade it a some point (if I could stop being tight)

CLAPTON

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

I can only go by what I have seen for myself. Where I grew up we were surrounded by farms, not owned by one farmer, but rather several. The farmers' kids went to the school I went to, and I stayed at a few of their farms (drinking milk whilst it's still warm from the cow is an experience, not one I'd particularly like to repeat though!). Whilst some of them were 'comfortable', the were far from being über rich. My ex's grandad was a smallholding farmer with some woodland, but was also very very far from being rich, and only really had any money when they sold their farm after he had a stroke, by then it was too late to enjoy their money.

No I wouldn't want an unreliable expensive car, but then I do drive an 18 year old Ford Escort Equipe. Might upgrade it a some point (if I could stop being tight)

I'm very pleased that you had such a lovely experience of growing up on a farm.

However that has little to do with the need for industry to reduce costs, improve products and compete with other countries; which makes us all richer.

rabbit_burrow

I didn't grow up on a farm. I grew up in a council house. In the 80's.

I was merely trying to point out why I had the view regarding the farmers & tractors vs. big companies & streamlining. I have grown up in a largely farm area, so maybe I have seen it differently, but I was just trying to explain my POV after being called naive or possibly a liar for having views the way I do.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

However that has little to do with the need for industry to reduce costs, improve products and compete with other countries; which makes us all richer.

How does it make us all richer.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

How does it make us all richer.

On reflection I think I may have exaggerated;

probably Henry VIII, Catherine the Great, Louis XIV and a few others probably wouldn't have been beneficiaries.