'A better off Britain'

BobQ

This country needs:

to boost living standards for low income and working families
to raise the threshold when employees pay National Insurance
expand free childcare to one and two year-olds
businesses to raise productivity to boost pay;
better routes into higher-skilled better-paid work;
measures to ensure young people don’t fall behind in school

The rantings of an out of touch union leader?

No in fact it is the Confederation of British Industry?

http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/our-package-of-measures-to-build-a-better-off-britain/

The financial crisis and the slow recovery have hit people’s finances hard. Living standards will gradually improve as the economy does. But growth on its own will not be the miracle cure. Even before the recession, the income of a child’s parents determined too many of their own life chances.

“The UK needs to face up to some real long-term challenges. Changing skills needs, greater global competition and low social mobility mean for many the pathway to a better life is tough and far from clear.

“But the answers do not lie in short-term sticking plaster fixes, like intervening in pay or attacking the UK’s flexible labour market, which will ultimately cost jobs. Instead, we need to invest in productivity, skills and education to make the best of Britain’s talents.

“To ease pressure on families and people on low incomes, we want immediate action, including cutting employee National Insurance and making childcare more affordable.

“Then we have to tackle the long-term issues. Higher productivity leads to better wages, so we must have a laser-like focus on boosting firms’ competitiveness. We also need to create better ladders to higher-skilled, higher-paid work and improve our education system for all, to overcome disadvantage. Business leaders need to step up to the plate, as well as politicians.

“Business wants to help build a more prosperous Britain where everyone has the chance to get on in life. This is the right thing to do to build a stronger and fairer society, and it makes good business and economic sense too.”

Bantex_2

Odd that it's all about other people having to pay rather than the businesses that employ them.

Generali

http://news.cbi.org.uk/reports/better-off-britain/a-better-off-britain/

They sound like eminently sensible ideas. As the CBI states, the only way to pay for workers to keep more of their money is to get rid of quick fixes that serve to keep people in mild poverty:

Yet the ‘quick fix’ approaches that are often put forward are in fact more likely to damage progress than help us achieve this. Our flexible labour market is one of our economy’s key strengths and has helped deliver jobs and pay rises over the past decades. We must not undermine our strengths. Instead of offering sticking plasters, such as greater welfare spending or unsustainable rises in the minimum wage ahead of the ability of businesses to pay for it, this report sets out a long-term plan to prepare British people to be successful today and tomorrow in the global economy we inhabit, as well as providing short-term relief to the hardest-pressed groups right now. [page 6]

No extra redistribution of income from high earners to low ones:

Our welfare system is important in helping many people make their first steps in work. But more benefit transfers or higher taxes at the top are unlikely to solve the issue. As work by the IMF shows, political efforts to achieve a lower level of inequality can only go so far. In countries with an already high level of redistribution, like the UK, further redistributive efforts can actually increase the probability of a growth spell ending. Instead the goal must be creating a society where growth has the potential to benefit all through a concerted effort to create more opportunities for people to increase their earnings and by growing the economy. Put simply, getting more people into better paying, more skilled roles through improving productivity and skill levels creates a virtuous cycle for people and companies. [page 19]

Flexible employment terms like zero hours contracts should remain:

In the aftermath of the economic crisis, calls to restrict the UK’s flexible labour market have multiplied, be it concern over zero-hour contracts or the fact that the number of people who are working part-time but would rather work full-time has risen.
Flexibility has become the scapegoat, when in fact it has helped firms in the UK create a record number
of jobs, above inflation pay rises in the decades before the recession and, in recent years, kept people in work, protecting them from unemployment.
Regulating a labour market that works isn’t the answer hard-pressed families need. Instead, we should be supporting them to do better in it. [page 29]

I'm quite surprised you support these sorts of measures given your posting history: I was under the impression that you were an old fashioned sort of 'soak the rich', 'tax and spend' socialist rather than a libertarian-lite believer in equality of opportunity, albeit with a small safety net.

I agree wholeheartedly though: it's far better to give people the tools they need to succeed and then let them keep the fruits of their success than to pay people to fail.

CLAPTON

seems a strange incoherent set of words and paragraphs


I'm unclear how productivity will improve if we provide better child care for 1 and 2 years old.


Whilst most of us believe in investing in productivity to whom is this doctrine being aimed?
Of course many believe our salvation is to import cheaper labour from Europe rather than use our existing labour force more productively.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Of course many believe our salvation is to import cheaper labour from Europe rather than use our existing labour force more productively.

There is more to the economy than your bizarre obsession with immigration.

Immigration of course allows more productive workers to come to the UK which is why they increase aggregate supply (see the BoE 2007 study for example).

This study doesn't mention migration once. It makes some sensible, practical suggestions about how to improve the economy in the UK including some ideas about how to increase productivity.

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm unclear how productivity will improve if we provide better child care for 1 and 2 years old.

Of course you are.

You are confuzzulating different parts of the study, which is titled "A Better Off Britain"

The study does not link the two in the way that you seem to think it does.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

There is more to the economy than your bizarre obsession with immigration.

Immigration of course allows more productive workers to come to the UK which is why they increase aggregate supply (see the BoE 2007 study for example).

This study doesn't mention migration once. It makes some sensible, practical suggestions about how to improve the economy in the UK including some ideas about how to increase productivity.

I appreciate that you have abandoned any attempt at rational economics.


What practical proposals for increasing productivity have they actually made?


Why does providing more child care for 1 and 2 years increase productivity?


What evidence over the last 8 years is there that increase migration has improved UK productivity?


Immigration is a fact of life in the UK : it is irrational to ignore its impact on economic life.


Just for a single moment try to think like an economist : what factors would encourage businesses to invest money in becoming more productive :


higher wages?
lower wages?
shortage of labour?
surplus of labour?
more child care?
more graduates?

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

I appreciate that you have abandoned any attempt at rational economics.


What practical proposals for increasing productivity have they actually made?


Why does providing more child care for 1 and 2 years increase productivity?

Because if a person can produce £50-worth of goods an hour and the requirement to pay for expensive childcare prevents them doing so, perhaps it's worth subsidising the childcare to allow skilled and valuable workers to remain in the workforce.

CLAPTON wrote: »

What evidence over the last 8 years is there that increase migration has improved UK productivity?


Immigration is a fact of life in the UK : it is irrational to ignore its impact on economic life.


Just for a single moment try to think like an economist : what factors would encourage businesses to invest money in becoming more productive :


higher wages?
lower wages?
shortage of labour?
surplus of labour?
more child care?
more graduates?

We don't ignore immigration, your bizarre obsession means that almost every thread gets diverted off topic to discussing it.

Bantex_2

If these people are so valuable to an employer, why are they not paying for the childcare for them?

We seem to have a rather odd system already where large parts of the workforce (so therefore the employers) are being subsidised rather than being paid a going rate.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Because if a person can produce £50-worth of goods an hour and the requirement to pay for expensive childcare prevents them doing so, perhaps it's worth subsidising the childcare to allow skilled and valuable workers to remain in the workforce.




We don't ignore immigration, your bizarre obsession means that almost every thread gets diverted off topic to discussing it.

even you know this is economic nonsense :


and you didn't actually answer the questions about what would cause a business to invest in higher productivity.


to suggest that the availability of labour is 'off topic' when discussing productivity shows a very sad.

Steve_Perry_2

Bantex wrote: »

Odd that it's all about other people having to pay rather than the businesses that employ them.

Very much this .

Perhaps they may support an increase in a rise in the Minimum Wage to accompany their new found social conscience !!!!:cool: