Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

How can you believe that those people don't deserve a bigger share of the revenue raised?

Are you proposing that the UK tells China how to run it's economy?

I'm more concerned with a Union Rep in our organisation who does very little. Complete waste of space and taxpayers money. Being the quasi public sector there's an untouchable status attached to the role for some reason. Fortunately change is on the way.

CLAPTON

Southend1 wrote: »

Apple as far as I am aware makes huge profits mainly by subcontracting its manufacturing to firms such as Foxconn who force their employees to work excessive hours without adequate rest and to live in cramped and substandard accommodation. To the point where some of them have committed suicide as a result.

The proportion of the sale price of an apple product that is paid in wages to the people who made it must be miniscule. How can you believe that those people don't deserve a bigger share of the revenue raised?

where are foxconn based?
are there not other jobs the people can go to

should we send troops to free the people?

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

I don't get why some people think labour should have clearly stated policies on every issue at this stage in the electoral cycle. They have just elected a new leader and the next general election is years out. Surely now is the time for listening to party members and engaging in discussion and debate within the party so that policies are in place in plenty of time for the next election?

There is absolutely no reason for Labour to have clearly stated policies 4+ years before a General Election which is what makes having had 4 policies on the deficit since the last election all the more stupid from an electoral point of view.

Plus the two policies on HE (no fees, yes fees), 2.5 policies on Trident (scrap it, get it, get it but don't fire it) and so on.

If there is one thing that is rapidly becoming clear, Mr Corbyns lack of any sort of serious leadership experience has made him a huge liability. I was listening to some of the BBC political stuff off the radio iPlayer and that seemed to be a constant theme: shies away from confrontation, inability to lead from the front, chaotic, confused policy making, Student Union politics.

That Mr Corbyn and his team has put up a bunch of policies 55 months ahead (presumably) of the next election is nobody's fault but their own. That they don't think through the policies is their own fault. The accusation about the Fiscal Charter flip-flop is that Mr McDonnell hadn't actually gotten round to reading the paper and felt he had to say something on the subject!!!

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

Apple as far as I am aware makes huge profits mainly by subcontracting its manufacturing to firms such as Foxconn who force their employees to work excessive hours without adequate rest and to live in cramped and substandard accommodation. To the point where some of them have committed suicide as a result.

Foxconn is an interesting point.

If you take a million people, which is roughly the number of Foxconn employees, then you would expect to find a number with mental illness and sadly you would also expect a number of suicides and suicide attempts to occur within that population.

In the UK each year, about 1200 people who are in touch with mental health services commit suicide which is about 2 per 100,000 population. The actual suicide rate is unknown but estimated to be ~6x that (link).

So with a million employees we'd expect to see somewhere between 20 and 120 suicides per year at Foxconn, extrapolating out the UK suicide figures. In 2010, 14 did so (link).

Foxconn and Apple got a lot of very bad publicity as a result of this, despite the figures actually being pretty good, and have made steps to improve pay and conditions for employees. Foxconn employees now earn considerably more than the minimum wage for factory workers in their regions and housing conditions have been improved.

Supply chain is something of an interest of mine so happy to discuss all day long. The issues involved are far more complex than the absurdo ad redctio arguments that you'll read in the papers.

If you are really concerned about workers in the supply chain of the things that you buy you'd only buy clothes from Bangladesh, fast replacing China as the supplier of choice, where the retailer has signed the Plaza Accord. You'd only buy electronics where the 'manufacturer' (the company with their badge on the product) had subjected themselves to the IPC due diligence process on conflict minerals. You'd certainly never buy a diamond.

Apple, like other bogie men like Amazon, Starbucks and McDonalds, make a great target because they are big and they have to be seen to give a !!!!. If you care about the people who make the stuff you buy you're probably better off staying out of Poundland and away from the bloke selling hoodies for a fiver at your local market.

michaels

Oh course we could all not buy products produced in the developing world and the employees there could go back to scratching out a living in the mud on communal farms - those who make it past childhood....

Southend1

michaels wrote: »

Oh course we could all not buy products produced in the developing world and the employees there could go back to scratching out a living in the mud on communal farms - those who make it past childhood....

Nobody (on this thread at least) is suggesting we stop buying products produced in the developing world. However we shouldn't accept that those who produce things abroad are made to work in conditions that we would never put up with ourselves.

International cooperation between governments, trade unions and corporations is likely to achieve a far better outcome.

Mistermeaner

Southend1 wrote: »

International cooperation between governments, trade unions and corporations is likely to achieve a far better outcome.

Well that's that solved then. Could you have a word with Russia and Syria too while you're at it. And then fix Africa and the middle east.

Mistermeaner

Back in the real world McDonald (no relation) explains that black is white: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34519164

It's a change of tactics not policy, apparently they backed osbournes plan in an ironic way, then realised that that would look ridiculous.

And can someone please explain to me why anyone would vote for that foul snake of a woman dianne abbott. Urgh.

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

Foxconn is an interesting point.

If you take a million people, which is roughly the number of Foxconn employees, then you would expect to find a number with mental illness and sadly you would also expect a number of suicides and suicide attempts to occur within that population.

In the UK each year, about 1200 people who are in touch with mental health services commit suicide which is about 2 per 100,000 population. The actual suicide rate is unknown but estimated to be ~6x that (link).

So with a million employees we'd expect to see somewhere between 20 and 120 suicides per year at Foxconn, extrapolating out the UK suicide figures. In 2010, 14 did so (link).

Foxconn and Apple got a lot of very bad publicity as a result of this, despite the figures actually being pretty good, and have made steps to improve pay and conditions for employees. Foxconn employees now earn considerably more than the minimum wage for factory workers in their regions and housing conditions have been improved.

Supply chain is something of an interest of mine so happy to discuss all day long. The issues involved are far more complex than the absurdo ad redctio arguments that you'll read in the papers.

If you are really concerned about workers in the supply chain of the things that you buy you'd only buy clothes from Bangladesh, fast replacing China as the supplier of choice, where the retailer has signed the Plaza Accord. You'd only buy electronics where the 'manufacturer' (the company with their badge on the product) had subjected themselves to the IPC due diligence process on conflict minerals. You'd certainly never buy a diamond.

Apple, like other bogie men like Amazon, Starbucks and McDonalds, make a great target because they are big and they have to be seen to give a !!!!. If you care about the people who make the stuff you buy you're probably better off staying out of Poundland and away from the bloke selling hoodies for a fiver at your local market.

Poundland et al are interesting. Some people advocate steering clear but given that they sell identical products to other stores it's likely they are paying their suppliers similar prices but operating with a higher turnover at lower prices than mainstream retailers.

Similarly in clothing retail, a t-shirt sold in next for £20 is likely to be no more ethically produced than one for £2.50 in Primark.

I think the key thing is whether a company engages positively with suppliers, governments, trade unions etc to ensure their supply chain is managed in an ethical way.

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

There is absolutely no reason for Labour to have clearly stated policies 4+ years before a General Election which is what makes having had 4 policies on the deficit since the last election all the more stupid from an electoral point of view.

Plus the two policies on HE (no fees, yes fees), 2.5 policies on Trident (scrap it, get it, get it but don't fire it) and so on.

If there is one thing that is rapidly becoming clear, Mr Corbyns lack of any sort of serious leadership experience has made him a huge liability. I was listening to some of the BBC political stuff off the radio iPlayer and that seemed to be a constant theme: shies away from confrontation, inability to lead from the front, chaotic, confused policy making, Student Union politics.

That Mr Corbyn and his team has put up a bunch of policies 55 months ahead (presumably) of the next election is nobody's fault but their own. That they don't think through the policies is their own fault. The accusation about the Fiscal Charter flip-flop is that Mr McDonnell hadn't actually gotten round to reading the paper and felt he had to say something on the subject!!!

I think people are overlooking the fact that Corbyn did put forward some policy proposals as part of the leadership campaign but he always made it clear these were only proposals and that actual party policies would be decided democratically by the party, not dictated by the leader.

His style of leadership is certainly different to what has gone before but many people find it refreshing for the leader to listen and consult party members rather than dictating policy from on high. Whether that style impresses enough of an electorate who are used to the polished stage managed politics we have had since 1997 to win in 2020 remains to be seen.