The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

If we're relying on me to do it on here I wouldn't be holding my breath!

Seriously, no-one on tv, in the papers, anywhere seems to ask that question. Plenty try to argue that 'social' stuff some people say is bad for the economy is actually good, but no-one ever seems to say 'screw it, what if it's only a bit bad for the economy, but actually, life would be a lot nicer if we did it?'.

[Lord Kangana]

They will if they hear it often enough. No army can stop an idea whose time has come.

[Worthy4England]

"Don't see that there would be a major dint in that...given the sectors the jobs are predominantly in."

I'm sorry, but that is totally meaningless.

As you suggest above, the minimum wage question is best discussed in terms of sensitivity analyses - this talk of % of GDP is surely an irrelevant distraction?

I'm glad you're sorry that comparison to GDP is totally meaningless - it's one of the factors that's evaluated when setting the NMW each year. There are plenty of others of course.

[Riley & Bondibene 2013], suggests that the introduction of the NMW increased costs for firms between 3 and 6% and had no noticable impact on exit rates, increased productivity marginally to not at all, small impact to profitability which was almost statistically negligable, and didn't impact investment rates.

What that suggests to me, along with the predicted armeggedon not occurring, is that a 10% increase probably wouldn't have a long term impact at a macro level.

I still have no notion what rate would break the model - and don't particularly have any interest in finding out, because it would be meaningless when weighed against the current rate.

What do you think would break the model and cause economic meltdown?

[Harry Genshaw]

Plenty try to argue that 'social' stuff some people say is bad for the economy is actually good, but no-one ever seems to say 'screw it, what if it's only a bit bad for the economy, but actually, life would be a lot nicer if we did it?'.

Sadly we got a way to go yet. I occasionally go swimming in my lunch time at the local baths. Last year the place was packed with Pensioners who could all get in for free. I'm sure for some of the old dears it was the only time they got out and kept them active and represented a possible saving on the NHS perhaps. The subsidy was stopped last year during the round of budget cuts. I was the only one in there last week!

[thebish]

^ i bet you were also secretly happy that they weren't clogging up the lanes, though!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm glad you're sorry that comparison to GDP is totally meaningless - it's one of the factors that's evaluated when setting the NMW each year. There are plenty of others of course.

[Riley & Bondibene 2013], suggests that the introduction of the NMW increased costs for firms between 3 and 6% and had no noticable impact on exit rates, increased productivity marginally to not at all, small impact to profitability which was almost statistically negligable, and didn't impact investment rates.

What's any of that that got to do with total increase in wages of those at minimum wage level as a % of current GDP?

It's mainly a view elasticity of demand for labour which is what I'm saying is key

What that suggests to me, along with the predicted armeggedon not occurring, is that a 10% increase probably wouldn't have a long term impact at a macro level.

I still have no notion what rate would break the model - and don't particularly have any interest in finding out, because it would be meaningless when weighed against the current rate.

What do you think would break the model and cause economic meltdown?

I don't really have a view about 'breaking the model' or 'economic meltdown'.

What I do think is that an increased minimum wage would result in some jobs/hours disappearing that would otherwise exist. I agree with you that 10% wouldn't result in many people losing their jobs and their hours, but at least trying to work out what the number would be and whether it would be worth losing them means the discussion is moving onto the right ground.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's yet another area where it's taken for granted that what is best for the market is best for the economy which is best for society.

What is?

[Prufrock]

Minimum wage, benefits, income tax, corporation tax, the environment. Take your pick. No-one ever seems to come at it from the other direction. Instead of worshipping the markets and profit and working backwards from there, no-one imagines what they'd like society to be like and tries to figure out where we can use markets to serve that, and where we can't.

To take the minimum wage as an example, I've not heard anyone in politics say 'let's figure out what the minimum wage people need to actually live is, make that the minimum wage and then tell the companies who don't want to pay it to do one, and those who want to but can't that we'll help them in other ways, say tax breaks'. That sort of thing happens in some areas, but it's never the tone of the debate. We judge everything by its immediate economic viability. I'm not saying that shouldn't be a factor, but no-one says that a big company that can't afford to pay its staff properly isn't doing it right, it's the people who can't live off what the company decides it can pay who are at fault.

We live in a country where over 2000 bankers earnt over 1m euros last year (out of fewer than 4000 in all of Europe) but where the people who get blamed for everything are the ones struggling near or below the breadline who get lumped in with the lazy shisters. You don't have to want to live in a collective on a farm wearing hemp to think that's a bit f*cked up. You don't have to hate aspiration, or think no-one should ever be allowed to get rich, to say maybe we haven't got the balance right. You don't have to think that all markets are evil to think that maybe they aren't what we want in schools, hospitals, utilities and trains.

Money is important, and making sure the country isn't an economic train-wreck is important, but it's a means not an end in and of itself. I don't want to overthrow the system, I just wish the focus wasn't always on the bottom line in every single area.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Actually my complaint about the way we discuss things is not as dissimilar to yours as it appears.

My problem is that we rarely seem to subject things to a rational cost-benefit analysis. What you're saying feeds into that because even when we do, we don't take a wide enough and realistic view of what the costs and benefits of something actually are.

Instead we just muddle on with this instinctive, sentimental and emotional approach to things - and yes, that includes an emotional commitment to markets as well as an emotional commitment to vague do-gooding.

[thebish]

^ when you say "we", Mummy - do you mean "they"??

[Athers]

It's an area of contention in economics but a significant minimum wage rise would probably push inflation up, and anyone not on the minimum wage (squeezed middle? swing voters?) may suddenly finds things more expensive.

Although deflation is a potential medium-term threat at the moment, so who bloody knows!

I think the quest for growth = need for govt to be friendly to business, or to be perceived as being, and it outweighs the NMW argument at the moment.

Interesting topic though

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

We live in a country where over 2000 bankers earnt over 1m euros last year (out of fewer than 4000 in all of Europe) but where the people who get blamed for everything are the ones struggling near or below the breadline who get lumped in with the lazy shisters.

When intelligent people spew stuff like this, it doesn't help incidentally.

The first thing that first line makes me think is "is our financial services sector roughly the same size as financial services in the rest of Europe combined?".

And who is really 'blaming' the struggling for anything?

[thebish]

And who is really 'blaming' the struggling for anything?

tory party rhetoric basically blames a significant part of our economic weakness on work-shy scroungers - then the figures they use include everyone on benefits... see just about any Osborne speech....

the Daily Mail blames work-shy scroungers and immigrants... see any copy of the Daily Mail...

[Lord Kangana]

We live in a country where over 2000 bankers earnt over 1m euros last year (out of fewer than 4000 in all of Europe) but where the people who get blamed for everything are the ones struggling near or below the breadline who get lumped in with the lazy shisters.

When intelligent people spew stuff like this, it doesn't help incidentally.

The first thing that first line makes me think is "is our financial services sector roughly the same size as financial services in the rest of Europe combined?".

And who is really 'blaming' the struggling for anything?

Neither does that.

Out of interest, are you hoodwinked enough by Boris' assertion that really rich people pay more tax in total? Do you ever wonder to yourself, "hmmm, but hang on, aren't the really wealthy of this country contributing more because, oh I don't know, lets say they earn f*cking loads more than everyone else?" And at that point, do you not find yourself thinking "well, actually, they bloody well should pay more income tax, and if they don't like it, why don't they lobby against the system so that income (and therefore tax burden) is more evenly spread through the population so they don't have to pay more?"

You see, its equally frustrating same when really intelligent people can't see the wood for the tress.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And who is really 'blaming' the struggling for anything?

tory party rhetoric basically blames a significant part of our economic weakness on work-shy scroungers - then the figures they use include everyone on benefits... see just about any Osborne speech....

the Daily Mail blames work-shy scroungers and immigrants... see any copy of the Daily Mail...

I don't see either of those things being rooted in 'blame'.

[thebish]

And who is really 'blaming' the struggling for anything?

tory party rhetoric basically blames a significant part of our economic weakness on work-shy scroungers - then the figures they use include everyone on benefits... see just about any Osborne speech....

the Daily Mail blames work-shy scroungers and immigrants... see any copy of the Daily Mail...

I don't see either of those things being rooted in 'blame'.

I do.

[Harry Genshaw]

^ i bet you were also secretly happy that they weren't clogging up the lanes, though!

You're not kidding! I was seriously doubting how waterproof some of those colostomy bags are

[thebish]

^ i bet you were also secretly happy that they weren't clogging up the lanes, though!

You're not kidding! I was seriously doubting how waterproof some of those colostomy bags are

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And who is really 'blaming' the struggling for anything?

tory party rhetoric basically blames a significant part of our economic weakness on work-shy scroungers - then the figures they use include everyone on benefits... see just about any Osborne speech....

the Daily Mail blames work-shy scroungers and immigrants... see any copy of the Daily Mail...

I don't see either of those things being rooted in 'blame'.

I do.

Hang on - are we talking at crossed purposes here?

It might be that some Tories and Daily Mail writers see the struggling as being some way to blame for their own struggling, but I don't see them being blamed for 'everything'.

As in, I don't think that anyone is saying that they caused the financial crisis, or borrowed too much in the good years etc.

Are we talking about the fact that some of the solutions hit this group hard despite the fact that they are not actually being blamed, which is a bit different?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

We live in a country where over 2000 bankers earnt over 1m euros last year (out of fewer than 4000 in all of Europe) but where the people who get blamed for everything are the ones struggling near or below the breadline who get lumped in with the lazy shisters.

When intelligent people spew stuff like this, it doesn't help incidentally.

The first thing that first line makes me think is "is our financial services sector roughly the same size as financial services in the rest of Europe combined?".

And who is really 'blaming' the struggling for anything?

Neither does that.

Out of interest, are you hoodwinked enough by Boris' assertion that really rich people pay more tax in total? Do you ever wonder to yourself, "hmmm, but hang on, aren't the really wealthy of this country contributing more because, oh I don't know, lets say they earn f*cking loads more than everyone else?" And at that point, do you not find yourself thinking "well, actually, they bloody well should pay more income tax, and if they don't like it, why don't they lobby against the system so that income (and therefore tax burden) is more evenly spread through the population so they don't have to pay more?"

You see, its equally frustrating same when really intelligent people can't see the wood for the tress.

I don't understand the question, partly perhaps because I don't follow what Boris Johnson has to say terribly closely.

Do I agree that really rich people pay more tax in total than other people?

Well -yes.

The question can't be that simple?!