Small Obscure Political Party Loses its Leader

[Borchester]

From Borchester's account, HMRC seems better — up to half of them were working when he was there...

We tried to set an example to the City, most of whom seem to have spent their working day at lunch or in meetings. It was not so much that we never knew what the masters of the financial universe actually did, as that they never seemed completely sure either.

[patman post]

Already happened @Borchester, Amazon warehouses use robots all over the place and the now shop in London has nobody working there at all.

From Borchester's account, HMRC seems better — up to half of them were working when he was there...

[Borchester]

I have no doubt Borky will be along with his humorous asides to tell how when he worked for the taxman he was surplus to requirements, well that's as maybe but it will be a big problem and affect many people.

I can see that my cack handed attempts at wit are not always seen as being as witty as I had hoped.

So, ok, here I am in full dreary bastard mode.

I started out nearly 60 years ago as a marine engineer and my first ship was an ocean going giant of 13,500 tons and with a crew of 43. We worked a minimum of 8 hours a day, 7 days a week and I saw men come out of the engine room crying, not because they had hurt themselves but because they were so bloody tired.

A while back a friend retired and at his piss up told me about his last ship. It was an average sized boat of 100,000 tons with a crew of 27 and if anything went wrong they limped into port and as often as not had the engine or whatever was replaced.

When I joined HMRC a quarter of the staff were typists and once a week we would settle in and hand write the numbers into the tax demands. Nowadays computers have replaced the typists and issue demands automatically.

I could find a zillion other examples but the bottom line is that we need less and less people and yet the streets are not full of the bodies of ex seamen and typists who have died of want. What has happened is that we can afford more and more Mickey Mouse jobs that will continue to get softer and softer until folk only turn up for work because they are so bloody bored sitting on their arses.

[Sheepy]

Ah, so it's all about you not wanting to pay your staff a decent wage, I get it. Me, me, me in action again.

Ah well no worries Rodney this time next year and all that.

[johnofgwent]

You don't understand a word I said, and appear rather intellectually challenged right now.  Increased pay for the poor would greatly outstrip increased costs for them as a result of these latter being shared by everybody. Which is totally not what you said at all. You claimed they'd be no better off and everyone else would be worse of which is ignorant rubbish.

If only those socialist at ideals worked in the real world.


For the past two years the only people receiving any pay rise at my former employer were those on NMW because no one else could be afforded a rise, and people were made redundant to cover those extra costs. In the place before them it was like Matthew And Son. No one asked for more money, for nobody dares even though they're pretty low and the rents in arrears...


I'm so pleased I'm back in the banking world now

[cromwell]

Already happened @Borchester, Amazon warehouses use robots all over the place and the now shop in London has nobody working there at all.

Well the shop in London does have minimal staff,it employs 30 people on different shifts preparing food,replenishing stock and maintaining security.
Also the major problem we and the world face in the not too distant future is not covid or other pandemics (though some unscrupulous regimes might think it useful to reduce population) but robotisation.

What do we do with a population that would be largely surplus to requirements?
Have them all shot? 

Instead of a manageable situation there will be a large underclass who won't wear being crapped on.

I have no doubt Borky will be along with his humorous asides to tell how when he worked for the taxman he was surplus to requirements, well that's as maybe but it will be a big problem and affect many people.

[Streetwalker]

Ah, so it's all about you not wanting to pay your staff a decent wage, I get it. Me, me, me in action again.

Its a supply and demand issue srb , cut off the supply and the demand increases . Brexit has to some extent cut off the supply and along with the points based immigration policy should remove the cheap foreign labour market .

So that leaves the indigenous  cheap labour market . We have seen industries that have made use of free movement in the past complaining that they can no longer get the staff and say that local workers dont want the work (at the wage offered ) . So they either increase wages and make their industries more attractive and maybe reduce the bottom line and the pay gap or stop trading .

[srb7677]

Is that it? Insults?
What about a bit of maths showing how it works. What is your recommended living wage that won't cripple business? I have employees and know my margins, enlighten us.

Ah, so it's all about you not wanting to pay your staff a decent wage, I get it. Me, me, me in action again.

[Sheepy]

I don't think that we should upbraid Steve.

He is a smart lad and realises that increasing wages increases costs which

(a)  fall heaviest on the poor

(b) destroy jobs and force the poorest members of society onto the dole where the pay is usually worse.

It is hard to believe that Steve believes the Toy Town economics that he espouses, but does so out of loyalty to the party line.

LOL shouldn't someone sit him down and explain within the money system is a built-in poverty link, which is probably the reason eradicating poverty is always put up as some reachable holy grail by the Left, it is always there, you just can never reach it. Which is one of the reason Communism came about, but alas human nature being what it is, it just created a different elite with all the trappings. The poor were still poor.

[Nick]

You don't understand a word I said, and appear rather intellectually challenged right now.  Increased pay for the poor would greatly outstrip increased costs for them as a result of these latter being shared by everybody. Which is totally not what you said at all. You claimed they'd be no better off and everyone else would be worse of which is ignorant rubbish.

Is that it? Insults?
What about a bit of maths showing how it works. What is your recommended living wage that won't cripple business? I have employees and know my margins, enlighten us.

[Borchester]

😂 😂 😂

Firstly you say my understanding is woeful.

Then you repeat almost exactly what I said.

Finally you acknowledge that what I said could be true depending on how big the pay increase is.

I can't compete with this level of debate 😂.

I don't think that we should upbraid Steve.

He is a smart lad and realises that increasing wages increases costs which

(a)  fall heaviest on the poor

(b) destroy jobs and force the poorest members of society onto the dole where the pay is usually worse.

It is hard to believe that Steve believes the Toy Town economics that he espouses, but does so out of loyalty to the party line.

[srb7677]

😂 😂 😂

Firstly you say my understanding is woeful.

Then you repeat almost exactly what I said.

Finally you acknowledge that what I said could be true depending on how big the pay increase is.

I can't compete with this level of debate 😂.

You don't understand a word I said, and appear rather intellectually challenged right now.  Increased pay for the poor would greatly outstrip increased costs for them as a result of these latter being shared by everybody. Which is totally not what you said at all. You claimed they'd be no better off and everyone else would be worse of which is ignorant rubbish.

[Nick]

[HIGHLIGHT]Your understanding of economic mathematics is woeful.[/HIGHLIGHT]

Increasing pay at the bottom focusses increases at the bottom but any price increases that result are spread out amongst everybody. So the poor gain more than any extra costs, because the better off share in those costs too.

Mathematically, the crap you are trying to suggest would only hold true if the costs of any pay increase for the lowest paid were covered entirely by the lowest paid themselves. In fact the costs would be shared by everybody. You might pay a tiny bit more for some things but the low paid would gain much more than the extra they pay.

😂 😂 😂

Firstly you say my understanding is woeful.

Then you repeat almost exactly what I said.

Finally you acknowledge that what I said could be true depending on how big the pay increase is.

I can't compete with this level of debate 😂.

[srb7677]

It's about a month since you posted this and the situation hasn't changed. Forcing employers to increase their wage bill puts prices up on the high street. All that happens is that the poorer in society stay on parity with price increases but everyone else sees a price increase.

Your understanding of economic mathematics is woeful.

Increasing pay at the bottom focusses increases at the bottom but any price increases that result are spread out amongst everybody. So the poor gain more than any extra costs, because the better off share in those costs too.

Mathematically, the crap you are trying to suggest would only hold true if the costs of any pay increase for the lowest paid were covered entirely by the lowest paid themselves. In fact the costs would be shared by everybody. You might pay a tiny bit more for some things but the low paid would gain much more than the extra they pay.

[Barry]

Small Obscure Political Party Loses its Leader