Minimum wage

Competition?
Chinese governemet declared that export on many products will get much more controlled in the future.
Why?
You can be the more competitive country in the world with producing costs getting close to "0", but......if there's nobody buyin' the things that you produce your economy is bound to stop growin' and start collapsin'.
Quick buck!
That's the problem.
Money now and at any cost.
When we are thinking about the future, tryin to bring enough "bread" home, the people who really should think about tomorrow don't.
Becoming rich, that's the aim.
It's like playin' cards: sometimes someone put it down higher than you can afford and you are out.
The question: is it possible in a world that call itself globalized?
When problems of an 3.000 klms far country hardly touch your wage in terms of value there's something wrong in it, i think.
I think we cannot avoid globalisation, but i think that we must reconsider the rules we are playin' with.
Times for winners is over.
There can't be a winner because there's no more space for only one, because all of us are connected to the others in terms of commerce rules.
If one fail, the cost of the failure will hit on the others and so on.
Another question: do they know the word "balance"?

A very sad and worried Gianluigi.

Ps: Adam? Will you throw me out?

We had a crisis last year when we couldn't get hold of steel for buildings, because most of it was being diverted to China. Many projects here suffered as a consequence, and why? Because we don't make steel ourselves anymore. It's cheaper to bring it in. I can't see how you can do the sums any other way, but it is a world market and the UK has to compete with any other country to supply. Maybe the answer is not to compete, but offer something unique that no other country can offer, and then we can pay the workers accordingly. I have no idea what that can be though.
I don't like it either.

quote:

Originally posted by JeremyD:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
The idea of globalisation is based on some very shaky ideology/economic theory IMO. It might all sound plausible but it is unproven and untested and takes no account of the people at the bottom of the economic food chain who are the very people relied upon to produce the "wealth".

I think billions of Indians and Chinese might disagree...

Yes, yes, go on...

Disagree because...?

Rasher,
Sorry I don't ,[if you will excuse the pun] buy that argument It can't be cheaper or more efficient to transport goods half the way round the world if you take into account all of the true costs,and not just the financial ones.
What the main differances are,is that some Countrys pay higher subsidies to their Industrys than others
We all live on this little lump of rock speeding through space, and no one person or Country is totaly isolated from what others do, ultimately there is a price to pay,and every body will have to pay for the greed of the few People /Nations.
It can not be morally correct that we can buy out of seasion Fresh Beans etc.from places such as kenya whilst its own people starve because their farmers grow cash crops for the European market. World Economys and World Markets are IMO driven not by need, but by the greed of a few at the expence of the majority
just my thoughts you understand
oldie.

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:
I don't...buy that argument It can't be cheaper or more efficient to transport goods half the way round the world if you take into account all of the true costs,and not just the financial ones

It can be cheaper. It is cheaper. Rasher quite rightly pointed out the nature of the steel market. I have a client who imports glass - he has found it cheaper to bring glass in from overseas for many years, to start with from Russia and the Ukraine and latterly from China.

The financial argument is very simple when comparing the costs of the actual product, shipping, agents, transport & storage etc etc.

What other costs could there be?

Regards

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:

It can not be morally correct that we can buy out of seasion Fresh Beans etc.from places such as kenya whilst its own people starve because their farmers grow cash crops for the European market. World Economys and World Markets are IMO driven not by need, but by the greed of a few at the expence of the majority

Having been wearing my capitalist hat I will now take it off and agree entirely with your sentiment but we hit upon many, and I mean many fundamental problems.

I think we have to accept that global trade is here and here to stay. Therefore third world countries have to look to supplying to the wealthier nations for profit. It's what is done with this profit that counts. Without this trade these countries will be in deep trouble.

Quite often the problems of a country are to be found with those that govern. There are numerous examples eg Zimbabwe, Swaziland spring immediately to mind. And then you have countries like the Sudan who seem more intent on buying arms amd waging war amongst themselves. OK that may be a simplifying things but a fair point nonetheless. So many questions and so many what ifs arise out this and is worthy of a thread in itself.

Having said that there are numerous examples of countries which are better governed and are making a fair stab at improving their lot. It has to be said not wihtout difficulty but it can be done.

The world has many many problems and it will take years and years of effort to improve everyone's lot.

Regards

Mike

It pains me to agree with Dr Mick. But his point about increasing the skill levels and education standards of the whole workforce is the only thing we can try to do now. The only way the West can compete is to work smarter.
What a shame we aren't doing it. For those leaving school unable to read, write or do basic maths, their hopes for the future are essentially nil. In a globally competitive market they can be so easily outbid for their unskilled labour. The Western World needs only so many unskilled workers. When the factories are all gone abroad, what is there left for them to do? Particularly when Eastern European workers are ready and waiting to take the few remaining places?

Perhaps the world will return to an agricultural economy with intensive use of labour to produce pristine ecological produce entirely free of pesticides? But I think it rather unlikely.

One day the world will learn not to compete on price alone. But on quality and uniqueness of product instead. But not yet. Not before a massive upheaval similar to the change from centuries of agricultural backwardness to the future industrial hell.

Nime

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
One day the world will learn not to compete on price alone. But on quality and uniqueness of product instead.

Nime

Funnily enough is that not what the likes of Naim, Linn etc are doing???

Regards

Mike

Gee this is a global problem, We have the same thing here in the states. Competing with other producers who pay their workers low ages and no benefits. I"ve just gotten back into the job market and luckily found a job that in a year will have benefits, amazing, first time in my life and I'm 51.

It's all a seesaw with euro up, dollar down, and the other way around. Now it's too expensive to think of going to europe for a vacation. But now we are competing with Asia. They will take what they can get and provide it at lower cost because their living standard is lower right now at least. I do take pride in buying most things American or European made. We have a big box store called Walmart that if I'd invested in stock back inthe 70's I'd be retired now. But they pay low wages and no benefits except to their top ranks. I refuse to shop there, period. Our couriers UPS and FedEx are the same, UPS has bennefits but FedEx is cheaper because they don't, I try to ship UPS. Good quality life costs more.

I'm no expert economist, but I am over buying cheap stuff, and glad I don't have childern that beg for it. I bought a Ford Focus because it was European design, perfect for the city and very economical. I'd rather live with less, but good quality. Tho I must say the things like kitchen appliances are made cheaper so you have to replace them more often. Example my small coffee maker has had to be replaced 3 times in 12 years and this last one started to rust on the plate 6 months after I bought it. Well it's all frustrating to me. But I live pretty close to the bone. Tho glad my stereo kit is top quality ;-)

Mike,
For a start,Jobs in this country, don't forget that without employment in this country,what ever you do for a living will not last very long, money whichever way you look at it, has to circulate to keep our economy healthy, no money,no service required.It was Thatchers ideology to go for the short term over the long term gain and now we are reaping the down side of it the rich get richerwhilst the 90% of the rest of the country get poorer, we have people sleeping on the streets, this is the 4th richest country in the world, it's a complete disgrace.It ends with no glass for your client and Rasher could get no steel.Whilst the steel producing areas have been turned into theme parks and the rest of us can only goods made abroad at inflated prices.Try buying goods from America and pay a pound to the dollar and the dollars weak against the pound.A whole service industry has grown up importing "grey" vehicles from the Continent because we have to pay far in excess of everybody else.If there is no competition you have to pay the asking/demanded price.If you can't see the total cost of this type of short term economy, not only to this country by lack of export goodsto sell abroad, but also to the enviroment from fetching coal from Austraila, Steel from Russia,out of season french beans from Kenya etc,etc,etc then the human race doesn't have much of a chance.
oldie.

With the dollar so low it is cheaper to buy some American goods from the US, pay the 7% import tax, the air freight and then 25% VAT on top of everything than it is to buy British goods here in Europe.

Rip-off British exports? Makes a change from complaining about Rip-off Britain!

The problem is some US manufacturers won't allow their products to be sold except by local European dealers with their own sales areas.

The European dealers use dollar/pound parity then add on profit, VAT, freight and anything else they can think of. The Europeans will still buy the products at multiples of the US dollar retail price. Making a complete mockery of worldwide online sales websites where the prices are clearly shown.

Lucky is the company so flush with sales that they can pick and choose what to charge their customers depending only on neatly outlined geographic sales areas. Particularly if their goods are labelled for them by the Chinese manufacturers.

Nime

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

I think billions of Indians and Chinese might disagree...

Yes, yes, go on...

Disagree because...?

Ummm... ah... ummm... well, perhaps not so many would disagree right now but that will come, IMO...

The point is that the economies of India and China have benefited from globalisation. For example, India's leaders took a long time to accept that ending protectionism would benefit the economy but when they did abandon protectionism a decade or more ago(as a result of being forced into it through some economic crisis), economic growth increased rapidly. This certainly didn't do the poor any good at the time, but what's more important is the long term effect, and there's every sign that this is beneficial.

I must say I find it difficult to accept the notion that globalisation is based on a specific ideology. For a start, it's not easy to find anyone willing to give a precise definition of globalisation - it's too complex. Hence the half-joke that anyone who is for globalisation or against it doesn't know what it is. To me, it makes about as much sense to be for or against globalisation is it does to be for or against science.

What does make sense to me is the idea of different interest groups wanting to influence the course of globalisation in a way that will further their own ends. And certainly, the continued exploitation of the less fortunate third world nations is a sign of this.

But I am optimistic because the benefits of increasing global integration and interdependence seem obvious: everyone has the potential to benefit from it - it's a positive sum game. Consequently, I am hopeful that fairer international trade with the resulting benefits for the poor is achievable.

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:
For a start,Jobs in this country...It was Thatchers ideology to go for the short term over the long term gain...It ends with no glass for your client and Rasher could get no steel...and the rest of us can only goods made abroad at inflated prices.

This is one I doubt we will agree upon. Was Thatchers ideology for the short term. I would say no. Manufacturing (let's call it heavy industry) in the UK was at a nadir - and for many reasons. I will not go into that because that is another story with plenty of arguments one way or the other.

Nonetheless for business to survive it has to compete on a global scale. The bottom line - if company A could buy a widget from, say, Korea for £1 (all in) whereas company B manufactured the widget here but the costs of manufacture to bring that widget to the brought in state amounted to £2 which company survives?

Let us assume that neither Company A nor Company B exported any of it's product - the end consumer here in the UK will have a choice between paying for the product brought in by company A or that manufactured here by Company B. Guess what happens? The consumer buys product from Company A whilst Company B struggles to compete and eventually either has to resort to importing or goes under. It is simple economics and something we have to live with.

Can you imagine how Company B would have fared selling it's product on the world market.


We have to accept that back in the seventies, through the eighties and nineties into these days that there are cheaper labour markets. Business has to adapt to survive. If business adapts, as many have, it will survive and continue bringing benefits to the UK.

OK, so this country has lost a lot of it's traditional industries but in it's place new industries have sprung up. Heavy and volume industries are generally no longer viable here in the UK. Instead there are a plethora of specialist high specification/high tolerance manufacturers, research and design, IT related services (software etc) etc etc.

I am seeing this very process taking place in my alternative homeland - the historical principle industries are being lost to the cheaper labour markets of China. It cannot be stopped. You have to adapt to survive.

Regards

Mike

Mike,
We lost our traditional Industrys not because of poor out put, as such or inefficiant working practices, and I know you havent implied that, it was actully down to total lack of investment for years and years and apaullingly bad managament.But it's all part of the reason why UK industrys are no more and you are forced to odtain goods from abroad,not that I'm against other people from what ever country enjoying a reasonable life style.The reason Steel, coal, the Car industry,etc was lost,is/was because of the subsides paid by other goverments to their industrys and every body knows it goes/went on. It just doesn't make sense to transport goods that can/could be made here, half way around the world.The real economics just don't add up! We buy goods from India and China, well it's their turn now, I can remember when it was other emerging third world countrys, at vastly inflated prices, comapared to what the country of origin receives,then generaly re badged to look as though the goods came from the UK/EC/America before offered for sale.Hardwood Forests stripped in Indonesia so that Japan can make enough shuttering ply, instead of re useing what it already has. The oceans stripped of fish so that the investors in the fishing fleets can be rewarded with excessive proffits. The whole thing is worse than a whitehall farce [ I'm assuming that your of the age group that will remember Brian Rix and the white hall farces]And the price to be paid ,well thats going to be the next generation,and I don't think that they will thank us for that legacy
oldie.

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:
Hardwood Forests stripped in Indonesia so that Japan can make enough shuttering ply, instead of re useing what it already has. The oceans stripped of fish so that the investors in the fishing fleets can be rewarded with excessive proffits. The whole thing is worse than a whitehall farce...And the price to be paid ,well thats going to be the next generation,and I don't think that they will thank us for that legacy

I agree with those sentiments - look at the deforestation of the rain forests (I specifically look at the loss of Ebony), look at the wholesale destruction of coral reefs to provide pure white sand for heaven's sake, to name but a few examples.

Sadly, we are all guilty (as consumers) to varying degrees for this legacy.

Regards

Mike

Wot abaat der Dolfins ?


Fritz Von Stop talkin act³

My daughter is a hair dresser in a fancy high-street salon. She is 20 years old and has trained for over two years, she is fully qualified to level 2.

She works 45 hours a week and takes home 550 GBP a month. When I looked at her payslips it says she is paid for 20 hours a week, the remainder presumably being "training" time. The "apprentice" get-out clause for minimum wage payment is a disgrace.

I spoke to a lawyer friend and she told me that employers of hairdressers are notorious in her trade for their frequent appearance at industrial tribunals. Abuse of young staff is routine and continues as a "tradition".

Never mind a minimum wage - what about a maximum wage....

quote:

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
She works 45 hours a week and takes home 550 GBP a month. When I looked at her payslips it says she is paid for 20 hours a week, the remainder presumably being "training" time. The "apprentice" get-out clause for minimum wage payment is a disgrace.

Are you saying that the employer is doing this legally? If not then why is the "get-out clause" a disgrace? [I should add that the latter is not a rhetorical question - I don't know what the rules are].

quote:

I spoke to a lawyer friend and she told me that employers of hairdressers are notorious in her trade for their frequent appearance at industrial tribunals. Abuse of young staff is routine and continues as a "tradition".

Has your daughter discussed the matter with her employer? If so, has she considered taking them to an industrial tribunal? It can't be good for her to keep working for an employer who appears to be cheating her out of more than half her salary.

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:
It just doesn't make sense to transport goods that can/could be made here, half way around the world.The real economics just don't add up!

If the whole world applied a minimum wage at the same rate, then maybe that would be right. But it doesn't.
And I agree that it is immoral to buy tomatos from Spain during the winter months when we should be eating local produce according to the seasons. Personally, I try to buy seasonal food, but my wife won't. It is wrong. I agree. But that is the way it is, and I agree that it isn't right. I'm not trying to defend it, just seeing it for what it is. There was a news item on TV last night about the Chinese economy.
There is a glimmer of hope though...
Sweat shops have existed since Victorian times, and before that even. With greater awareness that we now have, Nike were boycotted for a while because they were exposed as running sweat shops, and the public for a while (well, the more aware and caring members of the public at least, ie. those that can read) stopped buying their products and forced Nike to change their ways. We have much greater awareness now, and the public can make a difference by consuming responsibly.
I am always gutted when I see people buying newspapers and magazines in supermarkets, something I would never do. We have to buy responsibly and look after the local economy ourselves. It all amounts to the same thing. But even if it does all go eventually to one global supplier for, say, glass - then eventually choice will be lost, which then opens an opportunity for someone to fill the gap, and eventually it all goes back the other way. It's a funny old world with the balance tipping one way, and then the other.
Final point....
With Naim being the manufacturer providing the unique product that sidesteps the issue by providing high cost good quality, how many here still take the lid off a case and ask where the money went? See what I mean?

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
With Naim being the manufacturer providing the unique product that sidesteps the issue by providing high cost good quality, how many here still take the lid off a case and ask where the money went? See what I mean?

Saucer of milk - now

A Danish Economics professor was talking on the radio about the UK having such a bouyant economy compared with the rest of Europe.

His argument was that Bitain's minimum wage was perfectly pitched to avoid benefit receivers being put off accepting work at the minimum wage.

He also mentioned that Sir M Thatcher's destruction of union power in the 80s allowing much greater flexibility in UK working practices these days. Which other countries have yet to take on board. Making them particularly vulnerable to low-wage produced, Eastern imports and export of production to maintain competitiveness in a global market.

Nime

Yes, unfortunately he is correct in his assesment Thatcher started it and Blairs finishing it. But not before making sure that he and his supporters, no I don't mean the tradional Labour voters, I mean Big Business, Magnates of power etc are well looked after. The wealthy top 10/15% have under Blairs policys become richer, whilst the poorer well we all know whats happened to the poor. The next move will be a return to the good old days,
Kid's up chimneys etc.Rockingdoc has given the perfect example, I can remember well, the days when if you wanted an Apprenticship/Training your parents had to pay the Employer for the privilege so for a period of usually a couple of years you worked for nothing ,then other the next 2/3/5 years your pay gradually increased to welllllll very little,and as it happens the worst employers for doing this was Hair Dressing Salons.Nice to know some things never change.
oldie.

Oldie

Most of us have never had it so good.

More consumer items are being sold than ever before, more white goods, more telephones, more food, more holidays are being taken, there are more cars on the road, how much more proof do you need that we are doing OK and things are getting better every year.

The guy next door to me is a 5 car family. That is a good measure of prosperity.

It may not be perfect but to quote McMillan...you have never had it so good.

Thatcher and Blair are Godsends to this country.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Thatcher started it and Blairs finishing it.

Thatcher was interested in meritocracy, Blair isn't.

But everybody is relatively richer now than they were even 20 years ago let alone 30.

(Reading some of the comments up thread one wonders whether the posters know where steel comes from. Is this another indictment of the education system?)

Paul