[Politics] Protests/rioting in lots of places

[BadFish]

No evidence or facts as you rightly demand of other posters !! I do often like your posts and feel you're probably not that different to me though. Just thought I'd throw it out, and of course this scenario could be accurate. Immigrant comes in to work in the care sector, brings in their dependants ( yes I know they can't do that now) works for minimum wage, kids get educated, they are on housing benefits as don't earn enough, all health care paid for, yet pay zero pretty much in tax. Times that by a few hundred thousand and you have the reason why, despite massive Immigration, the economy is flatlining.


What underpins all this of course is the ridiculous cost of housing in this country, and that is on all Governments from Thatcher to Sunak. If people doing normal jobs can afford normal housing, this country would be a much better place.

I think your hyperthetical family will need to have lived in the UK for 5 years before they get housing benefit.

Isn't there also a NHS surcharge for people who haven't been in the UK long enough?

I love the idea that a troy government who forced austerity on everyone while enjoying tax cuts for them and their friends werr inexplicable throwing money at the foreigners they were demonising for votes.

Apart from that though the figures usually show that migration is a net benefit for the UK's finances. I doubt this has changed but happy to be corrected with evidence.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think your hyperthetical family will need to have lived in the UK for 5 years before they get housing benefit.

Isn't there also a NHS surcharge for people who haven't been in the UK long enough?

I love the idea that a troy government who forced austerity on everyone while enjoying tax cuts for them and their friends werr inexplicable throwing money at the foreigners they were demonising for votes.

One of the reasons 'a lot' of Tory supporters voted for 'I have never let anyone down or made a promise I didn't keep' Farage.

 

[chickens]

a lot of noise is about how everyone's life is so interminably hard, how difficult it is to get on. then we see riots in northern towns, where property is cheap, and hear so many rioters are in work. makes me wonder about the real motivation. looks like the right-wing supporters are often not doing all that badly, so there a sense of underachievement, failed ambition, rather than tangible issues? along comes some that say their perceived problems are because of the immigrants, while others say its a conspriacy of neo-liberal international companies and banks. well John doesn't know much about that, and quite likes his car lease and Netflix subscription. those immigrants though, they taking something from someone, right? so maybe he'll listen to that. we arrive at the same point of blame the immigrant, but for a different reason, that people are unfulfilled.

Well certainly when I was young, and we computerised our workplace, and we were told how much faster and more efficient we would be in our new connected workplaces, I think the assumption was that we’d all retire at 50 and our robot butlers would bring us drinks as we sat by our pools.

Instead workers have largely been asked to work longer hours, for more years, for less money. (once adjusted for inflation)

I can understand a degree of resentment from older British workers, because they’ve lived the (relative) deterioration, that doesn’t explain the young ones however.

Capitalism relies on making everything as efficient as it can be, so lowering labour costs will always be one of its aims. Whatever you do, capital will always be saying “that’s great, but can you do a little bit more?”

Is that reason enough to hate people with a different skin colour or ethnicity? Not in my book, but if people feel that their futures are pre-ordained, a struggle, and largely pointless, then perhaps that does feed in to a desire for rebellion?

I don’t have answers, but do feel there must be a way to organize the world a bit better to increase the sum of human happiness.

My core point remains though, there’s no point rebelling against the bloke next to you in exactly the same boat, regardless of the colour of their skin or deity of choice.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well certainly when I was young, and we computerised our workplace, and we were told how much faster and more efficient we would be in our new connected workplaces, I think the assumption was that we’d all retire at 50 and our robot butlers would bring us drinks as we sat by our pools.

Instead workers have largely been asked to work longer hours, for more years, for less money. (once adjusted for inflation)

I can understand a degree of resentment from older British workers, because they’ve lived the (relative) deterioration, that doesn’t explain the young ones however.

Capitalism relies on making everything as efficient as it can be, so lowering labour costs will always be one of its aims. Whatever you do, capital will always be saying “that’s great, but can you do a little bit more?”

Is that reason enough to hate people with a different skin colour or ethnicity? Not in my book, but if people feel that their futures are pre-ordained, a struggle, and largely pointless, then perhaps that does feed in to a desire for rebellion?

I don’t have answers, but do feel there must be a way to organize the world a bit better to increase the sum of human happiness.

My core point remains though, there’s no point rebelling against the bloke next to you in exactly the same boat, regardless of the colour of their skin or deity of choice.

This.

 

[BadFish]

Absolutely nailed it

Here is the thing. Our perceptions are not defined by reality. We perceive our 'position' based on how we perceive the potion of others. If we think others don't 'deserve' their position we start getting querulous. Most of us suck it up. Some act up.

My 4 years living in Canada knocked the working class chip off my shoulder.

When a few years after moving home an acquaintance whose perceived position and perceived entitlement resulted in an act of folly that got him sacked, and when his rather ambitious next job plan went up in smoke, with a lovely house and young family, he killed himself, I took a long hard look at my lot.

And I said goodbye to envy. I accepted what I het is what I earn. And life is not fair, but it is navigable.

Not sure all are lucky to have that experience and perception

Perhaps I have been too hard on the rioters. Underneath the snarling and jeering maybe there lurks frustrated boys unclear how to be.

Dunno what to do about it, though. Easy to mock and sneer.

Good post, as was @beorhthelm.

I note with interest those arguing on this thread more on behalf of the protesters than themselves. It is also interesting that people are struggling to articulate the concerns around these riots. Perhaps there is a lot of being angry on other people's behalf.

Personally I don't think you can discount the discontent that has been drip fed to people for years and years as a cause of this. It's been going on for so long that people don't really know what they are angry about but it is certainly to do with foreigners (even ones that were born in the UK). This is why they are struggling to articulate their anger and why they conflate and confuse the immigrants, asylum seekers and foreign looking people to make their arguments.

The issue needs clarity and strong leadership and some listening to John and his mates. Maybe even explaining to him that burning asylum seekers in a cheap hotel is not the way to improve things for anyone.

 

[BadFish]

Well certainly when I was young, and we computerised our workplace, and we were told how much faster and more efficient we would be in our new connected workplaces, I think the assumption was that we’d all retire at 50 and our robot butlers would bring us drinks as we sat by our pools.

Instead workers have largely been asked to work longer hours, for more years, for less money. (once adjusted for inflation)

I can understand a degree of resentment from older British workers, because they’ve lived the (relative) deterioration, that doesn’t explain the young ones however.

Capitalism relies on making everything as efficient as it can be, so lowering labour costs will always be one of its aims. Whatever you do, capital will always be saying “that’s great, but can you do a little bit more?”

Is that reason enough to hate people with a different skin colour or ethnicity? Not in my book, but if people feel that their futures are pre-ordained, a struggle, and largely pointless, then perhaps that does feed in to a desire for rebellion?

I don’t have answers, but do feel there must be a way to organize the world a bit better to increase the sum of human happiness.

My core point remains though, there’s no point rebelling against the bloke next to you in exactly the same boat, regardless of the colour of their skin or deity of choice.

This all sounds a bit lefty pink commie to me

I agree with everyword. We are all being shafted but it ain't by asylum seekers.

 

[chickens]

This all sounds a bit lefty pink commie to me

I agree with everyword. We are all being shafted but it ain't by asylum seekers.

I’ll have you know I’m as middle of the road as a centre parting on Terry Wogan.

Thank you though, so many seem completely unconcerned/unaffected that I do periodically think “it’s only me seeing this.”

 

[beorhthelm]

Capitalism relies on making everything as efficient as it can be, so lowering labour costs will always be one of its aims. Whatever you do, capital will always be saying “that’s great, but can you do a little bit more?”

no it doesn't. off on a tangent but needs highlighting this is wrong. capitialism is about who owns things and prefers private to state, and the control that follows. it is directed by markets, and often market efficiency is considered as the be and end all, for determining price. that's not at all the same as saying capitalism relies on maximum efficency. largest company today, Apple, objectively makes things inefficently: the most expensive and over engineered product in the market. other manufacturers can do the same cheaper, or pitch to other price points, missing some features that no one asked for, to meet some market demand. entire industries employ millions to provide services we can do ourselfs, or do for entertainment, that's not for efficency. capitialism conceptually doesn't care, we do because we'd like more.

which sort of meanders back to the original point and topic, people want more than they can have, get irrate at "something" when they dont get it. discontent follows. we shouldn't project political ideology on to the supposed reasons for discontent. dont just tell them they are wrong, it causes further irritation.

 

[chickens]

no it doesn't. off on a tangent but needs highlighting this is wrong. capitialism is about who owns things and prefers private to state, and the control that follows. it is directed by markets, and often market efficiency is considered as the be and end all, for determining price. that's not at all the same as saying capitalism relies on maximum efficency. largest company today, Apple, objectively makes things inefficently: the most expensive and over engineered product in the market. other manufacturers can do the same cheaper, or pitch to other price points, missing some features that no one asked for, to meet some market demand. entire industries employ millions just to provide services we can do ourselfs, or do for entertainment, that's not for efficency. capitialism conceptually doesn't care, we do because we'd like more. which sort of meanders back to the original point and topic, people want more than they can have, get irrate at "something" when they dont get it. discontent follows.

I’m sorry, but the market is made up of competing organisations, vying for the attention of those with capital. There are many ways of determining which companies to invest in, but a popular one is ROCE or Return on Capital Employed.

Effectively, if you took two otherwise identical companies, and paid staff at Company B 10% less than the other, then that company could claim a greater Return on Capital Employed, it would have achieved an identical output to Company A, but with labour costs that were 10% lower.

So, if Company A wishes to enrich its shareholders to the same degree as Company B (and Company A’s shareholders damn well want to be enriched) it either has to raise prices, potentially losing market share, identity cost savings in the product itself, or suppress wage growth until its labour costs are comparable to Company B’s.

The brand of capitalism as practiced now, especially by private equity groups is effectively a gradual move to the absolute minimum wage expenditure possible without too badly affecting employee retention.

In the 80s and 90s the plan was often asset strip and sell on. These days private equity firms tend to keep their businesses unless there’s a good reason not to.

Even companies such as Apple constantly improve their margins by a mixture of price hikes and efficiencies. Was there a charger in the box with your latest smartphone? I bet there wasn’t. There was a decade ago, but Apple saw an opportunity to provide less with one hand, while hiking prices with the other.

Apple is one of the most cash rich companies out there, it still made 600 workers redundant in April of this year. It didn’t need to, it could have redeployed or retrained them, but however much you give, whether it’s shareholders in a public company, or a private equity firm who move in and cut out everything they don’t like the look of, capital will always want a better return on its investment.

Capitalism is about capital, how it’s employed and what it expects in return.

TLDR - sorry everyone else, this must be incredibly tedious. @beorhthelm - happy to discuss via PM if you wish, but feel we’re derailing the thread and should probably continue elsewhere.

 

[rogersix]

you're moaning about some people who have kept you in gainful employment for twenty years

 

[rogersix]

I’m sorry, but the market is made up of competing organisations, vying for the attention of those with capital. There are many ways of determining which companies to invest in, but a popular one is ROCE or Return on Capital Employed.

Effectively, if you took two otherwise identical companies, and paid staff at Company B 10% less than the other, then that company could claim a greater Return on Capital Employed, it would have achieved an identical output to Company A, but with labour costs that were 10% lower.

So, if Company A wishes to enrich its shareholders to the same degree as Company B (and Company A’s shareholders damn well want to be enriched) it either has to raise prices, potentially losing market share, identity cost savings in the product itself, or suppress wage growth until its labour costs are comparable to Company B’s.

The brand of capitalism as practiced now, especially by private equity groups is effectively a gradual move to the absolute minimum wage expenditure possible without too badly affecting employee retention.

In the 80s and 90s the plan was often asset strip and sell on. These days private equity firms tend to keep their businesses unless there’s a good reason not to.

Even companies such as Apple constantly improve their margins by a mixture of price hikes and efficiencies. Was there a charger in the box with your latest smartphone? I bet there wasn’t. There was a decade ago, but Apple saw an opportunity to provide less with one hand, while hiking prices with the other.

Apple is one of the most cash rich companies out there, it still made 600 workers redundant in April of this year. It didn’t need to, it could have redeployed or retrained them, but however much you give, whether it’s shareholders in a public company, or a private equity firm who move in and cut out everything they don’t like the look of, capital will always want a better return on its investment.

Capitalism is about capital, how it’s employed and what it expects in return.

TLDR - sorry everyone else, this must be incredibly tedious. @beorhthelm - happy to discuss via PM if you wish, but feel we’re derailing the thread and should probably continue elsewhere.

good post

 

[Bry Nylon]

Even companies such as Apple constantly improve their margins by a mixture of price hikes and efficiencies. Was there a charger in the box with your latest smartphone? I bet there wasn’t. There was a decade ago, but Apple saw an opportunity to provide less with one hand, while hiking prices with the other.

If people were rioting because they didn't get a charger with their new iphone, then that is entirely understandable tbh.

(I'll admit, I was slightly miffed myself but in the end I just bought one and claimed it back on expenses).

 

[chickens]

If people were rioting because they didn't get a charger with their new iphone, then that is entirely understandable tbh.

(I'll admit, I was slightly miffed myself but in the end I just bought one and claimed it back on expenses).

Glad it didn’t send you toward the nearest Travelodge with a box of matches and a crazed expression.

 

[timbha]

If people were rioting because they didn't get a charger with their new iphone, then that is entirely understandable tbh.

(I'll admit, I was slightly miffed myself but in the end I just bought one and claimed it back on expenses).

“Used wholly and exclusively for business purposes” I hope

 

[The Clamp]

One more time I’ve been maintaining my clients properties for the last 20 years.
How is it a touch doing my job?

Do they know you think they are smelly and untidy?

 

[Justice]

Do they know you think they are smelly and untidy?

 

[Justice]

you're moaning about some people who have kept you in gainful employment for twenty years

It’s a building whoever lives there it would need maintenance

 

[The Clamp]

Your words mate.

 

[Wozza]

View attachment 186848

Oh, look who was also sharing it last week..



"It's just a daft joke, don't read any more into it," you said.

 

[BadFish]

View attachment 186848

One tier policing right there