Tesco getting free workers

[eFestivals]

Problem is the way companies are run is to look to the bottom line.

bollocks is that the first priority. The first priority of the bosses is to look what they can grab for themselves with no regard for what's happening with the finances in any shape or form.

If the government were to take a stand a say ok, NMW is to be increase, more tax on companies and the rich, etc etc, then a lot of the multinationals will just up sticks and our GDP gets hit, less tax goes in, and services get cut....back to square one.

PMSL - and if we follow your suggestion then the answer is a drive for the bottom, where companies pay ever-less tax cos there's always a better deal for them somewhere else (and that's EXACTLY what's been happening).

It's blackmail, plain and simple - "if you don't cut our taxes then we're off". Blackmail is a crime, show me who's been locked up for it?

The pricks think it's fine, the pricks even admire themselves being robbed blind. That's how fucking stupid so many within our society have become.

[gary1979666]

But they can't be - because split of the proportion of company money that's allocated to pay people which would cover their overtime has been stolen by those who wish to think themselves important and invaluable to the company.

The company makes the same percentage profit; the company has the same proportion going to wages ... but the workers (not the slackers) get told there's no money to pay them for the overtime they used to be paid for. Because the slackers called managers or whatever have taken it all.

That's today's version of capitalism as it really operates.

Those managers or whatever are doing less; the workers are doing more. Standard capitalist theory is proven wrong by this fact (and it is a fact, there's the numbers to back this up) but that standard capitalist theory is kept on being used to justify this robbery.

[gary1979666]

bollocks is that the first priority. The first priority of the bosses is to look what they can grab for themselves with no regard for what's happening with the finances in any shape or form.

[gary1979666]

What's PMSL?

[eFestivals]

You misunderstand me/didn't explain my point - the role of a company is to be run to generate shareholder wealth - the bosses, directors, etc have different priorities to the company.

yep, that's supposed to be the role of a company. It's actually an obligation in law for directors to maximise shareholder value - which in itself is a skewed idea.

But even working on the idea that's the right way to go, it's not what happens, and that's where things start to go wrong.

Didn't say it was right. Don't think it's blackmail though - it's like me saying to Sky knock a fiver off my bill or I'll move to BT (I know the scale is completely different - I was struggling for a good analogy).

Back to the point though, it needs a global movement, every country to increase tax / wages / etc for it to actually work. But unlikely to happen.

For the record, I do disagree with companies/individuals switching countries for tax reasons - they make enough already - pay what's due.

Nope, it doesn't need any global movement. It simply needs laws which say what you do in this country you pay tax on.

But that won't happen. How is Dave Moron going to get richer if his tax fiddles are cut off?

[eFestivals]

Depends on how you look at it. I don't doubt there are figures proving it overall - and it shouldn't be that way - not sure why is it - from my experience (i.e. limited to a few companies over a few years - and I appreciate it's a smaller sample than the figures you'll be talking about) the management level are under a lot of pressure to deliver targets and working a lot of hours - more than the other levels. But must not be the case everywhere. If there are organisations where management are gone and other people are working longer - then the directors there need to address it.....once they've finished their afternoon round of golf.

In 35 years of working I've yet to meet any boss who is under more pressure than those who work for that boss.

And while they *might* (just 'might'!) put in more hours, the extra hours are hugely more than covered by the rewards they get.

You might come back with "but they're taking a risk" But are the really? I've yet to meet a boss who's been ruined when they've ruined the company - they've been taking money out of the company left right and centre over the years to ensure that they're all right, and they're left rich when they ruin others when the bills the company owes can't be paid.

In many cases, the very shittest bosses go on from ruining one company to ruining another. One of my ex bosses is in the news most weeks at the moment for doing just that, yet he's considered to be a corporate hero. It's of course nothing to do with the school he went to.

I opted out of all that shit over 15 years ago. I take great pleasure in running my own company in my own way, refusing to deal with w*nkers - I call them w*nkers to their face - and rewarding my employees better than I reward myself.

[gary1979666]

yep, that's supposed to be the role of a company. It's actually an obligation in law for directors to maximise shareholder value - which in itself is a skewed idea.

But even working on the idea that's the right way to go, it's not what happens, and that's where things start to go wrong.

Nope, it doesn't need any global movement. It simply needs laws which say what you do in this country you pay tax on.

But that won't happen. How is Dave Moron going to get richer if his tax fiddles are cut off?

[gary1979666]

In 35 years of working I've yet to meet any boss who is under more pressure than those who work for that boss.

And while they *might* (just 'might'!) put in more hours, the extra hours are hugely more than covered by the rewards they get.

You might come back with "but they're taking a risk" But are the really? I've yet to meet a boss who's been ruined when they've ruined the company - they've been taking money out of the company left right and centre over the years to ensure that they're all right, and they're left rich when they ruin others when the bills the company owes can't be paid.

In many cases, the very shittest bosses go on from ruining one company to ruining another. One of my ex bosses is in the news most weeks at the moment for doing just that, yet he's considered to be a corporate hero. It's of course nothing to do with the school he went to.

I opted out of all that shit over 15 years ago. I take great pleasure in running my own company in my own way, refusing to deal with w*nkers - I call them w*nkers to their face - and rewarding my employees better than I reward myself.

[eFestivals]

A bit harder than that though, as a parent company can invoice for 'services' to its UK subsid, essentially moving the taxable profit from the UK. Could also move any IP to the parent and invoice for use of the IP, leaving a benchmark profit here. Would have thought it would be hard to legislate against that. OK there are other fiddles that happen that could be stopped, but there'd be way around it. But the systems geared up that way - companies are just playing the game - every bit of extra tax Coke pays, is less money to try to edge ahead of Pepsi. However good a moral standpoint, they won't do it if it hits their wallet - need to be universal.

the only thing which needs to be universal is the will to get what is owed.

If they put 1/10th of the effort into chasing tax money as goes into chasing benefit fraud this country wouldn't be on its knees.

How is maximising shareholder value a skewed idea? Just curious. I see it as though if I invest £1 to buy a share of a company, that money goes toward them getting me back as much as possible, either through dividends or share value growth. If it didn't do either, then why would I or anyone else invest?

It's a too broad and too undefined idea. Is it maximising shareholder value this year, or for all years? The two things are not the same.

For the people running the company it's always this year, because that makes them look good and gets them the instant reward before they move on to screw the next set of shareholders.

[lost]

I don't see it as an issue of what people deserve, I think it basically boils down to how a centrally planned economy operates vs a free market. The issue that no centrally planned economy has got round yet is simply the central planners are not omnipotent and so when they are allocating roles and setting wages they are unable to react to every nuance in the market caused by things such as cycles or weather patterns. In a free market when there is a shortage of a skill or certains goods the prices or wages rise creating the incentive to gain that skill or produce the goods, which generally fills the gap very quickly. In the centrally planned economy they will either miss one of the nuances and so be too late or over/under react to it (because they are human and nobody gets everything right) this then creates shortages of certain goods or skills which society needs and in extreme cases in the 20th century, mass starvation. It may not be "fair" but creates a better standard of living for everyone, even the poorest.

[lost]

btw where do people stand on universities? There is the potenital a university could profit from your thesis or a piece of research you work on as an undergraduate? Should you be paid a salary by the uni while you study?

[kaosmark2]

I don't see it as an issue of what people deserve, I think it basically boils down to how a centrally planned economy operates vs a free market. The issue that no centrally planned economy has got round yet is simply the central planners are not omnipotent and so when they are allocating roles and setting wages they are unable to react to every nuance in the market caused by things such as cycles or weather patterns. In a free market when there is a shortage of a skill or certains goods the prices or wages rise creating the incentive to gain that skill or produce the goods, which generally fills the gap very quickly. In the centrally planned economy they will either miss one of the nuances and so be too late or over/under react to it (because they are human and nobody gets everything right) this then creates shortages of certain goods or skills which society needs and in extreme cases in the 20th century, mass starvation. It may not be "fair" but creates a better standard of living for everyone, even the poorest.

[kaosmark2]

btw where do people stand on universities? There is the potenital a university could profit from your thesis or a piece of research you work on as an undergraduate? Should you be paid a salary by the uni while you study?

[abdoujaparov]

You're paid while you study as a post-graduate. The work you do as an undergraduate is rarely particularly meaningful, except purely as teaching.

[lost]

If you look on a global scale, we've got that anyway.

[eFestivals]

I don't see it as an issue of what people deserve, I think it basically boils down to how a centrally planned economy operates vs a free market. The issue that no centrally planned economy has got round yet is simply the central planners are not omnipotent and so when they are allocating roles and setting wages they are unable to react to every nuance in the market caused by things such as cycles or weather patterns. In a free market when there is a shortage of a skill or certains goods the prices or wages rise creating the incentive to gain that skill or produce the goods, which generally fills the gap very quickly. In the centrally planned economy they will either miss one of the nuances and so be too late or over/under react to it (because they are human and nobody gets everything right) this then creates shortages of certain goods or skills which society needs and in extreme cases in the 20th century, mass starvation. It may not be "fair" but creates a better standard of living for everyone, even the poorest.

Such naivety. Free markets have their flaws which are just as costly, but no one ever talks about those. For example...

1. The current financial crisis. If the free market worked as gets said it could not have happened, but it's happened and got to show that the last 15 years have had no growth at all, zilch, it's all been a mirage.

2. Power generation. The govt is having to step in and subsidise the building of new power plants, because the free market would have the lights go out (that's the way to maximise profits) and the economy collapse - and cause the mass starvation you pin only on the planned economies - thru the lack of power.

In fact the reason we DON'T have mass starvation is because of central planning, even within our supposed free market. Just as having the lights go out is the way to maximise profits for the power industry, having people starve is the way to maximise profits for the food industries.

Free markets do NOT create the best standards of living. The places where the market is most unfettered is in the poor countries of the world with the lowest standards of living and people starving.

And no doubt you'll point to Russia/USSR and say "their planned economy was much more backward than the free market economies, so that proves what I say". But you'd be wrong: without the planned economy they operated for 70 years they'd still be as 'backwards' as Africa because they started from similar medieval conditions (while the growth in the west over the same time started from a far more advanced position, and grew far less). And people always ignore that all they had started to build was completely destroyed in a war, which meant they had to start again from almost nothing - and unlike Germany (which was destroyed far far less by the war) they had to finance all of the rebuilding internally.

What you have spouted is cold war propaganda which has yet to be given up as the lie it is by the west. It's now become the justification for causing mass starvation under the guise of 'freedom', and the greatest robbery in history.

[lost]

Such naivety. Free markets have their flaws which are just as costly, but no one ever talks about those. For example...

1. The current financial crisis. If the free market worked as gets said it could not have happened, but it's happened and got to show that the last 15 years have had no growth at all, zilch, it's all been a mirage.

2. Power generation. The govt is having to step in and subsidise the building of new power plants, because the free market would have the lights go out (that's the way to maximise profits) and the economy collapse - and cause the mass starvation you pin only on the planned economies - thru the lack of power.

In fact the reason we DON'T have mass starvation is because of central planning, even within our supposed free market. Just as having the lights go out is the way to maximise profits for the power industry, having people starve is the way to maximise profits for the food industries.

Free markets do NOT create the best standards of living. The places where the market is most unfettered is in the poor countries of the world with the lowest standards of living and people starving.

And no doubt you'll point to Russia/USSR and say "their planned economy was much more backward than the free market economies, so that proves what I say". But you'd be wrong: without the planned economy they operated for 70 years they'd still be as 'backwards' as Africa because they started from similar medieval conditions (while the growth in the west over the same time started from a far more advanced position, and grew far less). And people always ignore that all they had started to build was completely destroyed in a war, which meant they had to start again from almost nothing - and unlike Germany (which was destroyed far far less by the war) they had to finance all of the rebuilding internally.

What you have spouted is cold war propaganda which has yet to be given up as the lie it is by the west. It's now become the justification for causing mass starvation under the guise of 'freedom', and the greatest robbery in history.

[eFestivals]

completely wrong as I said look at the economic freedom index two ex-colonial countries on at the top Australia one at the bottom Zimbabwe which has the better living standard?

Care to include with that all the other factors which led to those situations?

Australia was developed via a planned economy to benefit Brits, using the proceeds of Empire. Zimbabwe was left to market forces cos those 'savages' weren't worth spending money on.

OK, I know that's a vast over-simplification I've given there, but it's closer to the truth of things that your statement above is trying to imply as the truth.

The only point I'm trying to make here is not that everything should be centrally planned, but that the free market fails to bring the benefits that are claimed for it no less often than planned economies do.

though we do have a real example of central planners.. a central bank who control the money supply. Did these intellectual heavy weights spot and stop the dot com bubble? how about the housing bubble? what about their remit at keeping inflation at 2%? well I can tell you they get it wrong 96% of the time, so forgive me for not wanting to find out what would happen if a ministry of food got the food supply wrong 96% of the time. I'm quite worried that you think these politicians like George Osborne and Ed Balls are more intelligent than you and want to give them more power over your life as personally I wouldn't be able to sleep at night

The fact is that they've got far more control over our lives than you're crediting them with, whether you want to see it or not.

There *IS* a planned economy operating in the places we like to think of as free-market, but the planning is focused towards exploitation of people via the myth of a free market.

A simple fact: there is more output from full employment than there is from under-employment. Output is what is REALLY creates wealth. Wealth is NOT being able to point at few and say they're rich while ignoring the plight of the others at whose expense it's been at.

[kaosmark2]

How can it be a free market when there are companies that are 'too big to fail'?

It's centrally planned with protection for the rich.

[eFestivals]

And what everyone always ignore when they talk about the inefficiency of planned economies is the inefficiencies of market economies.

Cos all of the businesses that fail are a huge drain on economic output, no less than a mis-placed planned idea.

[lost]

Care to include with that all the other factors which led to those situations?

Australia was developed via a planned economy to benefit Brits, using the proceeds of Empire. Zimbabwe was left to market forces cos those 'savages' weren't worth spending money on.

OK, I know that's a vast over-simplification I've given there, but it's closer to the truth of things that your statement above is trying to imply as the truth.

The only point I'm trying to make here is not that everything should be centrally planned, but that the free market fails to bring the benefits that are claimed for it no less often than planned economies do.

The fact is that they've got far more control over our lives than you're crediting them with, whether you want to see it or not.

There *IS* a planned economy operating in the places we like to think of as free-market, but the planning is focused towards exploitation of people via the myth of a free market.

A simple fact: there is more output from full employment than there is from under-employment. Output is what is REALLY creates wealth. Wealth is NOT being able to point at few and say they're rich while ignoring the plight of the others at whose expense it's been at.

[lost]

How can it be a free market when there are companies that are 'too big to fail'?

It's centrally planned with protection for the rich.

[kaosmark2]

Ill address the points quickly firstly the same rules of economic freedom apply to the people who don't look like us or savages as you call them Hong Kong or Singapore would be examples

secondly yep they have a lot of control and that's the point I'm making if you give them the ability to redistribute you can't then complain if they redistribute to themselves and their mates at the banks and the arms industry. Thirdly yep people make mistakes in a free society but its better when some make the correct choice which benefits us all rather than 1 man making the choice for us all, when incorrect leaving us fucked.Finally innovation and efficiency savings create wealth.

[eFestivals]

Ill address the points quickly firstly the same rules of economic freedom apply to the people who don't look like us or savages as you call them Hong Kong or Singapore would be examples

there were two distinct times in the UK's empire building, one where the natives were respected as near-equals and one where they weren't.

While the development of Singapore falls in the second, it's much more related to the first by it being an extension of the Hong Kong route and so much more like the methods used there.

secondly yep they have a lot of control and that's the point I'm making if you give them the ability to redistribute you can't then complain if they redistribute to themselves and their mates at the banks and the arms industry.

why don't you think corruption camn be complained about?

And corruption is about as free market as it gets btw.

Thirdly yep people make mistakes in a free society but its better when some make the correct choice which benefits us all rather than 1 man making the choice for us all, when incorrect leaving us fucked.

it pretty much evens out in the end. See below....

Finally innovation and efficiency savings create wealth.

yep - but there's no less inefficiency in market economics than planned ones. The main reason they're thought of differently is because the planned examples tend to be large scale failures (while being not many of them) while the market failures tend to be very many in number but smaller enterprises.

Would Russia have developed as quickly as it did via the free market? Hugely unlikely.

What's driving China's spectacular growth? It ain't the free market (tho they're happy to exploit the West's free market for their benefit).

India? Once they got past throwing off their colonial baggage (which held things back) their spectacular growth is via planning - a growth that wasn't anywhere near achieved during free market colonialism.

All of the evidence points to there being the need of direction - planning - to get the best out of economies. There's no purely-free-market example anyone is able to point to that matches the successes of economies with at least an amount of planning.

[eFestivals]

yes 100% spot on our current issues aren't down to capitalism, its a shame more people can't see this

and yet it's the capitalist side of things which led us into the shit in the first place. Whether or not the banks would be bailed out wouldn't have made a difference to where free market ideas have taken us.

If socialism is so abhorrent - which the free marketeers like to pretend it is - why are they always the first to demand socialist ideas for themselves when free market operation has failed them?

That along with the stacks of evidence that exists gets to show that the free market is not what it likes to pretend itself to be.