Tube Strike

[xoggoth]

I guess which side one is on here boils down to belief in what is the primary purpose of employment:

1) To employ people
2) To provide the industry and services that the nation and society needs

I firmly believe that, if we want a successful economy, it should be the latter. Of course workers' rights matter but, if they become the main priority, we risk fossilising our economy, clinging on to out-dated jobs, like those of tube drivers, that no longer make any commercial sense. We need to go with technology and changing requirements. In the long run an excessive emphasis on workers' rights is reducing the jobs available

[xoggoth]

If your job sucks, get another job. If you can't because you don't have any skills, go and learn some, then get another job

Absolutely agree. The free market, with reasonable protections in place, is by far the best driver of a successful economy.

[NibblyPig]

I'd say it's more subsidisation than anything else, you have a right to a decent wage etc. but if your job just isn't sustainable because there is lack of demand, abundance of supply, or it's just not what you want, then you need to leave. If we subsidise you by paying you a bit of extra money then that is not gonna be sustainable in any way shape or form into the future. Maybe in the short term it seems nice that old fred the farmer who can't make a profit on selling milk due to 23859235 farmers doing the same thing is gonna get an extra bit of dosh from the government to keep his business going, but how long do you keep that up, and how many farmers do you have to give this money to.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Absolutely agree. The free market, with reasonable protections in place, is by far the best driver of a successful economy.

The trouble with freedom is that people start to realise they don't need government in their lives. Government needs people to need them.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I'd say it's more subsidisation than anything else, you have a right to a decent wage etc. but if your job just isn't sustainable because there is lack of demand, abundance of supply, or it's just not what you want, then you need to leave. If we subsidise you by paying you a bit of extra money then that is not gonna be sustainable in any way shape or form into the future. Maybe in the short term it seems nice that old fred the farmer who can't make a profit on selling milk due to 23859235 farmers doing the same thing is gonna get an extra bit of dosh from the government to keep his business going, but how long do you keep that up, and how many farmers do you have to give this money to.

Yep - those farmer should go get ****ed. I can't believe my eyes seeing people on Facebook reposting those tulipty posters where they complain that they are selling their product at less than cost, and expect the consumer to volunteer to pay more ???!!!

Here's an idea - produce less (try farming something which is profitable), and the price will rise. Magic.

[SueEllen]

Yep - those farmer should go get ****ed. I can't believe my eyes seeing people on Facebook reposting those tulipty posters where they complain that they are selling their product at less than cost, and expect the consumer to volunteer to pay more ???!!!

Here's an idea - produce less (try farming something which is profitable), and the price will rise. Magic.

It's not the consumer who is under paying it's the supermarkets. The supermarkets use milk as a loss leader so pay farmers as little as possible.

Also farmers have been getting out of dairy farming for years. I heard of farmers getting rid of their herd since the early 90's due to price.

[vetran]

If we could replace all the public sector with Visual Basic, then the unions wouldn't have any power.

Problem solved.

would that make them 'GOTO guys?'

[SpontaneousOrder]

It's not the consumer who is under paying it's the supermarkets. The supermarkets use milk as a loss leader so pay farmers as little as possible.

Also farmers have been getting out of dairy farming for years. I heard of farmers getting rid of their herd since the early 90's due to price.

It's the same thing. People want milk - if they don't sell it to the supermarkets then someone else would sell it. It's the subsidies that are the problem though, for the smaller producers. But in that case they should be petitioning to have the state protectionism removed - not supermarket prices raised. Although they've kinda been ****ed over, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Regarding people getting out since the nineties - if i remember right, while that true, the average herd size has increased and production per cow has increased too.

At the end of the day, there's no such thing as magic. Produce less and the price rises. If it's not profitable then it's not profitable. It's the producer's concern and none else's (except perhaps with regards to the market-skewing protectionism).