Ukip! Ukip! Ukip!

[SpontaneousOrder]

I just did, Milton Friedman spent 5 minutes trying to convince me that NMW was a bad thing because it helped trades unions protect their members

What I'm pretty sure he spent 5 minutes trying to convey to you is not that NMW is "a bad thing because it helped trades unions protect their members", but that NMW was pushed by the trade unions in the first place specifically in order to use the legislation, not to protect the poorest from exploitation, but in order to prevent the young unskilled workforce from competing for unionised jobs.
I.e. it's intent was not to protect the poor, but to prevent the poorest from having an equal and fair chance to find employment, to the benefit of those already in employment with more power to lobby government than those they were attacking.

[DodgyAgent]

For every convenient story that supports your view, there is another that counters it Best of British? Just 44 of top 150 brands now UK-owned

The truth is that someone elses' greed or your own laziness is what stops everyone from having a home and being able to adequately provide for themselves. All governments are happy to keep the status quo because it is what keeps them in power. This is why we are spending bazillions on HS2 and not 1m new homes.

I worry about wealthy IT contractors calling other people greedy. Your "counter story" is irrelevant to the point you were making which was that it is essentially a bad thing to sell all our business assets to other countries. It is not a bad thing and it shows that the UK is open for business thus stimulating economic activity. The BBC correspondent was making the point that the UK does pretty well out of this sort of trade.

If there is a business friendly environment (with people who want to control others well and truly marginalised) then people can earn the money to build their own homes. The government just needs to make sure the capitalist system functions for everyone.

[doodab]

What I'm pretty sure he spent 5 minutes trying to convey to you is not that NMW is "a bad thing because it helped trades unions protect their members", but that NMW was pushed by the trade unions in the first place specifically in order to use the legislation, not to protect the poorest from exploitation, but in order to prevent the young unskilled workforce from competing for unionised jobs.
I.e. it's intent was not to protect the poor, but to prevent the poorest from having an equal and fair chance to find employment, to the benefit of those already in employment with more power to lobby government than those they were attacking.

So he wasn't arguing that it was a bad thing, simply that some of those supporting it were doing so for the wrong reasons.

[tractor]

What I'm pretty sure he spent 5 minutes trying to convey to you is not that NMW is "a bad thing because it helped trades unions protect their members", but that NMW was pushed by the trade unions in the first place specifically in order to use the legislation, not to protect the poorest from exploitation, but in order to prevent the young unskilled workforce from competing for unionised jobs.
I.e. it's intent was not to protect the poor, but to prevent the poorest from having an equal and fair chance to find employment, to the benefit of those already in employment with more power to lobby government than those they were attacking.

The point is, and you have clearly missed it these people are great at telling you what does not work, but the only thing they offer that 'will' work is 'don't give them $4 min, make them stay on $2 because it's better for them'. None of the experts have an answer or their ideas would have been put in practice and we would all live in utopia. What these people who have all the answers are are really saying is 'tough!'

Friedman actually reminded me of Hague and IDS when they were opposition leaders - they were absolutely brilliant when it came to tearing Labour down at the despatch box but now they have the power they are worse than useless. Look at IDS flagship policies, Universal Credit, privatising the JC (which never did anything, anyway so should have just been obliterated), when the reality is that he has reduced unemployment by refusing to pay benefits to as many as he can using sanctions issued by private companies who are paid commission - so the savings we as taxpayers make go to Seetec and the like in payment and people some of whom deserve help and are just down on their luck or indeed they are disabled get kicked in the teeth.

Thanks for the insult btw, makes me want to call the Samaritans lol

[DodgyAgent]

I just did, Milton Friedman spent 5 minutes trying to convince me that NMW was a bad thing because it helped trades unions protect their members

He said it was the cause of disproportionate youth unemployment and made no mention of the effect immigration has on it. I suspect he is just another snake oil salesman pushing his own agenda, by his own admission there is always a bad person behind the do gooders

And like I said another one who says something is bad but does not explain why. His explanation was sketchy and flawed and certainly did not convince me.

Why was it sketchy and flawed? explain. I feel quite honoured to be on the same board as someone to who Milton Friedman is answerable to

[tractor]

...

I worry about wealthy IT contractors calling other people greedy. Your "counter story" is irrelevant to the point you were making which was that it is essentially a bad thing to sell all our business assets to other countries. It is not a bad thing and it shows that the UK is open for business thus stimulating economic activity. The BBC correspondent was making the point that the UK does pretty well out of this sort of trade.

If there is a business friendly environment (with people who want to control others well and truly marginalised) then people can earn the money to build their own homes. The government just needs to make sure the capitalist system functions for everyone.

Exactly, we are in agreement, but don't make assumptions that everyone here is wealthy and I didn't call anyone greedy, I said greed and laziness as human traits are the cause of the problem. How can you argue it is not?

[doodab]

Exactly, we are in agreement, but don't make assumptions that everyone here is wealthy and I didn't call anyone greedy, I said greed and laziness as human traits are the cause of the problem. How can you argue it is not?

You aren't going to stop people being greedy and lazy though. You need to work with what you have.

[DodgyAgent]

Exactly, we are in agreement, but don't make assumptions that everyone here is wealthy and I didn't call anyone greedy, I said greed and laziness as human traits are the cause of the problem. How can you argue it is not?

One mans laziness is another mans hard work. One mans greed is another mans right to earn what he wants to earn. If everyone here is a contractor then they should be wealthy. If not then "paupersnet" is where they should hang out

[tractor]

Why was it sketchy and flawed? explain. I feel quite honoured to be on the same board as someone to who Milton Friedman is answerable to

"He said it was the cause of disproportionate youth unemployment and made no mention of the effect immigration has on it."

The explanation was in the post you actually quoted. It was a single para, how did you miss it again?

[tractor]

...

You aren't going to stop people being greedy and lazy though. You need to work with what you have.

That was where I came in. My point was that overnight, as national minimum wage was brought in, it immediately became national maximum wage for many. It is a statement of fact, not a political statement or an expression of undying love for one economic framework or another.