Housing market

[stevec67]

I don't know and I don't know what makes you think I would? Probably because they don't want to. I do know I personally would never work in a food factory unless maintenance of the Buildings or grounds and even then I think the smell would put me off.

It's a rhetorical question. I don't believe that there are anything like the numbers you say that are not working but are able, willing and reliable. This is on the basis of practical experience of a great many factories. If you're right and I'm wrong, where are these people? As to what you might want, that's largely irrelevant. I am damn sure that I don't want to be in a chicken factory, who in their right mind would? They are horrible places. However I've just done a 6 month stint in one, I'm having a week off and next week I'll be in a bigger one, bigger role, high pressure, just as unpleasant and exhausting. That's why they call it work, it's why they pay you for your trouble. However we all want to eat, the animals don't die of their own accord, and I can't see you rearing your own and doing your own slaughter, evisceration and butchery, so someone needs to be employed to do the necessarily unpleasant work.

As for who does it, we all have to acknowledge the need to contribute to society. Nobody deserves a free ride. Children do while they are in education, the elderly have done their time, the sick, injured, inform or incapable need to be cared for. But the vast majority of us need to pay our way, if for no other reason than to be able to care for the sick, old, etc. Nobody wants to clean out sewers, but someone has to.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

That's why they call it work, it's why they pay you for your trouble. However we all want to eat, the animals don't die of their own accord, and I can't see you rearing your own and doing your own slaughter, evisceration and butchery, so someone needs to be employed to do the necessarily unpleasant work.

There is an irony though, don't you think, in that the unpleasant jobs are also the badly paid ones. If this was equitable, people doing physically hard or unpleasant jobs, or in poor conditions (eg outdoors in all weathers) would be well paid in the way that I, in my comfortable office with my pleasant colleagues, am. If you can't get people to do the work, they need motivating. If, as you argue, money is why we work, then they need to be offered more of it.

 

[Darren L]

@stevec67 I didn't say that they were able, willing or reliable.
I have the right to choose where I would work as does anyone, you choose to work in a chicken factory, I've chosen to work in construction, paving driveways, patios and steps, it's not a bed of roses, there is plenty of downsides to my job, there's nobody holding a gun to your head or mine, it's a choice we make as school leavers or adults.

Got it in one @Sue Pertwee-Tyr

 

[ks.234]

To the extent that it could be said there is a 'natural rate' of unemployment, that might recognise that the jobs market is in (should be in) a sort of dynamic equilibrium. People retire at one end, people leave school at the other end, and people swap jobs in the middle. Companies fail and create redundancies, companies start up and grow and take on more staff. And at any given time, there will be a proportion of people who are not in jobs, because they are between jobs, haven't yet started their new job, or whatever. So you can have 'full' employment but still have a proportion of the workforce 'unemployed' at any given time. The number would be smaller than what we see, and would all be short term, no long-term unemployment except perhaps for those who can't work due to disability or other impairment.

If you're then advocating for 'full employment' you'd recognise that the state intervenes the moment a person is unemployed for whatever reason, and provides employment in exchange for an equitable income. That would deal with the long-term unemployables, and provide security for those in more precarious employment, and those who are short-term unemployed due to timings between jobs, wouldn't need or use it.

I would argue that what you've described is 'a' rate of unemployment that will exist at any time for the reasons you state, but to call that 'natural' risks confusion with the Milton Friedman definition of natural which is based on untested assumptions and designed to create involuntary employment as a political device to keep wage demands low.

I think it important to different between the Monetarist notion of a 'Natural Rate of Unemployment and any idea that involuntary unemployment has some sort grounding in economic determinism, and what happens from time to time for circumstantial reasons

The high rates of unemployment with it's wider effect on underemployment and wage levels below those determined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no basis in either nature nor necessity.

We would do better to adopt Articles 23-25 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights as natural, not Milton Bloody Friedman and Margaret Thatcher.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

1. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

[stevec67]

There is an irony though, don't you think, in that the unpleasant jobs are also the badly paid ones. If this was equitable, people doing physically hard or unpleasant jobs, or in poor conditions (eg outdoors in all weathers) would be well paid in the way that I, in my comfortable office with my pleasant colleagues, am. If you can't get people to do the work, they need motivating. If, as you argue, money is why we work, then they need to be offered more of it.

There is an irony in the nature of work and pay, there always has been. However the jobs in the offices are available to anyone with the necessary skills. If you want to leave the cutting lines, there's an internal notice board with vacancies on it. I spent quite some time in the last place contributing to an internal development programme to improve skill levels and encourage upward mobility. It's under way, it's a long process. It is by no means as simple as you suggest. As ever, in any complex real world situation there is a simple and obvious solution. It's simple, obvious and wrong.

 

[stevec67]

@stevec67 I didn't say that they were able, willing or reliable.
I have the right to choose where I would work as does anyone, you choose to work in a chicken factory, I've chosen to work in construction, paving driveways, patios and steps, it's not a bed of roses, there is plenty of downsides to my job, there's nobody holding a gun to your head or mine, it's a choice we make as school leavers or adults.

Got it in one @Sue Pertwee-Tyr

And it they are not able, willing and reliable, what employer in their right mind would employ them?
What gives someone the right to take payment for something that they are unable, unwilling, or can't be bothered to do?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

There is an irony in the nature of work and pay, there always has been. However the jobs in the offices are available to anyone with the necessary skills. If you want to leave the cutting lines, there's an internal notice board with vacancies on it. I spent quite some time in the last place contributing to an internal development programme to improve skill levels and encourage upward mobility. It's under way, it's a long process. It is by no means as simple as you suggest. As ever, in any complex real world situation there is a simple and obvious solution. It's simple, obvious and wrong.

It's not wrong, it's just an observation that our society values different things. During the lockdown we all clapped for key workers every Thursday. We recognised the value to society of the jobs they do, be it nurses, care workers, supermarket shelf stackers and delivery drivers, food factory workers or whoever. But we don't (yet) value them enough to pay them a wage that reflects the vital role they have in keeping society on the rails.

 

[stevec67]

It's not wrong, it's just an observation that our society values different things. During the lockdown we all clapped for key workers every Thursday. We recognised the value to society of the jobs they do, be it nurses, care workers, supermarket shelf stackers and delivery drivers, food factory workers or whoever. But we don't (yet) value them enough to pay them a wage that reflects the vital role they have in keeping society on the rails.

Everybody likes virtue signalling provided it doesn't cost them money. This thread is about housing and related matters, I don't see anyone queuing up to pay more to live in a smaller house if that's what it takes to level up the market.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

But that doesn't make my observation 'simple, obvious, and wrong'.

 

[Ponty]

I'm in agreement with Steve on this. I'm working class, I've worked in construction for over 35 years, mainly paving and groundwork, I earn a wage rather than a salary. There's no guarantee of work, indeed I have seen various periods when work was not plentiful and generally when the jobs done it's done. I have been prepared to travel all over the UK and work 12 hrs a day + and 7 days a week, I've paid my stamp and my taxes, yet because I've worked hard and saved hard and lived a modest lifestyle I'm not entitled to any benefits whatsoever, even if I had spent all my earnings I'm not entitled to any benefits because of my wife's salary, I don't think that is fair, I haven't saved to compensate the chance that I may be out of work, I have saved for later in life if I retire and for my kids future.

As for the cafe owners and retailers, they generally don't pay enough, those are minimum wage jobs, not worth getting out of bed for will be the attitude a lot of people take, I haven't a clue about the lawyers but as far as construction work goes the shortage of workers is a direct result of Brexit with nearly all the Eastern European lads returning home.
There is definitely a problem in todays society with a lack of work ethic and general laziness, that combined with social deprivation and the attractiveness of 'easy money' .

Unfortunately I sense your work ethic is becoming rarer. I suppose that’s the ultimate conclusion of a welfare state. Why would I do a job I don’t want to do if I don’t have to do it. I get the point about savings as it’s important to encourage people to save (just look at the ticking pension timebomb which will hit many), however, it’s also important people pay their way. If work is available and someone turns it down through choice, that means someone else has to work to pay for them deciding not to. Not right in my book.

 

[Darren L]

And it they are not able, willing and reliable, what employer in their right mind would employ them?
What gives someone the right to take payment for something that they are unable, unwilling, or can't be bothered to do?

I certainly wouldn't and I'm not suggesting that any employer would or should employ anyone who is not able, willing and reliable. Though perhaps a percentage of the unemployed would be able, willing and reliable if given the opportunity and a decent wage.
I don't really understand what you're getting at with your second question, I don't know of anyone who gets paid by an employer for being unable, unwilling or can't be bothered. Maybe this happens in other industries but they wouldn't last until 10 o'clock tea break with that attitude in my experience.

 

[Darren L]

Unfortunately I sense your work ethic is becoming rarer. I suppose that’s the ultimate conclusion of a welfare state. Why would I do a job I don’t want to do if I don’t have to do it. I get the point about savings as it’s important to encourage people to save (just look at the ticking pension timebomb which will hit many), however, it’s also important people pay their way. If work is available and someone turns it down through choice, that means someone else has to work to pay for them deciding not to. Not right in my book.

I agree in a sense that the welfare state does not work very well, I believe everyone has the right to employment and to make a contribution to society, I think the majority of people on benefits would be much better off and happier working, both physically, mentally and financially. Though they need to feel that they are a valued employee.
Unfortunately there seems to be an attitude of why bother if that's all they're going to pay which I can understand, no one wishes to have little value especially if the 'boss' is seen to be wealthy, it makes people feel like they are being exploited, which in many cases they are.
All in all we need a revision of the current system where everyone has value and the divide between the haves and have nots is decreased but I doubt this will ever happen as those at the top will not relinquish their fortunes and our current capitalist system is designed to keep things that way.

 

[Mike Reed]

Nobody wants to clean out sewers, but someone has to.

They found him in the gutter,
And by the gutter he died
And when they held the inquest
They called it sewercide.

(Sorry, Steve).

There is an irony though, don't you think, in that the unpleasant jobs are also the badly paid ones

Can't see the irony here. Those 'unpleasant' (but not to all) jobs usually require little or no education or skill. There always seem to be enough such people within a population to perform these tasks, not all of which are badly paid, anyway. It seems logical to me that they would generally be at the bottom of the earnings ladder.

An old adage which I believe and adhere to is; 'it's not what you earn which is important; it's what you spend'. I've never been more aware of the disregard for this tenet than in the last, say, 40 years, which more or less marks the start of the boom in 'useless' shopping, with shopping centres popping up in even small towns on an almost monthly basis. The plethora of gift and fashion stores (often multiples) led the way. I was retail 'surveyor' (as they called it) from '71 to 2002 for G.B. on an annual basis and recorded the consumer explosion as it happened.

I guess the irony, if that's what it was, is that I was making money indirectly out of people spending it.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Can't see the irony here. Those 'unpleasant' (but not to all) jobs usually require little or no education or skill. There always seem to be enough such people within a population to perform these tasks, not all of which are badly paid, anyway. It seems logical to me that they would generally be at the bottom of the earnings ladder.

I would argue that the irony here is that society values concepts like 'intelligence' 'education' or 'skill' above physical strength and/or a willingness to do an unpleasant task that needs to be done. That's a social construction, not a law of nature.

And similarly, the logic that they should be at the bottom of the earnings ladder isn't all that logical when you get down to it. If we don't have the meat processors, we don't eat meat. If we don't have the fruit and veg pickers, we go hungry. If we don't have the binmen, we risk outbreaks of cholera and worse. Whereas if we don't have the surveyors, or the data protection experts, society doesn't grind to a halt. So which is the more valuable/essential to society, you, me, or the people doing the unpleasant but essential jobs? Now, which gets the better pay?

 

[matt j]

Unfortunately I sense your work ethic is becoming rarer. I suppose that’s the ultimate conclusion of a welfare state. Why would I do a job I don’t want to do if I don’t have to do it. I get the point about savings as it’s important to encourage people to save (just look at the ticking pension timebomb which will hit many), however, it’s also important people pay their way. If work is available and someone turns it down through choice, that means someone else has to work to pay for them deciding not to. Not right in my book.

Welfare state? Lol, It's about 75 quid a week, places like Sweden pay 80% of you last wage for the first 6 months, I don't think they're all "benefit scroungers" as a result.

We've been brainwashed here, and a lot of folks are only too happy to lap it up.

Not like my day, kids up chimneys, workhouses etc. Yawn.

 

[Darren L]

They found him in the gutter,
And by the gutter he died
And when they held the inquest
They called it sewercide.

(Sorry, Steve).



Can't see the irony here. Those 'unpleasant' (but not to all) jobs usually require little or no education or skill. There always seem to be enough such people within a population to perform these tasks, not all of which are badly paid, anyway. It seems logical to me that they would generally be at the bottom of the earnings ladder.

That's the problem, just because a higher degree or education isn't required to do a task should not mean a vastly lower earnings .

 

[Darren L]

To call it 'Welfare' is a joke @matt j

 

[sean99]

Unfortunately I sense your work ethic is becoming rarer. I suppose that’s the ultimate conclusion of a welfare state. Why would I do a job I don’t want to do if I don’t have to do it. I get the point about savings as it’s important to encourage people to save (just look at the ticking pension timebomb which will hit many), however, it’s also important people pay their way. If work is available and someone turns it down through choice, that means someone else has to work to pay for them deciding not to. Not right in my book.

While I agree somewhat I do wonder whether the problem is not so much the welfare state - which has existed for a long time, and is not currently much of an incentive since it's pretty feeble in the UK and US. I wonder if a bigger problem is younger people looking at the cost of basic living (housing, education, healthcare in the US) and deciding that they may never be able to be comfortable or financially stable, so why even bother to try. The US and UK must be pretty depressing places to be young, unless you were fortunate to be born into affluence, or with the mental abilities to land a high paying job.

 

[Mike Reed]

So which is the more valuable/essential to society, you, me, or the people doing the unpleasant but essential jobs? Now, which gets the better pay?

The graduate who decides for a quick income on the bins (or whatever) rather than start at the bottom in a career move?. Actually, some professional careers ostensibly have low pay (nurses maybe; teachers in theory but I've never thought I was underpaid during 27 years at the chalk-face)

In the end, earnings below executive level are largely dictated by market forces; i.e., supply and demand (road freight drivers being a recent example)

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The graduate who decides for a quick income on the bins (or whatever) rather than start at the bottom in a career move?. Actually, some professional careers ostensibly have low pay (nurses maybe; teachers in theory but I've never thought I was underpaid during 27 years at the chalk-face)

In the end, earnings below executive level are largely dictated by market forces; i.e., supply and demand (road freight drivers being a recent example)

Again, you're mistaking a social construction for an immutable law, though. 'Market forces' are determined by those with the power to affect the market. Binmen are badly paid because the people who run the firms which employ them have decided that's how it's going to be. And that's how it's going to be because of an imbalance of power. Because society values training and skill above things like a caring nature or a willingness to tackle a job that few are prepared to do.