REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[So Long Architect]

I went to a high street retailer a couple of weeks ago and their warehouse was all automated. I questioned why a guy that makes £200m profit a year would automate his warehouse and put people out of jobs.

Capitalist imperative - profit above all. That's why governments will eventually need to take proper responsibility for the welfare of their citizens as there simply will not be the work for them to do.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Capitalist imperative - profit above all. That's why governments will eventually need to take proper responsibility for the welfare of their citizens as there simply will not be the work for them to do.

I get that when you are reporting to share holders, but not for the life of me when one man owns the company and is earning far more than he can ever spend.

 

[Tredman]

That is the biggest difference I have noticed in working for a European company: profit is genuinely third on their list of importance (after customers & then employees) - and the weird thing is they genuinely mean it, though it does help that it is a privately owned conglomerate. Having previously worked for British & American listed companies I can definitely say they do not have the same aims...

 

[Deleted Cyber]

The other thing on the road to automaton which will happen regardless ,is an acceptance that it will happen and mitigate it. A 25 hour week and uba would help that. Exciting!

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

That is because of the Companies Act. Directors' primary duty under UK Law is to their shareholders.

 

[So Long Architect]

I get that when you are reporting to share holders, but not for the life of me when one man owns the company and is earning far more than he can ever spend.

Yeah, it's always made me scratch my head. Surely there would be more satisfaction in making sufficient money for yourself and then improving the lives of others.

 

[So Long Architect]

That is the biggest difference I have noticed in working for a European company: profit is genuinely third on their list of importance (after customers & then employees) - and the weird thing is they genuinely mean it, though it does help that it is a privately owned conglomerate. Having previously worked for British & American listed companies I can definitely say they do not have the same aims...

Yeah, we're a Swiss/German based group and the ethos is totally different. My ultimate boss in Switzerland is happy for us to make a modest profit so long as we provide a good service to our customers, treat our staff and suppliers well and maintain the reputation of the company.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

One problem with that is that there would be no incentive to conserve resources. If say energy costs were paid for centrally then would people bother to try and reduce their consumption (most have to now if only to keep outgoings within their budget)

Whatever your view on global warming etc. it surely makes sense to minimise the use of finite resources

Certainly an issue that would need some fine tuning.

You could set allowances for different sized homes, in theory if you're building vast quantities of social housing then you could pretty much standardise them so you'd have set sizes with an consistent energy efficiency, and so everyone get's an allowance that covers the average cost. Though that might lead to other problems, say they'd used up a monthly allowance in 3 weeks in winter how do they heat their home for the next week? I suppose you could charge them for the extra usage rather than cut them off but then if they're only getting very basic cash allowance for food how do they pay that bill? It's a tricky one.

Perhaps a more generous allowance than is required but with a cash incentive to be more energy efficient, individuals could earn some sort of rebate for coming in under their allowance each month? Cost of the extra provision is at the government's risk rather than the individual but they have a reason to try and be sensible rather than milk it because they can get a bit of extra cash in their back pocket for doing so.

 

[Johnny75]

I went to a high street retailer a couple of weeks ago and their warehouse was all automated. I questioned why a guy that makes £200m profit a year would automate his warehouse and put people out of jobs.

Was he doing it for that aim? Did he have any other pursuits outside of his research operation such as any foundations or charities? I ask as I was at a function on Wednesday where a guy was automating processes through software for the construction industry (he was very wealthy) and he said he always started a foundation wherever he set up an office. In Russia he had his staff go out and teach English in under-privileged schools and he had 16 offices around the world with various projects on.

In regards to the retailer, if it were my I would say that I was automating so I could run a 24hr operation limiting error. I would also argue you need people to service the automated process along with maintenance allowing you to put more money into R&D. I would also argue that you could put more shop assistants in the retail operation and if you were looking at tier 2 and 3 you are in fact creating more jobs but with a better skill base.

I'm not defending capitalism I just think there is more to it than just making money and I find I do more business with European and American companies because they have a desire to put better products out there. I find UK companies the exception rather than the rule in this.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I'm probably been a bit sceptical, but for me they can dress it and try to justify it all they like, but ultimately they are trying to save money, although I guess the initial cost of the system won't be cheap.

 

[leedswolf]

Yeah, it's always made me scratch my head. Surely there would be more satisfaction in making sufficient money for yourself and then improving the lives of others.

Titus Salt.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

The discussion on here and the ukip thread over recent days show in my view, what can be progressed when people from different traditional political views look at solving issues in a non traditional or unconstrained way. Much more interesting

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I think if you've had a 30+ year political and media narrative that greed is good, it's every man for himself, there's no such thing as society...then you get a selfish population. We see it now in voting patterns, we see it with the frankly ludicrous reaction to welfare claimants - penny to a pound if you find a story on a newspaper's website about food banks, the comments will include some questioning whether people go there for freebies so they can splurge their cash on fags and booze (absolute bollocks btw) - social responsibility is not part of the UK's makeup at the moment. Which I find very sad but that's where we are.

People at the top of the tree in this country invariably care about the bottom line and nothing else. Employees are hired hands who should be grateful they've got a job at all and if they happen to be collateral damage, well then that's just life.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Time for another social hand grenade then?
Big companies always look for ways to avoid their tax burden. Why not a philanthropy tax or similar that requires them to either pay tax or fund one of a list of charities? Very very simplistic but the idea would give money to those who need it and kudos to the companies. Imagine wait rose backing an animal welfare charity to promote the highest welfare standards. Good for animals, good for waitrose. Tescos all food wastage going to charities is another one. Views? What could should might happen?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I think if you've had a 30+ year political and media narrative that greed is good, it's every man for himself, there's no such thing as society...then you get a selfish population. We see it now in voting patterns, we see it with the frankly ludicrous reaction to welfare claimants - penny to a pound if you find a story on a newspaper's website about food banks, the comments will include some questioning whether people go there for freebies so they can splurge their cash on fags and booze (absolute bollocks btw) - social responsibility is not part of the UK's makeup at the moment. Which I find very sad but that's where we are.

People at the top of the tree in this country invariably care about the bottom line and nothing else. Employees are hired hands who should be grateful they've got a job at all and if they happen to be collateral damage, well then that's just life.

So that must change and those charged with doing the changing frankly, haven't cut the mustard in 30 years. Now is the time to grow this type of groundswell and give alternatives to millions.

 

[So Long Architect]

Titus Salt.

Had to Google him. Impressive beard if nothing else

 

[Penk Wolf]

That is the biggest difference I have noticed in working for a European company: profit is genuinely third on their list of importance (after customers & then employees) - and the weird thing is they genuinely mean it, though it does help that it is a privately owned conglomerate. Having previously worked for British & American listed companies I can definitely say they do not have the same aims...

So that must change and those charged with doing the changing frankly, haven't cut the mustard in 30 years. Now is the time to grow this type of groundswell and give alternatives to millions.

I think that is probably the difference and what needs changing. When a company is on the stock exchange, those that have invested their money into them only want to see profits getting bigger.

 

[Johnny75]

Time for another social hand grenade then?
Big companies always look for ways to avoid their tax burden. Why not a philanthropy tax or similar that requires them to either pay tax or fund one of a list of charities? Very very simplistic but the idea would give money to those who need it and kudos to the companies. Imagine wait rose backing an animal welfare charity to promote the highest welfare standards. Good for animals, good for waitrose. Tescos all food wastage going to charities is another one. Views? What could should might happen?

Companies already do through their own CSR programmes. This of course is not credited, here's the John Lewis partnership here.

I did float the idea some time ago of doing the same thing but for individuals so you tax the business owners directly in the same way.

 

[leedswolf]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5...=bbc-question-time&ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001

 

[Donegal Wolf]

I think that in 20, 30, 40 years' time, automation will have transformed the world of work to the extent that there will be no alternative to something like UBI or some such scheme. Look at the prefab houses on the UKIP thread, or the transformation of car factories (I visited the Skoda plant outside Prague a couple of years back - hardly anyone there but producing cars by the thousand), supermarkets will doubtless be entirely automated in the not-too-distant future. Even in my own little world of translation, machine translation is already changing the landscape - can't really see the profession of translator existing in 30 years time.

The capitalist imperative will force businesses down that road so less and less people will be employed at all, but, in theory, profits should increase as costs go down - which in turn (bear with me on this bit, it's a bit fanciful)... should lead to an increase in tax take (I know, I know...) Would that increased corporate tax take (stop laughing) be enough to fund UBI in some form?

Could well be

but I remember 20 odd years ago when everybody started using computers at work on a regular basis, we were told we would soon have paperless offices and spend most of our life enjoying ourselves, as thanks to the laptop, we would only need to work about 20 hours a week, before retiring at 55.

Load of shite that turned out to be....