Current Affairs The Conservative Party
- Thread starter Ashtonian
- Start date
- Status
It's not as straighforward as that though, is it? I mean the unemployment rate in Britain is considerably lower than in France (4% vs 8.9%), so there seems to be a clear correlation between lower wage growth in Britain and employment levels, whereas in France those in work may have done ok, but organisations have employed fewer people. If you compare the share of GDP devoted to Labour (ie wages) in France and Britain, they're not really that different, but the UK spreads that out over a higher number of people, hence wages are lower, whereas France doesn't.
So in other words, we could have higher wages, but it would almost certainly mean higher unemployment, which I suspect would also be used as a stick to beat whomever was in government by whomever their opponents were.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
You're right, it's not that simple, and the same applies to your uk-egalitarian explanation mate. I wonder how your remuneration compares to your peers on the continent? Obv's no need to quantify, merely reflect upon. Also, aren't a good chunk of our low-paid jobs subsidised by tax credits, or something?
I'm not saying that the route taken by the UK is ideal, and there are undoubtedly those in low-paid work being subsidised by the state, and of course there is a strong argument that by employing more people it has held back UK productivity, I'm merely saying that there is likely to be a connection between wage growth and unemployment, and it seems a bit disengenous to criticise for one when the other would quite probably also draw criticism. The key thing really is to get productivity moving again.
When we talk about unemployment being lower in the UK , how many zero contracts have we got ? nearly 2m and the French have outlawed them haven’t they ?
Is it better to have someone on a zero hour contract or the dole?
I'd rather people go on the dole, and have the opportunity to retrain.
It doesn't have to be either or though does it? Surely a successful economy is one that looks to create jobs (which in fairness they have) but also jobs that are of a level that allows people to live constructive lives where they can contribute and feel part of society.
I'm not sure why it's one or the other.
The truth is, the 1% wealth has skyrocketed and it is difficult for sections of the country to get a reasonable deal as a result. If I were cynical I'd say the poorest have had wages cut and that money has gone to the wealthiest. For a whole host of reasons thats counter productive.
As has been said below, does it have to be either or? It's well documented that significant gaps in your CV are extremely harmful to your job prospects, so it seems to make sense to work whilst retraining if at all possible.
And to be fair, that is something that is being examined at the moment. I think it's called the Good Jobs Commission or something of that nature. The government entrusted the RSA with looking into it.
I think the entire mentality of work has to fundamentally change.
It’s a tough call to be honest in that it’s probably not as simple as that and possibly a huge debate in itself. Would it be better for half those people to have proper jobs and half to retain I don’t know , it’d be easy for me to say either way I’d suspect . I do accept it may well suit some people but frankly it just doesn’t sit right with me but that’s my opinion.
I posted it rather than in opinion just in context on the French employment situation as it struck me as a factor that might have a potential impact .
For sure, there are a huge number of issues at play, from the almost certain extension of our working lives to the need to train for multiple careers. I'm not sure Westminster has a handle on things at all.
Ordinary people do, and yet you're first to cry fowl when ordinary people try and become more politically involved.
Strange, that.
Ordinary people do what?
Become politically involved.
- Status