Don’t ignore UK unemployment: it’s the breeding ground for domestic fascism
Well, OK then. Therefore raising the minimum wage is a precursor to fascism then. Good to have that sorted.
The number of employed people in the UK has fallen again, particularly in shops, restaurants and hotels, reflecting weak hiring,
OK, so that’s what we would expect if it were the min wage causing unemployment. Low end jobs turn out to be no jobs at the higher pay rate.
Third, no wonder Labout has the poll ratings it has. This unemployment is the deliberate consequence of a combination of both fiscal and monetary policy that is intended to keep unemployment high so that inflation can, supposedly, be kept low, as if there is an obvious relationship between the two when, as a matter of fact, there is not.
Spudnomics manages to analyse low end unemployment – that precursor to fascism – without even mentioning the cause, the min wage.
But still, we have that news just in from Ely. A higher minimum wage causes fascism.
Really not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?
He’s dumber than a bag of hammers
I naturally think that excessive immigration of people who couldn’t do anything other than a low end job, if that, is also a cause of unemployment.
As for the ‘fascism’, if you want to call it that, the importation of more and more Muzzies naturally leads to more and more terrorist assassinations. (I’m thinking of the latest slaughter at Bondi beach in Sydney.)
But of course Albo loves to import them ‘cos he thinks they’ll vote for him!!
It’s a shame that some people can’t link the dots from “lower barriers to entry to employment” causes “lower unemployment” causes “scarcity” causes “pay increases”… with the byproduct of “growth” (and apparently a reduced inclination to invade Poland).
If you start at “pay increases”, then the opposite of everything else is probably going to be the result.
But we all already know this.
It’s the same mindset that uses sin taxes to reduce consumption eg sugar, alcohol, tobacco, but won’t accept that taxes on employment don’t reduce employment.
Bugger, too many negatives:
but won’t accept that taxes on employment
don’treduce employment.Obviously
And who think the best way to get paid more is by not working (a.k.a. striking)
Don’t ignore Ely: it’s the breeding ground for domestic fascism
That’s unfair – he moved to Ely after he became a fascist denouncing “fascism”
In fairness I don’t think either Ely or Downham Market is the ‘Breeding ground for fascism’ – however, how come he is not in tune with the zeitgeist here? Does his ‘economics of the coffee shop’ not extend to trawling around the streets of Felixstowe or Walton on the Naze?
According to Marxists, “profit” is the confiscation of “surplus value” from workers, i.e. the productive.
And yes somehow “benefits”, paid to the unproductive from taxes paid by the productive, i.e. “workers”, is not.
Funny, that,
Ah, but the deeper philosophical truth is “capitalists bad, government good”. If only everyone would accept so profoud an understanding, we could get on unhindered in making everyone worse off.
Does Ritchie think there are a lot of unemployed people working in shops, restaurants, and hotels?
Raise the minimum wage, which will cost employers more, causing them to either accept lower profits or reduce the work force. Then increase the employers national insurance payments, causing employers to accept lower profits, or reduce the work force further. To the Labour mind, “What can go wrong? This is bound to reduce unemployment” .
The Labour mind doesn’t consider the private sector — except ever-so-briefly as a source of tax revenue. It certainly isn’t something to be encouraged. Work is exclusively a unionised public sector thing.
Except the unionised public sector don’t do much work at all. Organised loafing mainly.
Couple of things to add to the above discussion. The difference between spending power of those on minimum wage & those on benefits is marginal. So whatever happens at that level has little effect on inflation. Also the monetary effect of inflation on those at that level is tiny. It’s the margininal effect that’s great. As you become more wealthy the monetary effect grows whilst the marginal effect lessens.
Thus government’s appetite for building inflation into the economy is always at the cost of the poor. Bastards.
Thus government monetary policy is dedicated to making the poor poorer & the rich richer. As I said above, bastards.
I don’t think you’re accounting for the number of people at that margin of minimum wage/benefits though.
Yes, it’s at the expense of the poor. But that’s mostly because their ability to shield money is mostly going black market.
Something I’m very much in favour of.
It’s where honesty is to be found.