Panic buying

[PhilJ W]

11 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Just needs someone to flip a burning cigarette butt out of the window as they pass him.

 

5 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

Won't actually do anything exciting

In the heat of an LA summer it just might evaporate.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Scottish Comedian Leo Kearse's take on the fuel shortage.......listen very carefully as Leo delivers at 100 mph.

 

CAUTION: Swearing and offensive language.....

 

 

 

[boxbrownie]

3 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

Won't actually do anything exciting

It will if they flip it onto the trail of liquid following him on the road 

[PhilJ W]

Went down to Tesco's (Pitsea) this afternoon and no queues. But that was just before the schools turned out.

[F-UnitMad]

On 04/10/2021 at 13:28, alastairq said:

What's a 'radiator?'

 

If I'm cold, I light a fire

In our house, when it's cold we sit round a candle.

 

When it gets really cold, we light the candle...... 

 

 

Thankyou, thankyou, next week I'm at the Hackney Empire.

[Neil]

I'm intrigued by the economics behind all this.

 

We're told that industry has relied for too long on cheap labour and that where there is a shortage of workers wages will have to rise to attract the extra staff required. Hang on but won't this mean that these extra wage costs are passed onto the consumer and the cycle of inflation starts? Oh no, businesses will have to invest so that they become more productive and the extra cost of the wages is offset by the greater efficiency.

 

I'm intrigued by how you can squeeze more efficiency out of driving an HGV. As far as I can see the only way of doing this would be for the driver to work longer hours or drive significantly faster.

 

[2750Papyrus]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

 

I'm intrigued by how you can squeeze more efficiency out of driving an HGV. As far as I can see the only way of doing this would be for the driver to work longer hours or drive significantly faster.

 

Make them still bigger....

[Andy Hayter]

Indeed Gross Vehicle Weight in Sweden can be over 50 tons.  That's going to be at least an extra 5 ton cargo per delivery.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

I'm intrigued by the economics behind all this.

 

We're told that industry has relied for too long on cheap labour and that where there is a shortage of workers wages will have to rise to attract the extra staff required. Hang on but won't this mean that these extra wage costs are passed onto the consumer and the cycle of inflation starts? Oh no, businesses will have to invest so that they become more productive and the extra cost of the wages is offset by the greater efficiency.

 

I'm intrigued by how you can squeeze more efficiency out of driving an HGV. As far as I can see the only way of doing this would be for the driver to work longer hours or drive significantly faster.

 

For a while, yes. But that argument really amounts to "therefore it's better to keep wages suppressed, and thus no chance of improving living standards." Without any other change in the economy (and sure, the reality is that you can never alter one variable in isolation, but let's just run with it) it's saying there needs to be a bit of a wage and conditions rebalance between various sectors.

 

This is an example of where the ruthless pursuit of efficiency has produced overall negative consequences.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Reorte

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

I'm intrigued by the economics behind all this.

 

We're told that industry has relied for too long on cheap labour and that where there is a shortage of workers wages will have to rise to attract the extra staff required. Hang on but won't this mean that these extra wage costs are passed onto the consumer and the cycle of inflation starts? Oh no, businesses will have to invest so that they become more productive and the extra cost of the wages is offset by the greater efficiency.

 

I'm intrigued by how you can squeeze more efficiency out of driving an HGV. As far as I can see the only way of doing this would be for the driver to work longer hours or drive significantly faster.

 

No, it’s about time we realised we have been paying artificially low prices for many years now, for just about everything.

 

We will just have to start paying the real worth of services and consumables.

[alastairq]

59 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

We will just have to start paying the real worth of services and consumables.

 But those on low incomes will have less & less...relying on the relatively comfortable middle income folks to buy more & more to compensate.

The advantage of having a large number of low income earners is that they can still buy more, keeping the consumerist-driven economy going.

By forcing basic living prices up, the low income bracket will therefore spend less on consumables...driving the economy down...

The only way to even modestly maintain low income earners' buying power is to slash low income taxes [in my view]

Which will upset the middle income comfortables?

[Higher income earners won't care less anyway.]

 

As a low income earner [pensions, and not very big ones either], to raise my income , all I have to do is fork out for a medical, and I can go back into the workplace...depriving a younger person of the chance of a job.

 

All higher living prices do is drive poverty levels up, in this day & age.  There are too many folk who rely upon some form of State financial assistance. 

Unfortunately, the State isn't interested in maintaining even a reasonable living standard for those not 'earning'...

We have all voted to live in a market economy......[or rather, a 'devil-take-the-hindmost' economy]

Because the 'haves' don't like the prospect of subsidising the 'have-nots'.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Make them still bigger....

 

New Tesco or DHL delivery vans?

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

11 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Unfortunately, the State isn't interested in maintaining even a reasonable living standard for those not 'earning'...

We have all voted to live in a market economy......[or rather, a 'devil-take-the-hindmost' economy]

Because the 'haves' don't like the prospect of subsidising the 'have-nots'.

Did we ?  

Did we vote to kick out all those Lithuanian truckers and Estonian strawberry pickers?

Or maybe we voted for an old Etonian rather than an old school Marxist-Leninist?

 

The trouble with our political system is the parties - you have to belong to the party to have any say in who should lead it, and you won't have very much say even if you do join.  How many of us would consider joining any of the existing political parties?  In Switzerland they have a referendum on policy issues rather than worrying about what colour rosette the loudmouths are wearing.

 

On your logic though, all we have to is wait until the have-nots outnumber the haves, then the present lot will be out on their ear.  To be followed a few years later by chucking out the other lot.

[Andy Hayter]

1 minute ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Did we ?  

Did we vote to kick out all those Lithuanian truckers and Estonian strawberry pickers?

Or maybe we voted for an old Etonian rather than an old school Marxist-Leninist?

 

The trouble with our political system is the parties - you have to belong to the party to have any say in who should lead it, and you won't have very much say even if you do join.  How many of us would consider joining any of the existing political parties?  In Switzerland they have a referendum on policy issues rather than worrying about what colour rosette the loudmouths are wearing.

 

On your logic though, all we have to is wait until the have-nots outnumber the haves, then the present lot will be out on their ear.  To be followed a few years later by chucking out the other lot.

 

 

But the have nots are not going to outnumber the haves.  Boris is building a new UK

 

"And that is the direction in which this country is going - towards a high-wage, high-skill, high-productivity economy that the people of this country need and deserve, in which everyone can take pride in their work and the quality of their work."

 

[Sky News]

 

And the only issue with that is that we will still have low skill work to be done - streets to clean, bums to be wiped etc ( without wishing to denigrate anyone in their job).  So where are the people going to come from for that?  Not immigrants because we only want highly skilled immigrants.

[RJS1977]

4 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Make them still bigger....

 

Better still, chain a number of lorries together and cut down on the number of drivers....

[PhilJ W]

5 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Better still, chain a number of lorries together and cut down on the number of drivers....

And to save fuel and protect the environment have only a single power unit at the front. And then to prevent the trailers from wandering all over the road put the whole lot on two parallel metal bars.

[RJS1977]

Exactly!

[Neil]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

No, it’s about time we realised we have been paying artificially low prices for many years now, for just about everything.

 

We will just have to start paying the real worth of services and consumables.

 

I'd wholeheartedly agree with that; but with the low paid seeing their wages rising (a good thing) inflation will be the result. The problem then becomes one of keeping inflation below the level of those wage rises so that the benefits of a higher wage aren't wiped out by inflation. This probably means that the better off will have to accept that their level of remuneration will remain the same. Closing the pay gap between rich and poor (a good thing in my book ) sounds remarkably like  the 'S' word.

 

Just now, RJS1977 said:

 

Better still, chain a number of lorries together and cut down on the number of drivers....

 

That would be a train then.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

 But those on low incomes will have less & less...relying on the relatively comfortable middle income folks to buy more & more to compensate.

The advantage of having a large number of low income earners is that they can still buy more, keeping the consumerist-driven economy going.

By forcing basic living prices up, the low income bracket will therefore spend less on consumables...driving the economy down...

The only way to even modestly maintain low income earners' buying power is to slash low income taxes [in my view]

Which will upset the middle income comfortables?

[Higher income earners won't care less anyway.]

 

As a low income earner [pensions, and not very big ones either], to raise my income , all I have to do is fork out for a medical, and I can go back into the workplace...depriving a younger person of the chance of a job.

 

All higher living prices do is drive poverty levels up, in this day & age.  There are too many folk who rely upon some form of State financial assistance. 

Unfortunately, the State isn't interested in maintaining even a reasonable living standard for those not 'earning'...

We have all voted to live in a market economy......[or rather, a 'devil-take-the-hindmost' economy]

Because the 'haves' don't like the prospect of subsidising the 'have-nots'.

It’s never going to be a perfect society…….but cheap labour and false low prices help,no one in the long run, as is happening now.

[PhilJ W]

56 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 But those on low incomes will have less & less...relying on the relatively comfortable middle income folks to buy more & more to compensate.

The advantage of having a large number of low income earners is that they can still buy more, keeping the consumerist-driven economy going.

By forcing basic living prices up, the low income bracket will therefore spend less on consumables...driving the economy down...

The only way to even modestly maintain low income earners' buying power is to slash low income taxes [in my view]

Which will upset the middle income comfortables?

[Higher income earners won't care less anyway.]

 

As a low income earner [pensions, and not very big ones either], to raise my income , all I have to do is fork out for a medical, and I can go back into the workplace...depriving a younger person of the chance of a job.

 

All higher living prices do is drive poverty levels up, in this day & age.  There are too many folk who rely upon some form of State financial assistance. 

Unfortunately, the State isn't interested in maintaining even a reasonable living standard for those not 'earning'...

We have all voted to live in a market economy......[or rather, a 'devil-take-the-hindmost' economy]

Because the 'haves' don't like the prospect of subsidising the 'have-nots'.

Over the last forty years the tax burden has been pushed downwards to the lower paid. This was achieved by freezing the tax free allowances and increases in VAT. It has been calculated that someone working full time on minimum wage now pays 48% of their income in taxes. This is not party political either as Labour done little if anything to remedy the situation when they were in power. The population has been duped by politicians of all colours claiming to reduce the rate at which you pay tax, it a lot more complicated than that.

[Steamport Southport]

Low wages?

 

Blame NML. It was brought in to prevent poverty wages in places where unscrupulous bosses paid a pittance, but now virtually everyone is on it. More to stop people being paid a couple of quid per hour to work in the corner shop.

 

The only ones who benefit from NML are those working in large companies with a large union presence where they go on strike if they deem it to be too low.  

 

The girl working in the local newsagent doesn't have that, if the owner thinks the wages are too high you get your hours cut. Why do you think most of them are now run by families where everyone working for them are part of the same extended family? Or sweatshops using mostly cheap foreign labour.

 

Why do you think most jobs are now part time. Look at job websites for proof.

 

A case of trying to fix one problem by causing other problems.

 

 

Scrap it and let people negotiate their own wages and hours.

 

 

Jason

Edited October 6, 2021 by Steamport Southport

[PhilJ W]

13 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I'd wholeheartedly agree with that; but with the low paid seeing their wages rising (a good thing) inflation will be the result. The problem then becomes one of keeping inflation below the level of those wage rises so that the benefits of a higher wage aren't wiped out by inflation. This probably means that the better off will have to accept that their level of remuneration will remain the same. Closing the pay gap between rich and poor (a good thing in my book ) sounds remarkably like  the 'S' word.

The problem is that the lower paid are overburdened with tax. Every extra 5% they earn 1% goes straight to the tax man. Yet high earners are allowed to get away with paying little if any tax. Political parties of all colours have condoned this state of affairs.

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Low wages?

 

Blame NML. It was brought in to prevent poverty wages in places where unscrupulous bosses paid a pittance, but now virtually everyone is on it. More to stop people being paid a couple of quid per hour to work in the corner shop.

 

The only ones who benefit from NML are those working in large companies with a large union presence where they go on strike if they deem it to be too low.  

 

The girl working in the local newsagent doesn't have that, if the owner thinks the wages are too high you get your hours cut. Why do you think most of them are now run by families where everyone working for them are part of the same extended family? Or sweatshops using mostly cheap foreign labour.

 

Why do you think most jobs are now part time. Look at job websites for proof.

 

A case of trying to fix one problem by causing other problems.

 

 

Scrap it and let people negotiate their own wages and hours.

 

 

Jason

The NML is there to prevent exploitation. Companies that have been prosecuted for not paying NML seem to have many things in common. They are owned by multi-millionaires who take advantage of our lax tax laws who pay little if any tax on their vast incomes. Their employees pay is docked if they are considered to spend to long going to the toilet. Trade unions are barred. 

[woodenhead]

I'll just drop this here

 

[Reorte]

28 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Scrap it and let people negotiate their own wages and hours.

Works in situations where people can be reasonably expected to not need to take whatever they can find, and to have the information and power and aptitude to do that. It rewards negotiation ability, not skill and effort put in to the job.

[hayfield]

4 hours ago, Neil said:

I'm intrigued by the economics behind all this.

 

We're told that industry has relied for too long on cheap labour and that where there is a shortage of workers wages will have to rise to attract the extra staff required. Hang on but won't this mean that these extra wage costs are passed onto the consumer and the cycle of inflation starts? Oh no, businesses will have to invest so that they become more productive and the extra cost of the wages is offset by the greater efficiency.

 

I'm intrigued by how you can squeeze more efficiency out of driving an HGV. As far as I can see the only way of doing this would be for the driver to work longer hours or drive significantly faster.

 

 

Neil

 

I can see where you are coming from, in my last 11 years working it was in the retail food industry. over at least the last 8 years there was a constant drive to improve productivity. This drive was at least on 3 fronts. 

 

Firstly the use of modern technology, constantly introducing new methods of working

Secondly reducing the levels of management levels merging the 2 divisions where rolls were duplicated

Lastly expecting staff to be more productive

 

Wages were kept down by employing part time staff rather than full time, this also gave more flexibility as part timers were far more likely to do extra hours than full time staff plus the sate was at single time not time and a half and little or no premium rates for weekends or anti social hours. What this did was to keep food prices low for long periods, in fact at times we have had food deflation for some periods

 

As it happened today I noticed 2 items had risen in price, I am not surprised whilst Tesco have reported better than expected results, firstly transport costs have risen greatly the past few months, secondly they will be increasing wage rates to both recruit new employees and to retain existing ones. I expect prices will continue to rise, especially when Boris is expected to raise the minimum wage very soon, but I expect shortage of workforce will increase rates even higher. There comes a point where there is no more meat on the bone to cut further, wage costs will rise in the future increasing food costs.

 

Back on topic I took my sister back to Milton Keynes yesterday, on the return journey I popped into North West London. The petrol situation there was much worse than local to me, empty petrol stations or long queues at those which had petrol. Knowing the area and those who live there I bet a high number were just topping up and were not in desperate need, very much a me first area

 

Today our village petrol station was out of petrol (first time in a few days. Morrisons had petrol and on the way in only 2 cars on the forecourt, half an hour later there were 6 cars. no queues