Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
She indeed knew things that the senior management did not, she didn't share them and the managers were too lazy to learn them, those things protected her. She was unworthy of that protection and everyone knew it.

A savvy woman, she is one we should all emulate.

Perhaps you should stop judging "worthiness" according to ideal standards.

**Albatross**

Testify wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Spoken like a true lefty! And that isn't rephrasing the question, it's asking a new one. Which is fine, of course. In the current climate, reducing government spending helps to put a brake on our creditors and investors declining confidence, keeping rates low.

Right. But the concequence of that is a reduction in demand and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of job losses.

Citation needed. Also, around 1 million private sector jobs have been created during the Coalitions time in power, far more than have been lost in the public sector:

DWP wrote:Figures published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of people in employment rose by 236,000 in the three months from May to July compared to the previous quarter – including 100,000 more people in full-time posts. Unemployment fell by 7000 during the same period.

The number of people in private sector employment rose by 275,000 in the last quarter and is now nearly 1.2 million higher than in May 2010. The quarterly increase more than offset a 39,000 fall in public sector employment. These figures are adjusted for the effect of further education colleges being reclassified by the ONS from the public to the private sector.
Source: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/sep-2012/dwp098-12.shtml

Incidentally, after adjustment the number of new private sector jobs is around the 900,000 mark.

Testify wrote:Current interest rates are what, 1.5%? Keynesian economics says that is easily low enough to support further borrowing to stimulate economic growth.

Once again, the problem is not that we are physically unable to borrow money, it's that borrowing more money will have negative consequences for our economy that could far outweigh the short-term positives, even if there are any, which is not certain.

**dæl**

Albatross wrote:

Testify wrote:Current interest rates are what, 1.5%? Keynesian economics says that is easily low enough to support further borrowing to stimulate economic growth.

Once again, the problem is not that we are physically unable to borrow money, it's that borrowing more money will have negative consequences for our economy that could far outweigh the short-term positives, even if there are any, which is not certain.

As opposed to the negative consequences of a stagnating economy?

**Albatross**

dæl wrote:
Albatross wrote:

Testify wrote:Current interest rates are what, 1.5%? Keynesian economics says that is easily low enough to support further borrowing to stimulate economic growth.

Once again, the problem is not that we are physically unable to borrow money, it's that borrowing more money will have negative consequences for our economy that could far outweigh the short-term positives, even if there are any, which is not certain.

As opposed to the negative consequences of a stagnating economy?

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Yes, GDP growth is very slow. No argument there, but you'd be happy to gamble that the UK borrowing an extra few billion would turn around our economic fortunes in the face of a global economic crisis, yeah? Come on. External factors are playing a massive role in our economic problems. Almost all of our major trading partners are going through difficulties of their own. There's not much we can do about that. We just have to ride it out and try to balance our economy.

**dæl**

Albatross wrote:

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Yes, GDP growth is very slow. No argument there, but you'd be happy to gamble that the UK borrowing an extra few billion would turn around our economic fortunes in the face of a global economic crisis, yeah? Come on. External factors are playing a massive role in our economic problems. Almost all of our major trading partners are going through difficulties of their own. There's not much we can do about that. We just have to ride it out and try to balance our economy.

Almost all of our major trading partners are no longer in recession. The IMF have said that unless Osbourne eases off on austerity measures he risks further damaging the economy, and last week reduced this year’s growth forecast for Britain by 0.6 percentage points. The biggest downgrade for rich nations.

**Albatross**

dæl wrote:
Albatross wrote:

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Yes, GDP growth is very slow. No argument there, but you'd be happy to gamble that the UK borrowing an extra few billion would turn around our economic fortunes in the face of a global economic crisis, yeah? Come on. External factors are playing a massive role in our economic problems. Almost all of our major trading partners are going through difficulties of their own. There's not much we can do about that. We just have to ride it out and try to balance our economy.

Almost all of our major trading partners are no longer in recession.

I never said they were, I said they were in difficulty. Would you argue that the USA, Japan and the EU are not in economic difficulty? Out of our top 4 trading partners, China is the only one doesn't have an immediately precarious (perhaps 'uncertain' is more appropriate) financial situation, though they are storing up problems for the future. That affects us. You can't just ignore that. Our trade deficit widened in August of this year, a year in which we became a net exporter of cars, amongst other things. Our numbers of exports to the EU aren't growing, they're shrinking.

**dæl**

Albatross wrote:

I never said they were, I said they were in difficulty. Would you argue that the USA, Japan and the EU are not in economic difficulty? Out of our top 4 trading partners, China is the only one doesn't have an immediately precarious (perhaps 'uncertain' is more appropriate) financial situation, though they are storing up problems for the future. That affects us. You can't just ignore that. Our trade deficit widened in August of this year, a year in which we became a net exporter of cars, amongst other things. Our numbers of exports to the EU aren't growing, they're shrinking.

If our export market is dwindling, then surely we need to make up the shortfall with internal consumption, for which people need jobs, not getting the sack for no reason.

**Albatross**

dæl wrote:
Albatross wrote:

I never said they were, I said they were in difficulty. Would you argue that the USA, Japan and the EU are not in economic difficulty? Out of our top 4 trading partners, China is the only one doesn't have an immediately precarious (perhaps 'uncertain' is more appropriate) financial situation, though they are storing up problems for the future. That affects us. You can't just ignore that. Our trade deficit widened in August of this year, a year in which we became a net exporter of cars, amongst other things. Our numbers of exports to the EU aren't growing, they're shrinking.

If our export market is dwindling, then surely we need to make up the shortfall with internal consumption, for which people need jobs, not getting the sack for no reason.

On a fundamental level, I have a problem with people frittering away my tax money creating jobs, just to give people something to do, and money to spend. If those jobs are needed, then the market will create them, as it has been doing. Or did you miss the private sector job creation figures I posted?