I should have also mentioned (once again) the example of the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port, which was nearly closed a few months ago.

Why was it nearly closed?

Because we have deregulated to such a degree that the UK is now the easiest country in Europe in which to close an entire factory and sack thousands of employees. In the end, negotiations with the unions saved the plant – and the jobs.

The idea that further deregulation of employment is required to better the economy is utterly ridiculous, and is a cover for those who wish to drive down pay and conditions, and keep the employees nice and scared.

Which nation is the biggest manufacturer and exporter in the EU?
The same one that got to that position by their Unions and Management having constructive relationships.
Viz : Germany.

Yes, the same Germany with all its employment regulation.

Maybe, but Germany has kept unit labour costs down compared with other European countries. These things are not black and white.

At the end of the day, their success is down to producing quality products that people want and working hard. Those are two things the British, generally speaking, have got out of the habit of.

Strange, isn't it, that in the UK at least, labour is viewed as a 'cost' – something that is negative and which needs to be cut or held down.

Nobody ever seems to talk about other aspects of production (heat, light, raw materials etc) in quite the same way.

Little wonder that we do not, generally, value 'ordinary' employees and consider that investment in the workforce is exactly that – investment.

Instead, we have a culture where, ever more, employers (big business, at any rate) demands that young people leave school absolutely ready for the workplace (instead of ready for employers to train them specifically): all funded by the taxpayer, of course. Except for the same big businesses, which seek to pay less and less tax.

If you are in the business of making things to sell to people then of course wages are a cost of production (as they are in any business). The Germans have held unit labour costs relatively steady for years and their workers. That's why Germans are angry that are being asked to pay towards Southern Europe, where unit labour costs have gone through the roof. To produce things that people can afford to buy around the world companies need to control all production costs.

Unit labour costs can be reduced by improved manufacturing methods and tooling.
Germany has, since 1945, had a history of such constant improvement.

Unit labour costs are not just about wages.

The cost of living in the UK is far higher than in many other European countries – not least because of the cost of accommodation.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18534286Average private rent in the UK is £712 a month.[/url (22 June 2012)

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/houses.stmAverage house price in the UK is £226,887.[/url (Jan-March 2012)

Let's start with the rent: that works out as £8,544 per annum or £164.30 per week. Shall we be really, really tightfisted for the sake of this little experiment? We'll say that you need a further £100 per week for all your travel (to and from work), your clothing, your basic bills, your food. This is not the life of Riley we're discussing.

So at an average private rent, you need £264.30 per week to live at a very basic level. That's an income of £1,374.36 per annum net.

If that is an average house price, then a sensible mortgage (no more than three times your annual income) means that you need an annual income of £75,629, unless we wish to encourage and create more of the lunacy that contributed to the financial crisis in the first place.

In the case of the rent, the scenario suggested does not mean that the individual would be able to contribute much to their local economy, which in a larger economy that is largely dependent on people having disposable income, is not a positive situation for the said economy – never mind the individual.

[url=http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Country=United_Kingdom/SalaryThe median salary for an office administrator in the UK is £16,332.[/url

Popular employers, with salary range:

The National Health Service (NHS) £14,798 - £47,045
HSBC £13,292 - £60,124
Barclays Bank PLC £14,001 - £59,256
Tesco PLC £13,037 - £53,923
Lloyds Tsb PLC £14,292 - £60,074

The figures suggest that the idea that we have vast swathes of massively overpaid workers, who can all afford to have their pay cut or held down (a cut in real terms) is a myth.

[url=http://www.castlecover.co.uk/historic-home-utility-prices/Rise in costs of utilities in the UK in the last decade plus.[/url



[url=http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2146260/Energy-costs-rising-seven-times-faster-average-income-levels.htmlFull story[/url

Stating the obvious there.

"Steady". Not 'cut'. Henry Ford understood that it makes business sense to ensure that your own workforce can actually afford to buy your product.

It's the economics of the madhouse to have a country dependent on people having disposable income (and spending it) – and then trying desperately to cut that income, while the cost of living continues to rise.

Still we have lots and lots of Poles and other East Europeans coming here to enjoy a far better lifestyle than they could at home despite taking "low-paid jobs." Not only that, but they do them better than the average British person. Why is that?

So many of the rising costs you mention are a reflection of either / both inept government over decades in this country and the poor of the world getting a larger, albeit, small slice of the cake. Do you think the British have a divine right to be better off than the peoples of Africa, Asia, South America, etc?

We are looking over the edge of the abyss in economic terms at present. A very indebted nation whose manufacturing output and exports have just dropped back to the darkest post-Lehman days, despite government wishing for an manufacturing, export lead recovery. Added to that, most of the major ecomomies of the world are not growing and even China has taken a big turn for the worse just recently. We are potentially on the brink of a global economic depression. So if you think things are bad now, brace yourself. Soon it'll be no time for flowery niceties, it'll be a case of working hard for lower real rewards for years to come. Get used to it. Your country needs you.

Quite so.
But a point that you omitted when talking about wage rates in Germany.

Do you really need it explaining?

Many stay for a short time, putting up with pretty dismal accommodation, in order to save money and return home, where the lower cost of living means that those savings can give them a good start in business, say.



Yes. I believe I've explained some of this at some length within the last page or so.

Do please make an effort to keep up.



Thank you for ignoring all the points made and posting, instead, an utterly diversionary post.

You have not explained how many people would live with even slightly lower wages. You don't explain how they'll pay their rent/mortgage, bills etc. Possibly you expect them all to sleep in the street and be grateful for a cardboard box?

And you have not even remotely attempted to explain how an economy that is something like 75% based on the service industries will benefit from cutting disposable income.

Now how about cutting the Chicken Licken hystrionics and actually looking at and reading those questions/points properly and trying to actually address them rather than just indulging in your usual doom and gloom scenarios.

And you can bear in mind that many very profitable companies are also being subsidised by the taxpayer in terms of in-work benefits.

LOL

You win todays prize of a "Keep Calm and Carry On" coffee mug.

1. Many Poles, etc stay long-term, work hard in supermarkets, etc and raise a family here. It can be done if you are willing to work and not moan.

2. If people cannot afford places to live then prices and rents will go go down. It's already happening, even in London.

3. You have not explained how to avoid cutting disposable income if raw material, food, etc prices rise. Just pay people more? Where will the money come from? It'll just create inflation and lower competitiveness which makes the problem worse. You must remember we are not a self-contained, self-sufficient economy but a nation that needs to trade internationally to sustain itself. My comments about the developing world are not diversionary but the absolute crux of the matter as I have been trying to point out since pre-2008.

4. In work benefits were one of Brown's silly ideas as I recall. An unnecessary complication with the usual unintended consequences so beloved of our inept politicians (*) He should have simply adjusted the tax bandings instead.

(*) Our politicians bury their head in the sand over problems and just leave them to mount up over time because of their short-termism. You may have seen the recent article in The Evening Standard that proposed a solution to a problem that politicians will spend decades moaning about, writing reports on and doing nothing. The issue was the unfunded doctors pension scheme (which has been the cause of some militancy). The liability for future pension payments is a whacking £300 billion. Suggested solution - set up a funded scheme. Government lends the scheme trustees £30 billion a year for 10 years, ie lends them £300 billion (not gives them). No increase in government debt. Proviso for lending them is that they invest in infra-structure projects (maybe social housing) which should easily generate long-term steady returns of 3% pa + Over 25 years that capital should therefore generate a further £300 billion. So, government is repaid in full and there is a pot of £300 billion to pay the doctors rather than dragging on the economy via taxation. So, more money to spend on NHS healthcare, infra-structure improved and the economy kick-started and all for free. Sadly, our politicians and civil servants seems incapable of thinking rationally and in a business-like fashion.

I bumped into three Albanians in a local french town who had spent some time in Great Yarmouth by coincidence (my birthplace) - when I asked them why they came to France they replied in good english 'England is f*****g terrible, a real dump who would want to live there ?'
it's a sad state of affairs when even the asylum seekers want to leave Blighty !!!

So, we are supposed to state the whole of acculumated human knowledge in each post are we?

Of course not.
But, in a discussion about unions and wages, to state that unit labour costs have been kept down, without also mentioning the fact that those costs were kept down by means other than wage restraint/reduction, is rather remiss and misleading.

In the case of Daimler Benz, I can categorically state that although unit labour costs reduced, that in no way was reflected in a lowering of wages.

In the 1990s, MBAG realised that they were becoming uncompetitive, even in the luxury car market. They used to build cars twice: an individually ordered car shell would be produced in bare metal, all doors, boot, bonnet etc would then be fitted and made sure that they fitted properly. The car would then be disassembled and all the tin would go for painting etc and was then reassembled again. An electric loom, particular to the individual chassis would also be produced, with only the electrical connectors, according the the individual build sheet. On the production line at Sindelfingen, you would see a C180, followed by an S600, followed by an E200 etc.

They rationalised production methods by employing universal wiring looms, they stopped fannying around building cars twice and simply did what every other manufacturer in the world did.

The end result was a lowering of unit costs but this did not come at the expense of redundancies or lower wages.

I watched a documentary on Triumph Motorcycles recently, in particular their production line, which operates pretty much in the same way as you described the Merc one working previously.

Although they are going through a boom time (apparently) and have a bigger range of bikes now than they have ever had, they still build in batches according to what orders have come through from the resellers, so the line from one day to the next will be totally different and you'll often get two of one model followed by a one-off from another model, then three of another etc and all of the workstations have to have the correct batch of parts, spares, nuts and bolts according to what is coming down next, all to hand in the correct boxes - each assembler has to be able to work on several different models and each workstation needs a couple of assistants to keep the assembler stocked up.

Despite sounding inefficient it is apparently the most efficient way for a company like Triumph to work, they build very little for stock and its their flexibility that has caused the rebirth of the original company which was in mothballs for many years.

Oh good god.
What point have I made that requires evidence to back it up?

Where have I questioned your education? Unless you really did fail GCSE maths.


Again, what point have I made that requires evidence to back it up?

You have basically rubbished every opinion poll he has offered without anything but your opinion as justification. Then in typical RLfans stylee you changed tack when found wanting and started to question the personality of someone you know nothing in the slightest about.

Yep, according to the EC Germany's average wage is roughly 3,000 Euros higher than the UK, and the average hourly labour cost is roughly 10 Euros per hour higher in Germany than in the UK.

My opinion as justification for what? That the opinion polls he quoted are rubbish? What "evidence" should I have provided to prove that? It's obvious and doesn't require evidence even if such evidence were available.
He kept continually referring to the same ridiculous polls as if somehow saying it over and over again makes them more legitimate, he changed the basis of his point several times, mis-represented the nature and results of the polls and has repeatedly asked me for evidence of a non-existent point that I have never made.

I'll ask the question again, since neither you nor Ajw seem able or willing to answer it...
which point have I made that required evidence to back it up?

If you cannot answer that, kindly do not respond.

Mainly because they were either self selecting, a very narrow pool of respondents or wooly questions.

If you ask an eight year old if the want some sweets you know what answer you are going to get more often that not.

Please tell me you are bright enough to see that the "polls" are a reflection of the question and the pool of respondents rather than any popularity contest.

Thing is though, I didn't just offer one or two polls, there were nine that all rank Thatcher highly. If I had offered one or two then I could appreciate that they might be questionable.

However every one of the polls ranks Thatcher highly. This is in stark contrast to what you and others on here believe in that she was no good etc.

If yours was a widespread belief (altough I appreciate it may be in certain areas of the UK) in the UK population she simply wouldn't rank so highly in every poll on the issue. She certainly wouldn't be ranked the 16th best Briton.

Now, I appreciate that you may not like her. Fine, but surely you can see that many people do and consider her one our best PM's?