1. Simply pathetic. As to moaning who puts everyone's ills down to the government / big business / Murdoch / the Murdoch Press / "casino" banks / greedy bankers/ etc etc? Never any mention of personal responsibilty.
2. Yes it is.
3/4. Companies cannot just pay more without accompanying increases in productivity. It just doesn't work. We live in a competitive world and if people pay themselves more without producing more then the business and the economy fails. We've seen the real world examples - remember the "British Disease" and more latterly the "German Disease?" See here for the German experience:

ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/een ... 471_en.htm

1. Simply pathetic. As to moaning who puts everyone's ills down to the government / big business / Murdoch / the Murdoch Press / "casino" banks / greedy bankers/ etc etc? Never any mention of personal responsibilty.
2. Yes it is.
3/4. Companies cannot just pay more without accompanying increases in productivity. It just doesn't work. We live in a competitive world and if people pay themselves more without producing more then the business and the economy fails. We've seen the real world examples - remember the "British Disease" and more latterly the "German Disease?" See here for the German experience:

ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/een ... 471_en.htm

All you ever do, sunshine, is predict gloom and doom. There's a reason you've been referred to as a Chicken Licken for years. One only needs to look at the downright dumb title for this thread to see that you're a typical [iMail[/i-reading hysteric, who never actually has any positive suggestions to make.



No. It. Is. Not. Except to neo-liberal fundamentalist ideologues.



I know you struggle, but I did say that you have had the living wage explained to you before – and the business case for it, which is being increasingly recognised by, err, business. The business case involves the FACT that improved wages and conditions improve productivity. They improve retention and recruitment too, and reduce sick leave. How many times do such remarkably simple things need explaining to you?

And, really, if you can't comprehend that cutting the disposable income of masses of ordinary people, in an economy that is approx 75% dependant on people having disposable income, and spending it, is negative for the whole economy, you really are a bigger dolt than I realised. The economy is failing now. We are back in recession. When this government took office, employment had stabilised and there was growth. Now which part of that do you find too complex to understand?

The economy has since moved back into recession. Why? Because people are not spending – and because increasing numbers of people are being thrown out of work, thus meaning they stop paying tax, start getting benefits – and stop being able to play such an active role economically. That has a further negative knock-on effect. Which part of [ithat[/i do you struggle with?

And on top of that, a decreasing tax intake, coupled with a rising benefits bill because of increased unemployment – adds to the deficit and does not reduce it.

So unless the cost of living is reduced, most ordinary people cannot take pay cuts or pay freezes, without it having a damaging impact not only on their own lives, but on the wider economy.

Christ – is this really rocket science for you?

All you ever do, sunshine, is predict gloom and doom. There's a reason you've been referred to as a Chicken Licken for years. One only needs to look at the downright dumb title for this thread to see that you're a typical [iMail[/i-reading hysteric, who never actually has any positive suggestions to make.



No. It. Is. Not. Except to neo-liberal fundamentalist ideologues.



I know you struggle, but I did say that you have had the living wage explained to you before – and the business case for it, which is being increasingly recognised by, err, business. The business case involves the FACT that improved wages and conditions improve productivity. They improve retention and recruitment too, and reduce sick leave. How many times do such remarkably simple things need explaining to you?

And, really, if you can't comprehend that cutting the disposable income of masses of ordinary people, in an economy that is approx 75% dependant on people having disposable income, and spending it, is negative for the whole economy, you really are a bigger dolt than I realised. The economy is failing now. We are back in recession. When this government took office, employment had stabilised and there was growth. Now which part of that do you find too complex to understand?

The economy has since moved back into recession. Why? Because people are not spending – and because increasing numbers of people are being thrown out of work, thus meaning they stop paying tax, start getting benefits – and stop being able to play such an active role economically. That has a further negative knock-on effect. Which part of [ithat[/i do you struggle with?

And on top of that, a decreasing tax intake, coupled with a rising benefits bill because of increased unemployment – adds to the deficit and does not reduce it.

So unless the cost of living is reduced, most ordinary people cannot take pay cuts or pay freezes, without it having a damaging impact not only on their own lives, but on the wider economy.

Christ – is this really rocket science for you?