Any company depending on it's own employees recycling their wages back into the company isn't going to get far.

This is starting to sound a bit like the luddites protesting against the industrial revolution.

I don't recall being asked whether I liked such dismal developments. I certainly didn't when I visited a B&Q last week (because there was nowhere else locally that I could go to get what I needed). The concomitant development is also no expertise – I wanted to ask about a product. The response was polite but lacking a shred of knowledge. In fact, I probably already knew more myself.

As the man with a van who took me – and has been working as a carpenter etc for years – said, he used to be able to go to any number of builders' merchants and, if he had a query, he'd find people who knew what he needed and could even make informed suggestions. That doesn't exist now.

When were customers asked whether they wanted such a development?

I wasn't. Were you?



Fewer jobs for people is "progress"? How do you define progress?



I'm aware of that. I also remember, in the dim and distant past (well, the 1970s) programmes like [iTomorrow's World[/i telling us that this would happen more and more, but that we would all work a three day week, without any substantial loss in income, and with masses more leisure time to enjoy.

So what happened to that rosy view of the future? The "progress", in terms of technology, most certainly has happened and is happening. But where are the benefits for the bulk of people?

And if those benefits don't happen, then what [idoes[/i happen?



But that would upset the neo-liberal orthodoxy of the day ...



But things need to be cheap or people won't be able to buy as much and go shopping as often ...



These are all entirely valid points.

Although I would say that we – as in the bulk of us – never had any say whatsoever in the general way in which the economy has been taken over the last 30-odd years. Nobody but nobody has ever stood – let alone won – for election on a manifesto commitment to let jobs be taken out of the UK, for instance, or for entire industries to be destroyed and for the economy to be so completely rebalanced that 75% of it is based on the service sectors.

That's where I disagree with Richie – because I don't think people were ever given the choice. And indeed, the reluctance of people to use those self-service tills suggest that, given that choice, they will not opt for the worker-less model in majority numbers.

That's not to say that some people are not naive at best about all these issues.

But equally – as has also been touched on by a number of people over a number of threads – the mass media has, in general, been very effective in spreading an unquestioning and uncritical approval of the current economic orthodoxy and the idea that there is no alternative to it, and that 'keeping up with the Jones', where once an affliction, in effect, to laugh at is now 'aspirationalism' and should be encouraged almost as a patriotic duty.

That isn't the point he was making.

Let's extrapolate: all companies all cut their wages so much that nobody has any disposable income – or make so many people redundant because they've got machines to do the jobs. Who is going to buy their products?

And to get back to the question I keep asking and nobody has even attempted to answer: why should the taxpayer keep subsidising companies that are making massive profits but will not pay their employees a living wage?

And of course, that's after the state has already ensured that those same employees are in reasonable health and have at least a basic education. As a professor I was listening to at a seminar put it the other day, capitalism doesn't thrive from employing "the sick and thick".

This, it could be said, is what it pays its taxes for. Except that, as we increasingly know, it avoids paying as much of its tax bill as possible.

On the theme of "efficiency", the government plans to have the entire benefits system online by 2014. Now setting aside the point that at least 10% of the population have no access to computers/the internet, the potential for utter and complete chaos is staggering.

The system will have to be directly linked to the Revenue so that it can automatically cross check your tax status – and then calculate your benefits (if any).

Now remember that they couldn't even get a basic system whereby health records were stored and could be accessed by someone – and you'll see how likely this is to work.

And it's less than two years away and the systems that do the job now are already being run down ...

By 2014?
I'm glad I'm not on that project.

By October 20124 to be precise.

Funnily enough I was, we all were. We shop at the likes of B&Q rather than the high cost high service (the local hardware store here has just closed) alternative. Therefore we (or the majority of us) are telling the likes of B&Q that's what we want.


Improving what we deliver to our customers.


Tomorrow's World wasn't that great a predictor of the future was it?



Whilst you might still be putting in the same hours of work-work, surely the technology progress has made your life better. After all, we're able to do this in real time, over fast broadband. Would you prefer to wind back to perhaps we write on parchment with quills and hand to a post service to debate by mail?


Seriously, I have no idea what that means.


Well no, because if they were too expensive (and remember cheap/expensive isn't just a matter of the price alone, but what you get for it) then people wouldn't buy stuff.



So you're a protectionist then? I'd always thought you wanted to be more of a libertarian.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/04/amazon-british-operation-corporation-taxLike Amazon f'rinstance?[/url

It was the point he was making, at least the way it was written.

Your extrapolation is to a ridiculous level. Should we extrapolate the other way? Replace the internet and email, go back beyond the word processor replacing the type writer, and beyond the typewriter coming into play, to a room full of clerks writing in pen, just to keep people employed so they can buy our companies products? I'd suspect they'll be buying competing products from our competitor who is making better products at a better price due to their efficiency improvements and we'll be out of business.




If that's the way you feel, would you support taking the subsidies away?




Avoids or evades? I avoid paying as much of my tax bill as I possibly can too. So should you.

I'm still waiting for a sensible answer to what happens to all those people out of work – and then can't buy any products.

Couldn't you actually think of an answer? Or is this just another attempt to swerve because you don't actually have one?



I'd support massively profitable companies actually paying their staff a decent, living wage, instead of relying on the state to top up.

In fact, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't think this not simply a good idea, but the decent and responsible and respectable thing to do and why is it even an issue?



Ah yes: greed is good and I'm alright Jack.

If you actually had a sensible question, you would get a sensible answer.



Couldn't you actually think of an answer? Or is this just another attempt to swerve because you don't actually have one?




So you make no use of ISAs, salary sacrifice or putting part of your salary into a pension? You do not employ any of tax avoidance options at all?

Regarding tax avoidance ... there's a world of difference between A) Utilising options that HM gov has given us to make certain investments like ISAs more attractive ... and B) The other end of the scale which is the exploitation of loopholes.

So, you don't have any idea about what is going to happen to all the increasing numbers of people who are unemployed in this magical world where companies can just reduce staff to make more money?

Or you think it's reached some point where it won't happen any more?

Or the magic fairy is going to come down and solve it so that nobody has to think about it?

Jebus wept. I didn't even think it was a difficult question, but it's obviously stymied your great intellectual powers.



I raised the issue first. You – and others – keep avoiding the question.

So in essence, it appears that you believe that big companies shouldn't be expected to pay their workers a decent, living wage even when they're making millions.

How naive of me to think that you might support something other than sheer greed. Perhaps you'd also prefer the tax bill to be reduced and all those in-work benefits to be scrapped. After all, they could just live in cardboard boxes, couldn't they?



I have a couple of ISAs, and that's it. One will be going though, since it's a joke. I haven't put anything in the other for years either, since that's poor too. I'd prefer not to gamble when attempting to save money, so am looking at straightforward savings – y'know; the old-fashioned sort that were around in the olden days before banks started just thinking of customers as cash cows.

Salary sacrifice? I'm self-employed. And no, I don't have an accountant. And I don't have a pension worth more than a few pennies. The problem of having been out of work for some time and then struggling to build a career as self-employed.

Those comments sound very familiar to me



They will be very familiar to a lot of people I suspect although if you asked a Member of Parliament or a Treasury civil servant they'd express absolute horror that you, I and millions of others, are not making provision via savings and pensions for our future - these peopl don't seem to live in the real world where people buy food for their families before they put an adequate sum into a pension scheme for their old age (and what is an adequate sum anyway - what is an adequate sum to protect against future chancellors dipping into the fund and future scheme managers taking their costs out) - one day in the not too distant future a Chancellor will take up his seat one day and find a storm of national pension poverty descending on his head - until then current politicians are content to leave it all to that future Chancellor to sort out.

Quote ="Mintball"So, you don't have any idea about what is going to happen to all the increasing numbers of people who are unemployed in this magical world where companies can just reduce staff to make more money? Or you think it's reached some point where it won't happen any more? Or the magic fairy is going to come down and solve it so that nobody has to think about it? Jebus wept. I didn't even think it was a difficult question, but it's obviously stymied your great intellectual powers.'" I didn't have an answer when the farm workers were replaced with farm machinery. Or when typist was replaced by the word processor. Or when the coach builder was replaced by the production line. Or when the weaver was replaced by the loom. Would you have an answer back then? Would you have objected to the progress? Would have been one of these? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite Jebus wept. I didn't even think it was a difficult question, but it's obviously stymied your great intellectual powers. Quote ="Mintball"I raised the issue first. You – and others – keep avoiding the question. So in essence, it appears that you believe that big companies shouldn't be expected to pay their workers a decent, living wage even when they're making millions. How naive of me to think that you might support something other than sheer greed. Perhaps you'd also prefer the tax bill to be reduced and all those in-work benefits to be scrapped. After all, they could just live in cardboard boxes, couldn't they?'" I don't believe I have ever said anything to indicate I differentiate between big companies or small companies, or made any reference to how their payment should differ whether they're making millions, thousands, nothing, or losing money. I do believe that business should pay their employees a rate consistent with the job they do. That rate will be influenced by many factors: The supply and demand of capable workers, the difference between different levels of worker in that role, the value of that worker to the company. Quote ="Mintball"I have a couple of ISAs, and that's it. One will be going though, since it's a joke. I haven't put anything in the other for years either, since that's mickey poor too. I'd prefer not to gamble when attempting to save money, so am looking at straightforward savings – y'know; the old-fashioned sort that were around in the olden days before banks started just thinking of customers as cash cows.'" So quite the tax avoider then.

Quote ="Mintball"So, you don't have any idea about what is going to happen to all the increasing numbers of people who are unemployed in this magical world where companies can just reduce staff to make more money? Or you think it's reached some point where it won't happen any more? Or the magic fairy is going to come down and solve it so that nobody has to think about it? Jebus wept. I didn't even think it was a difficult question, but it's obviously stymied your great intellectual powers.'" I didn't have an answer when the farm workers were replaced with farm machinery. Or when typist was replaced by the word processor. Or when the coach builder was replaced by the production line. Or when the weaver was replaced by the loom. Would you have an answer back then? Would you have objected to the progress? Would have been one of these? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite Jebus wept. I didn't even think it was a difficult question, but it's obviously stymied your great intellectual powers. Quote ="Mintball"I raised the issue first. You – and others – keep avoiding the question. So in essence, it appears that you believe that big companies shouldn't be expected to pay their workers a decent, living wage even when they're making millions. How naive of me to think that you might support something other than sheer greed. Perhaps you'd also prefer the tax bill to be reduced and all those in-work benefits to be scrapped. After all, they could just live in cardboard boxes, couldn't they?'" I don't believe I have ever said anything to indicate I differentiate between big companies or small companies, or made any reference to how their payment should differ whether they're making millions, thousands, nothing, or losing money. I do believe that business should pay their employees a rate consistent with the job they do. That rate will be influenced by many factors: The supply and demand of capable workers, the difference between different levels of worker in that role, the value of that worker to the company. Quote ="Mintball"I have a couple of ISAs, and that's it. One will be going though, since it's a joke. I haven't put anything in the other for years either, since that's mickey poor too. I'd prefer not to gamble when attempting to save money, so am looking at straightforward savings – y'know; the old-fashioned sort that were around in the olden days before banks started just thinking of customers as cash cows.'" So quite the tax avoider then.

Where does the salary sacrifice option our company provides fit in there?

Amazon is an interesting case. What are the rules for a foreign business shipping products into the UK?

Quote ="Richie"I didn't have an answer when the farm workers were replaced with farm machinery. Or when typist was replaced by the word processor. Or when the coach builder was replaced by the production line. Or when the weaver was replaced by the loom. Would you have an answer back then? Would you have objected to the progress? Would have been one of these? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite'" Fair enough. You prefer not to consider the issue – and just call people a Luddite. But it's interesting that you see what I commented on earlier – the increasing lack of expertise – as "progress". It's also worth noting that nothing I have said is that there should not be any progress. What I have repeatedly asked is what happens if technological [iprogress[/i means even fewer jobs? a) How will the people who do not have jobs live – what jobs will replace those jobs that have been lost? b) How will many companies actually sell their products when far fewer people have the disposable income required to buy them? Quote ="Richie"... I do believe that business should pay their employees a rate consistent with the job they do. That rate will be influenced by many factors: The supply and demand of capable workers, the difference between different levels of worker in that role, the value of that worker to the company...'" A load of drivel to swerve and avoid answering the question. What happens if the pay of a worker cannot cover the basic cost of living? Quote ="Richie"So quite the tax avoider then.'" Yeah. On a par with Amazon and Vodaphone and Tesco etc etc ad nauseum because of having made minimal use of government-created schemes.

Quote ="Richie"I didn't have an answer when the farm workers were replaced with farm machinery. Or when typist was replaced by the word processor. Or when the coach builder was replaced by the production line. Or when the weaver was replaced by the loom. Would you have an answer back then? Would you have objected to the progress? Would have been one of these? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite'" Fair enough. You prefer not to consider the issue – and just call people a Luddite. But it's interesting that you see what I commented on earlier – the increasing lack of expertise – as "progress". It's also worth noting that nothing I have said is that there should not be any progress. What I have repeatedly asked is what happens if technological [iprogress[/i means even fewer jobs? a) How will the people who do not have jobs live – what jobs will replace those jobs that have been lost? b) How will many companies actually sell their products when far fewer people have the disposable income required to buy them? Quote ="Richie"... I do believe that business should pay their employees a rate consistent with the job they do. That rate will be influenced by many factors: The supply and demand of capable workers, the difference between different levels of worker in that role, the value of that worker to the company...'" A load of drivel to swerve and avoid answering the question. What happens if the pay of a worker cannot cover the basic cost of living? Quote ="Richie"So quite the tax avoider then.'" Yeah. On a par with Amazon and Vodaphone and Tesco etc etc ad nauseum because of having made minimal use of government-created schemes.

Good question.
I believe it was discussed with HMRC (or Inland Revenue, at that time), so I think it belongs in A).

Quote ="Mintball"Fair enough. You prefer not to consider the issue – and just call people a Luddite.'" I didn't call you a luddite. I asked if you would have objected to those pieces of progress on the same basis. A question you have avoided (or evaded) so far. Quote ="Mintball"But it's interesting that you see what I commented on earlier – the increasing lack of expertise – as "progress".'" Your single anecdotal experience in B&Q is not evidence that a lack of expertise is progress. BTW there is a place, created by technological progress, where you would you have been able to gain access to a fantastic level of expertise, more than any shop could provide. Quote ="Mintball"It's also worth noting that nothing I have said is that there should not be any progress. What I have repeatedly asked is what happens if technological [iprogress[/i means even fewer jobs? a) How will the people who do not have jobs live – what jobs will replace those jobs that have been lost? b) How will many companies actually sell their products when far fewer people have the disposable income required to buy them?'" Quote ="Richie"I didn't have an answer when the farm workers were replaced with farm machinery. Or when typist was replaced by the word processor. Or when the coach builder was replaced by the production line. Or when the weaver was replaced by the loom. Would you have an answer back then? Would you have objected to the progress? Would have been one of these? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite'" Quote ="Mintball"A load of drivel to swerve and avoid answering the question.'" You think that's drivel? Seemed a perfectly fair reasonable and factual answer to me Quote ="Mintball"What happens if the pay of a worker cannot cover the basic cost of living?'" Then the employer doesn't get an employee. Unless they change that rate of pay. Quote ="Mintball"Yeah. On a par with Amazon and Vodaphone and Tesco etc etc ad nauseum because of having made minimal use of government-created schemes.'" Exploiting the means to avoid tax made available within the taxation system. Albeit on a different scale, but tax avoidance all the same.

Quote ="Mintball"Fair enough. You prefer not to consider the issue – and just call people a Luddite.'" I didn't call you a luddite. I asked if you would have objected to those pieces of progress on the same basis. A question you have avoided (or evaded) so far. Quote ="Mintball"But it's interesting that you see what I commented on earlier – the increasing lack of expertise – as "progress".'" Your single anecdotal experience in B&Q is not evidence that a lack of expertise is progress. BTW there is a place, created by technological progress, where you would you have been able to gain access to a fantastic level of expertise, more than any shop could provide. Quote ="Mintball"It's also worth noting that nothing I have said is that there should not be any progress. What I have repeatedly asked is what happens if technological [iprogress[/i means even fewer jobs? a) How will the people who do not have jobs live – what jobs will replace those jobs that have been lost? b) How will many companies actually sell their products when far fewer people have the disposable income required to buy them?'" Quote ="Richie"I didn't have an answer when the farm workers were replaced with farm machinery. Or when typist was replaced by the word processor. Or when the coach builder was replaced by the production line. Or when the weaver was replaced by the loom. Would you have an answer back then? Would you have objected to the progress? Would have been one of these? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite'" Quote ="Mintball"A load of drivel to swerve and avoid answering the question.'" You think that's drivel? Seemed a perfectly fair reasonable and factual answer to me Quote ="Mintball"What happens if the pay of a worker cannot cover the basic cost of living?'" Then the employer doesn't get an employee. Unless they change that rate of pay. Quote ="Mintball"Yeah. On a par with Amazon and Vodaphone and Tesco etc etc ad nauseum because of having made minimal use of government-created schemes.'" Exploiting the means to avoid tax made available within the taxation system. Albeit on a different scale, but tax avoidance all the same.

OK I'll have a bash at answering. Which subsidies / companies are you referring to?

Any company where workers are not paid enough to afford to live and have to claim in-work benefits, be that tax credits or housing benefit or anything else.

Let's assume we're talking about big companies that make masses of money.

We'll take Tesco or B&Q as examples (cleaning staff at Tesco is a specific case; they're currently paid barely above the minimum wage. Campaigns involving the likes of London Citizens are trying to get that upped to the London Living Wage).

One of the reasons that they can record such large profits at the end of each year is that they do not pay some of their staff enough to live decently on. Such staff have to rely on the state to help them out with in-work benefits – or else they cannot afford all the [ubasics[/u of life.

Why should profitable companies be able to make a percentage of their profits by not paying a living wage and relying on the state to do so?

And if people don't think a living wage is a valid thing to demand for every worker, then will they be giving out the advice on choosing between food or heating?

And if people cannot afford the basics, how on earth is that good for any company's productivity etc?

Whilst I agree with the sentiments, what do you propose as a solution? The only thing I could see from what you are saying would be some form of much enhanced minimum wage. What would that achieve? It would put out millions on the dole from small businesses - who are the businesses which ultimately create the larger part of new employment. At the larger end, many manufacturers, etc export and therefore would be unable to sell globally unless they had an unique, must have product to sell. Again, unemployment would soar.

Nothing I have said has suggested that I object to genuine progress.

Now, explain where all the new jobs are coming from to replace the ones that have been caused by this 'progress' – or how people are going to live if they don't materialise, and how companies are going to sell their good is more and more people are put out of work by this 'progress', as you call it.



I didn't say it was an example of that – rather the opposite.

It's a result of what you appear to think is 'progress' – all this cutting costs and getting rid of staff etc. It is something that follows from that.

Jesus – can you really not understand or your really just trying to twist everything because you'll do absolutely anything to act as an apologist for big business?

But if you want more examples, I can do loads – and if you could read you'd know that there were two examples of the loss of expertise in that one anecdote. Only one of them related to specifically to B&Q.

Let's think ... well, there's how you used to be able to go into bookshops and ask them about stuff, but nobody knows anything now. I used to love going into the classical and jazz sections in Virgin Megastore, because they'll always be able to recommend things on the basis of knowledge. Forget that.

try going into a supermarket and asking one of their 'butchers' or 'fishmongers' what to do with a particular cut of meat/fish – or even whether they could prepare it a certain way (see Blythman for specific, cross-UK evidence of this).



Really ...

I can't wait for the intertubes to be able to French trim me a rack of lamb of bone me a monkfish tail ...



Yes. I think it's corporate-style BS that avoids actually answering a question.



More BS. In a climate where there's high unemployment? Why do you think big business lurves high unemployment? Why do you think big business has been consistently demanding no caps on immigration?

In a climate where there's fear of losing a job and of not being able to find anything else? In a climate where trades unions have been close to emasculated – and where plenty of idiots popping up to say that you should simply accept whatever the bosses mete out to you 'cos that's 'the real world'?

Where do you think the money comes from to pay these benefits? taxation a great deal of which is corporate taxation. So in effect these companies are actually paying their staff at the correct levels it is just the method of how the income is made up. I would be very surprised if the total cost of in work benefits is not significantly smaller than the total take for corporation tax.

Well, apart from when they have a little hand shake with the man at the revenue and don't pay much of it. Or when they're Amazon ...



But then again, perhaps what corporation tax they pay is actually paying for any education and health treatment their employees have.

As I said earlier (quoting a professor at a seminar the other day), capitalism doesn't work well if its employees are all "the sick and the thick".

Big business expects its employees to be healthy – and reasonably educated. These days, they're getting ever more demanding about what they think schools should teach – not that long ago, one business club was whinging that schools didn't produce people who knew how to deal with customers. Well durr ...

In other words, employers no longer want to train new employees themselves, but increasingly expect the state to fund that and then hand them over ready-trained staff.

Although, as we've seen, they might give people a bit of 'work experience' if the state pays for it.

And as to what else their tax (or what they pay of it) pays for: then there's the roads to transport all a companies goods or make deliveries– how much toll on the roads do the delivery fleets of the big four supermarkets alone take? And then there's the lights on the roads. And the refuse collection and all those other things that their tax is supposed to pay for – except when, like Amazon, they don't pay any at all (so we subsidise absolutely everything for Amazon) or, like Vodaphone, get let off around £6bn.