Has the welfare system distorted our economy?

[xoggoth]

If business rates go down ( ) then who will be picking up the bill for loss of "revenue" to local councils?

???Er.... They won't need the same revenue as they won't be covering the social housing costs for those in work. Did you read the post? Or had too much vodka?

[AtW]

???Er.... They won't need the same revenue as they won't be covering the social housing costs for those in work. Did you read the post? Or had too much vodka?

If it's the same amount then why change? They only change if they can make more tax!

[xoggoth]

Eeeeeh I give up.

[SueEllen]

I suppose one could say it would cost as much however one does it. That, if the council did not provide social housing, we would be paying just as much for the profits of landlords and private housing companies. Being cynical is close to grasping reality at times.

No we would be paying more.

One thing you learn if you study economics is about economies of scale. It is cheaper for a large landlord to provide housing for 100 people than for 100 individual landlords. For example if the large landlord hires tradesmen because they are doing 100 properties the landlord can negotiate a lower price as the tradesman know they have a job for 50 weeks rather than 3 days with an individual landlord.

However, with proper controls, maybe not. The best form of government in my view is not one that tries to do everything itself or the opposite of a totally free market economy that lets the rich and the big companies do what they like but a free market economy with strict regulation - on competition, excess profits etc.

That is what Blair thought and so he introduced the third way.

The problem with government is that it is always the biggest and most powerful organisation going and too much power and control breeds corruption. Not quite in the third world dictator sense but there is no doubt that many do act in their own interests.

You are forgetting that it is often cheaper for the government to provide things for the entire UK population than private companies.

Part of the joke with rail franchises and energy companies is that the national companies of France, Germany etc run some of them in the UK then pocket the profits to subsidise the population of France, Germany etc.

Public sector workers, for example, generally have more security, are better paid and have better pensions that many in the private sector and this is all supported by those "leftist" big public sector unions.

They also on average have a higher level of education than the general population hence the better pay. Most public sector jobs now are highly skilled ones as the cleaning, portering of people and ticketing of cars has been contracted out. While we, on average, are highly educated you forget the rest of the UK population isn't.

Also those big leftist unions are also at work in traditional large UK companies like banks and insurance companies. The primary role of a union is to protect it's members jobs and I know cases in the private sector where they have done this by making management look at different working practices e.g. working from home to help keep company costs down.

Unions also have helped ensure all workers don't have crap working conditions. They take and have taken cases on to make a legal precedent so even contractors - you and I - can't be exploited by bad companies as they have helped to establish a minimum level of how to treat your workers e.g. not blocking fire doors, fire drills, fire marshals.

Then there is that well meaning form of corruption where an ideal is pursued regardless of effectiveness. When an organisation is under central control and all powerful there is little that can be done to make it change direction if things are not working out. If Corbyn gets in it will be a nightmare. The public sector will be ever expanding as he renationalises or nationalises major sectors and it will be run according to his dictat. He may be a nice, well meaning chap but decades have shown there is nothing that will ever make him change his mind about how society should work. If it is not working out he will just stick to the same core policies. He admires Chavez and look what he did to Venezuela.

Blair tried - using his third way - of set up a series of safe guards for every public service whether it was contracted out to a private company or not. I know people doing different jobs who were surprised when some of these safe guards came about as they thought it was standard for example as a teacher to have a proper lesson plan for each lesson. However all that happened is these safe guards became the minimum you could get away with e.g. as long as you could tick the box you are doing ok. The issue isn't in the central policy it is in how poor British management is - we have seen this clearly in the private sector e.g. in the mass production of cars, so why do people expect the public sector to be different?

[AtW]

A much better solution than social housing and welfare would be a return to market economics. Let employers offer whatever it takes to get people to work in their areas. You may say they couldn't afford that but they are paying for it anyway via colossal business rates. If councils were not paying huge costs for social housing and welfare those could be enormously reduced.

So your idea is to force businesses only hire people who live locally?

[xoggoth]

Heh! Some very sensible responses there SE! Makes a change on CUK at times.

I was never a fan of denationalisation in general. Did a lot of work for the CEGB and it was an efficient organisation, although the salaries were pretty high. Appalling that it got broken up and taken over by foreign companies. I am very much not a fan of the global market either. The French do seem to have had more sense in that respect. I think there is a case for protecting some core industries.

Economies of scale are a reality but I would have more confidence in a large commercial organisation, subject to proper rules and scrutiny as I said above, than a government body. Rather biased report admittedly but I wouldn't say the figure here is wrong:

Public sector waste has cost every household £4,500 - Telegraph

Off down the garden with a vodka, respond to rest tomorrow mayhaps.

[xoggoth]

So your idea is to force businesses only hire people who live locally?

What is up with you tonight atW? Where did I say that? I said "Let employers offer whatever it takes to get people to work in their areas" Work in their areas, nowt about where they live, they could commute.

[AtW]

I said "Let employers offer whatever it takes to get people to work in their areas"

I don't understand what it means really, could you break it down for me please.

Other than minimum wage I don't see any current restrictions, plus economic sense - business can only offer so much in wages in order to stay profitable.

How is this linked to social housing anyway? People on social housing are likely not to be working in the first place.

[SueEllen]

I don't understand what it means really, could you break it down for me please.

In plain English it means you employ the person who lives down the road from the company rather than the person who lives in a foreign country.

Now "down the road" could literally mean down the road or it could mean in the same city or it could mean in the same country. I short you employ the person nearest the company even if you have to train them up.

Other than minimum wage I don't see any current restrictions, plus economic sense - business can only offer so much in wages in order to stay profitable.

There isn't which is the problem. Why should every tax payer in the country subsidise Tescos, Amazon, Sports Direct, etc when they don't pay enough due to a mixture of not giving their staff enough hours and only pay the minimum wage enough to live on via in work benefits?

How is this linked to social housing anyway? People on social housing are likely not to be working in the first place.

The latter idea isn't true and it is a idea perpetuated by the main stream media.

Initially when social housing was built after WWII anyone who was British was eligible to live in it. This means I've met older people who lived in social housing which was all council housing in their early adulthood. Some of them actually became wealthy and moved out.

Now due to Right To Buy there is a shortage of social housing. This means in areas of shortage e.g. London, South East, the a lot of people but not all who have been given social housing in the last 10-15 years are those who fulfil the newspapers stereotypes. However it doesn't mean all their neighbours who have lived their for 15+ years fulful them. I've met tradesmen, taxi drivers etc who live in social housing. However unlike recent immigrants British people are clever enough not to end up in tower blocks like Grenfell tower they go for low rise blocks of flats, flats in converted houses, and houses.

[SueEllen]

Heh! Some very sensible responses there SE! Makes a change on CUK at times.

I was never a fan of denationalisation in general. Did a lot of work for the CEGB and it was an efficient organisation, although the salaries were pretty high. Appalling that it got broken up and taken over by foreign companies. I am very much not a fan of the global market either. The French do seem to have had more sense in that respect. I think there is a case for protecting some core industries.

Economies of scale are a reality but I would have more confidence in a large commercial organisation, subject to proper rules and scrutiny as I said above, than a government body. Rather biased report admittedly but I wouldn't say the figure here is wrong:

Public sector waste has cost every household £4,500 - Telegraph
.

I have worked for large commercial organisations and they are just as badly managed and administrated as government bodies. In some cases more so. BA, BT and Royal Mail are examples of screwed up large companies. They have been as far back as I've known people work for them as a child.

Personally I think more work needs to be done to find out why Japanese and some other foreign management styles work better on British workers. Though I suspect the answer is simple if we ask the workers who work under these management styles. It is likely to do with the class system not being present and the managers mucking in.