The Will of the People

Temporary Forum - Please keep it CIVIL and ON TOPIC regarding updates/ news / concerns on British living / travelling in the EU.
Toebs
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Toebs » Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:50 pm

Kilkis wrote:I simply cannot follow your convoluted argument, Toebs. How does the average person become wealthier? He works, earns money, consumes less than he earns and saves the difference.


Well, income comes from three sources : rent, profit or wages.

What you've described is income from wages.

Let's use the word "gain" to mean the amount left from the money a company receives from selling its products after deducting all costs except labour. Some of that gain goes to the people who provide the labour, in the form of wages, and some goes to the people who own the business, in the form of profit.


Yes.

If you change the situation from about 50 % going to each to a situation where 60 % goes to the owners of the company and 40 % to the people who provide the labour then those who own the company will get rich faster and those that provide the labour will get rich more slowly or get poorer. That is a transfer of wealth.


No. Transfer means (dictionary.com) "to convey or remove from one place, person, etc., to another".

The employer holds capital. It is their possession. They buy stock, they hire employees. The employees agree to perform work in exchange for a wage. The product (perhaps service) is them sold, and - unless perhaps specified in the employee's contract - the value of the sale is the property of the employer, who held the capital and took the risk and spent the time and effort to organize all this.

At no point has anything been transfered from the employee to the employer. Everyone agreed on everything every step of the way.

Now it certainly is the case wages change over time. There are many factors influencing wages, and these operate on all kinds of time scales. However, the wages paid are agreed between the employer and the employee. It cannot be said that there is a growing transfer of wealth between the employee and employer;

Firstly because there is NO transfer of wealth in that direction, at all, *ever*. It is employers who give money to employees.

Secondly, because to say so is to imagine somehow that the income of the company belongs to everyone in it, and then the part of it which is going to the employer when higher is being "transferred" to the employer from the employee, by dint of *not* going to the employee.

This is a misleading and incorrect framing.

The income of the company *belongs to the owner*. There IS no transfer from the employee to the employer.

As far as I can see, although I could be wrong, all that is being said here is that the portion of costs which consists of wages is lower now than it used to be. (And I have no idea if this is plausably true - I've not examined the source of the claim).

(In fact, looking more closely, it's not actually clear here if the change you're describing concerns change over time in the divison of *money* or the divison of *wealth*. It is entirely possible for people to receive less and less money while receiving more and more wealth.)

If the division had stayed the same those providing the labour would have accumulated more wealth but they haven't. The wealth that they would have accumulated has gone to the owners of the company.


I may be wrong, but I would say this is properly tantamount to saying wages are a lower proportion of company costs than they used to be.

What meaning would this have?

If wages are rising by 1% per year, compared to a historical mean of (say) 2%, but inflation is now 0.5% vs a historical 1.5%, everyone is getting richer *faster than ever before*, while at the same time wages *are still a lower proportion of company costs than they were before*.

In and of itself, *it means nothing*, because there is not enough information on what else is going on *for* it to have meaning.

If I say the main volcano in Iceland is sinking at the rate of 5cm a year, but I neglect to mention Iceland itself is rising at 10cm a year, then I have *not* to conveyed to you what will happen to the height of tha volcano.

A House of Commons library documents projects that if the current trend continues, and there is no sign of it stopping, the top 1 % will go from owning 50 % of world wealth today to owning 64 % of world wealth in a decade. How long before the top 1 % own 100 %?


Extrapolating trends beyond the limits allowed by data leads to unreliable conclusions. Wages vary over time for a large number of reasons, within a large and complex system, where I think the market as a whole tends strongly (when not forced into broken states by regulation) to dampen extremes and return to norms.

Kilkis
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Kilkis » Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:53 pm

OK so we disagree on the meaning of words. If at one moment in time the top 1 % own 40 % of the world's wealth and everybody else owns 60 % and then we move on to a later time and the top 1 % own 50 % of the world's wealth and the rest own 50 % as far as you are concerned there has been no transfer of wealth. As far as I am concerned there has.

From the end of WW2 to 1970 no real transfer took place. The rich got richer and the rest got richer. Since 1970 the rich continued to get richer at a faster rate and the rest didn't get richer at all. Call it what you like but that is a major change in the world economy. A change engineered by the richest that benefited the richest. If it continues there are plenty of historical examples that illustrate where it ends up.

I stress I am talking about the developed world here.

Warwick

Toebs
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Toebs » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:43 am

Kilkis wrote:OK so we disagree on the meaning of words. If at one moment in time the top 1 % own 40 % of the world's wealth and everybody else owns 60 % and then we move on to a later time and the top 1 % own 50 % of the world's wealth and the rest own 50 % as far as you are concerned there has been no transfer of wealth. As far as I am concerned there has.


It's very easy to get things mixed up when percentages are used. Remember - it could be the pie is getting bigger. So it can be that as claimed, the rich now own a greater proportion of total wealth - but that in fact, at the same time, *everyone* is getting richer and *is* richer than ever before.

Offhandish, I would think the most likely scenario where I see this happening is that everyone is getting richer, but some get richer faster. No wealth has been transfered from any group to any other group. Everyone works, everyone invests, everyone makes wealth for themselves.

I think I see what you mean, and it's about relative rates of wealth increase, but you seem to imply a bit (I may be mistaken - not trying to put words in your mouth) that this is a problem? solving it requires everyone to grow richer at exactly the same rate - so the man with 1,000,000 euro to invest must get richer at the same rate at the man with 10 euro to invest.

From the end of WW2 to 1970 no real transfer took place. The rich got richer and the rest got richer. Since 1970 the rich continued to get richer at a faster rate and the rest didn't get richer at all.


Richer in what terms? if incomes in real terms are flat, but prices are falling, everyone is richer.

How is "rich" defined? is it a relative term (top n% of incomes) or absolute? is there a possibility the very fact people are getting rich, because of the metric used, makes it look like the rich own more and more, because more and more people are considered rich?

People make a percentage on investment. As we discussed, if you have 10,000,000 euro, you make more per year than if you have 10 euro. To what extent is this factor being considered, both in the past and now?

There are one billion additional humans every ten to fifteen years. Poor families tend to be larger. To what extent is this distorting the picture?

Basic problem is I have no idea for the basis for the claim.

I feel from first principles it is mistaken. It goes so strongly against what should emerge from the market that my sense of right/wrong rejects the idea.

Call it what you like but that is a major change in the world economy.


So, I mean, I don't get it. As far as I see, it means the proportion of wages in company costs varies over time - but it always has, and this is cannot be directly connected to actual wealth, and so I can't see this is any big shakes.

Kilkis
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Kilkis » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:53 am

Toebs wrote:...So, I mean, I don't get it...


We certainly agree on that.

Toebs wrote:...As far as I see, it means the proportion of wages in company costs varies over time - but it always has, and this is cannot be directly connected to actual wealth, and so I can't see this is any big shakes.


Tell that to the person who is working hard for 40 hours per week but still queuing at a food bank to be able to feed their children. Have a look at this chart. Admittedly it is for the USA but it is typical of the developed world. It shows the increase in productivity and the increase in real hourly wage from just after WW2 to roughly the present day. Up to 1971 workers took a constant share in the increase in productivity. From 1971 virtually no increase in productivity has gone to workers. You believe that is just normal commercial variation? You don't see anything significant in the fact that the divergence started in 1971? The lines are not completely straight. Those wiggles are the normal commercial variation you talk about. The trend is something different. Virtually all increases in productivity since 1971 have accrued to the wealthiest in society. Did workers contribute nothing to that increase in productivity? If all increases in productivity accrue to the wealthiest in society you don't think that does anything to the distribution of wealth?

Warwick

Toebs
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Toebs » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:25 pm

Kilkis wrote:
Toebs wrote:...As far as I see, it means the proportion of wages in company costs varies over time - but it always has, and this is cannot be directly connected to actual wealth, and so I can't see this is any big shakes.


Tell that to the person who is working hard for 40 hours per week but still queuing at a food bank to be able to feed their children.


It can be that *given* what you have said, *everyone* is getting richer over time more quickly than if what you said was *not* the case. That's in part what I mean by it having no meaning - you can't draw conclusions from the given facts. Various situations lead to those facts, and some are positive.

The example you give here, where someone is suffering, I would say indicative of this. It expresses a view that if things were not as they have been described, less richer people would be better off. This is *not* auxiomatic.

Whether I am right or wrong, I can't reasonably explain here why I think what I do more than I have - it's a large subject, I mean, think of trying actually, in detail, explain quantum physics to someone in forums posts - the bandwidth available from forum posts is profoundly too small to explain a large subject.

bobscott
Posts: 2385
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:36 pm
Location: Kokkino Horio

Re: The Will of the People

Postby bobscott » Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:20 am

Gosh. 8 days with no comments. We are all obviously bored to tears by the whole business. Just thought I would keep the thread alive for a bit longer! Bob.
Yesterday today was tomorrow. Don't dilly dally!

Kilkis
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Kilkis » Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:40 am

Nothing happening, Bob. Nothing to see here, move along please.

Having got an extension they can forget all about it for a few months and concentrate on how many seats they are going to lose in the council elections. They can start thinking about it again after the council elections, the EU elections, the summer recess and the party conference season. After all it's not as though finding a solution was important or urgent in any way?

Warwick

PS Good to see that the Home Office is still living up to the high levels of competence and professionalism that Theresa May instigated as Home Secretary and that we have come to expect as described in this Guardian Article. Bodes well for the 3 million EU nationals when they try to register for settled status? "What do you mean you are missing a pay slip from April 1997? Sorry mate, you don't qualify to remain. I don't care if you are the head of neurosurgery at Great Ormond Street, on yer bike. I've go a quota to meet."

bobscott
Posts: 2385
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:36 pm
Location: Kokkino Horio

Re: The Will of the People

Postby bobscott » Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:51 pm

I read the Guardian article too. Like I have said before, many times, the Home office is unfit for purpose and should be re-staffed from top to bottom. Bob.
Yesterday today was tomorrow. Don't dilly dally!

Toebs
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Toebs » Wed May 08, 2019 3:53 pm

So, I may be completely wrong, but I think it was yesterday, on the 7th, the final confirmation came that the UK would participate in the EU elections.

Is that right?

The deadline to register to vote is the 7th May.

You can do this on-line, though, so it was possible, even if you only went to do so on the 7th once you knew it was on.

However, the deadline to request a postal vote is the 8th May - but this deadline requires you to have posted a physical letter to the UK, and I believe for it to *have arrived* by the 8th May.

That's impossible.

Am I missing something?

Are people here voting?

If so, how?

Did you get hold of postal before the deadline?

GlennB
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: The Will of the People

Postby GlennB » Wed May 08, 2019 5:45 pm

These are questions I was going to ask too.

I emailed our old council today and they informed me that postal ballots had just gone out from the printers. For previous postal votes we have always re-registered although the wording of the application suggests that once registered you automatically get new ballots. We're hoping the latter is true, as otherwise we won't be able to vote.

Any clarification gratefully received.

Kilkis
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Kilkis » Wed May 08, 2019 6:31 pm

If you are a non-Greek EU citizen resident in Greece you are eligible to vote in the EU elections in your Greek constituency or in your home country BUT not both. You can also vote in local council elections here but not Greek national government elections. The deadline for registering to vote in Greece was 28 February 2019. If you register to vote here voting is compulsory and failure to do so could result in imprisonment from 1 month to one year. I registered and voted in a local council election once but haven't voted since. So far there has been no heavy knock on the door at 3 am. More information here.

Warwick

Toebs
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Toebs » Wed May 29, 2019 3:22 pm

The Conservative Party now holds an election campaign.

The new PM will be voted in by the paid-up members of the Conservative Party, about 120,000 overwhelmingly pro-Brexit individuals.

Consequently, every candidate is resolutely emphasizing their pro-Brexit credentials : "no Brexit is more damaging than no-deal!", "no matter what happens, we leave on October the 31st!" and "no deal exit not massively damaging".

Boris Johnson is very likely to win.

He is a populist, tends to say what his audience wants to hear, and was considered not very competent in the Foreign Office.

We come then back to the current situation, the impasse : the current withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated and will not be accepted by Parliament. Parliament is absolutely and by a very large majority against leaving without a deal. The Conservative Party will not allow a second referendum because it would shatter the party, the Labour Party have been utterly resolute and consistent in their weasel words and hiding from the issues and have not and will not support a second referendum because it would mean coming off the fence, and Parliament have in indicative votes blocked a referendum anyway.

This leaves two outcomes. First, the default event occurs and the UK leaves on the 31st October without a deal. This will require Parliament to allow this to occur, rather than passing a law forcing the Government to obtain a deal or extension. Second, there is an election. The Conservatives would be insane to call an election, since they are in power.

I expect Parliament on past form to force a deal and/or extension, and I think in the end the EU will not grant an extension. Then it will be interesting : does the Government then act in contempt of Parliament and break the law and take the UK out of the EU, or does the Government cancel Article 50? there will then I think be no time for an election.

What do you think? flaws, missed issues?

scooby
Posts: 1544
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Agia Nr Chania

Re: The Will of the People

Postby scooby » Wed May 29, 2019 8:12 pm

Who cares anymore. What I can’t get my head round is why May agreed and signed off a binding treaty before putting it to parliament. Surely she should have brought it to parliament before signing. I could be being cynical here but did she and the EU know it wouldn’t pass? After all, the negotiations involved all remainers hence the impasse.
Men in suits will always make you pay.

Kilkis
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: The Will of the People

Postby Kilkis » Thu May 30, 2019 12:29 am

Re: Toebs

While it is true that the default position is that the UK leaves with or without a deal, because that law is already on the statute books, there is still a lot of other legislation that needs to be passed by parliament. If a new Tory leader simply allows the UK to leave without a deal and Parliament is against a no-deal, which is what they have indicated most strongly, how does that new leader get the necessary legislation through? Electing a new Tory leader does not change the parliamentary maths nor the entrenched positions of different groups. A general election might change the maths but equally it might not.

Re: Scooby

As far as I am aware May has not "signed off on a binding treaty"? She has reached an agreement with the EU what the treaty will be, subject to ratification by both parties. The UK Parliament has to ratify it and the EU Parliament and the Council have to agree it before it is ratified. I agree it would have made more sense to get agreement from Parliament first but that is difficult to do when you aren't sure what the EU will agree to. I think the deal is pretty much what leave voters voted for, i.e. out of the political institutions, out of the single market, out of the customs union but with a trade deal with the EU. Isn't that what leave voters wanted? Yes it includes a transition period to the end of 2020 but does that really matter if it allows a smooth transition with minimum disruption to business and trade? Yes it includes a backstop but that is a way round the Irish border problem.

You cannot avoid the fact that the UK already signed a legally binding International Treaty agreeing not to impose a border between northern Ireland and the Republic. If the UK stays in the customs union and the single market there is no need for a border but then the UK would not really have left the EU. Any other deal or no deal requires there to be a border. May's deal is predicated on the idea that you can impose a technological border with no infrastructure at the physical border. That technology doesn't exist and, while I am not suggesting it could not be implemented, it is not clear when it will exist in a practical form. The backstop is a consequence of that problem. Work towards a technological border solution but stay in the customs union with regulatory alignment until it exists. The EU would have been happy for northern Ireland alone to stay in the customs union with regulatory alignment for that period but that was not acceptable to the UK government and so the deal has the whole UK staying in. The position of the ERG is completely illogical. On the one hand they are claiming that the technological solution can be implemented tomorrow but on the other hand they are saying the backstop locks the UK into the EU for ever. Those two arguments are completely inconsistent, like most of what the ERG says.

I don't think it matters what the original position of the negotiating team was, i.e. leave or remain. The choices are limited. Contrary to what all leave voters believe, all the evidence suggests that the EU will not break its own rules. Personally I would like to see Boris get elected as the new Tory leader, go to Brussels and tell them that if they don't change the deal then the UK will leave without a deal, get told "Sorry you feel that way, bye bye" and then return to be prosecuted and convicted for abuse of public office.

Warwick

scooby
Posts: 1544
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Agia Nr Chania

Re: The Will of the People

Postby scooby » Thu May 30, 2019 9:32 am

Men in suits will always make you pay.


Return to “Brexit and Living in Greece”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests