6 ms·

So you want the EU to intentionally cripple the UK's competitiveness in order to work towards your own moral values which maybe right or wrong? Though in these

by UK-AL 10y ago

So you want the EU to intentionally cripple the UK's competitiveness in order to work towards your own moral values which maybe right or wrong? Though in these particular cases my values are aligned with yours. However there are many cases where peoples values differ. You are using the supremacy EU laws to force your values on to them. If these values are truly universal there is nothing stopping you getting some form of treaty between all these countries anyway outside of the eu. Leaving other things more open. It's a very simple individuals/small groups vs large groups issue. There are two ways to resolve it. Allow each individual to make their own decision about it, or take a side and force your values on to everyone. Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. There's always a way around government regulation, so it's not really effective. There's always loop hole. So why do companies offer workers good conditions? Because they are forced to by competition. You solve the issues of companies treating workers badly by developing a surging economy not by laws. These 3rd world countries with sweatshops have actually gotten better standards then what came before. As spare capacity decreases companies are forced to offer better conditions. You can see this now, where in china companies are going elsewhere because workers demanding a lot more. Tax argument only works if you think government is more efficient with money in the first place.

kennydude 10y ago
> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. Hahahah, I'm sure companies like Sports Direct would love to hear that
- UK-AL 10y ago
  Yes. UK has well developed employment law compared to a lot of countries that's still heavily on the side of the employee in most cases. And yet there's still issues. There's always a way to fuck with you, no matter the laws. The solution is make the economy competitive for labour, by encouraging growth and skills. They will treat you well then, regardless the laws. If you can leave freely and companies are dependent on your skills they won't screw you around. The problem is that laws that proclaim to be on side of the employees makes the labour market less competitive for employees. Look at france, they have have absurdly strong labour laws and their employment rate is awful because of this.
  - PKop 10y ago
    And Spain http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-10/spain-economy-labor-laws/55507548/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-10/s...
    - Oletros 10y ago
      In Spain there has not been rigid labor laws for years
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    So which country in the world right now - or at any point in history - actually provides a system where any employee in the country can quit their job because they feel treated vaguely unfairly and expect to fall back on some sort of safety net, whether that's another job, education, or the dole? And then - how much does that cost the country? Frankly, some large amount of people get into terrible situations, and sometimes they do that no matter what help you give them. Therefore, unless somebody actively provides help to people when they're being fucked over by their workplace, you're always going to have a number of workers who simply don't have a choice - work for any number of companies that treat their employees badly, or starve. There's some countries which'll provide free higher education for some number of years, but AFAIK none will make sure your family don't starve while you're at it, and if you've already been through that and are still in a bad position... well, sucks to be you. We could eventually just say "if your employer is screwing you over, it's your fault", but that's not a wonderfully moral position to take IMHO, and can be used to justify all sorts of horrible things.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      Quite a few European countries have or have had no-fault safety nets. Even in the UK it used to be possible to just go on the dole and stay there, to the extent that it was step 1 of the KLF's "how to write a number 1" (music hit) guide. That has changed in past decades but it used to be a critical part of the UK's working class music culture.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
paol 10y ago
Setting aside whether "the EU intentionally cripples the UK's competitiveness", what would you expect the author (or anyone) to work toward if not their moral values?
- UK-AL 10y ago
  My values are to allow people to follow their own moral values independently of each other. Push the decisions as far down as possible. Not to use a higher authority to force them to comply with my values.
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    Subsidiarity. He addressed it.
    - UK-AL 10y ago
      He didn't really address it. He's comment straight after is enlightening. "When I hear politicians on the Leave side talk about sovereignty, I am again suspicious. What I hear is, “I want unfettered power.” But unfettered power for the Boris Johnsons of this world is not in my best interests or the best interests of the UK, which is why I shall vote for the fetters." Which means I don't agree with boris Johnson(Despite people voting for him) so I want my values forced on the people who voted for him by a higher power. Ignoring the fact the higher power maybe even worse. You have no idea who could be control of the EU in 20 years time. Your just moving trust from one set of people, to another set of people. Your problem is still there.
      - JulianMorrison 10y ago
        Another way of putting this would be: Where does the subsidiarity max out? I mean, the minimum is just, you are free to decide yourself. Above that, your local council, above that maybe a city mayor, above that parliament - basically the PM and the cabinet, the other MPs rarely rebel. This is the Boris Johnson as post Brexit PM level. If we Brexit, the buck stops here, this is the maximum. If we don't, there's the EU over that (which presumably has internal regional subsidiarity too, but I'm not good enough at civics to know how). So it's reasonable to distinguish "I don't like Boris" from "Boris ought not to be where the subsidiarity maxes out, some decisions are better taken over his head."
europeansoft 10y ago
> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. There is nothing keeping them from colluding to keep wages down then. Apart from the government, that is...
- kazinator 10y ago
  Not only keeping wages down, but imposing long work hours and poor work conditions: unsafe, unhealthful. Not to mention employing children who ought to be in school. It's legislation which prevents such abuses.
- actionwords 10y ago
  Or, ya know, the government and corporations can collude to keep wages down via immigration.
pyrale 10y ago
> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Do they, though ? Companies treat some workers that are scarce well. For most, however, companies treat them as well as the law forces them to.
dijit 10y ago
>Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. There's always away around government regulation, so it's not really effective. There's always loop hole. So why do companies offer workers good conditions? Because they are forced to by competition. interesting point, removing free movement of labour definitely decreases the competitiveness of companies to incentivise their roles, otherwise people have a significantly larger pool of possible companies to work for.
DasIch 10y ago
How good companies treat employees without regulation doesn't have to be imagined, it can be seen quite well in the USA. Even just a short look shows that companies treat employees like shit, if not forced by the government not to.
yarrel 10y ago
> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. Assuming economic rationality then arguing that people ignore incentives is incoherent.

by UK-AL 10y ago

kennydude 10y ago

> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. Hahahah, I'm sure companies like Sports Direct would love to hear that

UK-AL 10y ago
Yes. UK has well developed employment law compared to a lot of countries that's still heavily on the side of the employee in most cases. And yet there's still issues. There's always a way to fuck with you, no matter the laws. The solution is make the economy competitive for labour, by encouraging growth and skills. They will treat you well then, regardless the laws. If you can leave freely and companies are dependent on your skills they won't screw you around. The problem is that laws that proclaim to be on side of the employees makes the labour market less competitive for employees. Look at france, they have have absurdly strong labour laws and their employment rate is awful because of this.
- PKop 10y ago
  And Spain http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-10/spain-economy-labor-laws/55507548/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-10/s...
  - Oletros 10y ago
    In Spain there has not been rigid labor laws for years
- vertex-four 10y ago
  So which country in the world right now - or at any point in history - actually provides a system where any employee in the country can quit their job because they feel treated vaguely unfairly and expect to fall back on some sort of safety net, whether that's another job, education, or the dole? And then - how much does that cost the country? Frankly, some large amount of people get into terrible situations, and sometimes they do that no matter what help you give them. Therefore, unless somebody actively provides help to people when they're being fucked over by their workplace, you're always going to have a number of workers who simply don't have a choice - work for any number of companies that treat their employees badly, or starve. There's some countries which'll provide free higher education for some number of years, but AFAIK none will make sure your family don't starve while you're at it, and if you've already been through that and are still in a bad position... well, sucks to be you. We could eventually just say "if your employer is screwing you over, it's your fault", but that's not a wonderfully moral position to take IMHO, and can be used to justify all sorts of horrible things.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Quite a few European countries have or have had no-fault safety nets. Even in the UK it used to be possible to just go on the dole and stay there, to the extent that it was step 1 of the KLF's "how to write a number 1" (music hit) guide. That has changed in past decades but it used to be a critical part of the UK's working class music culture.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

paol 10y ago

Setting aside whether "the EU intentionally cripples the UK's competitiveness", what would you expect the author (or anyone) to work toward if not their moral values?

UK-AL 10y ago
My values are to allow people to follow their own moral values independently of each other. Push the decisions as far down as possible. Not to use a higher authority to force them to comply with my values.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Subsidiarity. He addressed it.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    He didn't really address it. He's comment straight after is enlightening. "When I hear politicians on the Leave side talk about sovereignty, I am again suspicious. What I hear is, “I want unfettered power.” But unfettered power for the Boris Johnsons of this world is not in my best interests or the best interests of the UK, which is why I shall vote for the fetters." Which means I don't agree with boris Johnson(Despite people voting for him) so I want my values forced on the people who voted for him by a higher power. Ignoring the fact the higher power maybe even worse. You have no idea who could be control of the EU in 20 years time. Your just moving trust from one set of people, to another set of people. Your problem is still there.
    - JulianMorrison 10y ago
      Another way of putting this would be: Where does the subsidiarity max out? I mean, the minimum is just, you are free to decide yourself. Above that, your local council, above that maybe a city mayor, above that parliament - basically the PM and the cabinet, the other MPs rarely rebel. This is the Boris Johnson as post Brexit PM level. If we Brexit, the buck stops here, this is the maximum. If we don't, there's the EU over that (which presumably has internal regional subsidiarity too, but I'm not good enough at civics to know how). So it's reasonable to distinguish "I don't like Boris" from "Boris ought not to be where the subsidiarity maxes out, some decisions are better taken over his head."

europeansoft 10y ago

> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. There is nothing keeping them from colluding to keep wages down then. Apart from the government, that is...

kazinator 10y ago
Not only keeping wages down, but imposing long work hours and poor work conditions: unsafe, unhealthful. Not to mention employing children who ought to be in school. It's legislation which prevents such abuses.
actionwords 10y ago
Or, ya know, the government and corporations can collude to keep wages down via immigration.

pyrale 10y ago

> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Do they, though ? Companies treat some workers that are scarce well. For most, however, companies treat them as well as the law forces them to.

dijit 10y ago

>Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. There's always away around government regulation, so it's not really effective. There's always loop hole. So why do companies offer workers good conditions? Because they are forced to by competition. interesting point, removing free movement of labour definitely decreases the competitiveness of companies to incentivise their roles, otherwise people have a significantly larger pool of possible companies to work for.

DasIch 10y ago

How good companies treat employees without regulation doesn't have to be imagined, it can be seen quite well in the USA. Even just a short look shows that companies treat employees like shit, if not forced by the government not to.

yarrel 10y ago

> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not because the government forces their hand. Assuming economic rationality then arguing that people ignore incentives is incoherent.