Paul Parkinson
42K posts
Paul Parkinson
@pjpcfp
A self-employed professional with an interest in politics and economics.
UK เข้าร่วม Mart 2011
842 กำลังติดตาม620 ผู้ติดตาม
@THemingford How do customers secure extra disposable income enough to purchase extra goods/services if the cost of the latter increases in price at least as much as, if not more than, the rise in their disposable income due to the pay of the providers of those goods/services also going up?
English
Customers are the economy.
If they have no disposable income, nothing works.
20+ years of pay not keeping up doesn’t just hurt people - it undermines and breaks the entire system.
English
@THemingford So you want disposable income to increase more than the increase in the cost of goods & services that they consume but which are provided by people who also want their disposable income to increase? How?
English
Businesses need customers. That's people.
But, increasingly, more and more people have less of no disposable income.
When pay doesn't keep up for over 20 years, it breaks everything.
English
A great rule of thumb in life: if you've nothing helpful to say, STFU.
English
@THemingford It’s a circular argument. If normally I charge you £100 for me to do X for you & you charge me £100 for you to do Y for me. If we then decide to increase our respective charges to £200 each we have doubled our turnovers but still have the same residual balance in our bank a/cs.
English
Higher wages are often framed as a "cost to business".
In reality, they are also revenue for business.
Workers are customers.
Suppress incomes long enough and you suppress your own market.
English
@THemingford Simply increasing wages doesn’t solve the problem. Sweden has high wages, but equally high cost of living to pay for it; hence unemployment recently hit 9.4% and 16% of households are likely to meet the 60% of median earnings definition of poverty as cited by The Borgen Project.
English
When wages lag behind living costs, consumption falls.
When consumption falls, businesses lose customers.
When businesses lose customers, growth stalls.
This is not ideology - it is basic demand-side economics.
English
@THemingford What if their skill set does not warrant higher pay?
English
If millions on Universal Credit are working, the issue isn't dependency, it's pay. When wages don't cover basic living costs, the state ends up topping them up.
Katie Lam@Katie_Lam_MP
Britain is home to 43.4 million working age people. 8.4 million are now on Universal Credit. That's nearly 1 in 5 people relying on benefits. And that number is only growing, meaning that hard-working people will end up paying even more tax in future. This cannot go on.
English
@Heccles94 They would move the higher paid staff to a separate company to avoid the comparison.
English
Awesome Green Policy 🔥
We are not messsing around!
‘The introduction of a 10:1 pay ratio, whereby the highest-paid employee earns no more than ten times the lowest-paid’
Let’s go 💚
English
@THemingford That’s because taxpayers have no say in the benchmarking of MP’s pay. In the real world, customers do have a say by withdrawing their custom. How many cafe’s would survive if they had to increase prices to be able to afford to pay their cooks the same as fine-dining chefs earn?
English
People ask why MP pay has gone up.
The better question is why most wages have not.
One is protected and uprated.
The other has been exposed to erosion for 20+ years.
English
@Helen_Barnard What would likely happen is that the business’s top earners would be employed by a separate legal entity to the rest of the employees, and thereby thwart the comparison.
English
Overall, creating a legal ratio between top and bottom earners always feels like a policy to make people feel better rather than one that would create real economic changes that would make those at the bottom better off.
4/4
English
Imposing a wage ratio between lowest & highest paid fraught with practical problems:
1. We have a tool to raise wages at the bottom: evidence suggests pushing UK min wage higher than 2/3 median carries high risk of increasing unemployment esp for disadvantaged groups...1/4
English
@THemingford Simply paying everybody more is futile because the cost of living increases too.
English
For over 20 years, pay has not kept up.
And the rate at which it has fallen behind has increased.
To imagine this can just continue is national self-harm.
It affects everyone.
English
@Boe12986 @NoKingCharlie A tenant doesn’t pay market rent when they have also paid a lease premium. That thick as excreta anti-monarchist struggles with technical details.
English
@NoKingCharlie Andrew lives on the King's private estate so that is the King's business. Edward is a working royal doing regular royal visits and engagements, his Crown Estate property comes with his job
English
THey are all on benefit and living in social housing
celebitchy.com/971745/
English
@Heccles94 You do spout utter drivel. Are you seriously alleging that the Peabody Trust, which operates as a community benefit society and urban regeneration agency, is in a feudal relationship with its 220,000 tenants?
English
@JackieMayes5 It is my understanding the trusts were used to create an “interest in possession” (IIP) for the Duke and a “beneficial interest” for The Crown” (TC). Should at any time there be no Duke, then the IIP reverts to TC and the Sovereign Grant reduces by an amount equal to the IIP.
English
@pjpcfp @RepublicStaff The duchy assets do not belong to the crown. They are private trusts.
English
So let's get this straight, William is charging the government money for unusable wasteland on Duchy land, but the Duchies aren't even his. They're our land.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. #AbolishTheMonarchy #DitchTheDuchies
Canary@TheCanaryUK
Prince William is making millions from taxpayer money renting out HMP Dartmoor - a wildlife-infested pit filled with radon gas thecanary.co/uk/analysis/20…
English
@SimonHarrisMBD Why should such feckless parents retain custody of their children?
English
Even if a child’s parents abuse drugs and alcohol to the extent that they cannot feed them breakfast and lunch, that isn’t the child’s fault whatsoever, so why should they be punished by a lack of free breakfast clubs and free school meals?
English
@zukham @Heccles94 £37600 p.a. pay = £2,000 Class 1 national Insurance Contributions.
English
@Heccles94 I am sure you have thoroughly done your research. But the £2000/annum/worker figure still seems quite high.
English
The average worker pays £2,000 per year in national insurance
That means that 800,000 of us have had our national insurance used to line the pockets of private CEOs.
Did you consent to that?
English
@THemingford You cannot be taken seriously with your view on the economic situation we are in.
English
You cannot be taken seriously if you take Nigel Farage seriously.
English