General Election - Who do we vote for

It isn't working as well as you make out.

Germany, according to the FT "has the highest proportion of low-wage workers relative to the national median income in western Europe". Falsely inflating wages for some workers means that others suffer within the same business.

In the Auto industry, for example, artificially high wages means that there are 100,000 temporary workers and 250,000 contract workers that work alongside the 770,000 employees. The VW boss is infuriated with the government for fixing some wages and would prefer the collective bargaining as a better option. He threatens that production may have to be moved overseas if it continues.

Contrary to what you say, I understand that immigrant workers/tradesman, are still be employed on lower wages than the minimum's set for the trade, by utilizing temp contractors.

As yet, there is no Minimum Wage in Germany, but yet may be implemented next year. Why would it be necessary, if the current structure is already working so well?

 

Don't try and number fudge me, this just means there are more workers and fewer bosses, the actually standard of living of those in low paid jobs has always been relatively high compared to ours.

Those temp figures aren't particularly shocking, it's actually much worse over here and always driven by the desire of bigger profits. So what you actually mean is that the VW boss would like VW to make more money, how surprising! He won't move them abroad though, Germany is still their biggest single market and believe me, German customers are far more likely to react to such a move as we would.

Germany has been fighting a running battle with those temping contractors for years but naturally they are always a step behind as new ways are found to abuse the system, at least (unlike ours) their system does fight back. The introduction of the minimum wage will be another step towards that, traditionally it wasn't really needed, German bosses have mostly been fair to their workers.

 

I'm still unable to recognise one single net benefit to being in that could not be agreed or adopted by us by being out.
Every single argument for staying in still seems to be a supposition on how bad it could be if we opted out. I am happy to acknowledge that Europe does have some positives, but anything that has been promoted in this discussion as a plus for Europe can be adopted by us as a separate country without the extra bureaucracy and cost.

Let's not fall into the politicians trap of rubbishing everything else rather than bigging up your own policies.

Outside of Europe we can make our own laws and trade agreements, those best for our country.

We can police our own waters, preventing european fisherman plundering our stocks and ignoring the quotas that Europe have applied to our fisherman out of business. I am for sustainable management of quotas, but our quotas on our fish.

We can refuse entry to and kick out of the country, criminals and other undesirables without infringing their "Human rights".

We can continue to refuse to offer prisoners on long term sentences the right to vote without risk of legal sanctions imposed on us.

We can ignore financial meddling and the proposition of a financial tax on LSE business from a body that has failed to successfully get it's own accounts signed off by auditors for the last 20 years running.

We can save the millions of pounds a day it costs us to be a member.

These are just a few positives arguments for leaving.

 

The ECHR has no problem with that principle. The problem is the government refuses to let any prisoner vote.

 

You forgot 'we can stand back and watch as Frankfurt takes full control of Europe's financial markets'.

 

Went to vote today, was C the right answer?

 

I dont need to try and fudge anything! The fact that they used the 'median' rather than the average or mode, means that the proportion of workers to managers makes absolutely no difference (basic A-Level Statistics).

The rest of your post demonstrates that things in Germany are not as perfect as you initially made out.

Thanks.

There is one benefit of the EU free movement of labour. When are you going to Germany?

 

[h=2][/h] No it was Shot B, Jimmy White in the World championship 1987.

 

I'm afraid it does as a byproduct when assuming that average company chiefs earn more purely on account of the size of their enterprises rather than profit per employee. Why use medians in the first place, they demonstrate little without showing the maths?

 

It's not fair to compare the median salary of Western Europe with the lowest paid of a single country - the costs of living will be entirely different.

Our salaries may be higher, but in real terms even the highest earners in this country are poor when you consider what you get for your money, particularly in the South East.

 

You really need to either go back to school, or admit that you are wrong.

When using the median, it doesn't matter whether the top 10% (for example) of earners are earning £30k each or £30m each. The median stays the exactly same. The 'median' is not the 'average'.

Your denying the truth takes the discussion away from what we should be talking about.

 

You can shift a median along rightwards by adding more managers, however, which was his original point.

Edit: [Having read it, it was the opposite of his original point - the worker:management ratio would be lower]

 

Actually all it tells me, SHOCK HORROR! is that the German GDP is higher than most other European countries.... have the Romans invaded Britain yet?

 

[THornmeister;960861]I'm still unable to recognise one single net benefit to being in that could not be agreed or adopted by us by being out.
Every single argument for staying in still seems to be a supposition on how bad it could be if we opted out. I am happy to acknowledge that Europe does have some positives, but anything that has been promoted in this discussion as a plus for Europe can be adopted by us as a separate country without the extra bureaucracy and cost.

Let's not fall into the politicians trap of rubbishing everything else rather than bigging up your own policies.

Outside of Europe we can make our own laws and trade agreements, those best for our country.

We can police our own waters, preventing european fisherman plundering our stocks and ignoring the quotas that Europe have applied to our fisherman out of business. I am for sustainable management of quotas, but our quotas on our fish.

We can refuse entry to and kick out of the country, criminals and other undesirables without infringing their "Human rights".

We can continue to refuse to offer prisoners on long term sentences the right to vote without risk of legal sanctions imposed on us.

We can ignore financial meddling and the proposition of a financial tax on LSE business from a body that has failed to successfully get it's own accounts signed off by auditors for the last 20 years running.

We can save the millions of pounds a day it costs us to be a member.

These are just a few positives arguments for leaving.[/QUOTE]

1. Negotiation is two way process. We might want to best treaties, whether other people are inclined to give it is another matter.
2. There are already rules on fishing but people ignore them. Because we aren't in the eu, people won't automatically start following the rules
3. We can kick people out. BUT, last time I checked, the EU was a compeletly different entity To the court of human rights? Its like leaving the UN because you're unhappy FIFA increases the price of milk?
4. We already and continue and are allowed to continue withholding the vote to prisoners, although I admire your chutzpah in claiming you speak for 100% of people in saying this is a good thing.
5. We can ignore a law yet to be passed, that we are already exempt from? Great
6. A few million spent to generate more millions? Okay!

 

You really have no understanding of statistics have you! If you are trying to rubbish other posts, it would have been sensible to know what you are talking about, surely.

 

I look at the EU as a value investment, I.e. buy at the bottom and wait for it to flourish. The world is globalising. To go anti-globalisation, anti-free trade and movement at a time when Europe is improving is counter productive. Like a developing country, we have a block that has vast amounts of cheap materials, goods and labour that are beginning to emerge because they are part of the EU.

With the increased capital and financial security, the governments are starting to take on vast scale projects, introducing broadband, increasing transport and improving education. Only two countries in Europe are not predicted to grow. Pulling out now would be to put all the hard work in when times were bad, and then lose out on any positives the EU can give when it is starting to recover.

I’m not saying the EU is perfect. Far from it. But why pull out when we can influence and change laws from within? Why give up on it now?

If there was any real economic/ political gain from pulling out of the EU, which would be a very popular political move on the streets, it would have been done years ago.

 

Explain this bit "relative to the national median income in western Europe" and then tell me WTF the statistic means if it's not that each lower paid worker receives a smaller pecentage of GDP compared to those in poorer countries? In case you haven't noticed Germany's standard of living and their infrastructure etc. is a little better that Portugal or Greeces.

IMO you're trying to make a useless point so SHOW ME THE MONEY! and I might believe you!!! Why can't they use the mean average like any sane person would? and I suggest you know exactly why!

As I said before .... Number fudging!

 

It means more workers in Germany earn significantly less than the average income of the whole of Western Europe, compared to any other Western European country.

 

For heaven's sake! So do ours and by a lot more I would bet!!!

 

Well clearly not because the data says Germany's is the "highest" proportion. It implies there is a higher percentage of 'low income' workers in Germany than in the UK.

Whether or not ours deviates more is a completely different discussion. It is possible that we have less people earning below Western Europes median income, but these "fewer people" may earn far less than Germany's "a lot of people" earning below the Western Europe's median income. E.g. If WE's median is £25k, we may have 10% 'low income' workers who earn an average of £12k between them, conversely Germany may have 20% 'low income' workers earning an average of £15k between them.

 

Another argument not to leave is that it would be hugely damaging to the EU. Referendum or not, we have everything to lose from decreasing confidence in a block which contributes massively to our economy.

 

highest proportion of the median ... but what's that in real terms? is all I ask

 

@ Mike, getting too big to quote. So I'll sumarise your views on the points I;ve raised and answer the questions raised

It's fine to pick holes in the advantages I've stated. I'm open to begin convinced but a lot of what you put is what might happen. I emplore you to state positive reasons for staying in, not negatives about opting out. No Pro European has managed to do that yet. I wonder why?

If we are talking about possibilities however:
We might actually be able to get better trade deals not necessarily worse. We certainly had better ones with commonwealth countries before.

Scottish people have a right to fish Scottish waters if they go independent. They should be able to fish these waters and not be prevented in doing so because quotas have already been used up by the whole of the EU fleet.

I'm actually against closing the borders. I would like free movement of people within Europe with a proviso that we can exclude people convicted of serious crime and people on terrorist watch lists. For me Immigration is not the driver to leave Europe. Those border controls already exist for non EU members.

Re Prisoners - don't care. They have given up their rights by infringing on someone elses. A recent poll showed that the majority of the population agrees that prisoners do not deserve voting rights.

If the Tobin tax is introduced financial trade will move away from the LSE to Hong Kong, Dubai or the US. There will be a net drain of jobs and support employment off the back of it.

 

It means that there is more people on low incomes in Germany than anywhere else in Western Europe.

 

I dare say there are more people working in Germany than anywhere else but you have to consider that the average wage in places like latvia will not be much and the spread will be much lower top to bottom in financial terms. I.E. most bosses won't be high earners themselves. Their lowest earning workers will still have to eat though, they can't pay them nothing.

 

By proportion it's a % of the population = 100 x (Number on Low Incomes)/(Population Size) so the number of people working is irrelevant.

It's the median is probably calculated using the incomes of Spain, Italy, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and so on.

Latvia isn't in Western Europe.

 

True but then I wouldn't trust them not to be included in this figure nor Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc.... The press aren't too reliable with facts IMO.
Even so Spain, Portugal, Greece, Albania, even Italy and to a lesser extent France, all keep their poor in relative poverty, average wages are considerably lower than in Germany as far as buying power goes.

 

I'm not going to try and be your teacher. As I said, go back to school. CSE Statistics should do it.

The median is used regularly in these sorts of matters. For example, the new German minimum wage will probably be set at 50% of the median wage.

Using the median isn't fudging the numbers, it is just using something that you don't understand.

Bless.

Just another FT titbit for you. Did you know that Germany's growth in productivity (per hour worked) is a quarter less than the OECD average. They say that it is no wonder that they are competing by reducing wages relatively and moving production East.

 

Good point.

 

It would be impossible for Germany to keep pace with developing countries, or a boom and bust nation exiting from a depression for that matter. Once again your figures are pretty meaningless.

 

I do completely understand the points you make, and certainly agree with the principle behind some of them. The reason most people argue against leaving than for staying is because massive upheaval obviously brings greater risks. If the status quo is to be diverged from in a time when our economy is recovering, it better be for an incredibly good reason. My own personal opinion is that the reasons to stay are more important than the reasons to pull out, I don't really care about the laws argument because it has never affected me and I value personal freedom and the economy above all other matters.

In my economy post (on the previous page I believe, but it's hard to keep track!) I do give points of why I believe we are better in the EU as well as reasons why it would be dangerous to leave. Summarised, it is cheaper to import due to economies of scale, gives companies more incentives to set up/start in Britain, more competition which leads to more choice and cheaper products, more effective labour, more jobs, more ethical. If we manage to get a better trade deal after affectively deglobalising ourselves, it would be an economic anomaly rather than something that should be expected.

I completely agree with you about the regulation of our financial services, and we will not accept that as a country. I think that Cameron will use the threat of the referendum to get a much more advantageous situation than now. He wants more economic reforms, completing the single market, cutting back regulation and giving national parliaments more say, which I would be satisfied with as a negotiation.

I am certainly in the minority by standing up for the rights of prisoners I realise, but many journals show that dehumanising or taking away rights of prisoners make them far more likely to reoffend. I'd rather they had a few more freedoms and reintegrated into normal society when they are released, than to pay for them to continuously sit in a cell between more and more crimes committed. I also saw a poll a couple of years ago that showed that the average man on the street would reinstate the death penalty, so that does not surprise me whatsoever.


Oh and the fishing comment was more of a joke to say, quota or not, we are running out of sea in which to fish!

 

No, your comment indicates that you don't know what the OECD is either. (CSE in Economics. maybe).

The OECD doesn't include developing countries and the approximate figure remains the same back as far as the mid 90's and whether or not you include the "bubble years" for the UK and US.

 

It's not a good point, it's dismal logic. The benefits are obvious and have been stated on numerous occasions. The problem is you cannot imagine life without them so you discount them, freedom of movement, health cover, free trade, influence in the world and peace in Europe.

In addition we get law, mostly good law, law we can influence that applies throughout Europe. This is an immense benefit transactionally and socially.

But by all means pretend we can have all of this cake and eat it.

Maybe you could google a stat that suggests something else?

 

"CSE in Economics. maybe?"

GSE actually and well before the mid nineties .... History not quite your thing, is it?

Since then Germany has gone through a lot, the effects of unification for one thing and their own depression on top of that caused directly by the Anglo/American banks. As an industrial nation they are particularly affected by Chinese and Indian growth but I'd still bank on them coming through at the top of the European pile, adverse OECD figures or not. (and I always thought OECD was the constant need to wash your hands )


As I said, the FT's figures are meaningless, editorially they'll write anything to justify their [readers] desires.
This map paints a truer picture; how's your Geography ZZ?