Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[JimC]

Schools in England have been instructed not to use material for teaching from groups that have said they believe capitalism should end.

A new government document lists anti-capitalist views alongside racism and the desire to overthrow democracy as "an extreme political stance".

https://news.sky.com/story/english-scho ... g-12084043

That is pretty crazy. I can see some point in restricting material that advocates for violent revolution, at least as school project material, but anti-capitalist views, or advocating the end of capitalism by non-violent means (AKA Brianism) should not be subject to such censorship...

[pErvinalia]

Brianism..

[JimC]

[laklak]

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow

[JimC]

But it's absolutely fian
To carry pictures of Chairman Brian...

[Hermit]

[Brian Peacock]

Oh, you guys.

The restriction applies to personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) lessons, which is a mandatory, non-examination subject that all students over 14 have to take for two years. Not only covering things like sex ed and relationships (there's a vocal religious fundamentalist push to get that struck from the curriculum btw), it's also supposed to explore things like LGBTQ, disability, different faith practices, race/racism issues etc with a view to increasing the understanding and tolerance of different perspectives. It's typical of the snowflake fash to get jittery when people start talking about what society is, how it operates, and why it is the way it is.

[Brian Peacock]

The zombification of Britain
Why Rishi got it wrong
Britain’s chancellor should not have extended the furlough scheme

Imagine if, 20 years ago, the British government had vowed to protect every job in the country. Today an extra 30,000 Britons would be working as high-street travel agents, 30,000 or so would earn their crust by repairing fax machines, and 40,000 would still be stacking shelves and ringing the tills in Woolworths, a chain of stores that went bust in 2009.

Allowing obsolete jobs to wither and new ones to blossom is one of the main ways in which capitalist economies get richer and more productive. Governments interfere with this process of creative destruction at their peril. That is why the direction that Britain is taking in its efforts to mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic is so mistaken.

Since March Britain has been shielding workers and their families from the ruinous effects of the pandemic primarily through its furlough scheme, which pays 80% of workers’ salaries. Britain’s approach is similar to that of other European countries, but its scheme is more generous than those elsewhere. In the deepest days of lockdown, close to 10m workers—a third of the labour force—were benefiting from it. More than twice as many Britons remain furloughed as Italians, Germans or French.

...

But the [furlough scheme] makes it more likely that the government will protect jobs for which there is no demand. The economy is changing fast. Fewer sandwich-sellers will be needed in city centres in future, since more people will work from home. The growth of online shopping, and the decline of the bricks-and-mortar sort, has accelerated. At least 1m jobs supported by the new furlough scheme, representing about 3% of the workforce, are unlikely to survive in the long run.

The cost of supporting these jobs, which is probably around £1bn a month, is a problem in itself. But in a world in which the budget deficit is that size every day it is a minor one. What is more worrying is the likelihood that the government is retarding economic recovery by discouraging the reallocation of workers from dying industries to growing ones. It is leaving the country stuck with the post-pandemic equivalent of fax-repairmen and Woolies’ sales staff...

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/ ... t-it-wrong (PAYWALL)

What industries are growing at the moment?

In his book Bullshit Jobs David Graeber puts work into two broad categories: caring work, and managerial work. Caring work is anything that is done for the benefit of other people: emergency services, refuse collection, water, sewage and energy supply, childcare, education, medical care and nursing services, catering, deliveries, construction and maintenance work etc. Basically all those people we referred to as 'key workers' during the first stages of the pandemic but whose employment has been increasingly casualised over the last 20 years or so. Managerial job are not productive in themselves he argues - they merely exist to organise the productive work of others, and these managerial jobs are often managed in increasingly tall hierarchies of managers managing managers managing managers... These are the kind of jobs that can be easily done from home, and coincidentally the kind of logistics and paper-pushing work that AI can brought in to handle more effectively.

I think the Economist believes that it's the managerial work that will continue in the brave new post-pandemic world while the labour market of actual productive work must be subject to the 'balancing' forces of the market. You know, "I'm working from home so there's no need for sandwich sellers at the train station any more."

[Scot Dutchy]

Who is controlling working conditions at home? Working conditions here are strictly controlled by the Labour Inspectorate. It is a cheap way out for employers to demand workers to work at home.

[JimC]

From all accounts working from home (for those whose jobs allow it) has been very successful here. Both my boys and their partners have been doing it for months (Annie, Nick's partner is a teacher, so she's back at school now). It worked particularly well for Clare in her pregnancy, not having to commute. The boys miss having face-to-face interaction with colleagues, but reckon it would be perfect if they continued to work from home 2 - 3 days a week.

Articles in the paper have suggested that employers have been pleasantly surprised by productivity not dropping, or in some cases increasing, and the forecast is for a fair amount of it to remain post-covid. It will certainly have a useful effect on traffic congestion and fuel consumption...

[Scot Dutchy]

Jim it is exploitation. Costs employers nothing. As a programmer I could easily work at home and I did now and again. My office was so comfortable and quiet. I loved it. Our rooms were only for two and my room mate was a part-timer. She was also super intelligent (Doctor in mathematics). We had great offices and a great company restaurant.
According to our Labour Inspectorate working at home unless you can create a totally different environment is bad mentally. The use of satellite offices is a preferred option.

[JimC]

It has the potential for exploitation, but all I know is that it worked brilliantly for our boys during lockdown, to the extent that they want to continue to have a mixture of at home/at the office work in future, and that this has been a very common response all over Oz.

[Sean Hayden]

I'll take the home option every time. Fuck driving to work to do what I can at home. I can't even imagine where you see exploitation.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm telling you, these Europeans man. You thought AOC was bad for stealing your Amazon money, these guys won't even let you work from home!

[pErvinalia]

I'll take the home option every time. Fuck driving to work to do what I can at home. I can't even imagine where you see exploitation.

Well the employer doesn't have to maintain a safe working environment. It's up to the worker to ensure that. And if they don't, for whatever reason (for eg. cost), then they put themselves at risk.