This will be long, so congratulations if you actually get to the end...
unemployment numbers is based on total population of working age - those that are working.
indeed, salary is also a fickle subject, certainly I've worked in places where people have been held back individually as a wage balancing exercise, (when I say held back I mean raise that is less than inflation - or a real terms pay cut) not because they don't work hard, but because they are actually over paid.
As a country, we tend to always want more money, always want pay rises over and above inflation, but then it is pay rises that start driving inflation, and you get the wage/inflation spiral problem.
As for hotels, generally tourism revenues speak more of other countries problems than the country where the hotel is located. of course this rather depends on the type and location of the hotel.
And old people and their stocks, it's not really the economy that is gouging this income stream, it's the constant quantitative easing that is driving down the inflation. and thus driving down the returns on investment products (which offer money for doing nothing)
- but I am of the thoughts that those who bought stocks/shares/bonds knew the risks when they gambled their money, (because that's what investment is, a gamble on the stock exchange) it's never supposed to be a constant income, and I'd rather a few people found it harder than a whole country got into even worse trouble!! -i.e the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
If you picked a horrible stock portfolio full of risk and it went bad then sucks to be you.
if you thought that you could pick a really diverse and balanced portfolio hoping that you'd limit exposure to risk and that the economy overall would always go up, then sucks to be you
if you shoved all your money in a company that did really well and you made millions then bully for you.
facts are, if you bought stocks, if you bought an "investment product" if you paid into a stocks linked pension. you gambled. if that wasn't explained to you at the start then sue your advisor for lying to you. if it was explained to you, then general common sense should have informed you that gambling involves amounts of risk.
I prefer my own version (in my signature) at least it recognises that both extremes are equally shite as each other.
purely capitalist free market economies don't work, purely controlled economies don't work.
you'll find that in most "western" areas of the world we actually have a mixed economy anyway, regardless of whether you're in a governmentally "more left" or "more right" country.
and more or less, provided that the state only step in to provide the "free at point of access" services, (healthcare (whether that's NHS or medic(are/aid))/police/fire service/military/education/roads/refuse collection) and provided that the workers of the country, share the "socialist" spirit of this arrangement and all contribute fairly to these services then generally society works. (of course this fairly is defined as not equal amounts, but by equal ability to contribute).
the other place you want your government to step in is in controlling safety law. (e.g. workplace safety -to ensure that poor workers don't die), and monopolies law - to make sure that one company doesn't grow so big that they can ignore their "socialist responsibilities" and act with only their own interests in mind whilst screwing over Joe Public
British coal was dead.
British coal faces were all but used up
German coal was cheaper. (German coal was cheaper because it was more accessible and more plentiful)
in order to keep X million miners in work at Y amount of pay when shifting only Z amount of coal produced far less than X*Y then government had to subsidise the miners.
When it came to the point that it cost more to subsidise people to work (i.e. give additions to make up their wages) than it would to subsidise them not to work (i.e give them dole money) then they pulled the plug on the government assisted employment.
They way in which the cuts were made was mean, spiteful and vindictive. but still had to be done.
I.e 90% of people pay (collectively) less than 50% of tax.
BBC News - What do the rich give back to society?
face it, the education (before uni), infrastructure, municipal services, dentistry (even if that was just checkups), healthcare, - even your birth. you're already hugely indebted to our socialist system and statistically highly unlikely to even pay back that burden.
Of course the same is true in America, your state provided education, which is free at the point of access will in-debt you more to your country than you will likely ever be able to pay back. (again, unless the statistically highly unlikely happens and you become one of the top 1%)
that's rather unlikely, unemployment stats are not based on those receiving benefits for not working, or those that are registered with job centres as seeking work.Many are aware that the US unemployment rate dropped off to 7.8%. Someone I know said it's because the unemployed have given up looking for work.
unemployment numbers is based on total population of working age - those that are working.
the trouble with these assertions is, the housing market has been artificially inflated pretty much everywhere in the world now. who is to say that 35% less that you were expecting, or wanted is not actually still 35% more than the house is "worth".When you go to sell your house, and find it's worth 35% less than it should be worth, you may have a bad economy.
When salary increases by employers is constantly running 5% under what it should be, you may have a bad economy.
When month after month, year after year, the hotel, motel, resort businesses continue to report lower that expected revenue, you may have a bad economy.
When older folks can no longer count on a steady income from CD accounts, Bond Funds, and Treasury Notes, because the interest rates are too low to support income growth, you may have a bad economy.
indeed, salary is also a fickle subject, certainly I've worked in places where people have been held back individually as a wage balancing exercise, (when I say held back I mean raise that is less than inflation - or a real terms pay cut) not because they don't work hard, but because they are actually over paid.
As a country, we tend to always want more money, always want pay rises over and above inflation, but then it is pay rises that start driving inflation, and you get the wage/inflation spiral problem.
As for hotels, generally tourism revenues speak more of other countries problems than the country where the hotel is located. of course this rather depends on the type and location of the hotel.
And old people and their stocks, it's not really the economy that is gouging this income stream, it's the constant quantitative easing that is driving down the inflation. and thus driving down the returns on investment products (which offer money for doing nothing)
- but I am of the thoughts that those who bought stocks/shares/bonds knew the risks when they gambled their money, (because that's what investment is, a gamble on the stock exchange) it's never supposed to be a constant income, and I'd rather a few people found it harder than a whole country got into even worse trouble!! -i.e the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
If you picked a horrible stock portfolio full of risk and it went bad then sucks to be you.
if you thought that you could pick a really diverse and balanced portfolio hoping that you'd limit exposure to risk and that the economy overall would always go up, then sucks to be you
if you shoved all your money in a company that did really well and you made millions then bully for you.
facts are, if you bought stocks, if you bought an "investment product" if you paid into a stocks linked pension. you gambled. if that wasn't explained to you at the start then sue your advisor for lying to you. if it was explained to you, then general common sense should have informed you that gambling involves amounts of risk.
After all the political rhetoric, smoke, and BS, clears, it all boils down to this...
"The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
I prefer my own version (in my signature) at least it recognises that both extremes are equally shite as each other.
purely capitalist free market economies don't work, purely controlled economies don't work.
you'll find that in most "western" areas of the world we actually have a mixed economy anyway, regardless of whether you're in a governmentally "more left" or "more right" country.
and more or less, provided that the state only step in to provide the "free at point of access" services, (healthcare (whether that's NHS or medic(are/aid))/police/fire service/military/education/roads/refuse collection) and provided that the workers of the country, share the "socialist" spirit of this arrangement and all contribute fairly to these services then generally society works. (of course this fairly is defined as not equal amounts, but by equal ability to contribute).
the other place you want your government to step in is in controlling safety law. (e.g. workplace safety -to ensure that poor workers don't die), and monopolies law - to make sure that one company doesn't grow so big that they can ignore their "socialist responsibilities" and act with only their own interests in mind whilst screwing over Joe Public
Hate to breakup the party but here are the facts of the particular situation:Margarat thatcher was not just unpopular with people that wanted handouts ,your analysis of British political history is shockingly inaccurate . perhaps if you actually paid any attention to British history you would recall that some of those that formed her strongest opposition where in fact unionised members of the working class that didn't want their livelihood taken away from them , I would not describe those people as you did "It would be more accurate to say that she wasn't very popular with that segment of British society that wanted handouts"
British coal was dead.
British coal faces were all but used up
German coal was cheaper. (German coal was cheaper because it was more accessible and more plentiful)
in order to keep X million miners in work at Y amount of pay when shifting only Z amount of coal produced far less than X*Y then government had to subsidise the miners.
When it came to the point that it cost more to subsidise people to work (i.e. give additions to make up their wages) than it would to subsidise them not to work (i.e give them dole money) then they pulled the plug on the government assisted employment.
They way in which the cuts were made was mean, spiteful and vindictive. but still had to be done.
Unless you're in the top 10% of earners, you will always take handouts from the state. or at least you'll always take more than you give back.I have no intention of ever taking a handout from the state in my life .I dont think it is fair or respectful to label everyone who was or is an opponent of Margaret Thatcher a scrounger .
I.e 90% of people pay (collectively) less than 50% of tax.
BBC News - What do the rich give back to society?
face it, the education (before uni), infrastructure, municipal services, dentistry (even if that was just checkups), healthcare, - even your birth. you're already hugely indebted to our socialist system and statistically highly unlikely to even pay back that burden.
Of course the same is true in America, your state provided education, which is free at the point of access will in-debt you more to your country than you will likely ever be able to pay back. (again, unless the statistically highly unlikely happens and you become one of the top 1%)