So you don't think salaries in social care are too low?

Surely thats the whole point of the points-based system for immigration, to stop cheap labour from overseas coming over and allow our hard working British care workers to get a proper wage.

I dont think it's that simple
Sadly if wages are to rise, so will the cost of EVERYTHING that we consume, stoking further increases and further wage demands, just like the 70's.
Inflation - wage increases - inflation - wage increases and so it goes on
The key is to increase productivity in as many areas as possible, which in theory at least would allow us all to earn more (or line the pockets of those in charge).
High productivity and low inflation would make the stronger ecconomy but, it's an extremely difficult balancing act.

You do make me laugh with attempted insults, you keep posting your piffle if it gives you some solace in your self righteous tiny mind.

I am perfectly capable and happy to have reasoned, intelligent, discussion. unfortunately your left wing politics of envy preclude such possibilities.

Tax avoidance you say, who is avoiding tax, breaking the law, and not being prosecuted.....?

You call it envy, I call it looking after "the many".
I'm happy to be up here on the moral high ground, while you look after yourself and stuff the rest

If by increasing pay you encourage additional interest in the sector - great thing, if you simply increase the cost with no other benefit where does that leave you - a service in crisis would you not agree?

I ask you how does simply increasing pay improve the ability of the system to deal with increased volumes?

I think those of us "higher earners" contribute significantly more to the many - especially company owners with significant workforces. I don't mind it called doing my bit - so why having done that all my working life should I be further penalised when I need the very system that I have contributed to well above the norm for c45 years?

Ultimately, because you can afford to, when others cannot or, are less able to do so.
This is what would happen in a fully functioning family. However, in a fully functioning society, we prefer to have a few with plenty and the majority with a whole lot less and a system that propagates that situation.
It's designed to keep the masses "where they belong".

I've explained this to you before - the H&S Care sector is currently running at 100,000 vacancies, and recruiting to those vacancies is a nightmare; every single provider is grappling with it on a day to day basis. So whilst we might have 600 beds for example, I can only occupy 450 of them, because I don't have the staff to provide care for the other 150; so before you even consider increasing volume - we need to be able to use our existing capacity. And the main issue with recruitment is pay - because LA's don't pay us enough (because the H&S Care settlement from central govt has been cut by £3 billion since austerity was imposed) for the work we do, the sector is stuck on NLW, or thereabouts.

It does seem obvious that if you increase pay in a certain sector and not in others, more people will chose to work in the higher paid sector.
I think Sal is worried about having to break open his piggy bank

Its is designed to reward those with aptitude and ability and those who are tasked with managing risk. In business the more risk you manage the more you get paid. I have yet find a family where the money gets put in a pot and everyone gets the same share - it simply doesn't happen.

In your world the MD should earn what the cleaner earns i.e. he sacrifices so others can prosper - what is the incentive to progress? Why should anyone risk everything to start a business to simply end up with the same as those that haven't? It is the reason that socialism doesn't function outside of the text book. Capitalism has many challenges but we have yet to find a system that generates wealth in anything like the same multiple. The world has moved on massively since the industrial revolution and the Genesis of Capitalism.

You - as usual - are not reading what I put - if we increase pay and it encourages greater interest in people wanting to access the service fantastic - if it doesn't all that has happened is we have simply increased the cost of delivering exactly the same. Why do you find that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Another one who struggles with reading and comprehension



I pay what the industry dictates - shortage of HGV drivers - if I want to retain them then I need to give them an incentive to want to work for me - money is one element but its not the most important.

This is the issue for providers; NLW keeps going up - along with all the associated costs of operating in the sector - but year on year, because they're skint, LA's award a trifling inflationary uplift to their weekly fees, which in no way matches the costs. I have had 4 LA's already notify that they are awarding an inflationary uplift of less than 1%, and 1 has written to advise they are awarding 0% - which is real terms decrease. With that in mind, increasing wages to address the recruitment crisis is next to impossible.

As I have said many times - the sector is a looming crisis - and if it goes bang, the societal fallout will be impossible to manage; culturally, we don't look after our sick and disabled relatives at home, so if there was a sudden and urgent need to do that, we wouldn't cope.

I completely agree with your post - we need more investment/resource into a growing sector = the only way is increased taxation but the additional revenues need investing correctly to deliver the returns in improved capacity and quality of care.

I often wrestle with the morality of a for-profit care sector - despite the fact that it's where I derive the majority of my income; in some ways, one could argue that with the profit motive removed, the sector could do more with what it has. Unfortunately, that ship sailed many years ago, and I see no LA with the appetite to bring those services back in-house - and the Conservative Govt, despite its new socialist leanings, would probably rather die in a ditch before it even considered renationalising care services.

Once the people in the NHS decide to work efficiently then may e we could look at renationalising care, I am not holding my breath.

Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is ‘just’ problematic.



How optimally do you think capitalism in the UK or Western developed nations more generally is working, by its own standards, in offering the whole of society appropriate incentives and opportunities to optimise economic performance at the whole population level? Ignoring concepts of fairness and equality (though their lack could be considered demotivating for many) and focusing purely on efficiency. You mention the many challenges faced by capitalism, and any system will have misalignments and distortions in the real world. What reforms do you see as desirable?

Capitalism is working fine - is the average standard of living of the population as a whole is still increasing. Standard of living is just about how much you earn. Do you have improving medical facilities, clinical techniques and more effective pharma? Are the roads better, do we have access to better housing stock, do we have cheap clean utilities etc.

Where are the challenges - a better spread of wealth, maintaining income post working age, the impact on the environment etc. Reduction in buying stuff - we seem to have a very disposable attitude to material items - look at the amount of clothes we all have?

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Capitalism is working fine - is the average standard of living of the population as a whole is still increasing. Standard of living is just about how much you earn. Do you have improving medical facilities, clinical techniques and more effective pharma? Are the roads better, do we have access to better housing stock, do we have cheap clean utilities etc. Where are the challenges - a better spread of wealth, maintaining income post working age, the impact on the environment etc. Reduction in buying stuff - we seem to have a very disposable attitude to material items - look at the amount of clothes we all have?'" You see, we’re not so far apart on some things. I’ve got poop to do now, but I might start a new thread based on this (quite long) article from the FT. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d47 ... 7ebd53ab77 It makes a good point about renter/rent-seeking behaviours, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Capitalism is working fine - is the average standard of living of the population as a whole is still increasing. Standard of living is just about how much you earn. Do you have improving medical facilities, clinical techniques and more effective pharma? Are the roads better, do we have access to better housing stock, do we have cheap clean utilities etc. Where are the challenges - a better spread of wealth, maintaining income post working age, the impact on the environment etc. Reduction in buying stuff - we seem to have a very disposable attitude to material items - look at the amount of clothes we all have?'" You see, we’re not so far apart on some things. I’ve got poop to do now, but I might start a new thread based on this (quite long) article from the FT. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d47 ... 7ebd53ab77 It makes a good point about renter/rent-seeking behaviours, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Quote ="Mild Rover"You see, we’re not so far apart on some things. I’ve got poop to do now, but I might start a new thread based on this (quite long) article from the FT. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d47 ... 7ebd53ab77 It makes a good point about renter/rent-seeking behaviours, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking'" I would agree of all the left-facing posters on here you are the most sensible.

Quote ="Mild Rover"You see, we’re not so far apart on some things. I’ve got poop to do now, but I might start a new thread based on this (quite long) article from the FT. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d47 ... 7ebd53ab77 It makes a good point about renter/rent-seeking behaviours, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking'" I would agree of all the left-facing posters on here you are the most sensible.

Although it would give the ecconomy a further shock, for the long term sustainably of the planet, we will either have to reduce the population and/or reduce consumption, which just doesn't fit with the capitalist model.
Remembering that the vast majority of the population in Asia, which is a huge and increasing percentage of overall population would generally be though of being at the poorer end of the financial spectrum and that they too will all aspire to the trappings of success ie house, car, improved standard of living etc, just where will the resources come from to provide this, not to mention the dreaded carbon emissions to produce the goods that they desire.
There needs to be a re think on how we ALL live our lives, something that will be at odds with the capitalist driven, self centred utopia that some of the more wealthy and aspirational members of the western world desire.

yay, our daily dose of wrencat envy politics...

I don't see anything envious in that post, and it's hardly political. Go troll somewhere else.

not trolling, just offering an opinion based on reality, not some idealogy that has failed numerous times. At least you haven't wished serious illness or death on anyone on this thread, yet.