Why?

(Genuine question, not stirring)

Because if, say, we competed with the Far East, Africa, South America in producing cheap textiles we could only stay in business by matching their wage structure, working harder, or by having more modern machinery. Assumimg new entrants use state of the art machinery (not always the casew I know, but rapidly becomes so - think how Japan developed very quickly) that means we'd have to compete on unit labour cost. As they tend to work all the hours God's sends in emerging economies we couldn't really work longer for the same pay, we'd need to work for the same or less per hour.

Unless, of course, you took your view that we just mark up high production costs ......and go bust instead!

Fair enough, except my view is not and never has been that we mark up high production costs.

Read what I've posted in the other thread and try to understand it. I'll buy the Janet and John business studies guide for you if it helps.

We could just make a better product and let the quality sell itself, we used to do that, rather than having some naff 5 minute lifespan product we create real quality and hover around the middle to rich income markets.

Agree with that. Unfortunately previous generations, specifically the Conservative Party, don't appear to have been able to identify that skilled manufacturing has a future. All they could see was the impact rising wage costs was having on their dividends and shares. The trade union movement has to shoulder some of the responsibility also as neither sides of the employment relationship was as progressive as it is now (and even then it's only in some circles).

Awesome post. No really, your intellect has really added value to the thread....

Biggest issue post war was the British working class thought the world owed them a living. Strike upon strike deterred investment and spurred on the perceived gap between them and "management". Management were largely useless and driven on by the strikes and "fear" of the working class, made short term and "secure" decisions.

Other countries, unsurprisingly so, filled the gap that this created with their own products.

At last someone who understands economics.

The world did owe them a fooking living, they spent six bloody years fighting for it

I suggest you speak to, or at least read contemoporary accounts written by some of the "British working class", who after fighting up to six years of a war, returned to find that little had ever changed. The "old money" still ruled like Victorian mill-owners and thought that the sun would never set on "our" empire. Ex-servicemen would just drop their weapons and pick up the picks, shovels, lathes etc that they'd left in 1939. While the women who were good enough to keep factories and farming working, while looking after families, would just go back to their kitchen sinks.

A re-alignment was needed, unfortunately it never went far enough.

Haha

Oh dear.

This is EXACTLY the attitude that meant that closing factories, mills etc invevitable.

Whilst the UK was wallowing in some kind of bubble, expecting the world to thank them for their efforts, the rest of the world was knuckling down and perfecting their industry.

Do you think the British were fighting in WWII for some kind of socialist revolution?

The British were fighting to ensure their survival. They were fighting against totalitarian dictatorship.

To suggest there ought to be some other expectation is laughable.

"A land fit for heroes."