Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

"We were the ones who mobilised people against the poll tax and brought down the Thatcher government,"

Granted that didn't do anything to bring down the Tory government

[Valmy]

If costs are high and wages low, people don't want to work there.  Employers will either have to offer more, accept workers who are so bad that they don't have any other choice, or do without.  The argument that living costs don't impact wages can be easily countered by looking at some specifics;  a short orer cook in the US has a median salary of $9 per hour, but in NYC they are offering $15-17 an hour.  I think some people here might even live (or have lived) in NYC and could testify on whether people there really average the national average in wages.

New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the union. Santa Fe is its richest area and as you can see: http://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_santafe.htm still below the US average in wages. Actually, and amazingly, below Albuquerque.

But as you an see the real-estate is very expensive: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Santa_Fe-New_Mexico/ though I don't think it is actually as high as that website says, but even half that as a median is quite pricey for such a poor city wage wise.

Granted this is a real extreme case. I doubt there is a situation this bad anywhere else in the country.

[Sheilbh]

"We were the ones who mobilised people against the poll tax and brought down the Thatcher government,"

Granted that didn't do anything to bring down the Tory government

Yep. And Militant Tendency were shut down five years before Thatcher fell.

Also as someone from Liverpool the idea that Militant in Liverpool beat Thatcher is extraordinary

Edit: Also interesting/distressing Labour's had primaries for the mayoral votes (amazingly, all men! All the women came last - thank God the left doesn't have a problem with sexism) that are coming up. The turnout in Greater Manchester was 4,500 which is pretty shockingly low. That's about the number of Labour members who vote in Hackney.

[garbon]

It reminds me of my wife's observations about Santa Fe. Lots of rich people wanted to live there but the economy was terrible so as a result the property was extremely expensive but the wages were extremely low. If you live and work there I hope you like trailer parks.

If costs are high and wages low, people don't want to work there.  Employers will either have to offer more, accept workers who are so bad that they don't have any other choice, or do without.  The argument that living costs don't impact wages can be easily countered by looking at some specifics;  a short orer cook in the US has a median salary of $9 per hour, but in NYC they are offering $15-17 an hour.  I think some people here might even live (or have lived) in NYC and could testify on whether people there really average the national average in wages.

Or poorer people suffer their lot as they aren't a group that finds it easy to just move to where better jobs are.

[grumbler]

If costs are high and wages low, people don't want to work there.  Employers will either have to offer more, accept workers who are so bad that they don't have any other choice, or do without.  The argument that living costs don't impact wages can be easily countered by looking at some specifics;  a short orer cook in the US has a median salary of $9 per hour, but in NYC they are offering $15-17 an hour.  I think some people here might even live (or have lived) in NYC and could testify on whether people there really average the national average in wages.

New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the union. Santa Fe is its richest area and as you can see: http://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_santafe.htm still below the US average in wages. Actually, and amazingly, below Albuquerque.

But as you an see the real-estate is very expensive: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Santa_Fe-New_Mexico/ though I don't think it is actually as high as that website says, but even half that as a median is quite pricey for such a poor city wage wise.

Granted this is a real extreme case. I doubt there is a situation this bad anywhere else in the country.

But the wages of 'the poor" don't come from legal services, architecture, computer, or management services, they come from food services, health care support, farm labor, and the like; only the latter is below the national average; in Sante Fe, food prep and service people make 13% more than the national average!

[Josquius]

I won't doubt that in such places wages are higher for basic jobs. That as prices of cities rise so do the wages of even the lowest level jobs.
But at a rate that keeps up with the price rises?
Doubt it.
The low wage earners are bottom of the pile for wage increases. They are getting screwed over by the huge wealth increases amongst those at the top of the pile.

[The Minsky Moment]

It reminds me of my wife's observations about Santa Fe. Lots of rich people wanted to live there but the economy was terrible so as a result the property was extremely expensive but the wages were extremely low. If you live and work there I hope you like trailer parks.

If costs are high and wages low, people don't want to work there.  Employers will either have to offer more, accept workers who are so bad that they don't have any other choice, or do without.  The argument that living costs don't impact wages can be easily countered by looking at some specifics;  a short orer cook in the US has a median salary of $9 per hour, but in NYC they are offering $15-17 an hour.  I think some people here might even live (or have lived) in NYC and could testify on whether people there really average the national average in wages.

Average hourly earnings in NYC are 33.14 as opposed to 25.61 nationally.  About 30% higher.
Median rental costs for a 1 BR apartment in NYC are $3510 as opposed to $1120 nationally.  About 213% higher.
And there's the rub.

[mongers]

Looking back on the events of 7 weeks ago, I'm surprise so many bright people failed to spot what was going on or predict the result.

[Sheilbh]

A union balloted its members rather than just announcing they were endorsing Corbyn and Smith won with 60% of the vote so maybe there is hope

Corbyn's office said the question was biased against him because it focused on electability

[Tamas]

A union balloted its members rather than just announcing they were endorsing Corbyn and Smith won with 60% of the vote so maybe there is hope

Corbyn's office said the question was biased against him because it focused on electability

To me, Smith also sounds horrible.

I just can't get the general attitude: "anti-austerity" means making your country "work better" by spending borrowed money, which surely should be done on a case by case basis not to base your entire existence on doing it.

Socialism is just disgusting.

[garbon]

A union balloted its members rather than just announcing they were endorsing Corbyn and Smith won with 60% of the vote so maybe there is hope

Corbyn's office said the question was biased against him because it focused on electability

To me, Smith also sounds horrible.

I just can't get the general attitude: "anti-austerity" means making your country "work better" by spending borrowed money, which surely should be done on a case by case basis not to base your entire existence on doing it.

Socialism is just disgusting.

True but at least Smith is at a position closer to sanity. Both, of course, ensure a continued Tory reign but at least with Smith - Labour would be taking baby steps back to being a party that can vie for leadership of the country.

[Josquius]

I was always fairly neutral on corbyn.
Then came the referendum.
He failed the people. He must go.

[Sheilbh]

To me, Smith also sounds horrible.

I'm shocked to hear you say that.

Socialism is just disgusting.

Oh.

I just can't get the general attitude: "anti-austerity" means making your country "work better" by spending borrowed money, which surely should be done on a case by case basis not to base your entire existence on doing it.

One of the things that really annoys me about Corbyn is that actually he's put forward very, very few policies in the last year. The ones he has, are without exception ones that were supported by Blairite, sell-out, "pro-austerity" Miliband and Balls.

It's ridiculous. Labour is appearing considerably more radical than it is without any of the benefits of radical and interesting policies.

I mean even take the whole anti-austerity thing. McDonnell has stolen Liz Kendall's () line that there's nothing left-wing about spending more on interest than education and his policy is the same as Ed Balls current spending will be balanced but they'll use debt to finance capital spending. Basically the exact same policy as Ed Balls just with more blood-curdling rhetoric.

I agree Smith won't win because he's too left. But he's soft-left so his major priority isn't taking over the Labour party which is all Corbyn cares about. Plus he'd lose far fewer seats than Corbyn because he doesn't have, for example, IRA/Hamas/Hezbollah sympathies etc. It's about saving Labour as a party of the mainstream left for another day.

[Tamas]

At any rate, I fully agree wth what the Economist was writing recently: the new political divide will be between supporters of open and closed societies, or globalists and sovereignists, if you will.

That divide exists within both major UK parties I believe.

I'd much rather have Labour implode, because the Tories have proved to be all too willing to cater for the closed-society types. A new center-left party built on the ruins of the LibDems and not-insane Labour could gather up almost all the open-society votes.

[Sheilbh]

I'd much rather have Labour implode, because the Tories have proved to be all too willing to cater for the closed-society types. A new center-left party built on the ruins of the LibDems and not-insane Labour could gather up almost all the open-society votes.

There's no guarantee that would happen though. I've said before that it's not impossible that the UK/Europe went the way of Eastern Europe with a mainstream right party and a populist right party fighting for power while the left is split between a million ineffective parties.

At any rate, I fully agree wth what the Economist was writing recently: the new political divide will be between supporters of open and closed societies, or globalists and sovereignists, if you will.

Tony Blair's been pushing that line for ages. There's something to it, but I'm not sure that I agree.