80% of people on Autism spectrum are unemployed?

Post Reply New Topic

I see myself as centre-left (read social liberal) yet I would prefer Corbyn over those other pretenders. He has values, a vision and respect for people, the others just chase the polls in an attempt to grab power... Wouldn't it be cool with him as UK Prime Minister and Bernie Sanders as US President? We can but dream

That said, he's still not perfect. For example he doesn't support Labour members in Northern Ireland being able to stand for election, which to me seems quite undemocratic. And - as an economist - I'm not sure about his idea of nationalising the rail network.

The last i heared the east coat mainline made a profit for the government until they gave it away again.

Network rail claim they can't afford to electrify the lines while ripping passengers off, yet where i used to live in italy electrification has already taken place on the small network I used to use to go to school despite not charging much for tickets (monthly ticket for 2 stops away was 50€) and being a small company that had lost a lot of money due to corruption.

If the government owned assetts and services it would make money for us instead of our taxes having to fund everything. Instead we let private companies own everything, charge us the earth for goods or services and give the money to share holders.

I am a business customer of Royal mail, I can assure yuou the quality of service and responsability felt by the company has suddenly declined since privatization. They changed their terms 4 times every 3 months removing all responsibility they could. Hell even next day guaranteed was not guaranteed for a while. I'm guessing advertising standards forced them to reverse that one. That is what privatization get's: "screw you"

Hmm, on a more political note I'm not sure I believe that government owned is the same as "owned by the people". Political parties are just as much a type of business as fast food outlets, and government is nothing more than when a political party wins a 5 year contract for a monopoly over certain functions (such as "legal violence").

When I promote privatisation though, I have an eye more towards creating a network of small businesses than one big monopoly (or oligopoly) that acts just like the government monopoly that existed before it. The most evil private monopolies are those resulting from the privatisation of already broken/badly designed government institutions, along with large barriers to entering the market (particularly, government restrictions against new entrants joining the market).

Sometimes the government catches on and will use vertical separation to attempt to avoid this, or will try to artificially create two competitors out of one institution (see BT), but it never seems to pan out the way they intend...

If the government needs to do anything to the messes they have already created, it is introduce better regulation alongside taxing any negative externalities of production or consumption which exceed the positive externalities of such and setting caps on the net profits that can be made in certain industries on which our society is dependent and so the price elasticity of demand is low.

The problem with things like the rail network is that the more companies you have the more it costs to run, one company owns the tracks, many the rolling stock and I'm sure there are more small companies and money for old rope operations going on all needing their own administration and overheads along with all of these companies needing to communicate or the system they collectively run breaks down.

We tried breaking services into small companies in the NHS, we let a private company run a hospital, the company was promissing to take the same buget that had not worked before, run a good service, make a profit and get out of debt, unsdurprisingly it failed miserably with quality of service being so bad they jumped before they were pushed by the regulator and the hospital was more in debt, I guess the difference went to the share holders.....

Regulation will never happen when you have a government wanting to privatise because for private entities to run vital servies for a profit either costs go up or quality of service goes down, unless company is printing it's own money

Economies of scale don't always exceed diseconomies of scale, and technology is able to solve the administration/co-ordination problems quite well if properly implemented. In terms of a company owning the rail lines, that was based on the idea of the "tragedy of the commons" that through a resource being owned separately that the owner would have a vested interest in maintaining it's good condition in order to achieve sustainability. Sadly people are not as future orientated as that would like to believe. Another alternative to that could be a special tax for companies in the industry that goes towards maintaining said infrastructure, with the infrastructure itself remaining public property.

The only way you could sell me on the idea was if rail travel was made free (or included in our collective taxes) up to a journey limit, as the effects that could have on our economy would far outweigh the cost (in my opinion, at least).

edit: Although our infrastructure may not be up to the increased use... perhaps free travel for under 30's? (I'm not biased at all )

I don't see why we have to keep making rules to stop people doing wrong with what they are given of ours, jyst take it off them! Network rail are so good at maintaing what they own that my sister got 2 punchers in her tyres from M20 screw ends that sheered off the underside of a railway bridge over the road after considerable bending that could have been detected well in time.

After a lot of tooing and frowing they paid out for the tyres but not anything else that we couldn't provide a receipe for or my time spent fixing the problem instead of running my business. any honerable company would have paid the tyres and £100 on top for any undocumented expenses and the trouble cause considering they were at fault. Although in accepting the money from them we agreed that they were not admitting liability, I just wanted to puke over their miky taking offer, this is a road that was right outside the hospital my dad was in and is our local "accident and emmergency" the road is well used by ambulances that can well do without the risk of puncure like that (instand deflation), that is how much private companies care.

Just like not all people suck or not all governments suck, not ALL private companies suck. When they do it just seems sadly hard for them to be displaced by competition... (such as when duplicate infrastructure wouldn't make sense)

I thought they used to be heavily subsidized anyway when the government ran them. Seems today subsidizing alcohol for rich politicains is ok but subsidizing vital services for citizens is not. If rail was affordable it would reduce polution and congestion. At the moment the onl;y reason to use a train is for when you'd be stuck for where to leave your car, all of my rail journeys have cost me twice in train fairs than they would have in petrol, tran travel should be able to harness economics of scale but apparently not. Of course if oil companies made less money that would be a national disaster in the eyes of the oil companies and the government.

Aha but that is the point. Companies running infrastructure that cannot be duplicated are in a place of monopoly and need to be all the better. they cannot be ousted by the market and competiion, so either tough regulation is required or that they do not exist at all as a private company. Why do you think privatization and running of vital services is so controversial and deemed to be so important that it is gotten right. There is no plan B we can switch to.

Already government owned in Northern Ireland, and the high cost of rail travel is at current probably my largest limiting factor in either growing my business or finding employment. Perhaps my fault for not living in the city! (as if I could afford to)

Nor do I, KK. I agree with Ghandi: "God has no religion". I believe that some people are motivated by a spirit of good will and a capacity to respect others and they provide wonderful things in all sorts of ways though they may be thin on the ground. I believe such people exist in San Francisco too.

Ass-P: It may be you have developed a state called "learned helplessness". You can overcome that, though not without connecting somehow with some kind of support that can help you renew your spiritual energy. Your spiritual tank is empty of everything but hopelessness right now. Note: not necessarily in a religious format (though it could be).

I agree that travel for the under 30's should be subsidised but not free. I mean, something s got to keep our politicians country well governed, and I can't see how making it free for all, will cut out the trouble you can get from jumping on board a train, such as easy migration to Europe.
It will cost me slightly as I prefer to take the easiest transport option, which unfortunately costs me time and money. I take a bus and sometimes a train, and this will be upgraded to high speed rail one day.

A "low functioning", non-verbal person is much more likely to receive government assistance, though. A superficially normal-seeming person is more likely to fall between the cracks and end up homeless.

There may even be some "LF" people who could work, but are assumed not to be able to and since they're on assistance by default then why even bother looking? That's also going to increase the rate, though, but admittedly probably not by much.

...If what's being suggested is trying to get material/however you define it help from such an org , even if they had it , I rather doubt that I could just walk in and get much , and I do tend 2B shy about asserting myself...See my thread in The Haven that I've updated to-day for more personal stuff , I give a reason there...

I am not sure if more welfare alone, would really solve it...but if there was actually efforts to ensure the disability income is a livable amount, and get more on the ball about providing subsidized housing and things that help one become a little more stable I feel like that would be an improvement.

But yeah it interesting a lot of times the whole automation of various jobs is never mentioned when lack of jobs, trouble finding work is mentioned. I mean even a lot of politicians seem to miss the point they get stuck on 'every american needs a job' but a job isn't a solution unless your being paid a living wage and there are enough jobs to go around for everyone. With the advancements of automation and large corporations sending jobs over-seas for cheap labor, there isn't going to be a hell of a lot of 'jobs' to go around. The automation could be a good thing, maybe it will make the 40 hour work week a thing of the past since to divide up the less jobs, people may have to work less hours so everyone gets a turn. Either way automation is a major factor in this issue, but one a lot of people seem to forget about.