Tottenham Riots

I suggest that any looter, and any person who argues that looters were reacting to deprivation and disenfranchisement, poor educational opportunities, rich-poor divides, lack of social mobility and unemployment watch The Children Who Built Victorian Britain and think again. Deprivation? Check. Disenfranchisement? Check. Poor educational opportunities? Check. Rich-poor divide and lack of opportunity for social mobility? Check. Unemployment? Check. And what was the reaction? Not looting; not moaning. Just eye-wateringly hard graft, by even today's adult standards, from age 6 onwards to try and get on. And a few of them made it to Parliament.

Another few things stand out. The documentary includes excerpts from letters from these working children. In it they often speak of a deep love for their parents, who are recognised as working hard to keep the family together, and a strong family loyalty. Another is the level of language: these children, young and uneducated as they are write with an eloquence rarely found even in adults today.

Circumstances were really hard then. There was no social welfare, no free healthcare, little free education, practically no labour laws for adults, let alone children. Women did not have the vote. There was little social mobility. Industrialisation meant huge unemployment. There were few community centres and libraries, and working hours were 14 per day for children and adults alike. And often there were more chores to do at home, because every little helped. There were organised strikes and protests, but no looting.

Perhaps the reasons for rioting and looting lie a bit closer to home: with human nature and group dynamics, and how most of us will behave when we think nobody is looking.

 

Can I just ask a quick question - does anyone who has posted in this thread enjoy discussing the subject? The subject being some violent and horrible crimes committed by members of the young generation of today. The subject being how broken society is, especially down at the level where people are living on government benefits and struggling to get by. Because I don't.

I don't enjoy even having to discuss it, but I have read and contributed to this thread so far because I am interested in other peoples opinions on it, and the fact that they seem to want to discuss it at length. But that doesn't mean that I enjoy discussing it. I'm not sure I've ever had to say that about a thread I've been involved in here (in SD) before...

I actually find it as unenjoyable as discussing the troubles in Northern Ireland. That's how messed up I find this whole situation. You have no idea how much I wish it had never happened, because the way I see it, we haven't seen the last of it.

 

Thought it was pretty obvious it's sarcasm. Was trying to make the point that if people should be free to go where they want, it should work both ways, both coming in or going out, which is more or less what I'm in favour of.

 

I think it's more a case of:

 

Instead of out sourcing our jobs to other folk how about the government trains the native people then we shouldn't have to out source from other countries!

 

Again, you don't have a clue. The reason for outsourcing is not lack of professionals, but costs. Salary for same job is extremly different, and companies usually like to have lower costs - including workforce. Of course there is a cost of shipping in case you are creating a real product and not just a service, but you can still save a lot. For example here in Slovakia the minimal salary is 317 euros. If i look at uneployment benefits in UK, i see £65.45 per week, which equals to £261.8-£294,52 (4-4,5 weeks) per month. So your uneployment benefits are higher than the minimal salary in Slovakia. Both countries are part of the EU - and now tell me, why should someone in case he produces goods for export and not for local markets have workforce in UK instead of the central Europe ?

So again - the reason for outsoucing is not low skill of workers, but the lower costs of workforce elsewhere.

For example look at me - i have a salary as a Java programmer above 1000 euros netto, i have a high sallary in Slovakia, yet many in UK wouldn't even move from their couch for such salary.

 

So for decades and decades we have been good enough, and now all of a sudden we are not good enough?

Obviously the Europhiles are going support the mass influx of Europeans taking our jobs and support them all the way.

imo people especially young people are not given a chance these days, sweeping statements like this is quite frankly pathetic.

 

How about people get off their ass and obtain whatever training they need to get a job themselves?

 

You are the one making sweeping statements.

But yes, all of a sudden you aren't good enough. Welcome to free market competition; it's the capitalist way. Young people have plenty of chances. Just look at some of the rioters: a-level students, college students, one Olympic ambassador. They are just not valueing the opportunities they have.

 

Did you even bother understanding what i wrote ? And unfortunately for you, yes, your salary demands for low skilled jobs are too high. Same is the situation in Germany, France and other "western countries". For decades, the eastern border ended with Germany, Austria and Italy. But from 1990, companies got a chance to move their production to the central and eastern Europe, and yes, that means that compared to the central and eastern Europe your salary demands are way too high.

I know that your living costs are higher as well, but for the employer that usually doesn't count. What counts for him that while in UK he will have to pay £5.93 per hour, that means that minimal salary for typical month (8 hour work time) is 160-176 hours * £5.93 per hour = £948,8-£1043,68 per month. That is circa 1100 euros. Now for same work, just in different country, he needs to pay only 400 euros, or if he wants to motivate his workers, maybe 500 euros. That is 600 euro difference for same job, still in EU, just different country. If it is not work which is tied to specific region (farmers, local shops, local services), then there is no reason why shouldn't they move the work elsewhere.

Welcome to the Europe after fall of communism. It's been there for 21 years, if you didn't noticed.

PS: And for example, Slovakia is exactly in middle of such transformation right now. For two decades, everyone moved to Central Europe because of being member of EU or close to EU, yet having low price of workforce. Now these companies are moving to Romania, Bulgaria and soon will move to other new member states.

 

When it comes to outsourcing you're missing the point, Dwarfer.

It is the shareholders, often in large part institutions themselves, who require greater and greater return on their investment. So companies will place workload where they can get the job done to a satisfactory level at the cheapest possible cost. If that be India or China their attitude is "so be it", because they see their responsibility to the shareholders not the country in which they are headquartered, that is with the exception of a few.

It will only change if their customer base forces change and doesn't want whatever product they are selling, whether that be tangible or a service, unless it is sourced locally.

 

Exactly. This is for example the reason why there are so many car production facilities in Slovakia - Volkswagen, PSA (Peuget-Citroen) and KIA. A small 5 milion country producing 630k cars in this year. Half of the UK car production. Why ? Because the workforce is relatively cheap (compared to the rest of the Europe), it is still part of EU (so no additional taxes or import fees), close to major markets (Germany, Italy)... For example VW makes such lowend models in Bratislava like VW Touareg, Audi Q7 or Porsche Cayenne . They probably pay 800-1000 euros to a good employee (and the employee is happy) - in UK you wouldn't even stand up from your bed for such salary.

 

Number of reason why foreign labour is now much more attractive than historically.

1.Rest of the world are now far better trained than they were historically. They can compete with Western workers.
2. Ease of communication. Telephone and internet make it much more efficient to outsource.
3.Infrastructure make it cheaper and quicker for both workers and product to move around.
4.Foreign worker do often have a better work ethic. 6/7 days a week and no holidays are fine.
British workers have, generalising lost that same work ethic.

 

AND the cost of living in other countries is also a major contributing factor to their ability to compete cost effectively

 

good point
just top of my head keypoints list

I think the problem is people need to get use to the idea that income isn't going to rise year on year. Hell its probably going to decline.

Living costs will rise as raw material and consumer good prices go up due to increase in demand and an increase in the wage demands of foreign workers will increase production costs for all good. Partly offset by increase mechanization in the developing world.

 

Oh, I get it.

 

If a job that costs less out sourced to a foreign country saves you money in your country, that extra saved pound sterling/dollar/euro goes towards funding another jobs. The export of one job spawns the creation of another. So no that's just another fallacy.

 

Does anyone think the riots are over? There are more police on the streets now, but when the numbers are reduced what will happen?

 

Or its used to cut operating costs of a business so that product prices are reduced slightly for example if all cars were produced domestically they'd probably 10% more expensive.

 

Job seekers allowance claimants have increased by at least 600k since 2008 and unemployment has increased by at least 800k since 2008 and has fell relatively little since. I highly doubt that all these extra 600,000+ people unemployed due to recession do not want a job. The crappy jobs in this country are where school and A level leavers need to be able to start at the moment.

No your making sweeping statements, I am making sweeping statements, dwarfer is making sweeping statements and so are a lot of others in this thread. Unless we all plan on writing carefully structured essays that are lord of the rings length books to each other. Supporting our arguments with well selected sources, statistics and citations. Then since we probably won't do that yet as we are only sad enough to write 0.25-3 page long posts then I think we should all get used to sweeping statements

Bit of a romantic view on the 19th century

Yes but I have a feeling that none of these rioters feared that they would be hung for their crimes or deported and likely suffer ill fate on the ships. Or be met with this act:



Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!
And then met with lethal force within an hour. I think that was more likely the reason for such occurrences happening in the 1800s was that the Victorians were a lot tougher that the poor due to
a prevailingly different attitude to the poor than we have now. Is it really accurate to compare that authoritarian century of Britain with 2011. A society that would kill lawbreakers in “riotous assemblies” is not the society we live in today. A society that would execute a child for petty thievery is not the society we live in today. A society that locks the poor and destitute up in work houses is far far from the society we live in today.

You cannot say that people in the 1800s wouldn't have rioted if they were met with current policing methods and ethics back then. If people in the 1800s were sentenced to short jail sentences like today. In fact the riots would have been 1000 times bigger in those circumstances.

Riots in 19th century Britain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/00028955.pdf

No1. Strange how my local papers seem to have a before the bench that has a majority of 18+ adults. Then the next group being 16-17 years old and then a minority that are 14/15 and rarer cases of those younger.
No2. There are surprising examples of certain people who were involved in these riots. But I bet the main force of violence was from the rioters who were unemployed. You are going to think that half the rioters were kids because of the examples of 11 year-old kids in the violence. You can't say that because there are examples of some A level students, a teaching assistant and an Olympic ambassador that the unemployed is not the majority socio-economic group involved in the riots.

No3. Well builders, plumbers and electrician s are self employed and get work by reputation and relations to people. Surgeons, Doctors and Nurses don't have anything to complain about because there are usually less trained in these professions than are needed. Unskilled jobs don't really require absolutely perfect English. Skilled jobs are more likely to have greater language barriers.
Currently I am struggling to get posts such as junior admin posts due to those who worked in the field for years competing for the job as well. When I look to unskilled manual jobs I am competing with immigrants desperate for work.