Motorhomes are overpriced.....discuss............

[Brian Kirby]

crinklystarfish - 2013-03-09 8:13 PM

 

Touching on the arcane art of economics there Brian and manifestly hardly anyone has any clue how the monster actually functions: least not the fools who are in a position of influence. In the vernacular, any old piece of cr@p is worth exactly as much as some mug is prepared to pay.

 

Cutting to the chase, I reckon that with new 'mainstream motorhomes' - arbitrarily those making up the market within say the central 80% of a normal distribution curve - we generally pay a reasonable amount for an adequate product.

 

Anyone who thinks there are big profits to be had is more than entitled to set up a business and start knocking them out - here or anywhere else they fancy.

 

I'd venture that only a very few select people will be living the high-life on the back of motorhome production.

I agree, oh Crinkly one! I wasn't implying that the price difference was converting into great wealth for UK dealers/manufacturers, just that it is puzzling that it doesn't! You'd think that an extra £5,000 or so per unit sold should translate into much more profitable UK businesses, yet, on the whole, the German dealers and manufacturers look the better heeled.

 

We used to pay more for cars than in continental Europe. That differential has, more or less, been eliminated, but with the eventual demise of UK brands, either totally, or by foreign takeover. Cars are now cheaper, we buy more of them, and the benefits, broadly, go elsewhere. Before that it was motorbikes. In the meantime it has been trains, ships, and planes.

 

Sometimes the production has remained here, sometimes new production has come here, but there are precious few UK owned, sited, and run engineering firms around. Something about UK management of UK labour seems to result in industrial conflict, poor quality, and poor value, with resulting high costs. Others, for some reason, seem able to get good quality, good value, good relations, and lower prices, even from UK based production facilities. That, it seems to me, lies somewhere at the root of the "overpriced" argument, and it is not applicable only to motorhomes. Solve that, and we could all be rich!

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Perhaps someone should ask James Dyson why he switched production overseas, abandoning a loyal UK workforce that set him on his companies road to success, oddly his vacuum cleaners are still overpriced though (!)

[BGD]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 3:14 PM

 

Perhaps someone should ask James Dyson why he switched production overseas, abandoning a loyal UK workforce that set him on his companies road to success, oddly his vacuum cleaners are still overpriced though (!)

 

 

Well, at a guess I'd suggest that just maybe it was because it is his business. Not theirs.

 

He had been taking all the business risks, using his own and borrowed capital; he'd put every penny of his entire families money and more into starting up and then running the business for years and years; he was the one who invented the original concept, he was the one who used his own money to patent the idea, then used his own money and years of his time to produce prototypes; then he was the one who offered jobs to more and more people (who could choose whether to accept them, and then choose whether or not to leave at any point thereafter), and then regardless of whether the business was making any profit, or loss, kept paying them, giving them holiday pay, sick pay, pension payments, overtime, subsidised canteen, and other perks and benefits until the business got so employee-costs expensive because of all the monies and benefits that the UK production employees were getting from it that it wasn't making money any more.

 

A business is not some sort of social service.

It has to compete or die. Every day. And the biggest costs, usually by a mile, in volume manufacturing is employee costs. It typically costs a company about double your salary in other costs, to keep you nicely fed and watered.....and that cost burden remains whether the attends work or goes off sick or on holiday or maternity leave etc etc.

And as manufacturing businesses grow in other parts of the world, so the competition to sell consumer goods in the UK and western Europe gets tougher and tougher, because unskilled UK etc production employees are simply becoming prohibitively expensive now, compared to what they are actually prepared to do for all their ( relatively) massive pay and perks costs.

 

It is simply basic common sense for the owner of a business to put the actual low-skill production/assembly in a low cost economy. It would be business suicide not to.

All the other Dyson employees in R & D, business management, sales etc are still in the UK.....and they are still getting their UK pay and perks only because the business has done what it has to in order to survive against the massive and still increasing global competition.

 

 

Maybe some or any of the production employees might now consider starting their own business and taking on all the same risks that Dyson has had to survive over the years, with the big redundancy payouts that they received?

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

I wouldn't employ anybody anymore *-).................Too many rules and regulations from PAYE/pensions to Elf and bleedin saftey, along with being expected to be their unpaid social worker 8-)....................Its much easier just to put my prices up >:-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

BGD - 2013-03-10 3:18 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 3:14 PM

 

Perhaps someone should ask James Dyson why he switched production overseas, abandoning a loyal UK workforce that set him on his companies road to success, oddly his vacuum cleaners are still overpriced though (!)

 

 

Well, at a guess I'd suggest that just maybe it was because it is his business. Not theirs.

 

He had been taking all the business risks, using his own and borrowed capital; he'd put every penny of his entire families money and more into starting up and then running the business for years and years; he was the one who invented the original concept, he was the one who used his own money to patent the idea, then used his own money and years of his time to produce prototypes; then he was the one who offered jobs to more and more people (who could choose whether to accept them, and then choose whether or not to leave at any point thereafter), and then regardless of whether the business was making any profit, or loss, kept paying them, giving them holiday pay, sick pay, pension payments, overtime, subsidised canteen, and other perks and benefits until the business got so employee-costs expensive because of all the monies and benefits that the UK production employees were getting from it that it wasn't making money any more.

 

A business is not some sort of social service.

It has to compete or die. Every day. And the biggest costs, usually by a mile, in volume manufacturing is employee costs. It typically costs a company about double your salary in other costs, to keep you nicely fed and watered.....and that cost burden remains whether the attends work or goes off sick or on holiday or maternity leave etc etc.

And as manufacturing businesses grow in other parts of the world, so the competition to sell consumer goods in the UK and western Europe gets tougher and tougher, because unskilled UK etc production employees are simply becoming prohibitively expensive now, compared to what they are actually prepared to do for all their ( relatively) massive pay and perks costs.

 

It is simply basic common sense for the owner of a business to put the actual low-skill production/assembly in a low cost economy. It would be business suicide not to.

All the other Dyson employees in R & D, business management, sales etc are still in the UK.....and they are still getting their UK pay and perks only because the business has done what it has to in order to survive against the massive and still increasing global competition.

 

 

Maybe some or any of the production employees might now consider starting their own business and taking on all the same risks that Dyson has had to survive over the years, with the big redundancy payouts that they received?

 

 

By your logic there would be no manufacturing at all in the UK then. >:-) If Dysons move produced significantly lower prices for his goods one could understand the move, they are not lower, if anything they are higher.

 

And it takes two to tango, every business stands or falls by it's workforce, and Dyson as far as I'm concerned kicked his loyal work force in the lower regions. The same was true with Laura Ashley prior to her death, with the factory and the workforce in Carno Mid Wales left to rot after the company went from success to success . >:-(

I always think it odd when folk knock the British worker, as if they are some kind of sub species.

 

I'd be curious as to how you made a living seeing as you seem to despise anything much above slave labour. >:-) Perhaps go and have a go at Shotton steel works or something similar and see how you go.

 

Oh I've just read your profile, your a beer swigging entertainer, just what any economy needs, especially Spain right now. :D Whats your motto, I'll play anywhere for money, and beer, lots of beer, perhaps you've had a bit too much today. :D

[snowie]

BGD - 2013-03-10 3:18 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 3:14 PM

 

Perhaps someone should ask James Dyson why he switched production overseas, abandoning a loyal UK workforce that set him on his companies road to success, oddly his vacuum cleaners are still overpriced though (!)

 

 

Well, at a guess I'd suggest that just maybe it was because it is his business. Not theirs.

 

He had been taking all the business risks, using his own and borrowed capital; he'd put every penny of his entire families money and more into starting up and then running the business for years and years; he was the one who invented the original concept, he was the one who used his own money to patent the idea,

 

A business is not some sort of social service.

 

 

It is simply basic common sense for the owner of a business to put the actual low-skill production/assembly in a low cost economy. It would be business suicide not to.

 

 

Maybe some or any of the production employees might now consider starting their own business and taking on all the same risks that Dyson has had to survive over the years, with the big redundancy payouts that they received?

 

Some of the above may be correct, but thankfully businesses are beginning to think differently; the following is just one example.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21569570-growing-number-american-companies-are-moving-their-manufacturing-back-united

 

I rather like the John Lewis approach (which I accept has its critics), and I think employers and employees who have mutual respect deserve to do well.

Management has never been a strongpoint of UK industry, and we continue to suffer from historical attitudes. Our boom/ bust /short term investment approach does nothing but undermine any advances that companies make in productivity. People who are fearful of losing their jobs, or who have lost them because of management inadequacies think very carefully about where their loyalties lie.

I think it was getting better until the late 90s. While wage differentials widen, and bank bonuses become ever more obscene it will continue to affect our growth prospects. The best firms I worked at fostered feelings of "joint endeavour", we really were "all in it together"

 

alan b

[malc d]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 3:55 PM

 

 

By your logic there would be no manufacturing at all in the UK then. >:-)

 

 

:D

 

You obviously haven't noticed that there isn't much left now.

 

Companies take their work abroad to increase their profits - not to lower their prices.

( Although lower prices will help to keep them in business !)

 

.......... and it's not just unskilled work that's going - increasingly, skilled work, such as computer programming is going the same way.

 

It's called ' globalisation '

 

:-(

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Even BT have seen the light and are bringing back UK call centres.

 

But I'm astonished at Pelmetman being on this "overpriced" thread, perhaps I should start one on his behalf. >:-)

 

Are foot stools overpriced at £550. >:-) >:-) >:-) no wonder he can only afford a 23 year old van, he needs to put his prices UP. :D

[BGD]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 4:55 PM

 

BGD - 2013-03-10 3:18 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 3:14 PM

 

Perhaps someone should ask James Dyson why he switched production overseas, abandoning a loyal UK workforce that set him on his companies road to success, oddly his vacuum cleaners are still overpriced though (!)

 

 

Well, at a guess I'd suggest that just maybe it was because it is his business. Not theirs.

 

He had been taking all the business risks, using his own and borrowed capital; he'd put every penny of his entire families money and more into starting up and then running the business for years and years; he was the one who invented the original concept, he was the one who used his own money to patent the idea, then used his own money and years of his time to produce prototypes; then he was the one who offered jobs to more and more people (who could choose whether to accept them, and then choose whether or not to leave at any point thereafter), and then regardless of whether the business was making any profit, or loss, kept paying them, giving them holiday pay, sick pay, pension payments, overtime, subsidised canteen, and other perks and benefits until the business got so employee-costs expensive because of all the monies and benefits that the UK production employees were getting from it that it wasn't making money any more.

 

A business is not some sort of social service.

It has to compete or die. Every day. And the biggest costs, usually by a mile, in volume manufacturing is employee costs. It typically costs a company about double your salary in other costs, to keep you nicely fed and watered.....and that cost burden remains whether the attends work or goes off sick or on holiday or maternity leave etc etc.

And as manufacturing businesses grow in other parts of the world, so the competition to sell consumer goods in the UK and western Europe gets tougher and tougher, because unskilled UK etc production employees are simply becoming prohibitively expensive now, compared to what they are actually prepared to do for all their ( relatively) massive pay and perks costs.

 

It is simply basic common sense for the owner of a business to put the actual low-skill production/assembly in a low cost economy. It would be business suicide not to.

All the other Dyson employees in R & D, business management, sales etc are still in the UK.....and they are still getting their UK pay and perks only because the business has done what it has to in order to survive against the massive and still increasing global competition.

 

 

Maybe some or any of the production employees might now consider starting their own business and taking on all the same risks that Dyson has had to survive over the years, with the big redundancy payouts that they received?

 

 

By your logic there would be no manufacturing at all in the UK then. >:-) If Dysons move produced significantly lower prices for his goods one could understand the move, they are not lower, if anything they are higher.

 

And it takes two to tango, every business stands or falls by it's workforce, and Dyson as far as I'm concerned kicked his loyal work force in the lower regions. The same was true with Laura Ashley prior to her death, with the factory and the workforce in Carno Mid Wales left to rot after the company went from success to success . >:-(

I always think it odd when folk knock the British worker, as if they are some kind of sub species.

 

I'd be curious as to how you made a living seeing as you seem to despise anything much above slave labour. >:-) Perhaps go and have a go at Shotton steel works or something similar and see how you go.

 

Oh I've just read your profile, your a beer swigging entertainer, just what any economy needs, especially Spain right now. :D Whats your motto, I'll play anywhere for money, and beer, lots of beer, perhaps you've had a bit too much today. :D

 

 

 

You asked a question; I answered it.

 

Did you really not grasp the answer?

Dyson moved production NOT to lower his selling prices.

He did so in order to reduce his COSTS........which enabled the company to return to profit, and thus continue to survive, and continue to employ a lot of people in the UK and in other countries too.

 

 

 

 

I'm not clear on why, because either you don't like or don't properly understand the answer, you feel the need to instead personally attack the answerer.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Yes,sorry about that,

but reducing costs normally results in higher profits being the end game, just seems immoral that the 800+ he made redundant didn't get a future, it was hardly a company that was struggling to begin with :-( Just as well some far east, and even Indian companies see the UK differently, so we must still have something.

;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 4:27 PM

 

Even BT have seen the light and are bringing back UK call centres.

 

But I'm astonished at Pelmetman being on this "overpriced" thread, perhaps I should start one on his behalf. >:-)

 

Are foot stools overpriced at £550. >:-) >:-) >:-) no wonder he can only afford a 23 year old van, he needs to put his prices UP. :D

 

Yeah I had to put the price up as I've subbed them out ;-)...........and people won't work as cheaply as me :-S.................I could start making them myself again and bring the price down...........but that would mean extra work for me 8-) 8-) 8-).............but as they're still selling without me advertising, admittedly not as many as before. I'll leave things as they are for the moment as I've not made my mind up what to do with the business if we sell.......I might just mothball it in case one day I want to settle down and start a career :D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

pelmetman - 2013-03-10 5:02 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 4:27 PM

 

Even BT have seen the light and are bringing back UK call centres.

 

But I'm astonished at Pelmetman being on this "overpriced" thread, perhaps I should start one on his behalf. >:-)

 

Are foot stools overpriced at £550. >:-) >:-) >:-) no wonder he can only afford a 23 year old van, he needs to put his prices UP. :D

 

Yeah I had to put the price up as I've subbed them out ;-)...........and people won't work as cheaply as me :-S.................I could start making them myself again and bring the price down...........but that would mean extra work for me 8-) 8-) 8-).............but as they're still selling without me advertising, admittedly not as many as before. I'll leave things as they are for the moment as I've not made my mind up what to do with the business if we sell.......I might just mothball it in case one day I want to settle down and start a career :D

 

You should do as James Dyson did and sub them out to Malaysian workers. :D You might be able to bring the price down by 25 quid or so.

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 5:05 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-03-10 5:02 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 4:27 PM

 

Even BT have seen the light and are bringing back UK call centres.

 

But I'm astonished at Pelmetman being on this "overpriced" thread, perhaps I should start one on his behalf. >:-)

 

Are foot stools overpriced at £550. >:-) >:-) >:-) no wonder he can only afford a 23 year old van, he needs to put his prices UP. :D

 

Yeah I had to put the price up as I've subbed them out ;-)...........and people won't work as cheaply as me :-S.................I could start making them myself again and bring the price down...........but that would mean extra work for me 8-) 8-) 8-).............but as they're still selling without me advertising, admittedly not as many as before. I'll leave things as they are for the moment as I've not made my mind up what to do with the business if we sell.......I might just mothball it in case one day I want to settle down and start a career :D

 

You should do as James Dyson did and sub them out to Malaysian workers. :D You might be able to bring the price down by 25 quid or so.

 

I'm a bespoke maker so it wouldn't be viable...............I'm not fussy who I work for rich, famous or infamous..............but I don't want the hoi polloi being able to afford my work :D ..........it would mean having to employ people and pay tax and stuff 8-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

pelmetman - 2013-03-10 5:21 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 5:05 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-03-10 5:02 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 4:27 PM

 

Even BT have seen the light and are bringing back UK call centres.

 

But I'm astonished at Pelmetman being on this "overpriced" thread, perhaps I should start one on his behalf. >:-)

 

Are foot stools overpriced at £550. >:-) >:-) >:-) no wonder he can only afford a 23 year old van, he needs to put his prices UP. :D

 

Yeah I had to put the price up as I've subbed them out ;-)...........and people won't work as cheaply as me :-S.................I could start making them myself again and bring the price down...........but that would mean extra work for me 8-) 8-) 8-).............but as they're still selling without me advertising, admittedly not as many as before. I'll leave things as they are for the moment as I've not made my mind up what to do with the business if we sell.......I might just mothball it in case one day I want to settle down and start a career :D

 

You should do as James Dyson did and sub them out to Malaysian workers. :D You might be able to bring the price down by 25 quid or so.

 

I'm a bespoke maker so it wouldn't be viable...............I'm not fussy who I work for rich, famous or infamous..............but I don't want the hoi polloi being able to afford my work :D ..........it would mean having to employ people and pay tax and stuff 8-)

 

Well like the look of your gear anyway. ;-) Would go great with our Matalan bean bags :D

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 5:25 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-03-10 5:21 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 5:05 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-03-10 5:02 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 4:27 PM

 

Even BT have seen the light and are bringing back UK call centres.

 

But I'm astonished at Pelmetman being on this "overpriced" thread, perhaps I should start one on his behalf. >:-)

 

Are foot stools overpriced at £550. >:-) >:-) >:-) no wonder he can only afford a 23 year old van, he needs to put his prices UP. :D

 

Yeah I had to put the price up as I've subbed them out ;-)...........and people won't work as cheaply as me :-S.................I could start making them myself again and bring the price down...........but that would mean extra work for me 8-) 8-) 8-).............but as they're still selling without me advertising, admittedly not as many as before. I'll leave things as they are for the moment as I've not made my mind up what to do with the business if we sell.......I might just mothball it in case one day I want to settle down and start a career :D

 

You should do as James Dyson did and sub them out to Malaysian workers. :D You might be able to bring the price down by 25 quid or so.

 

I'm a bespoke maker so it wouldn't be viable...............I'm not fussy who I work for rich, famous or infamous..............but I don't want the hoi polloi being able to afford my work :D ..........it would mean having to employ people and pay tax and stuff 8-)

 

Well like the look of your gear anyway. ;-) Would go great with our Matalan bean bags :D

 

Just changed my website to the pelmet one so you can see what my day job is ;-)..............I reckon you look like the kinda guy who would have a rams head pelmet in 1foot mansions :D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I did suggest to the missus putting pelmets up a some years ago, she said it would be curtains for me if I did. :D

 

She's got no taste, you can tell that by the company she has kept for 43 years. :-(

[Mrs T]

M/H's are not overpriced. It's all a balance between the component manufacturers, the assemblers, the agents and the buyer. Make no mistake the buyer is in the best position of all, he does not have to buy it.

 

He has to be persuaded by fair means or foul, fair means here is, does he need it... NO, foul means here is, then he has to be persuaded, that's why advertising is so fundamental to sales.

 

A seller of objects assesses his customers and sets a price, if it's too low then he will be swamped with orders and will not be able to maintain his business. He then increases his price, losing many would be customers and keeping those able to afford him. This also pleases the component maker who has the same production problems.

 

Remember well all parties involved come under local and government laws for payments which are constantly being raised and which he has no control of.

 

If any of the parties described above do not make a profit they will possibly collapse, this will have a snowball effect on the supply chain and could affect a whole community.

 

The M/H customer simply shrugs his shoulders and moves to another M/H maker, completely unaffected.

 

Vanity on the part of some buyers also dictate price, many would live in a simple box on wheels and drive a poor quality engine, others prefer the best they can afford ... and ... we are all different and have very different aspirations.

 

Businesses began by being family owned, many are now International, some very highly so even involving the stabilty of a country.

 

This then is a very small part of how some M/H's are seemingly overpriced and some even of a lesser quality.

 

Mr T

 

[Brian Kirby]

BGD - 2013-03-10 3:18 PM.................A business is not some sort of social service.

It has to compete or die. Every day. And the biggest costs, usually by a mile, in volume manufacturing is employee costs. It typically costs a company about double your salary in other costs, to keep you nicely fed and watered.....and that cost burden remains whether the attends work or goes off sick or on holiday or maternity leave etc etc.

 

And as manufacturing businesses grow in other parts of the world, so the competition to sell consumer goods in the UK and western Europe gets tougher and tougher, because unskilled UK etc production employees are simply becoming prohibitively expensive now, compared to what they are actually prepared to do for all their ( relatively) massive pay and perks costs.

 

It is simply basic common sense for the owner of a business to put the actual low-skill production/assembly in a low cost economy. It would be business suicide not to.

All the other Dyson employees in R & D, business management, sales etc are still in the UK.....and they are still getting their UK pay and perks only because the business has done what it has to in order to survive against the massive and still increasing global competition.

................................

Whereas there is truth in what Bruce says, it is not, IMO, the last word on the subject. Of course a business is not a social service, but it is part of a society. It does business with that society. It draws profit from that society. It benefits from that society. If all businesses look only for minimum cost and maximum profit they will, IMO inevitably, eventually suffer in a globalised world.

 

The reasons for lower costs elsewhere have to do with many things, with relative currency values, with provision of health care and education, with the cost and availability of land, with access to investment capital, with availability of raw materials, reliability of energy supply, even government tax incentives, and so on. Labour costs are one consideration, but they cannot be the whole reason.

 

If production is to leave the developed world, unemployment will rise, and national wealth will fall. We are not going to convert Dyson's (or anyone else's) assembly workers into highly skilled and educated engineering R&D boffins. Yet, the cost of sustaining his cast off-labour falls upon us, his potential customers. So, we support the 600, while 100 get better paid jobs, and he gets increased profit. Who gains? The UK? I think not.

 

If sufficient firms follow suit (and many preceded Dyson on the same road, so it is rather unfair to single him out), the UK will be left with a growing number of its residents who, by degrees become permanently unemployable, because they lack the skills and education to take the jobs this model has on offer, and no-one wants them for what they are.

 

This is, by and large, a normal developed country, with similar social support facilities to those that other developed countries have evolved. These facilities have evolved for good reason, because we saw the social costs of not having them. They are expensive, and we have to earn the revenues to maintain them. It ill serves us to leave ourselves with a cohort of the unemployable who we support at our common expense, because some have chosen to employ others, elsewhere, to do the jobs they could do, simply in pursuit of profit for a relative few. Our economies will shrink, we shall lose the wealth to support these unemployables, and we shall lose the wealth to buy the products the outsourced labour produces. Who then gains?

 

We can export the jobs, but we cannot export the labour along with them. That is the problem that such moves do not address. If such moves continue unabated, beyond a certain point, we shall be forced to accept the abandonment of our social support facilities in order to survive. That, to me, is the final lunacy of the race to the bottom. One portion of the world getting richer while another gets poorer is hardly beneficial to the world as a whole. For all to benefit, all need to get richer, albeit that will inevitably vary in degree from place to place. We need that cheap foreign labour to start benefitting from the levels of social support that we presently have, and for us, and them, to be able to afford the goods they, and we, produce. Beggaring ourselves will not achieve that.

 

Of course, none of this has much to say about the cost of motorhomes in UK, except that for some reason motorhomes produced in a country with better social support facilities than ours, better roads and physical infrastructure than ours, and greater wealth then us, with better paid labour than ours, generally working a shorter week than ours, remain cheaper for us to buy in that country than they are here, and are apparently cheaper to produce in that country than we can achieve here. So, despite my misgivings about the longer term effects of Dyson and his ilk moving jobs to cheaper countries, that is probbaly not the answer to why we can buy cheaper motorhomes from Germany than we can from the UK, or why motorhomes appear overpriced in UK. Or is it, perhaps, that we are glimpsing the thin end of the wedge? :-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-10 7:12 PM We need that cheap foreign labour to start benefitting from the levels of social support that we presently have, and for us, and them, to be able to afford the goods they, and we, produce.

 

I would say we need our own home grown labour to do the work that the foreigners are doing first Brian ;-)...............I cant for the life of me see the point in paying people to sit on their butts, whilst we bring in Eastern Europeans to pick veg *-)............unless of course picking veg is so complicated Brits cant do it? :-S

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

pelmetman - 2013-03-10 7:28 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-10 7:12 PM We need that cheap foreign labour to start benefitting from the levels of social support that we presently have, and for us, and them, to be able to afford the goods they, and we, produce.

 

I would say we need our own home grown labour to do the work that the foreigners are doing first Brian ;-)...............I cant for the life of me see the point in paying people to sit on their butts, whilst we bring in Eastern Europeans to pick veg *-)............unless of course picking veg is so complicated Brits cant do it? :-S

 

I agree, then they could afford some of your £550 foot stools. I mean come on, the vegetables used to get picked before, and then the gangmasters moved in.

 

I had first hand knowledge and experience of this, a bunch of polish guys living in squalor in some old static caravans ( unknown to the authorities on a farm near Evesham, Bidford to be precise ) picked up at 5-30 am, and back by 6-30 pm, I asked them what they were earning, although only one of the group appeared to understand, he told me £25 a day, less a deduction for his share of the caravan accommodation. >:-)

 

My guess is all those that come out with this old chestnut about picking vegetables get about as close to that, as their local supermarket, and certainly not for £25 a day earnings. >:-(

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 7:59 PM

 

I agree, then they could afford some of your £550 foot stools.

 

I aught to point out that £550 is if you just use a standard fabric.........leather would add another £200ish......but more if you wanted different colours ;-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

pelmetman - 2013-03-10 9:12 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-10 7:59 PM

 

I agree, then they could afford some of your £550 foot stools.

 

I aught to point out that £550 is if you just use a standard fabric.........leather would add another £200ish......but more if you wanted different colours ;-)

 

What an intriguing man of contrast you are, your rattle around in an old knacker of a motorhome,but flog £750 + foot stools. :D Perhaps you only sell a couple a year though. :D :D

Mind you if it all goes tits up, there's always spud picking for £25 a day.

[BGD]

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-10 8:12 PM

 

BGD - 2013-03-10 3:18 PM.................A business is not some sort of social service.

It has to compete or die. Every day. And the biggest costs, usually by a mile, in volume manufacturing is employee costs. It typically costs a company about double your salary in other costs, to keep you nicely fed and watered.....and that cost burden remains whether the attends work or goes off sick or on holiday or maternity leave etc etc.

 

And as manufacturing businesses grow in other parts of the world, so the competition to sell consumer goods in the UK and western Europe gets tougher and tougher, because unskilled UK etc production employees are simply becoming prohibitively expensive now, compared to what they are actually prepared to do for all their ( relatively) massive pay and perks costs.

 

It is simply basic common sense for the owner of a business to put the actual low-skill production/assembly in a low cost economy. It would be business suicide not to.

All the other Dyson employees in R & D, business management, sales etc are still in the UK.....and they are still getting their UK pay and perks only because the business has done what it has to in order to survive against the massive and still increasing global competition.

................................

Whereas there is truth in what Bruce says, it is not, IMO, the last word on the subject. Of course a business is not a social service, but it is part of a society. It does business with that society. It draws profit from that society. It benefits from that society. If all businesses look only for minimum cost and maximum profit they will, IMO inevitably, eventually suffer in a globalised world.

 

The reasons for lower costs elsewhere have to do with many things, with relative currency values, with provision of health care and education, with the cost and availability of land, with access to investment capital, with availability of raw materials, reliability of energy supply, even government tax incentives, and so on. Labour costs are one consideration, but they cannot be the whole reason.

 

If production is to leave the developed world, unemployment will rise, and national wealth will fall. We are not going to convert Dyson's (or anyone else's) assembly workers into highly skilled and educated engineering R&D boffins. Yet, the cost of sustaining his cast off-labour falls upon us, his potential customers. So, we support the 600, while 100 get better paid jobs, and he gets increased profit. Who gains? The UK? I think not.

 

If sufficient firms follow suit (and many preceded Dyson on the same road, so it is rather unfair to single him out), the UK will be left with a growing number of its residents who, by degrees become permanently unemployable, because they lack the skills and education to take the jobs this model has on offer, and no-one wants them for what they are.

 

This is, by and large, a normal developed country, with similar social support facilities to those that other developed countries have evolved. These facilities have evolved for good reason, because we saw the social costs of not having them. They are expensive, and we have to earn the revenues to maintain them. It ill serves us to leave ourselves with a cohort of the unemployable who we support at our common expense, because some have chosen to employ others, elsewhere, to do the jobs they could do, simply in pursuit of profit for a relative few. Our economies will shrink, we shall lose the wealth to support these unemployables, and we shall lose the wealth to buy the products the outsourced labour produces. Who then gains?

 

We can export the jobs, but we cannot export the labour along with them. That is the problem that such moves do not address. If such moves continue unabated, beyond a certain point, we shall be forced to accept the abandonment of our social support facilities in order to survive. That, to me, is the final lunacy of the race to the bottom. One portion of the world getting richer while another gets poorer is hardly beneficial to the world as a whole. For all to benefit, all need to get richer, albeit that will inevitably vary in degree from place to place. We need that cheap foreign labour to start benefitting from the levels of social support that we presently have, and for us, and them, to be able to afford the goods they, and we, produce. Beggaring ourselves will not achieve that.

 

Of course, none of this has much to say about the cost of motorhomes in UK, except that for some reason motorhomes produced in a country with better social support facilities than ours, better roads and physical infrastructure than ours, and greater wealth then us, with better paid labour than ours, generally working a shorter week than ours, remain cheaper for us to buy in that country than they are here, and are apparently cheaper to produce in that country than we can achieve here. So, despite my misgivings about the longer term effects of Dyson and his ilk moving jobs to cheaper countries, that is probbaly not the answer to why we can buy cheaper motorhomes from Germany than we can from the UK, or why motorhomes appear overpriced in UK. Or is it, perhaps, that we are glimpsing the thin end of the wedge? :-)

 

 

Me and Thee and others can sit comfortably and debate the ethics of it as long as we like Brian.

 

Whilst we do so, actual, real, businesses are having to take the brutal decisions about their survival and future prosperity.

They don't have comfy armchairs. They are out there, in the trenches, fighting in a global marketplace for survival.

 

Business ain't about ethics my friends.

Ethics are for comfortably-off observers, who aren't directly affected if the company goes bankrupt.

 

Business is about business.

About risking everything; all your savings and borrowings.

Every single day.

To try, against all the odds, and the soothsayers, and the moralists, and the wise-after-the-event merchants, to make a decent return-on-your-capital employed that justifies all that day-after-day risk of losing the lot.

We can spout rhetoric about business policy. We can debate, in some gentlemen's club environment, about what should and should not be allowed, or encouraged, or frowned upon.

 

Meanwhile, a few thousand entrepreneurs are out there, actually DOING IT.

Fighting against all the economic and regulatory odds across the ever-more-rapidly-changing global marketplace; risking all that they have, day after day, to try to create wealth for themselves and their families.

 

 

 

[snowie]

BGD - 2013-03-10 9:29 PM

 

Me and Thee and others can sit comfortably and debate the ethics of it as long as we like Brian.

 

Whilst we do so, actual, real, businesses are having to take the brutal decisions about their survival and future prosperity.

They don't have comfy armchairs. They are out there, in the trenches, fighting in a global marketplace for survival.

 

Business ain't about ethics my friends.

Ethics are for comfortably-off observers, who aren't directly affected if the company goes bankrupt.

 

Business is about business.

 

Sorry Bruce, couldn't disagree more.

And so we end up where we are today;

Business is brutality?

Banking is about Banking not ethics

Banking is Business; or maybe not

Certainly not about ethics.

So who; if not employees in addition to employers, are affected when a company goes bankrupt.

And what can an employee do about bad management; bankrupts can be back in business within days!

Ethics, morality, how about common decency?

The disconnect between business and ethics is why we are in the brown stuff.

Long live ethics

regards

alan b

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

And I agree with you totally. What a depressing picture the entertainer paints.