Why is Labour Productivity in the UK so low? There are a huge variety of reasons why, in comparison to other countries, our labour productivity is so low: One incredible important reason is that the government drive for full employment has been taking hold. As we can see here; our employment is faring well in comparison with other countries. However, a real problem is the government implementing policy that favours short term social benefit (like for example, mass employment, creation of needless projects simply to provide jobs), rather than long term economic benefit. There is a failure to realise that long term better economic welfare also means general higher standards of living, as people have enough money to buy everything they need and some of what they want, competition is rife so drives quality up and prices down, and the government are able to take in more taxes from firms who are much healthier financially.
On the other hand, this idea of free trade is highly disadvantageous, and even harmful, to the Global South with the Global North dictating prices. The less developed countries find it difficult to compete with the economically advanced countries and the production of primary products is poorly paid. What’s more, the fact that the price is dictated by supply and demand leads to instability regarding income. This limits the Global South’s ability to develop as investment is restricted due to economic instability; ultimately free trade has led to “the development of the underdevelopment” In keeping with minimal
Creating a significant rise in jobs and incomes. When people question about the developing countries that are left out, you have to ask why they are so. Countries would only be left out if they have serious problems such as disease, poverty, they do not have modern financial systems, and corruption in their government. When they have such disadvantages they do not make for good places to invest money in. These countries need to meet the standards required to even be considered to participate in the international
Due to the wide disparity between the rich and the poor, people who are working as lower class e.g. cleaners, security guards may not earn enough to satisfy their basic needs, while people who are working as higher class e.g. professionals are having their luxurious life. In the view of this phenomenon, minimum wage is introduced to narrow the wealth gap between the rich and poor. However, there are many controversies over the implementation of minimum wage claimed by the economist, especially on the effect of unemployment.
Saving for retirement, childcare, and health insurance are all consumption choices that are becoming monopolized by the aspirational class (69). These choices are often necessary in order to ensure financial stability not only for yourself, but for children as well. By making these choices less accessible, the aspirational class has not only managed to increase wealth inequity but make it nearly impossible for people to better their social status (70). When bettering your life is behind a barrier of cost and knowledge, it can be difficult to acknowledge it as an option. If the masses are not aware of the importance of saving for retirement, or if they don't have the means or the time to sign their kid up for an early childhood development program, or even if they just cannot afford health insurance this year, it makes it more difficult for them to ensure the wellbeing of their future selves and their children.
It can be difficult for a country to do well when the people that are supposed to look after their country and people are busy looking after themselves. Then when the Haitian government does try to do something to help their situation it usually backfires. A good example of this would be how they are trying to get into the world market. They are allowing large foreign corporations to take advantage of their workers by paying them inadequate wages for working in poor conditions. The Haitian government also lower the tariffs on imported united states rice.
Authoritative figures tried to help out the economy in any way they could, but not all ended up helping. For example, the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, the most protective tariffs in history, ended up worsening the economy. However, some acts during this time
Privatisation is the selling of public sector assets to the private sector in order to introduce competition and improve market efficiency. One argument for privatisation is that private companies are incentivised by profit by cutting costs and producing more efficiently. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, in private firms managers will usually receive a share of the profits motivating them to work harder, and as they are interested in making profit they are more likely to cut business costs and aim to be more efficient. Since privatisation, companies such as BT, and British Airways have shown degrees of improved efficiency and higher profitability due to the competitiveness within their respective industries.
This power is much too overwhelming, because of the outrageous detriments that it could have on the economies of the world. Many large corporate monopolies are detrimental to many economies around the world, because, as a result of their misuse of power, monopolies have no incentive to improve or do more than what is necessary; they have extremely high prices at extremely low supply, and they do not use resources efficiently. These three factors could lead to much inefficient use of the limited supply our countries have, as well as decreasing GDP because of the lack of spending due to the extremely high prices, ultimately decrementing economies around the world. With less or no monopolies, economies and consumers can finally breathe easy, without the fear of high prices or inefficiency. First, the many monopolies in the world are detrimental to the economy because the lack of competition gives company little incentive to do more than what is needed.
The amount of a role government plays in a persons life is one of the differences between the liberal and Marxist theory. The issues of equality, social status and power are also important. Liberalism, in regards to economic status, is far more beneficial to the individual than a Marxist social ideal. If you are afforded the freedom a liberal system provides, there is a very high ceiling for success, be it wealth, power or a fulfilling existence. A Marxist would argue the same, but because of the underlying limitations (“leveling” by the people or a ruling power i.e.