When will indyref2 happen?

[Antiochas III]

5 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

Tesco can only dream of 5.5%

They hope for 4%

https://www.ft.com/content/96ffafc6-ac19-3134-ba77-983f4e728ea9
That said however

An external shock like the ones you outline would hit its competitors and Greggs' competitors roughly as hard.

The result is be that most players in the market will ultimately pass the rise on to the consumer this would slightly reduce overall demand but the share of this slightly smaller market would be about the same.

This is after all what's happening with the Brexit currency shock which has made raw materials more expensive in Sterling

Talk of wiping out the entire business is overdramatic unless we make absurd assumptions about the scale of the shock

Greggs are also something of a special case when it comes to a rise in the minimum wage they would be more exposed than most to increased costs but the disposal income of their core customer base would have increased. The two effects would counteract each other



 

 

Would Greggs not just see it through by being forced to pay less bonuses to their staff as they currently pay 10% all profits to all staff.

[strichener]

31 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You either don't understand the meaning of the word "subjective" or you're a really poor troll.  Either way, beyond this post, i won't encourage you further.  

Yep, lets roll out the troll accusation.  Are your employee's qualifying earnings less than your taxable profit?  If not then explain how a 1% CT cut pays for the pension contributions.  If they are then how can you justify such poor staff rewards whilst also complaining about wealth distribution (as in the below post)?

On 02/04/2017 at 14:22, Granny Danger said:

I don't.

We live in a very wealthy country where the wealth is divided very unequally.  Of course we are not alone in that respect.

If we allow the gulf between well off and very poorly off to remain and grow, and with inherited wealth distribution this will happen, then I predict there will be growing social strife.

There is an interesting bit over on the Trump thread about drug use amongst blue collar workers in the U.S., these are a group who feel they have been alienated.  Some folk will be daft enough to think that only affects individuals and their families.  Most folk on here will realise that it has far wider and deeper societal implications.

We can either aim for an inclusive society where real efforts are made to ensure everyone benefits from the wealth created or adopt the Thatcherite ethos and see the impact on our society,

[Baxter Parp]

31 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Shit wages are better than sitting at home on the dole.

You are way too arrogant bud.

You are also far too casual and dismissive of others jobs.

Pretending an attack on low paying employers is an attack on low paid employees is just the usual shit trick of a right-winger.

[NotThePars]

Isn't using Greggs as your example a bit daft since they already pay their staff relatively well.

 

 

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

You are assuming they can simply increase their prices without losing customers.
And I do wonder how many large businesses we have to watch disappear before we understand that it doesnt take absurd assumptions for a company of this scale to disappear overnight.
For example, it would only take a year or two of building defects such as needing to replace asbestos to cause such a shock. Or a susbstantial refurbishment or expansion process which doesnt result in increased custom to counter the cost.

These are shocks to individual companies that can cause them to become uncompetitive. I was differentiating between those and shocks like Brexit which apply to all the company's competitors as well

The central assumption is that low elasticity of demand in terms of the whole sector even if it's highly elastic in terms of individual competitors.

In the case of luxury goods this assumption would be treacherous but if we're talking about Steak bakes and sausage rolls it seems reasonable enough.

People still need lunch

[Crùbag]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Yes. You dont have shareholders to answer to.

Neither do you have to think about repairs in future years, growth of the business, supplier issues or a host of other things a company must consider as they enter the next financial year.

Employees dont see any of this. They just see the Fat Cat Daily Mail headline.

Surely a good business takes account of this and then counts the profit?

[DublinMagyar]

Like I said, he is not telling the truth.
Either that or he is complete hypocrite.

Dan Goor

[pandarilla]

Surely a good business takes account of this and then counts the profit?

And has appropriate insurance to cover unforeseen damage.

[pandarilla]

You are assuming they can simply increase their prices without losing customers.
And I do wonder how many large businesses we have to watch disappear before we understand that it doesnt take absurd assumptions for a company of this scale to disappear overnight.
For example, it would only take a year or two of building defects such as needing to replace asbestos to cause such a shock. Or a susbstantial refurbishment or expansion process which doesnt result in increased custom to counter the cost.
 

That's business chief - that's the game. There's profit to be made and the are, as with most things, risks.

The overall point is that we have one of the most unequal societies amongst comparable nations. Too much burden falls on those at the bottom - and nowhere near enough on those at the top (and remember we are talking about the top - not small business owners).

The super rich (they've even got their own title) are living lives that are way out of sync with anything in history. They're usually international in nature and they're fucking over everyone else. The economic crash damaged them very little (again, compared to the burden on those at the bottom), and they've got right wing governments in major western nations doing their bidding for them.

There's no easy solution here but just ignoring it and blaming 'scroungers' is a pretty pathetic response. 'Oh they might all leave...' - well f**k them. Ali they've done is sponge of the state for years anyway.

[Granny Danger]

3 hours ago, Crùbag said:

Surely a good business takes account of this and then counts the profit?

Anyone who can't run a business profitably whilst paying their employees a decent wage shouldn't be running a business.

It's possible to do both; it's also quite possible, of course, to go from being profitable to unprofitable through no fault of your own.  I have known folk in that situation and some have been reluctant to put money back into their business despite having done well in the good times.  Understandable if the problem is a long-term one, not so if it's short-term.

[Granny Danger]

6 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

That's business chief - that's the game. There's profit to be made and the are, as with most things, risks.

The overall point is that we have one of the most unequal societies amongst comparable nations. Too much burden falls on those at the bottom - and nowhere near enough on those at the top (and remember we are talking about the top - not small business owners).

The super rich (they've even got their own title) are living lives that are way out of sync with anything in history. They're usually international in nature and they're fucking over everyone else. The economic crash damaged them very little (again, compared to the burden on those at the bottom), and they've got right wing governments in major western nations doing their bidding for them.

There's no easy solution here but just ignoring it and blaming 'scroungers' is a pretty pathetic response. 'Oh they might all leave...' - well f**k them. Ali they've done is sponge of the state for years anyway.

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/worlds-eight-richest-as-wealthy-as-half-humanity-oxfam-tells-davos-2017-1

This has been posted here before.

[Alan Stubbs]

£28k a shop's not bad for a company that seems to have a gaff on every second street this side of Peterborough.

[mjw]

£28k a shop's not bad for a company that seems to have a gaff on every second street this side of Peterborough.

84k in Motherwell alone. That's about 160k in yum yums.

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

You reckon you can get insurance for a planned refurbishment failing to attract more customers?

The things you're bringing up are just bad judgement etc, why the f**k should any government' policy's be framed to take account of someone' poor business sense.

[dogmc]

The things you're bringing up are just bad judgement etc, why the f**k should any government' policy's be framed to take account of someone' poor business sense.

Depends if your company is a bank and you went to the ' right ' school...

[Pride_of_the_Clyde]

With apologies for interrupting the bakery discussion, I've been thinking over what yesterday's General Election announcement could mean for Scotland.

Let me first say that I'm confident that the PM has made this decision for Westminster-, Tory Party-, Brexit-centric reasons. That said, issue of Scotland remains a big challenge for her, one which will rise up her agenda as the terms of Brexit become clearer and one I think she'd concede privately she has insufficient understanding of currently.

So the consequences of this decision on Scotland will have been taken into account: and the feeling from the Tories is likely to have been that there is little for Scottish nationalism to gain in it.

The most likely outcome of the election at present seems to be another Tory government and another strong SNP return, though with fewer than 56 seats. The question of independence remains the dominant issue in Scotland.

I'm fairly sure that all of the above holds true so I think the interesting part is what lies beyond the election result.

Which brings me to the point of my post in this topic. I'm loathe to predict things but I think there is a real possibility that in short order Westminster would then offer an independence referendum, provided it takes place in 2017.

May will realise the hypocrisy of her contrasting statements/approaches to a referendum and to a GE but is likely to justify this by citing 'certainty' and that she's having the poll prior to EU talks beginning in earnest.

She may challenge the SNP to do likewise knowing that it would be difficult for the SNP to refuse, that the SNP still have some significant policy positions to determine, that the polls are slightly in her favour and to draw the stamina from activists and the appetite out of voters following council elections and a GE.

Should the SNP refuse, the offer would be off the table with the Tories safe in the knowledge that they had not ignored the democratic will of Scotland and that Holyrood elections now precede Westminster, at which another pro-independence majority is no given, never mind a pro-SNP majority.

As I say this it still seems moonbeams to think we'll see a 2017 referendum but I think that after yesterday there is now a logic to it being a possibility. Thoughts?

[Baxter Parp]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Running a business doesnt make you any better at predicting the future than anyone else.

What do CEOs get paid all that money for then?

[Baxter Parp]

Not relevant to the thread but relevant to the discussion.

[Crùbag]

9 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Running a business doesnt make you any better at predicting the future than anyone else.

No but planning for the future is a given. Do that and then count the profits.

[Baxter Parp]