It's also what has been said since about 1860.I like Gary in general but he comes out with some wild stuff as he tries to simplify economics for the lay man. I think in that article he was saying that it was necessary to have workers doing menial work for the ultra rich, but I don't think that's the only reason there is a lot of impoverishment in cities or the collapse of town centres. He suggests that unequal but developed societies drift towards urban centres for work. However, its kind of hard to compare London with the slums of Bogota, not least because western countries don't have undeveloped & accessible urban land to become informal slums. It's not one of his better videos & refers more to developing countries.
The decline of Towns in Northern England has as much to do with the end of Empire and the end of the exploitative trade and industrial system that was built up during the era of the West African slave trade and American cotton plantations.There's quite an agenda in that video! He could quite as easily said that people go to the big cities because that is where the work is...something that has been true for hundreds of years. He is using the assumption that all employers are rich and all employees are poor. It is quite the Dickensian take.
No mention either of a big reason for the decay of towns is globalisation. British steel can't be made as cheaply as steel in other countries. Same with lots of other commodities and in other factories. These businesses have not been replaced and the towns have rotted. He also neglected to say that while these towns were full of employment, there was a small handful of people who owned most of the businesses in these towns.
The British can't make steel and never could. This fact alone was enough to kill off their car industry, having produced rot-boxes for decades.British steel can't be made as cheaply as steel in other countries.
The Unions killed their indigenous car industry.The British can't make steel and never could. This fact alone was enough to kill off their car industry, having produced rot-boxes for decades.
Not really. It was killed off for the same reason as their motor cycle industry, by technologically superior Japanese innovations in the 1970s. Their products were comparatively inefficient and low quality compared to Japanese imports.The Unions killed their indigenous car industry.
Because the sector was heavily unionised and any sector like that will lag in design and manufacturing innovation. In the early 1950's Britain had the second biggest car industry in the world. Within 20 years it was effectively gone. That was almost entirely down to the inability of the sector to innovate yet 20 years before that it was very innovative.Not really. It was killed off for the same reason as their motor cycle industry, by technologically superior Japanese innovations in the 1970s. Their products were comparatively inefficient and low quality compared to Japanese imports.
Not really. It was killed off for the same reason as their motor cycle industry, by technologically superior Japanese innovations in the 1970s. Their products were comparatively inefficient and low quality compared to Japanese imports.
There's a lot of "Union" in those points. German car manufacturers are and were just as Unionised but those unions didn't have a communist agenda and they were interested in the medium term success of the businesses in which they operated. UK unions were much more militant and so investment in the industries they dominated was undesirable.I think you're right. The claim that unions were the main cause of the failure of the British motor industry is superficial at best.
The collapse was complex and involved: lack of government/industry investment in skills and education; ineffective government responses (both Tories and Labour wanted to legislate their way out of strikes); particular political sensitivities (Thatcher was not going to be taken down by unions which hardened her position further); poor industry management (probably the main cause); plants with multiple/warring unions; rotten union leaders, etc. etc.
And yet Germany and Northern Italy are still massive industrial powerhouses and America's industrial output is higher than ever and boomed in the 50's and 60's.Globalisation and general progress destroyed heavy industry in all of these places. It’s not rocket science.
We’re talking about people. US manufacturing jobs have collapsed over the last 20-30 years.And yet Germany and Northern Italy are still massive industrial powerhouses and America's industrial output is higher than ever and boomed in the 50's and 60's.
I'm not, I'm talking about industry. In 1870 almost 70% of all US workers were in the agriculture sector. By 1900 that had fallen to 50%. By 1950 it was under 20%. It's now around 4%. US agricultural output has more than doubled since 1900.We’re talking about people. US manufacturing jobs have collapsed over the last 20-30 years.
Yes, that's what happens when industries automate and increase productivity. It's been happening since the start of the industrial revolution. The Agricultural revolution in Europe caused a massive increase in labour productivity in that sector. Increases in labour productivity is what creates wealth. How that wealth is taxed and allocated is a different discussion but increasing labour productivity is a good thing. There is now a massive labour shortage in the USA, just as there is here. That's because relatively average working people are working fewer hours because they can afford to do so. That's not a sign of them becoming poorer; even though their slice of the cake may be getting smaller in relative terms it is getting bigger in absolute terms.The number fell by 6 million (about a third) from 2000 to 2010 alone!