Triumph outsells Kawasaki in the UK
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Flummoxed by Suzuki GN250
Next: ffs
From: vulgarandmischevious on 24 Jan 2010 01:11 JackH <jackhackettuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >The money earned by workers abroad as a result of the work they're >doing on behalf of Triumph, is taxed and generally spent in the >countries where they're based, not here - see why this isn't such a >good thing economically? > >The bods that might have been employed here to do the work those >elsewhere have been employed to do may well be on more benefits as a >result of their being less jobs here - so a drain on the economy >rather than contributing to it. Everything up to here is simplistic and incomplete. It's the high school version of economic theory. >Fact is, our manufacturing base has been largely run into the ground >over the last two or three decades... and now the wheels have started >to come off the industries that took its place in the monetary >generation chain, we're left wondering how to make up the shortfall. Ok, o wise one: which indutries took the place of manufacturing in the UK? >Meanwhile, you're suggesting production of goods elsewhere isn't a bad >thing - read the above and then explain to me again why it isn't a bad >thing economically, not least when you're living in a country that is >as heavily reliant on imports as the UK. You're not taking the macro view. Take it, and the world will seem like a different place, and you'll realise that the points you are making just don't matter.
From: Fr Jack on 24 Jan 2010 09:04 totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) spewed forth: >Well, "bolting together" doesn't sound too complimentary, though I >concede it's hard to tell in a text-based medium ;-) http://02d9656.netsoljsp.com/SarcMark/modules/user/commonfiles/loadhome.do -- Fr. Jack I hear you talking but the words are kinda strange
From: wessie on 24 Jan 2010 09:31 JackH <jackhackettuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:d19653ee-0016-4abf-8427- ff45c55c812f(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: > On 24 Jan, 12:04, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) > wrote: >> Production line jobs. Assembly. The high-skilled jobs (which are also >> high-value) stay here, and the country reaps a benefit. > > Does it? > > What benefit is it that the country reaps, then? > > I can see how maybe the business reaps a benefit, but not the country > given the above. > As Ben said, you have too narrow a focus on the business and the wider position. The flow of capital from the parent company to the outsourced unit is two way. As TOG says, there will be a variety of UK based operations supporting the overseas assembly which will, on paper, charge for their services. This will appear on the UK balance of payments as an export. These UK based staff in management, logisitcs and R&D etc pay tax/NI on their wages; UK based staff pay VAT on their purchases in UK shops; UK staff pay council tax. As a company, Triumph makes a profit and pays UK corporation tax. Some of that profit is going to be generated from sales of stuff made in Thailand. -- wessie at tesco dot net BMW R1150GS
From: vulgarandmischevious on 24 Jan 2010 09:45 JackH <jackhackettuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On 24 Jan, 06:11, vulgarandmischevious ><vulgarandmischevi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> JackH <jackhacket...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >The money earned by workers abroad as a result of the work they're >> >doing on behalf of Triumph, is taxed and generally spent in the >> >countries where they're based, not here - see why this isn't such a >> >good thing economically? >> >> >The bods that might have been employed here to do the work those >> >elsewhere have been employed to do may well be on more benefits as a >> >result of their being less jobs here - so a drain on the economy >> >rather than contributing to it. >> >> Everything up to here is simplistic and incomplete. �It's the high >> school version of economic theory. > >Well go on then, feel free to educate me. :-P > >I appreciate there are other factors... Find the full article of this, and a great deal will be revealed: http://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company/ar/1
From: Andy Bonwick on 24 Jan 2010 10:08
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:21:11 +0000, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: snip> >While I might concur with Bonwick's belief that removing core >engineering skills from this country is not a good thing, employing >assembly-line workers (which is what we're talking about here) isn't the >same thing at all. > I'd sooner see the assembly work done over here using components sourced overseas but I fully understand why Triumph have to move production away from the UK. I have a major problem with cheap labour being brought into this country and forcing down the accepted rate for a job but that's a completely different issue. |