Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Mcthecat on June 11, 2012, 08:40:47 pm
-
A shot of a demonstration in London last year when over half a million people turned up to demonstrate against "austerity" cuts and the loss of three quarters of a million jobs. I love this shot as it demonstrates the rich and wealthy at home in their luxery apartments to the left and right, happy in the knowledge that the financial crisis they created wont loose them or their family their jobs or money but will devestate them who march down the hill. Some rich dudes are in front scampering home before the demo. I call it "dont look back in anger" and i was the only photogrpher on this street when this happened. Lucky me! Ive got better. I have a similar shot of one of Londons weathiest schools with the kids with a banner spread over the road marching in support.
Mick
-
A shot of a demonstration in London last year when over half a million people turned up to demonstrate against "austerity" cuts and the loss of three quarters of a million jobs. I love this shot as it demonstrates the rich and wealthy at home in their luxery apartments to the left and right, happy in the knowledge that the financial crisis they created wont loose them or their family their jobs or money but will devestate them who march down the hill. Some rich dudes are in front scampering home before the demo. I call it "dont look back in anger" and i was the only photogrpher on this street when this happened. Lucky me! Ive got better. I have a similar shot of one of Londons weathiest schools with the kids with a banner spread over the road marching in support.
Mick
Come on, Mick, that's a helluva negatively simplistic attitude towards society. It's also why the 'left' seeks to bring the vote to a younger and younger generation: the younger you are the more credulous, too, especially about offers of something for nothing or, better, at another's expense. Life don't work like that for long.
Rob C
-
Well done Mick. Taking images of protests are something I do regularly and this does convey a message. I find it a good substitute for street photography. A lot of press photographers and TV companies usually turn up at the protests but not much of their coverage gets to the public. Don't be disheartened by the the previous poster's right wing tendencies. I find it a rewarding type of photography which is ever changing from protest to protest and it DOES have a place in our society. :)
-
Mick - I can understand the sentiment you are trying to convey - but this picture doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. The buildings on the left could be offices not homes of the rich and wealthy, and the 'rich dudes' in front just look like a couple of ordinary people to my eyes. I can see how the atmosphere would have been quite electric to you who were there, it's just the picture does not communicate what you are trying to say. Now if you had some pin-striped bankers in front and a Rolls Royce parked by the kerb - that would be communicating something.
Rob C has a point - but it's a political one and should not detract from the message you are trying to convey in your picture.
Jim
-
Mick - I can understand the sentiment you are trying to convey - but this picture doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. The buildings on the left could be offices not homes of the rich and wealthy, and the 'rich dudes' in front just look like a couple of ordinary people to my eyes. I can see how the atmosphere would have been quite electric to you who were there, it's just the picture does not communicate what you are trying to say. Now if you had some pin-striped bankers in front and a Rolls Royce parked by the kerb - that would be communicating something.
Rob C has a point - but it's a political one and should not detract from the message you are trying to convey in your picture.Jim
Absolutely right, Jim; however, the OP is making a written political statement too, and I feel that requires balance. Odd how stamper is happy to support a left-leaning one but, curiously, not willing to permit the counterpoint be made.
But then, that is politics. I wonder how he feels about the current (not to mention recently-but-one past) UK's opposition leader's personal and parental wealth... oh well, who gives a shit? Maybe that explains the junk food discussed elseswhere; its the mindset that's killed much of Britain's industrial heritage.
But getting back to the picture: yes, a demonstration; no, not a sign of weathy people in fear. How unusual to wish to see anyone in fear... A shame, really, because left to itself without the rhetoric, it makes an interesting photograph.
Rob C
-
Rob it would have been helpful if in your original post there was even the slightest mention of photography.... something that this site is apparently dedicated to? Instead you chose a political put down. It was obvious when the thread was originated that a political comment would be forthcoming but I also expected some photographic critique. The image does have a message but to different people with different political orientations it means different things. I don't know how the impact of austerity is in Mallorca but for many in the UK it is devastating whilst at the same time some continue to profit out of the crisis. I have taken many thousands of images of protests in Scotland in the past nine years and it is difficult to put the message into one frame and convey a message that everyone understands. Everyone of course chooses their side of of the problem and you made yours clear from the backwaters of sunny Mallorca. :(
Quote
Absolutely right, Jim; however, the OP is making a written political statement too, and I feel that requires balance. Odd how stamper is happy to support a left-leaning one but, curiously, not willing to permit the counterpoint be made.
Unquote
No sign of censorship from my good self?
-
Thanks guys. The area it was taken in is in the City of London, heart of the countries banking industry which i guess is why it was picked. Good point about the Rolls Royce's Jim, actually your whole point is a good one. The cars had all been moved for the demo but you make an excellent point. The one that's better is in the same vein but what makes it really work much better than this one is that its a whole school of extremely wealthy teenagers from a very privilaged school in London with a banner, stating they are against the cuts, marching down the road supporting the demo which runs counter to what you'd think, rich kids for the cuts but they were against them. I love such places, they are indeed electric, the atomosphere was great and there was no trouble from the people there although a few from a differant group kicked off later away from the demo. You meet the widest range of people to of all kinds of groups. Very friendly and ill be going again when it starts up later this year. With the camera and hopefully much better stuff.
I was there as my county is loosing %40 of its funding and its already a poor area. I dont want anyone to live in fear and i dont mind wealth as long as its earned honestly and fairly to all. Im really politically neutral and now pick and choose what i think is right and whats wrong rarther than sticking to any one party. I just want those who took the money from my area to be held accountable for what they did and pay up for their mistakes be they of whatever political shade. But that again is political and this is a photographic forum so ill stop.
Oh nearly forgot, hope lifes great up in Glasgow Stamper, great city.
Mick
-
Mick photography has been used as a political tool for a very long time. I guess Rob was just looking at the political statement side of the message you wrote, rather than the one you tried to photograph. Photographs have had immense political effect in the past and have been responsible for such things as escalating wars no less. To work like this the message has to be simple and obvious, but not too contrived because otherwise the viewers will suspect they are being led.
On the political question, personally in general I do have sympathy for those against such severe austerity cuts, but there are a lot of vested interests involved.
For example a few months ago we were at a drinks party where several teachers were also guests. They were rather smugly talking about how the new pension deals would not really affect them because they were too near retirement. These were guys around 53 who are only a few years older than I am. They would be able to retire at around 58 on full pensions and were really looking forward to it and could not see how a teacher was possibly expected to work past 60 because it is so stressful. I have only minimal personal pension plans and these days as a photographer I find it hard to pay the essential bills let alone save for retirement. My guess is that I will continue to work until well past 70 and the thought of my taxes going to fund the retirement of people in their 50's does rankle a bit. A lot of the protests are about public sector workers who are well paid being able to retire at 60 on good pensions, live into their 90's, and to hell with the idea that we cannot afford to fund that kind of luxury. I do also appreciate that a lot of public sector workers are not highly paid and do mundane, unrewarding work.
Regarding your point about the children of the rich supporting the protests - as Rob says it is well known that educated youngsters can tend to have a socialist leaning. That is until self-interest kicks in and they reap the reward of their education. The older I get the more disenchanted I become at 'Middle England' and narrow minded selfish attitudes.
Now I sound like grumpy old Rob :) Perhaps It's the incessant damned rain we are getting in the UK. The hosepipe ban is lifted, but there is so much rain we don't need them anyway! Is the sun shining in Mallorca?
Jim
-
A political photography causing political discussion seems to be mission accomplished to me.
-h
-
A political photography causing political discussion seems to be mission accomplished to me.
-h
I'd disagree... the discussion was prompted by the text, not the image.
The image doesn't carry that torch at all.
-
I'd disagree... the discussion was prompted by the text, not the image.
The image doesn't carry that torch at all.
Yeah I was going to say something similar. The photo adds nothing to your description. It's completely superfluous and almost as if you are describing a completely different scene.
The interesting aspect of the shot is the sense of how an organised and happy crowd can move in normally commercial and somewhat confined spaces. I'd say there's too much negative space at the bottom of the image. You needed to be closer to allow for more emotional engagement on the part of the viewer. Something that draws our focus. Keep shooting protests. Get into the crowds and try and talk with people on all sides of the event, including the police if you get the chance. Then shoot.
-
Good points. My favoured lens on a Nikon D700 is an old 80- 200 constant f/2.8. No stabilisation. It is an internal focusing lens so on a rainy day I can put a lens hood on the lens with a rain cover taped to it and there isn't any movement on the lens when focusing which keeps the cover in place. In my experience close ups of protesters works best but you then don't see the context in which the image was taken. In the poster's image he was trying to place the protest in context of the surroundings which imo is difficult. As usual shoot a lot of images and pick out the best.
-
Now I sound like grumpy old Rob :) Perhaps It's the incessant damned rain we are getting in the UK. The hosepipe ban is lifted, but there is so much rain we don't need them anyway! Is the sun shining in Mallorca?Jim
Nope, I don't want to ruin any thread with politics, it's simply that one requires balance, and when even the photographer later admits that the image bears little resemblance/relationship to his written commentary, then what price a few doctored landscapes, for God's sake!
In reply to your question, I post this from today's compulsory constitutional. Oh - regarding the fishy goings on in 'Prejudice' I can add that the masking's off the boat, and two young paint guys are doing some fine artwork this afternoon - if it's still there tomorrow (the boat) I'll hope for the concluding shot of the trilogy! Bet everybody can hardly wait. (Further attempt at humour - pace you-know-who!)
Rob C
-
Now you see those rain clouds in the distance - they are over us and heading your way! ;)
-
I don't know how the impact of austerity is in Mallorca but for many in the UK it is devastating whilst at the same time some continue to profit out of the crisis. Everyone of course chooses their side of of the problem and you made yours clear from the backwaters of sunny Mallorca. :(
Unemployment in Spain is, if I remember the news properly, around 50% and amongst the island (Mallorcan) population, in winter it hits 60% because of the lack of winter tourism. Most young people are unemployed and few can even afford to leave home, marry and set up on their own.
The backwaters of 'sunny Mallorca' are pretty full of people with their houses/apartments up for distress sale, locals as well as foreigers. I watch the news (Sky) and see the reports of 80% or whatever Brits in Britain wanting to leave the European Community. That would kill many of us off. As you get old, you usually also get sick. I pop a few pills a day and have ongoing heart and, now, vision problems. If the UK leaves the EC then I have to fund all this stuff on my own, which I can't do. I gave up private medicine because it was costing me around 3,500 quid a year that I can ill afford, but which I would have continued to spend had my wife not died.
Life here is no cheaper than in Britain. It used to be, and money offshore allowed interest to pay for a lot of the costs of living abroad.That's now a fond memory and the taxman sucks everybody dry, in all the European nations, wherever you keep your main account. But then, to get that account in the first place, you had to work your friggin' socks off, and with photography, as most probably know, you can work 7/7 and still find it bloody hard going. I know that I did. My good years and my bad years were almost biblical in their regularity, only it didn't work in seven-year cycles, it was quicker, and paying separate, private pension plans was a dream (for many who could and did pay, it turned into a very poor investment). In fact, for a few years I paid the self-employed national insurance stamps in both the UK and here. And all for a single state pension at the end of it. I'm afraid that sunshine doesn't pay the bills when you have no work.
Rob C
-
Now you see those rain clouds in the distance - they are over us and heading your way! ;)
No, they were already here at 11am when I left home to go do the chores and check the mail and finally find lunch! Fortunately they have now moved to Menorca or somewhere else across the way, and the painters doing the community are safe, as is the terrace that I am currently having to re-surface, another few friggin' grand out of my future.
When I think of how I had to break my ass to earn that...
Is there an icon for 'scream'?
Rob C
-
Quote
Keep shooting protests. Get into the crowds and try and talk with people on all sides of the event, including the police if you get the chance. Then shoot.
Unquote
This close?
-
Oh stamper, the www says all anyone needs to know.
Don't you think that there's something just a teensy weensy bit distasteful about using kids as political props? Yeah, right, they know what they are doing; no, not the kids.
Rob C
P.S. Was trying to remember which communist regime staying true to doctrine had produced a free and successful nation. China? Russia? Cuba? East Germany?
-
P.S. Was trying to remember which communist regime staying true to doctrine had produced a free and successful nation. China? Russia? Cuba? East Germany?
All of them, Rob. If you don't believe it, just ask them. Oops, going to be hard to ask East Germany... You also might want to ask the Plymouth Colony about the success of their communist community.
-
Thanks Mick for posting this image. I always endeavour to glean as much information about the narrative of this kind of image from the actual pixels in front of me first; before reading any attached explanatory information.
I am well versed in international affairs and the 'Austerity' measures proposed throughout Europe – however am not familiar with this particular location. The first thing which I noticed was the lady smiling in the middle. There were a lot of happy faces here!!! The tone of the image for me was of a peaceful ambling with a lot of happy faces. The messages on the signs were not able to be clearly read... so in this instance without the commentary I didn’t have a clue what the protest was about, and after reading your commentary seemed to be incongruent with it.
I think a trap which is easy to fall into (myself included) is to have one’s own memory or particular agenda obscuring the actual pixels or dots on paper.
Julie
-
.
I think a trap which is easy to fall into (myself included) is to have one’s own memory or particular agenda obscuring the actual pixels or dots on paper.
Julie
That, Julie, can also happen with photographs of models as, at a casting, voice (very important!), personality and sex appeal can blind one both before and after the event. I used to drag my wife along to those things if only to insulate me from the danger of not seeing tiny flaws that, on the day, would turn out to be major ones and would screw the job. And it didn't stop at the pre-shoot stage: even the mood at the moment of shooting could colour the value (as percieved by myself) of the resulting transparencies.
There is so much going on in the mind with creative work that perhaps, in the end, an editor whom you personally respect might be an essential!
Rob C
-
Returning to the actual image, what I like about it is the feeling of the crowd flowing down hill, suggesting the irresistible momentum of public anger (or something like that). A higher viewpoint would have enhanced this, although I guess standing on top of any Rolls Royce parked in the neighbourhood might not have gone down well with the constabulary.
-
On the political question, personally in general I do have sympathy for those against such severe austerity cuts, but there are a lot of vested interests involved.
For example a few months ago we were at a drinks party where several teachers were also guests. They were rather smugly talking about how the new pension deals would not really affect them because they were too near retirement. These were guys around 53 who are only a few years older than I am. They would be able to retire at around 58 on full pensions and were really looking forward to it and could not see how a teacher was possibly expected to work past 60 because it is so stressful. I have only minimal personal pension plans and these days as a photographer I find it hard to pay the essential bills let alone save for retirement. My guess is that I will continue to work until well past 70 and the thought of my taxes going to fund the retirement of people in their 50's does rankle a bit. A lot of the protests are about public sector workers who are well paid being able to retire at 60 on good pensions, live into their 90's, and to hell with the idea that we cannot afford to fund that kind of luxury. I do also appreciate that a lot of public sector workers are not highly paid and do mundane, unrewarding work.
As a retired public sector worker who retired on a good pension well before 60, I would have to say that I understand and sympathise with your attitude. I don't exactly apologise for my good fortune, because it was always the deal I signed up for, and it in Australia at the moment I am able to think of it as being paid for by Chinese mining royalties rather than the taxes of hard working photographers (I know, the distinction is economically dubious). I do however think that around the world Governments have agreed to some pension schemes for public sector workers that may not be economically sustainable in the long term. I understand that California is a case in point.
-
Quote
Oh stamper, the www says all anyone needs to know.
Don't you think that there's something just a teensy weensy bit distasteful about using kids as political props? Yeah, right, they know what they are doing; no, not the kids.
Unquote
Feel free to shoot the message but I am only the messenger. However I thought this would provoke a response. I will state one thing. Anyone living in the USA - and backing it - criticising what is happening in the rest of the world - considering that the banking crisis that started there - has more than a brass neck and is laughable? I won't say any more because that will possibly close the thread which wouldn't be right? :(
-
I love this shot as it demonstrates the rich and wealthy at home in their luxery apartments to the left and right
Thanks guys. The area it was taken in is in the City of London, heart of the countries banking industry which i guess is why it was picked.
Explain, perhaps, how the shot demonstrates anyone at home in "luxery" (sic) apartments when it's taken in an area where nobody lives. The original post is a pseudo-political rant, wholly unconnected with the photograph.
Regarding your point about the children of the rich supporting the protests - as Rob says it is well known that educated youngsters can tend to have a socialist leaning. That is until self-interest kicks in and they reap the reward of their education.
Or until they grow up, join the real world and learn that people have to fend for themselves and can't expect to be handed a living on a plate, you mean?
Jeremy
-
Or until they grow up, join the real world and learn that people have to fend for themselves and can't expect to be handed a living on a plate, you mean?
I sort of think that was what I was suggesting really, which the rest of my post explains.
-
Thanks again all. It was indeed a very strange day. We travelled down from northern England and expected a couple of hundred thousand people but over half a million turned up and that was only the first one, the rest is yet to come. It did feel like an unstoppable force but the unmovable object the govt funnily enough comprising mainly of bankers, wont move. More exciting times ahead although ill be better prepared next time with the camera. I do have a lot of better stuff but ill keep that stuff. The 1DS4 and 70-200 were the only combination used but a wide angle will be next time.
The number of people saving in private company pension schemes has halved since 1991 as companies close them down. The average public sector pension is £5600 a year. The private sector £5860. The issue is final salery schemes which continue in many parts of the public sector but have gone in the private. Why companies have done this ill leave that one for you to work out, but no, public sector workers dont have great pensions but like private sector some do ok. The problem will be later in years as the pensions are cut, old poorly paid people across all sectors will be destitute. Its a problem no govt is facing up to, paying for the old. Im not an economics expert.
The political argument if you want it is two fold. A Conservative one, its up to you, get a better job, save more for later life stop relying on the state or socialist, we are all in this together and those with the most must help those with the least. A massive variation in wealth, whats mine is mine small govt, etc or a smaller gap in wealth and everyones better off but some will take advantage of it. Me? I just want my money back from those who gambled it.
Mick
-
Quote
Explain, perhaps, how the shot demonstrates anyone at home in "luxery" (sic) apartments when it's taken in an area where nobody lives. The original post is a pseudo-political rant, wholly unconnected with the photograph.
Unquote
It is meant to be symbolic of the wealth that exists among a certain clique. The buildings, if they are occupied, represent that luxery - I assume you meant luxury - and I see it as that. How do you know that nobody lives there? You either get it or you don't depending on your political outlook. Have you ever attended/been on a protest? Everybody from ministers,priests to anarchists are represented. I guess if somebody is unaffected financially then their outlook is ...I am alright Jack?
-
Quote
Regarding your point about the children of the rich supporting the protests - as Rob says it is well known that educated youngsters can tend to have a socialist leaning. That is until self-interest kicks in and they reap the reward of their education.
Unquote
A lot of people with good educations are among the worst casualties of the crisis. It sometimes works against you? Bar owners reluctant to employ people with degrees from universities. In the UK Tony Blair wanted 50% of the population to have a degree despite there being not enough high paid, or anything like it, jobs to justify the expense of running university courses.
-
Quote
Regarding your point about the children of the rich supporting the protests - as Rob says it is well known that educated youngsters can tend to have a socialist leaning. That is until self-interest kicks in and they reap the reward of their education.
Unquote
A lot of people with good educations are among the worst casualties of the crisis. It sometimes works against you? Bar owners reluctant to employ people with degrees from universities. In the UK Tony Blair wanted 50% of the population to have a degree despite there being not enough high paid, or anything like it, jobs to justify the expense of running university courses.
I only mentioned that because of the first reference to the OP's point about his surprise that children from rich families supported the protests. You are indeed right about the difficulty for graduates - I have two daughters now 23 and 25 who took some time to get good jobs. However they both did quite good degrees and have benefited from that. The point still remains that children from wealthy families more often get good education, good degrees, and usually end up with very good well paid jobs. And bar owners are not worried about employing youngsters with degrees - look at all the very well educated Eastern European's working in this country. They bar owners just want someone who is hard-working and reliable.
Jim
-
Feel free to shoot the message but I am only the messenger. However I thought this would provoke a response. I will state one thing. Anyone living in the USA - and backing it - criticising what is happening in the rest of the world - considering that the banking crisis that started there - has more than a brass neck and is laughable? I won't say any more because that will possibly close the thread which wouldn't be right? :(
Any who thinks Europe's issues have anything to do with anything other than Europe's issues needs to wake up.
-
Perhaps we should steer this thread away from politics and just stick to the message or otherwise of the original photograph - which has probably been fully explored by now!
Jim
-
Returning to the actual image, what I like about it is the feeling of the crowd flowing down hill, suggesting the irresistible momentum of public anger (or something like that). A higher viewpoint would have enhanced this, although I guess standing on top of any Rolls Royce parked in the neighbourhood might not have gone down well with the constabulary.
The owner wouild probably have broken your neck, or got somebody else to do it for him/her. I would, old bugger or not. Oh, I forgot: I don't have a Roller... damn!
;-)
Rob C
-
As stamper said, let's cool it or we shall lose the thread.
You can't convince anyone to think differently from the way in which they do - assuming that they do - unless you catch them before they are adults. My belief has always been that all people should be presented with the experience of working for themselves. Self-employment is the only eye-opener anyone will ever need about the rights and wrongs, the who pays for whats or that other nonsense called fairness, a fantasy that has never existed in any real-life situation beyond that of childhood expectation.
Obviously, this enforced experience of self-employment can never be applied as I suggest, but brother, does it open your eyes regardless of prior expectations. Even mine.
Over and out, enjoy the images.
Rob C
-
... My belief has always been that all people should be presented with the experience of working for themselves. Self-employment is the only eye-opener anyone will ever need about the rights and wrongs, the who pays for whats...
Rob, while it might indeed be educational for most and even long-term successful for some, had humanity relied on self-employment only, we wouldn't have progressed much beyond cavemen.
-
Quote
Explain, perhaps, how the shot demonstrates anyone at home in "luxery" (sic) apartments when it's taken in an area where nobody lives. The original post is a pseudo-political rant, wholly unconnected with the photograph.
Unquote
It is meant to be symbolic of the wealth that exists among a certain clique. The buildings, if they are occupied, represent that luxery - I assume you meant luxury -
Yes, I know how to spell. I was quoting the original post: that's what "(sic)" means.
Jeremy
-
The number of people saving in private company pension schemes has halved since 1991 as companies close them down. The average public sector pension is £5600 a year. The private sector £5860. The issue is final salery schemes which continue in many parts of the public sector but have gone in the private. Why companies have done this ill leave that one for you to work out, but no, public sector workers dont have great pensions but like private sector some do ok. The problem will be later in years as the pensions are cut, old poorly paid people across all sectors will be destitute. Its a problem no govt is facing up to, paying for the old. Im not an economics expert.
One of Gordon Brown's first acts as chancellor was to initiate a £3bn per year tax raid on private pension funds, so he'd have money to spend on buying votes. That's why private pension funds are not viable and have largely ceased to exist; and it's why, in some parts of the country, well over half those who are actually employed work for the government. The logic, insofar as there was any, seemed to be that public employees, knowing on which side their bread was buttered, would vote Labour.
The wanton destruction of one of the best systems in the world for pension provision was malicious vandalism. History will not be kind to the clunking fist.
Jeremy
-
One of Gordon Brown's first acts as chancellor was to initiate a £3bn per year tax raid on private pension funds, so he'd have money to spend on buying votes. That's why private pension funds are not viable and have largely ceased to exist; and it's why, in some parts of the country, well over half those who are actually employed work for the government. The logic, insofar as there was any, seemed to be that public employees, knowing on which side their bread was buttered, would vote Labour.
The wanton destruction of one of the best systems in the world for pension provision was malicious vandalism. History will not be kind to the clunking fist.
Jeremy
Yes, and not only pubic employee votes: why else do all those would-be immigrants hang around the Channel borders of France awaiting a hidden ferry ride across to Britain when they are already in the European Union just by being in France? I'll tell you why: first of all, we are the open-handouts idiots of Europe; secondly, those that do make the crossing instantly join the ranks of the unemployed and, in due coure, find a vote and use it - guess for whom!
Rob C
-
Rob, while it might indeed be educational for most and even long-term successful for some, had humanity relied on self-employment only, we wouldn't have progressed much beyond cavemen.
Indeed, but you raised a separate issue there, a bit of a red herring, as it were.
The point about the experience of working for yourself is that it cleanses you of any ideas of the world owing you anything, never mind a living. Once anyone gets that, the rest follows, whether you work for yourself or with someone else. I have always disliked the phrase working for a company; if you look at it as working with that company then your attitude is a different one altogether. And don't forget that my suggestion was for people to have the experience of working for themselves, not that they should have to continue along that path for ever.
Rob C
-
" Never in the field of human finance, has so much being owed, by so few, to so many" wasnt that Winston Churchill? Sorry couldnt help it.
Mick
-
... why else do all those would-be immigrants hang around the Channel borders of France awaiting a hidden ferry ride across to Britain when they are already in the European Union just by being in France?...
Why would anyone want to leave France for Britain is indeed baffling to me ;)
-
I am guessing that a fundamental issue is that European/US wages cannot be many times that of Asian wages unless this is reflected in a proportionally larger productivity (assuming that products and services flow freely globally).
_If_ what you are doing can be done equally well by someone elsewhere in the world far cheaper, is it "fair" or "rational" that you get paid so much more?
Now, a wedding photographer is pretty much geographically protected. As long as those in your country can afford to pay you whatever you need to make a living, they probably will. But what if you are photographing products?
Many have become wealthy by going from hunters, to farmers, to industry-workers, to white-collar working our way up Maslow, exploiting sophisticated education systems and knowledge of the culture in the most wealthy societies in order to get a "competitive advantage". While the jobs that we have left behind have been mechanised or moved to low-cost countries. But as they are catching up, will this "ladder" go on for ever? Will we find new low-cost countries?
Regarding the 2008 crisis: I see two approaches that could make some sense:
1) Banks are too important to go bankrupt. Therefore the state had no option but to nationalize banks (purchase bankrupt banks at a cost of zero), run them until the system was stable, and sell them as soon as possible thereafter. (left/inverventionalist)
2) The state should not do business. Letting the banks go bust would surely hurt, but the market would take care of it, and after a while growth would return. (right/liberalist)
What happened in many countries seems to be a nasty bastard of those two: owners of banks did a nasty gamble, it did not work out, national states secured their investement. It is like the state refunding your wallet after you spent it all in Las Vegas. Not only is it "unfair", it also sets a precedence where gambling actually become more rational for banks (owners).
-h
-
'h' ... Spot on ...
In essence, it was heads they win, tails we lose.
-
; secondly, those that do make the crossing instanty join the ranks of the unemployed
Rob C
Do you have evidence for that? It sounds to me quite unlikely. My belief - only modestly supported by evidence, I grant you - is that most immigrants to most countries are keen to work, often in poorly paid jobs which the natives wont't take.
-
Do you have evidence for that? It sounds to me quite unlikely. My belief - only modestly supported by evidence, I grant you - is that most immigrants to most countries are keen to work, often in poorly paid jobs which the natives wont't take.
Many such people haven't a word of English. They drift up from North Africa via the Med, some stop off in Spain or Italy where they cruise the bars selling illegal products (no work permits; counterfeit music cds etc.- you will see at least one a day in almost any bar here) and then if they can pay off the boat ride from Africa they will move northwards to richer countries.
What honest job do you imagine somebody without the language can do in the UK? There isn't enough work for the natives, for heaven's sake! Being illegals they can't apply for even those lowest ranking jobs (that we, supposedly, won't do) that people like to use as illustrations of why they come. All there is is crime, at some level or another. And then, eventually, they get into the system and perpetuate the politics that provide the means for their survival. And if anyone believes that it's all about taking jobs from the indigenous folks, think again: when even the legally found jobs end, as with the motorway construction here, they are without work, have nothing to send back home, and they find themselves in the same boat as the eastern Europeans who do have the legal right to be here but find crime more profitable than the work that doesn't exist even for the Spanish. Somewhere, the money has to be found to wire back to wherever; if you can't get it by working...
It's all a friggin' mess born out of the imagined advantages of free movement of people across Europe.
Rob C
-
'h' ... Spot on ...
In essence, it was heads they win, tails we lose.
I'm probably misunderstanding you, and maybe everybody else, but it isn't a matter of they winning and we losing. We would indeed lose if the banks were allowed to go down - the folks with their accounts in those banks, that is. They are the ones being rescued, not the managements, many of whom have been axed. It's only because of governments stepping in with some public money to save the public's deposits that the system can continue and, with luck, fix itself. Don't forget, banks have been around providing great service for centuries; it's just the recent bout of bad lending that has brough this disaster about, not the concept of banking.
Yes, some people have been driven by greed and hubris, but by no means the entire industry. It's so easy to knock a whole sector for the sins of part.
Personally, I believe that a lot of what hjulenissen suggests is true: there can't forever be a series of lesser paid workers/producers in the world. The evidence stares you in the face when you think of Japan: was a time it could produce most anything as well as if not better than the rest of the world and more cheaply; now, it has to subcontract out to stay competitive!
China still has millions of very low paid workers, but for how long? Who's going to be the next world-workshop - North Korea? That would make some here happy bunnies!
Rob C
-
... Being illegals they can't apply for even those lowest ranking jobs...
Not being able to legally apply, correct. But that does not mean they do not find jobs. As a matter of fact, being able to find such jobs is the biggest motivator of illegal immigration, at least here, in the States. In addition to, of course, employing illegals is highly profitable for employers, as they can not only pay them less, but strip them of all other benefits and rights as well. Had it not been beneficial for both parties, it would not have existed for so long. Blaming crime as the main motivator helps explain only a minor percentage of illegal immigration. I have always been perplexed by the right-wing hypocrisy of the illegal immigration politics: against it publicly, yet benefiting the most from it (as employers). Fine Walmarts of the world with $1 million for every case of employing illegals, and problem solved. The crime component will be there no matter what, though.
-
Not being able to legally apply, correct. But that does not mean they do not find jobs. As a matter of fact, being able to find such jobs is the biggest motivator of illegal immigration, at least here, in the States. In addition to, of course, employing illegals is highly profitable for employers, as they can not only pay them less, but strip them of all other benefits and rights as well. Had it not been beneficial for both parties, it would not have existed for so long. Blaming crime as the main motivator helps explain only a minor percentage of illegal immigration. I have always been perplexed by the right-wing hypocrisy of the illegal immigration politics: against it publicly, yet benefiting the most from it (as employers). Fine Walmarts of the world with $1 million for every case of employing illegals, and problem solved. The crime component will be there no matter what, though.
I guess that the U.S. is a different game: the Mexican people move upwards into the southern States and they find a helluva lot of people there can speak the same language: Spanish; it's their passport. However, the Algerian illegal in London isn't going to find his version of Arabic that common with the Brits, and believe me, in the UK even his French will prove to be just as useless!
Rob C
-
I'm probably misunderstanding you, and maybe everybody else, but it isn't a matter of they winning and we losing. We would indeed lose if the banks were allowed to go down - the folks with their accounts in those banks, that is. They are the ones being rescued, not the managements, many of whom have been axed. It's only because of governments stepping in with some public money to save the public's deposits that the system can continue and, with luck, fix itself. Don't forget, banks have been around providing great service for centuries; it's just the recent bout of bad lending that has brough this disaster about, not the concept of banking.
Yes, some people have been driven by greed and hubris, but by no means the entire industry. It's so easy to knock a whole sector for the sins of part.
With all due respect, you don't really know what you are talking about ... In the US.
Ground zero of this crisis was not the depositary institutions. AIG didn't take any desposits. Goldman Sachs didn't take any deposits. Morgan Stanley didn't take any deposits. Bear Stearns didn't take any deposits. Lehman Brothers didn't take any deposits. Merrill Lynch didn't take any deposits. JP Morgan in London didn't take any deposits.
Banking in the modern world is not what you remember.
Waaaaaaaay too many of the people who caused this crisis not only kept their jobs ... They continue to make 7-8 figures in total annual comp. Believe me, I'm surrounded by them.
It really was "heads they win, tails we lose."
These ayyyyholes made huge bets with shareholder money. When the bets paid off, they kept a huge chunk of the gain ... They weren't even good at sharing with the shareholders whose money they wagered!
Then ... When the bets soured, we - joe public - had to pay the tab ... Because we allowed them to become too important too fail ... And as effed up as it seems, it was in our interests to keep the doors open.
But that shouldn't have been allowed to happen ... And we haven't done enough to punish the wrong doers nor enough to ensure a different outcome next time.
-
We don't often agree, Jeremy, but we do on this point. It's called "crony capitalism," and our government is just as guilty as the ayyyyyholes who draw the big salaries and donate heavily to the campaigns of the politicians who make it all possible. Unfortunately it's pretty nonpartisan.
-
"Privatizing profits and socializing losses", as it is succinctly known.
-
I'm probably misunderstanding you, and maybe everybody else, but it isn't a matter of they winning and we losing. We would indeed lose if the banks were allowed to go down - the folks with their accounts in those banks, that is. They are the ones being rescued, not the managements, many of whom have been axed. It's only because of governments stepping in with some public money to save the public's deposits that the system can continue and, with luck, fix itself. Don't forget, banks have been around providing great service for centuries; it's just the recent bout of bad lending that has brough this disaster about, not the concept of banking.
It is my understanding that the owners (that were responsible for their own business) in many cases were allowed to stay in ownership, while the organization was bankrupt. This would not normally be possible, but taxpayers money made it possible.
I would suggest that a better solution would be to nationalize bankrupt banks. That way, investors that made a poor gamble would loose all of their investment. I think that the latter makes sense for people both left and right, although the means to accomplish it may differ.
The end-result is that there are few changes in regulation of how banks and big corporations are allowed to work. The investors have observed that if they gamble with important organizations, there is no down-side: their investment will be secured by the people. The national states have exhausted their resources trying to fix the economy. I.e. more power to big corporations, less power to the democratic institutions.
-h
-
Jeremy
With all due respect, you don't really know what you are talking about ... In the US.
I don't argue about the States - I don't have any money (that I know about) sitting there.
But I do know about Northern Rock and I do know about Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland and LLoyds. It was indeed the folks with cash on deposit that were certain to lose it had these structures been allowed to fail.
Unfortunately, as my wife was losing her battle with cancer at the end of '08 we were, at the same time, trying to get money out of one bank and into another perceived as more secure. I remember walking through the local town square with our kids, just a day or so after the funeral, when the cellphone rang and a bank confirmed that they had opened a fresh account for us. It was touch and go that the credit card could pay for the funeral because the old account that fed it had been closed and I had to await the opening of the new in order to get even the money I needed to refurbish the local Spanish one and feed us all.
So don't tell me it is only the stock players and bank shareholders that were and still are at risk; without the deposits there would be nothing for anyone. And as I do know something about bank shareholding, don't kid anyone that they were, and remained, always great buys. It also sits badly for people currently to blanket call the brokers assholes; nobody thought of calling them that when times were good and interest poured in! Truth is, we like the gambling game when we win, but blame somebody else when we lose. At least the lottery has no hypocrisy to it... on the other hand, so far, it only buys me the odd (very) cup of coffee.
Yes, I agree that policing of these services is required - but it always was a need, the rules were there, but who enforced them?
Rob C
P.S. Yes, I do know about the governmental 'guarantees' for deposits; for many people the sums 'guaranteed' still signal wipeout.
-
Yes, I agree that policing of these services is required - but it always was a need, the rules were there, but who enforced them?
It seems that human individuals and society are incapable of comprehending the idea that economy will have ups and downs. From Dutch flower crisis to 2008. I am no economist, but it is unclear to me what the alternative is. I.e. are the oscillations around the central tendency always a bad thing? Or is this inherent unstable behaviour actually needed in order to have the nice long-term growth that can be observed over decades?
When bank and car-manufacturers appeared on the tv telling us that their organization was too important to go bust, and that they wanted tax-payers to help them out, I think that they implicitly said that "our organization is too important for society for us to have full freedom". If a bank is so important that the state have to subsidize losses, we _must_ also be allowed a share of the profits, or at least allow ourselves to regulate the company so as to avoid future losses.
-h
-
We don't often agree, Jeremy, but we do on this point. It's called "crony capitalism," and our government is just as guilty as the ayyyyyholes who draw the big salaries and donate heavily to the campaigns of the politicians who make it all possible. Unfortunately it's pretty nonpartisan.
Nonsense, Russ; that's the bright side of the situation!
You can vote freely in the knowledge that they will all screw you with equal pleasure.
I'm definitely a glass-half-full kind of chap!
;-)
Rob C
-
One of Gordon Brown's first acts as chancellor was to initiate a £3bn per year tax raid on private pension funds, so he'd have money to spend on buying votes. That's why private pension funds are not viable and have largely ceased to exist; and it's why, in some parts of the country, well over half those who are actually employed work for the government. The logic, insofar as there was any, seemed to be that public employees, knowing on which side their bread was buttered, would vote Labour.
The wanton destruction of one of the best systems in the world for pension provision was malicious vandalism. History will not be kind to the clunking fist.
Jeremy
Jeremy, that only tells half of the story - though it undoubtably contributed towards the problem. I worked in the pensions industry in the 1980's and at that time annuity rates were around 10% and the stock market was doing very well, as was the housing market here in the UK. In the last 20 years annuity rates have halved because of the realisation that people are living longer and also the yields from the bonds that underwrite the pension payments have also reduced. Pension funds no longer benefit from the steady increase in the stock market. Final salary pension schemes it was realised are just not affordable as they once were. I worked in a company where the normal retirement age was 60, and if you had done 40 years you would get a full two-thirds pension at that time. It is just not affordable for a business to pay such a high pension for perhaps 30 plus years, based on a 40 year working life. A pension fund of around £500K would be needed to pay a typical pension - and how much would that cost per year to invest in?
But I also agree that the government (of all colours) has done very little to sort out this huge problem.
Jim
-
Jimmy Reid, Scottish politician 1932 -2010 stated in a speech in 1972.
A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings.
Amen.
-
... A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings...
Yes, we are. Not sure it is a compliment though. Not for humans. For rats, maybe. Other than generally viewed with disgust, I am unaware that rats are capable of such unspeakable cruelty, monstrousity and atrocities we, the proud humans, are.
So, what's your point in economic or political terms? You know of a more "humane" way of running things? I am all ears! But peddling failed systems of the past and debunked theories ain't gonna cut it.
-
So, what's your point in economic or political terms? You know of a more "humane" way of running things? I am all ears! But peddling failed systems of the past and debunked theories ain't gonna cut it.
Put me in charge. I'd be a very enlightened dictator and it would solve my own retirement puzzle.
-
Getting back to the photograph for a moment...
It's an OK street shot of a protest, but it's all in the background. I think you were too far away from the action and needed to get in closer, as opposed to just using a longer lens. As it is they're just a wall of people down the street. There's no sense of immediacy or passion. Look at photos that win photojournalism awards. The photographer puts the viewer in the middle of it. In this one you're on the sidelines, watching from a safe distance.
-
"In this one you're on the sidelines."
In this case, a nicer, more charitable way of looking at the photographer's position would be as the virgin tied to the distant rock as the dragon comes steaming out of the sea towards her, rape - or possibly just lunch - on its mind.
Who'd be a snapper?
Rob C
-
Yes, we are. Not sure it is a compliment though. Not for humans. For rats, maybe. Other than generally viewed with disgust, I am unaware that rats are capable of such unspeakable cruelty, monstrousity and atrocities we, the proud humans, are.
So, what's your point in economic or political terms? You know of a more "humane" way of running things? I am all ears! But peddling failed systems of the past and debunked theories ain't gonna cut it.
Personally I have never peddled any system on this forum. I have certainly criticised some of the present ones. Slobodan if you think that this is the best that mankind can do then the world is doomed to everlasting crisis. This one isn't over yet and it could implode to a doomsday scenario. As I see it you are the resident sniper with all of the bullets and none of the answers. :) ;)
-
I suggest we concentrate on photography and not get embroiled in pointless bickering over politics, as if anyone is going to change their views because of what they read here.
-
Slobodan if you think that this is the best that mankind can do then the world is doomed to everlasting crisis.
Name a period in recorded history of more than thirty years when the world wasn't either on the verge of or in crisis. Unfortunately, crisis grows out of human nature.
-
Yes, I agree that policing of these services is required - but it always was a need, the rules were there, but who enforced them?
Actually, there were NO rules where it matter most on this occasion.
Nobody was regulating - at all - the market for Credit Default Swaps ... because the geniuses in the Clinton administration allowed themselves to be bullied by the nice, honorable people Rob thinks work on Wall Street into ruling that CDS were NEITHER insurance products NOR securities.
There's your crony capitalism, Russ.
-
If you substitute "bought off" for "bullied," I'd agree with you, Jeremy.
-
Actually, there were NO rules where it matter most on this occasion.
Nobody was regulating - at all - the market for Credit Default Swaps ... because the geniuses in the Clinton administration allowed themselves to be bullied by the nice, honorable people Rob thinks work on Wall Street into ruling that CDS were NEITHER insurance products NOR securities.
There's your crony capitalism, Russ.
Tut, tut, Jeremy! You are being somewhat misrepresentational(?) or, at the very least, giving way to extreme memory distortion. I quote what I wrote:
"Yes, some people have been driven by greed and hubris, but by no means the entire industry. It's so easy to knock a whole sector for the sins of part."
Rob C