Posted: Sep 29, 2018 4:04 pm
by Thommo
Keep It Real wrote:
Thommo wrote:Yes, lots of people travel to work in countries where they get paid more. In fact, without these people the NHS would not have enough doctors, as large numbers of recruits already come for exactly this reason.

The problems surrounding our failure to train enough doctors are clearly more likely to be fixed outside of a global free market.


Why do you say that, given it's never happened?

You seemed quite exercised that I provide examples of the failures of central planning, does that not apply to this claim too?

Keep It Real wrote:
Thommo wrote:Huge numbers of people move for work every year, including to other countries. Just look at British immigration and emigration figures - it's hundreds of thousands a year.

A smallish proportion of the population then. Jobs are hard to come by - so much so that people often feel they have to leave their home country because being unemployed is not financially feasible (let alone free from stigma). Rise of the machines. Luxury communism is often termed fully automated luxury communism to make that point I feel, although FULL automation should/will probably never happen.


That doesn't seem at all related to the point you're replying to. People, including doctors, can and will be incentivised to move in large numbers if the difference is on the magnitude you proposed. This demonstrably already happens.

Keep It Real wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:
Thommo wrote:At present, in reality, Britain isn't producing enough doctors even with the current incentive structure.

Cuba doesn't have that problem.


It does.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/08/cub ... eager-pay/


No it doesn't - they produce more than enough good doctors - the trouble is they're drastically under paid due to Cuba's premature communist system.


This is making less and less sense. We were discussing drastically "under paying" doctors in exactly the same way as Cuba as per your express wish that we do so. In fact doctors in Cuba work abroad (as far as they can) to earn more money as a consequence.

Keep It Real wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:Apart from communist countries which existed for large parts of the 20th century, where it was tried.

They were too big, too poor and not tech/infrastructure advanced enough. Apples and oranges.


It isn't. It was tried, and it did fail. You may make excuses for that failure, but it still happened. And it was still contrasted with capitalist societies for which no excuses are required.

Keep It Real wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:
Thommo wrote:For the record, a typical doctor is not paid a six figure salary in the UK.

Yeh, I know, and if they were paid 1.5 times as much as a bin man they'd be on 47kpa.


I don't think binmen make that much actually.

Read the thread please. 32kpa is the mean income and it has been suggested that bin men should earn around that amount.


That's the mean income of neither doctors nor bin men, so I've no idea what you're talking about. I provided you with a link to the actual typical income of a binman. It's not 32k.

Keep It Real wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:
Thommo wrote:There's also the secondary problem of what happens to economies that do not even strive to allocate resources efficiently, in accordance with the value they present to society.

They wouldn't be full of chuggers, PPI and doubleglazing cold callers etc ad infinitum. Newsflash - many desires are not rational or advisable. Market failures 101.


Be that as it may, central planning has failed far worse, far more often, wherever it has been applied.


Central planning is in effect already in the UK in many ways, and needn't be in a dirty way if lux com phased in. Also, apples and oranges. I mean they didn't even have the internet.


No, the UK does not have a centrally planned economy, this is total poppycock.