PDA

View Full Version : David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s



Alf W
24th June 2012, 15:34
BBC News - David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855)

Oh Lordy. Who voted this clown in again?

:facepalm:

The worrying thing is we have a Prime Minister who actually thinks in this simplistic, knee-jerk Daily Mail fashion.

AtW
24th June 2012, 15:46
Yes, Cameron is full of ideas how to stimulate growth of economy and create a lot of jobs to reduce unemployment and thus welfare state :laugh

minestrone
24th June 2012, 15:47
There is a massive amount of 'daft wee girls' that spit out sprogs to get a free house. Often to get away from the house and their parents who are 16 years older than them. Idiots who were too young to handle the responsibility of parenthood. The circle continues.

I got a degree, got a job, got a career to get a house. Some people get a quick knee trembler.

Who Is kidding who?

AtW
24th June 2012, 15:53
There is a massive amount of 'daft wee girls' that spit out sprogs to get a free house.

He should have done it 2 years ago - right now he (and the country) needs some proper pro-growth policies, best with tax cuts - to do that he needs to cut public expenditure proper and if his best way of doing it is throwing single mums with kids to street then he'd unlikely be able to cut any taxes on the back of it.

Cameron is an idiot whose allowed himself to be carried by the stream to inevitable loss at next General Election.

I'll be voting for Monster Looney party next time and if they don't field local candidate I will! :smokin

minestrone
24th June 2012, 15:57
He should have done it 2 years ago - right now he (and the country) needs some proper pro-growth policies, best with tax cuts - to do that he needs to cut public expenditure proper and if his best way of doing it is throwing single mums with kids to street then he'd unlikely be able to cut any taxes on the back of it.

Cameron is an idiot whose allowed himself to be carried by the stream to inevitable loss at next General Election.

I'll be voting for Monster Looney party next time and if they don't field local candidate I will! :smokin

A government has to be polyphonic. One issue at one time will not work.

AtW
24th June 2012, 15:59
A government has to be polyphonic. One issue at one time will not work.

This Govt is sound deaf.

I wish they were also mute.

HTH

dmo
24th June 2012, 16:01
I'm still debating whether I should spend the next 25 years paying for a lorry of bricks and cement.. And this guys not making it any easier. Gone are the good days of being able to realistically have your own property...

Sometimes I think I should just spend it all. Go travelling, then join the queue when I'm back. Working 70hr weeks will never pay off with a govvy think this. Annoyingly I voted for them.

minestrone
24th June 2012, 16:05
This Govt is sound deaf.

I wish they were also mute.

HTH

I do not think they are, the lower orders have been getting away with "I hate my mum, I hate this house, I am going to get pregnant on my 16th and get a free house" thinking for a long time much to the disgust of the upper ranks.

Dave is doing something about it.

AtW
24th June 2012, 16:08
Dave is doing something about it.

He has not done anything - he just voiced some idea that in all probability won't be implemented.

My guess is that he probably wants a new scandal to distract papers from current tax avoidance tulip.

Maybe he should start a war with Syria.

minestrone
24th June 2012, 16:14
My guess is that he probably wants a new scandal to distract papers from current tax avoidance tulip.


Carr will be forgotten in about 20 minutes. He got it then the rest of the names were 'nice people', there was clear ending of this when Sir Chris Hoy's name got mentioned.

AtW
24th June 2012, 16:20
there was clear ending of this when Sir Chris Hoy's name got mentioned.

:laugh

You think it's over? No, it won't be even though some other scandals no doubt would appear, either way next Govt will be Labour.

Or Monster Looney Party if you vote right, you know it makes sense! :smokin

minestrone
24th June 2012, 16:30
:laugh

You think it's over? No, it won't be even though some other scandals no doubt would appear, either way next Govt will be Labour.

Or Monster Looney Party if you vote right, you know it makes sense! :smokin

I doubt it, people are too scared to have then in again, the Libs are as well.

It will be a coalition but Labour will not be in power.

( If they do I am moving to The Ukraine for more people power and prosperity )

hyperD
24th June 2012, 16:57
BBC News - David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855)

Oh Lordy. Who voted this clown in again?

:facepalm:

The worrying thing is we have a Prime Minister who actually thinks in this simplistic, knee-jerk Daily Mail fashion.

My faith in British politics died about the same time as my pension and various liberties during The Reign of Terror circa 1997-2010 under the mendacious Labour party, the party that always fails their country and the people with its cultural Marxists ideologies.

Those w@nkers Brown, Blair, Campbell, Mandleson and the other self-serving parasites will never, ever be forgiven for the ruination of this nation.

To see all parties of all flavours follow this path of ruin is simply beyond parody.

Let me remind you all again, showing signs of partisanship when discussing politics is merely adding fuel to this political inferno.

I notice, Alf W, that you are quite happy (and rightly so) to slate the Tories and yet, a little shy to hold to account the bastards from the Red Team that were in power for the last 13 years.

If you are partisan then you are part of the problem.

lilelvis2000
24th June 2012, 17:06
BBC News - David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855)

Oh Lordy. Who voted this clown in again?

:facepalm:

The worrying thing is we have a Prime Minister who actually thinks in this simplistic, knee-jerk Daily Mail fashion.

Gotta keep those cronies happy, yeah? No doubt they came and asked for £2Bn for something or other. A bit of rooting around and hey Bingo!!

SueEllen
24th June 2012, 20:07
There is a massive amount of 'daft wee girls' that spit out sprogs to get a free house. Often to get away from the house and their parents who are 16 years older than them. Idiots who were too young to handle the responsibility of parenthood. The circle continues.


There are also care kids, people medically discharged from the army*, and juvenile offenders who families definitely won't support them.

The first and the last group are often one and the same.

In regards to the girls unless they fall into those groups they should be left at home.



I got a degree, got a job, got a career to get a house. Some people get a quick knee trembler.

Who Is kidding who?

I doubt you home is a top-floor one bedroom flat in a drug infested estate in Battersea where people regularly p*ss and sh*t in the lift.

Or a mouldy and damp draughty flat where the landlord refuses to do any maintenance because you are "benefit scrum" who will just wreck it.

You need to have more than one or two kids to get a nice place.

*Though to be fair the only ones I've met haven't been that injured so worked.

Waldorf
24th June 2012, 21:13
When are people going to realise that we do not have the money!

I heard that David Laws has suggested a government spending limit of 35% of GDP, I think we are currently spending 50%, this just cannot go on.

We need serious spending cuts, so far we have had none.

Start with a thorough review of what we spend our money on and how we do things, we ran an empire covering a quarter of the globe with a civil service a fraction of what we have now.

We then need a long term plan to pay off the debt, that is after we have eradicated the deficit, the debt needs to be paid off over say 20-30 years.

AtW
24th June 2012, 21:16
When are people going to realise that we do not have the money!

:rollin:

Lots of money - interest rates are 0.5% and banks don't want your cash!!!

Waldorf
24th June 2012, 21:25
:rollin:

Lots of money - interest rates are 0.5% and banks don't want your cash!!!

The state does not have the money.

The state is planning to spend over £700 billion and they will only raise about £600 billion from taxes, so we have to get rid of the deficit and then tackle the debt, which at the peak will be about £1400 billion.

As long as we then don't add to this debt we can make a plan to clear it over the next 20-30 years, this will become easier as the economy grows.

Having said all of the above, if and when Labour get back to power they will not be able to resist raiding the public coffers and spend it on useless projects.

Labour's problem is that they do not like to say no to anyone, only responsible politicians are able to do this and sadly, it always falls on the tories to sort out the mess that Labour leave us.

Doggy Styles
24th June 2012, 21:38
The state does not have the money.Take no notice of AtW. He has no idea about economics. The rest of us know what you mean.

AtW
24th June 2012, 21:40
He has no idea about economics.

:eek

:mad

Doggy Styles
24th June 2012, 21:57
BBC News - David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855)Good. Let's hope he can get it past all the hand-wringers.

pacharan
24th June 2012, 22:19
Good. Let's hope he can get it past all the hand-wringers.

Well let's wait for Mich's contribution on Monday

escapeUK
25th June 2012, 07:48
Good. Let's hope he can get it past all the hand-wringers.

Very unlikely. In fact I predict another u-turn.

What should have happened a long time ago, is a dormitory like system for those who really needed somewhere to stay. With extra lessons on child care, and or employment skills, with onsite crèche for those who then get work. All women in the dormitory system get free compulsory contraception implants to prevent any other happy accidents.

If done well this could have been great, a responsible system where people protected but never a system that someone would purposely want to enter for a cushy life.

Doggy Styles
25th June 2012, 07:50
:eek
:madYou're right AtW, my post was a bit harsh. I'm sorry.:smile

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 07:59
Very unlikely. In fact I predict another u-turn.

What should have happened a long time ago, is a dormitory like system for those who really needed somewhere to stay. With extra lessons on child care, and or employment skills, with onsite crèche for those who then get work. All women in the dormitory system get free compulsory contraception implants to prevent any other happy accidents.

If done well this could have been great, a responsible system where people protected but never a system that someone would purposely want to enter for a cushy life.

Maybe a work house or Magdalene laundry? Should we extend it to recipients of corporate warfare? Maybe board members of bailed out banks could stay in the dormitories too. They would not purposely want to enter this for a cushy life.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 08:39
BBC News - David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855)

Oh Lordy. Who voted this clown in again?

:facepalm:

The worrying thing is we have a Prime Minister who actually thinks in this simplistic, knee-jerk Daily Mail fashion.

Quite,

Much better to pay people to do nothing than it is to force them to integrate with society and get a job

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 08:41
There are also care kids, people medically discharged from the army*, and juvenile offenders who families definitely won't support them.

The first and the last group are often one and the same.

In regards to the girls unless they fall into those groups they should be left at home.



I doubt you home is a top-floor one bedroom flat in a drug infested estate in Battersea where people regularly p*ss and sh*t in the lift.

Or a mouldy and damp draughty flat where the landlord refuses to do any maintenance because you are "benefit scrum" who will just wreck it.

You need to have more than one or two kids to get a nice place.

*Though to be fair the only ones I've met haven't been that injured so worked.

This diatribe of nonsense is built on the premise that somehow not working is good for someone.

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 08:57
This diatribe of nonsense is built on the premise that somehow not working is good for someone.

Can we have an economic system that can provide jobs for everyone capable of work, because or finance based economy can't? Then we can hammer the workshy together.

doodab
25th June 2012, 09:01
This diatribe of nonsense is built on the premise that somehow not working is good for someone.

Anyone who has ever tried to cook sunday lunch with a 5 year old helping will know that in some cases someone being paid not to work it best for everyone involved.

Society needs to stop creating losers and the way to do this is to create good quality jobs for people rather than offering them the choice between two kinds of soul destroying poverty.

Scoobos
25th June 2012, 09:04
He should have done it 2 years ago - right now he (and the country) needs some proper pro-growth policies, best with tax cuts

I think he needs those Tax Cuts to get re-elected; with the same old Tory tax cut dirty election trick that they always use.

Doggy Styles
25th June 2012, 09:13
Anyone who has ever tried to cook sunday lunch with a 5 year old helping will know that in some cases someone being paid not to work it best for everyone involved.

Society needs to stop creating losers and the way to do this is to create good quality jobs for people rather than offering them the choice between two kinds of soul destroying poverty.OK, genuine question. What is "society", and how does it "create good quality jobs for people"?

lilelvis2000
25th June 2012, 09:23
When are people going to realise that we do not have the money!

I heard that David Laws has suggested a government spending limit of 35% of GDP, I think we are currently spending 50%, this just cannot go on.

We need serious spending cuts, so far we have had none.

Start with a thorough review of what we spend our money on and how we do things, we ran an empire covering a quarter of the globe with a civil service a fraction of what we have now.

We then need a long term plan to pay off the debt, that is after we have eradicated the deficit, the debt needs to be paid off over say 20-30 years.

I blame the baby-boomers.

AtW
25th June 2012, 09:25
You're right AtW, my post was a bit harsh. I'm sorry.:smile

You will be. :smokin

AtW
25th June 2012, 09:36
I think he needs those Tax Cuts to get re-elected; with the same old Tory tax cut dirty election trick that they always use.

That's why they are increasing taxes now to cut them later, very cunning plan. :eyes

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 09:46
Can we have an economic system that can provide jobs for everyone capable of work, because or finance based economy can't? Then we can hammer the workshy together.

First of all that statement is "stereotypical socialist" that simply smacks of an entitlement mentality (it is someone else's duty to create "me" a job) If someone has no money coming in it is astonishing how quickly they can find work.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 09:47
A
Society needs to

This is the essence of the problem i.e that it is someone else's.

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 10:03
First of all that statement is "stereotypical socialist" that simply smacks of an entitlement mentality (it is someone else's duty to create "me" a job) If someone has no money coming in it is astonishing how quickly they can find work.

Nice rant. If everyone tried harder, would there be jobs for all? Is an increase in unemployment caused by an increase in laziness?

It is true that certain factors will combine - one of them is effort, one is capability, one is experience, one is luck - to mean that certain individuals will be more likely yo work than others. It is therefore true that those who try least hard are more likely to be unemployed. This tells us something about individuals' employment status, in essence their relationship with the phenomenon of unemployment. But it does not tell us about the phenomenon of unemployment itself - how expanding production leads to credit booms and then an inevitable bust.

You may have your own theories about the phenomenon of unemployment and perhaps you can share them if you can get past your silliness (but bless you anyway), but any attempt to deal with worklessness purely looking at the individual without looking at the phenomenon is a smokescreen.

lukemg
25th June 2012, 10:09
Whole system is screwed by short term thinking geared around election schedule but key principles remain.
If you want higher taxes to pay for a bloated public sector and high benefits - vote labour.
If you want to at least try to get a grip on the finances and reduce some of the bills, vote the other mob.
It won't make a huge difference but still seems like a no brainer if you have a half decent job.
Also - forget these daily wail tales of easy street for benefit scrotes, they are bumping along on the bottom rung and it aint a good long term prospect for anyone used to better.
There aren't the huge numbers of basic jobs for these people anyway, pay them enough to keep them quiet and the rest of us get on with it I say.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 10:16
Nice rant. If everyone tried harder, would there be jobs for all? Is an increase in unemployment caused by an increase in laziness?

It is true that certain factors will combine - one of them is effort, one is capability, one is experience, one is luck - to mean that certain individuals will be more likely yo work than others. It is therefore true that those who try least hard are more likely to be unemployed. This tells us something about individuals' employment status, in essence their relationship with the phenomenon of unemployment. But it does not tell us about the phenomenon of unemployment itself - how expanding production leads to credit booms and then an inevitable bust.

You may have your own theories about the phenomenon of unemployment and perhaps you can share them if you can get past your silliness (but bless you anyway), but any attempt to deal with worklessness purely looking at the individual without looking at the phenomenon is a smokescreen.

Unemployment in the UK within the type of society we have is to do with more than "laziness". A lot of unemployed people lack aspirations and confidence so like many human beings they follow the path of least resistance. Brought up and educated by a system that discourages any form of self reliance that in turn wrecks aspiration and confidence people are left to live within a spiral of welfare dependency and poverty.

The left seem to think that paying people to not work somehow purges them of guilt (for being themselves affluent, well educated or delivering shit public services), when actually the cruellest thing of all is to trap people into welfare dependency.

So let us firstly throw out the notion that welfare is a benefit and let us be "cruel to be kind" and force people out to work and let everyone enjoy the confidence and aspirations that the rest of us enjoy.

It is too easy for the left to blame society for not creating jobs for people this is because it is the left who are to blame for unemployment not anyone else.

Scoobos
25th June 2012, 10:17
That's why they are increasing taxes now to cut them later, very cunning plan. :eyes

Is that sarcastic or not? I call incorrect use of rolleyes.

Scoobos
25th June 2012, 10:18
It is too easy for the left to blame society for not creating jobs for people this is because it is the left who are to blame for unemployment not anyone else.

:rollin::rollin::rollin:

d000hg
25th June 2012, 10:32
There is a massive amount of 'daft wee girls' that spit out sprogs to get a free house. Often to get away from the house and their parents who are 16 years older than them. Idiots who were too young to handle the responsibility of parenthood. The circle continues.

I got a degree, got a job, got a career to get a house. Some people get a quick knee trembler.

Who Is kidding who?True but "under 25" also covers 99% of people graduating university with a big chunk of debt... being able to claim benefits while you find your first job can boost employment in my view. Certainly it did in my case... I walked into a job out of uni but was made redundant 1 year later. JSA+housing benefits for a couple of months enabled me to find a skilled job that used my degree; I've no idea what I would have done without that!

As with any blanket ruling, it doesn't really work for everyone!

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 10:33
:rollin::rollin::rollin:

Apart from theses sort of jobs of course

Public sector workers more likely to take 'sickies' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/hr-news/9266687/Public-sector-workers-more-likely-to-take-sickies.html)

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 10:38
Unemployment in the UK within the type of society we have is to do with more than "laziness". A lot of unemployed people lack aspirations and confidence so like many human beings they follow the path of least resistance. Brought up and educated by a system that discourages any form of self reliance that in turn wrecks aspiration and confidence people are left to live within a spiral of welfare dependency and poverty.

The left seem to think that paying people to not work somehow purges them of guilt (for being themselves affluent, well educated or delivering tulip public services), when actually the cruellest thing of all is to trap people into welfare dependency.

So let us firstly throw out the notion that welfare is a benefit and let us be "cruel to be kind" and force people out to work and let everyone enjoy the confidence and aspirations that the rest of us enjoy.

It is too easy for the left to blame society for not creating jobs for people this is because it is the left who are to blame for unemployment not anyone else.

How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

Doggy Styles
25th June 2012, 10:59
In the UK we have lost the 'initiative' culture - starting up small businesses ourselves like many immigrants do. That's how new 'jobs' are created.

That doesn't need a government to do anything, other than stay out of the way.

So why have we lost that? Instead, why does nearly everybody complain that someone else is not providing more jobs?

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 11:18
How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

I am not AtW :happy

Put the unemployed into your shoes. If you are out of work and had no money what would you do? Whilst I accept that having some sort of cushion may be helpful in hard times the problem is that this cushion instantly makes people less willing to just go out and get a job. The cushion today is weighted so much in favour of the out of work that it deprives the genuinely needy of help that they should be getting.

In 2004 there were many Poles with no welfare and no jobs. Such was the incentive for them to work and earn money they came here to the UK disadvantaged by language and having no homes to live in. In Britain we decide to pay people so much money to not work that when it comes to competing for the jobs there was no competition for the Poles. Furthermore the low level jobs that the Poles have taken have lead to them getting higher level jobs as their English improved and their confidence grew. Ask any employer who would they employ between two people with exactly the same skills, age and academic profile who had not worked in their chosen profession for 6 months - they would pick the one who had picked fruit in the fields instead of being unemployed.

Welfare makes the left feel good about themselves,. The (arrogant and patronising) view being that they are somehow "helping others" is not only false but is selfish and highly damaging to the people who are not working.

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 11:35
I am not AtW :happy

Put the unemployed into your shoes. If you are out of work and had no money what would you do? Whilst I accept that having some sort of cushion may be helpful in hard times the problem is that this cushion instantly makes people less willing to just go out and get a job. The cushion today is weighted so much in favour of the out of work that it deprives the genuinely needy of help that they should be getting.

In 2004 there were many Poles with no welfare and no jobs. Such was the incentive for them to work and earn money they came here to the UK disadvantaged by language and having no homes to live in. In Britain we decide to pay people so much money to not work that when it comes to competing for the jobs there was no competition for the Poles. Furthermore the low level jobs that the Poles have taken have lead to them getting higher level jobs as their English improved and their confidence grew. Ask any employer who would they employ between two people with exactly the same skills, age and academic profile who had not worked in their chosen profession for 6 months - they would pick the one who had picked fruit in the fields instead of being unemployed.

Welfare makes the left feel good about themselves,. The (arrogant and patronising) view being that they are somehow "helping others" is not only false but is selfish and highly damaging to the people who are not working.

How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 11:40
How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

First of all what has this got to do with the points I am making and secondly if you want an answer to this question then ask AtW

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 12:59
First of all what has this got to do with the points I am making and secondly if you want an answer to this question then ask AtW

The level of unemployment is a function of economic circumstances. 1930s slump, 1980s economic restructuring, current credit crunch. Unless you think that they are a function of an outbreak of laziness.

Whether an individual is within the employed or unemployed bucket is to a significant extent down to that individual but how large the buckets are is not.

If we reach a 1950s level of near full employment then I am all for tough action against those who will not work and who can. But there is no point now because what will happen as a result? The jobs will not appear. And arguements about immigration fail (fail when it comes to unemployment but not necessarily to depressing wages) due to the lump of labour fallacy.

VectraMan
25th June 2012, 13:02
True but "under 25" also covers 99% of people graduating university with a big chunk of debt... being able to claim benefits while you find your first job can boost employment in my view. Certainly it did in my case... I walked into a job out of uni but was made redundant 1 year later. JSA+housing benefits for a couple of months enabled me to find a skilled job that used my degree; I've no idea what I would have done without that!

As with any blanket ruling, it doesn't really work for everyone!

I don't think anyone was suggesting it'd be a blanket ruling. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that anybody who has worked for some time, and then finds themselves unemployed should have the short term state help, regardless of age. And perhaps going to university should also apply. It's the entitelement to move out of your parents' home without being able to afford it that is the problem.

d000hg
25th June 2012, 13:05
I thought the whole point was it WAS a blanket "no benefits to <25s" rule. Perhaps I'll read the article...

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 13:17
The level of unemployment is a function of economic circumstances. 1930s slump, 1980s economic restructuring, current credit crunch. Unless you think that they are a function of an outbreak of laziness.

Whether an individual is within the employed or unemployed bucket is to a significant extent down to that individual but how large the buckets are is not.

If we reach a 1950s level of near full employment then I am all for tough action against those who will not work and who can. But there is no point now because what will happen as a result? The jobs will not appear. And arguements about immigration fail (fail when it comes to unemployment but not necessarily to depressing wages) due to the lump of labour fallacy.

Unlike you I do not apply "lazy" to the unemployed. Read my post. Even when there is a deep recession it is not a good incentive to give people money for not working. The fact that all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants show that there is too much welfare.

vetran
25th June 2012, 13:35
How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

Those are the real workers being shifted around.

Those less attractive ones (in fifties, low skilled, health problems, unlucky etc) get laid off then spend 3 - 6 months trying to find another job that usually pays less than the last one.

Fit young people unemployed more than 1 year in reasonably good times are likely to be swinging the lead. It seems reasonable to approach it from that perspective. Obviously the definition of good times has changed because of the influx of cheap overseas labour.

I was recently reading Jeffrey Archer's Prison diary Volume 1. and a number of Benefit fraud mentions came as an almost standard amongst the inmates as casual side offence they were unlikely to be caught for. So its reasonable to suppose fraud is endemic when combining this with recent projects where claimants forced to turn up for work 50% stopped claiming benefits.

Get them to turn up for work (there is plenty to do Training, caring for the community etc) if they don't then stop benefit. If they are having difficulty finding work then proving they are reliable and willing to work that can only be a positive step.

Mixing the results of criminal neglect, social pressures etc with the benefit system is a recipe for disaster, if the police / social workers find someone in a difficult situation at home etc they just arrange a bedsit for them. If they were forced to resolve the issue instead of dumping them on benefits it would be better for all.

What's wrong with 'the workhouse' if properly run, many would profit from a segregated dormitory style existence with decent discipline to prevent them sliding into the young offenders institutions as many with poor childhoods do.

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 14:38
Unlike you I do not apply "lazy" to the unemployed. Read my post. Even when there is a deep recession it is not a good incentive to give people money for not working. The fact that all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants show that there is too much welfare.

Did I call the unemployed lazy. No but don't let logic and accuracy get in the way.

If you didn't give them money, would they all find work? Where would the jobs come from? Why didn'the jobs appear in the 1930s when unemployment relief was minimal?

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 14:48
Did I call the unemployed lazy. No but don't let logic and accuracy get in the way.

If you didn't give them money, would they all find work? Where would the jobs come from? Why didn'the jobs appear in the 1930s when unemployment relief was minimal?

As usual with the left the welfare argument becomes a debate about extreme circumstances which are turned to justify the status quo of left wing ideology and shift the argument onto more comfortable territory. As I keep saying the worst thing for a person is to not work (an argument that you choose to ignore) why do you insist on saying that handouts are acceptable?

If Poles and Chinese can come here and find work as fruit pickers cockle pickers and bus drivers then why cannot the British unemployed do the same? This is not the 1930s (though it will be if the left take control of the economy again) and there are plenty of jobs out there that are being carried out by foreign workers.

The left love an abundance of poor people because they can seem virtuous by pretending to care. Welfare is their classic symbol of conscience. It is used as a means to justify the rest of us handing even more of our hard earned cash. They do not like it when the very premise of their selfish ideology (condemning people not to work) is exposed as the sham that it is.

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 15:00
As usual with the left the welfare argument becomes a debate about extreme circumstances which are turned to justify the status quo of left wing ideology and shift the argument onto more comfortable territory. As I keep saying the worst thing for a person is to not work (an argument that you choose to ignore) why do you insist on saying that handouts are acceptable?

If Poles and Chinese can come here and find work as fruit pickers cockle pickers and bus drivers then why cannot the British unemployed do the same? This is not the 1930s (though it will be if the left take control of the economy again) and there are plenty of jobs out there that are being carried out by foreign workers.

The left love an abundance of poor people because they can seem virtuous by pretending to care. Welfare is their classic symbol of conscience. It is used as a means to justify the rest of us handing even more of our hard earned cash. They do not like it when the very premise of their selfish ideology (condemn
ing people not to work) is exposed as the sham that it is.

Your views of people on the left are ridiculous.

I might as well say that you are either a ******* idiot or a nasty little piece of tulip. Fortunately I am too polite and reasonable to do so.

I happen to think working is much better than not working. But the jobs are not there. Unemployment is rising because jobs are disappearing.

The effect of withdrawing money will not be to create new jobs but to make people even more miserable, except perhaps you.

I would rather have jobs, but in the absence of jobs, I would rather less misery than more.

So surprisingly your little rant about selfishness and pretending is not accurate. I have a different analysis from you. Perhaps you thought I see things the same way and then choose to condemn people to misery.

Scoobos
25th June 2012, 15:02
The fact that all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants show that there is too much welfare.

I counter this, in all (developed) countries all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants, because it is perhaps the hardest physical work you can do, for the lowest wage. Try it and you'll see (I've done my bit overseas myself)

Whilst a lot of people do take the micky, I hate this generalising that "unemployed" can mean Lazy, or not. Everyone is individual and there will be individuals that are lazy and those that are not.

I think a lack of opportunity is the problem, especially in ex industrial / mining towns.

There's only so many call centre jobs to go round.

Greg says what I can't much more elequently. We all need to see the world through other peoples eyes, rather than judging everything on your own personal experiences (and I can improve this too).

Quite frankly, right wing rhetoric never sounds good from rich people in nice developed areas down south.
Left wing doesnt sound very good from people like me either (poor , from an ex industrial city up north, broken home etc).

Just because I turned my life around, I know how incredibly difficult it can be; its certainly not the land of opportunity that those in the South East can argue.

I think any blanket rule is totally wrong, but paying for individual assessment thats supposed to be being done already is not an option either. (What if the job centre got in on the agents game and turned the whole thing into a profit making enterprise? Why don't they?)

Final example on the Job Centre - I went for the dole after finishing Uni and got 2 weeks pay out of 6 - I questioned why I get the spanish inquisition and reduced payment for doing 1 days work cleaning cars, whilst an entire Sunderland family come in and just get the docket signed with no argument.

The answer was - "Because you have hope, and you can move away, there's nothing for them".

That for me, is the problem.

Doggy Styles
25th June 2012, 15:19
If you listen to what dodgy says instead of who he votes for, it is that individuals should push on and make their own opportunities, by doing those low-paid or hard jobs, or starting their own businesses.

But, for whatever reason, many UK people don't do that. Maybe they don't know how, it's not in their culture, or they don't have to because they are collecting welfare benefits, or whatever other reason that doesn't seem to apply to immigrants.

Continually blaming someone else for not providing them with opportunities is just negative and doesn't get us very far.

doodab
25th June 2012, 15:33
And when they do that what happens? You get people complaining about poor people washing windscreens at the traffic lights or whatever.

A lot of these low paid jobs they are supposed to be grateful for are little more than slavery and fail to pay a living wage. Even the hard working, prepared to do anything immigrants have to be hoodwinked to take them on.

Fruit pickers: 'The money we earn is not worth getting out of bed for' - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fruit-pickers-the-money-we-earn-is-not-worth-getting-out-of-bed-for-1740216.html)

You need to provide quality work for people, a policy of offering a choice between near slavery or destitution should have no place in a modern democracy.

Diver
25th June 2012, 15:38
Under 25's

Kick them all out of social housing and cut off benefits

Then call in the Rio Death squads to hunt down and kill the street kids.

Then take off and nuke the place from orbit

Just to be sure :smokin

>Irony, sarcasm - used to expose and discredit vice or folly. See satire<

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 15:52
Your views of people on the left are ridiculous.

I might as well say that you are either a ******* idiot or a nasty little piece of tulip. Fortunately I am too polite and reasonable to do so.

I happen to think working is much better than not working. But the jobs are not there. Unemployment is rising because jobs are disappearing.

The effect of withdrawing money will not be to create new jobs but to make people even more miserable, except perhaps you.

I would rather have jobs, but in the absence of jobs, I would rather less misery than more.

So surprisingly your little rant about selfishness and pretending is not accurate. I have a different analysis from you. Perhaps you thought I see things the same way and then choose to condemn people to misery.

If you think working is so much better than not working why do you support a system that pays vast amounts of people to not work?
Why is it you and your friends so much prefer to support this dreadful system when Polish workers are arriving here in their thousands (millions even) and filling these jobs. This is not the 1930s. You also seem incapable or unwilling to answer my assertion that any sort of income support is an immediate disincentive for someone to find work.
The only misery that people are condemned to is one whereby they dont work. Your system supports this.

Doggy Styles
25th June 2012, 15:55
You need to provide quality work for people, a policy of offering a choice between near slavery or destitution should have no place in a modern democracy.I ask again - WHO needs to provide this? And who can?

Why is everyone entitled to 'quality work', and what is it anyway?

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 15:57
And when they do that what happens? You get people complaining about poor people washing windscreens at the traffic lights or whatever.

A lot of these low paid jobs they are supposed to be grateful for are little more than slavery and fail to pay a living wage. Even the hard working, prepared to do anything immigrants have to be hoodwinked to take them on.

Fruit pickers: 'The money we earn is not worth getting out of bed for' - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fruit-pickers-the-money-we-earn-is-not-worth-getting-out-of-bed-for-1740216.html)

You need to provide quality work for people, a policy of offering a choice between near slavery or destitution should have no place in a modern democracy.


The default position of the red necked left is that people are better off not working unless the right job is laid out in front of them on a plate. I will repeat the point that I would rather employ someone who has been fruit picking than someone who has been living off benefits. If fruit picking is so unrewarding then make it rewarding by removing benefits. If someone spends a year picking fruit they are much more likely to have the confidence to aspire to other better paid jobs.

Paying people not to work has no redeeming facets whatsoever.

Scoobos
25th June 2012, 16:00
when Polish workers are arriving here in their thousands (millions even) and filling these jobs.

Might not be popular, but I think that a lot of these "workers" arrive here in the thousands to do 3 months work then start claiming benefits and being GIVEN them...

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 16:03
Might not be popular, but I think that a lot of these "workers" arrive here in the thousands to do 3 months work then start claiming benefits and being GIVEN them...

Which is another reason for removing benefits. However every Pret, KFC, Macdonalds that I go to employs people who are not British.

vetran
25th June 2012, 16:07
The answer was - "Because you have hope, and you can move away, there's nothing for them".

That for me, is the problem.

Hope, yes. Why don't they have hope?

'A mine is a hole in the ground with a Cornishman at the bottom'.

a hundred years ago they managed it, now with international air travel its easier.

when they get there we need to help them back.

Also when you lose money working against being on Benefit (its a real issue) then you can't blame them.

Ketchup
25th June 2012, 16:08
But if he abolished the housing benefit for under 25 year olds, they wouldn't keep popping out sproggs. This would have a severely detrimental effect on my sex-life and where would i stay when contracting in london?

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 16:13
If you think working is so much better than not working why do you support a system that pays vast amounts of people to not work?
Why is it you and your friends so much prefer to support this dreadful system when Polish workers are arriving here in their thousands (millions even) and filling these jobs. This is not the 1930s. You also seem incapable or unwilling to answer my assertion that any sort of income support is an immediate disincentive for someone to find work.
The only misery that people are condemned to is one whereby they dont work. Your system supports this.

I think they should be paid because there are not jobs for them. Taking the money away would not lead to them having jobs.

Instead of hammering away at those without jobs, why not look at why there are not enough jobs? Unemployment has gone up because jobs have disappeared.

I am however glad that you are now saying that my system leads to misery, rather than implying that it is my dastardly intention. You see, we have a difference in analysis.

The question of disincentive is interesting. Of course if people were paid £2k per week, that would be a disincentive. We must therefore agree that this disincentive diminishes but remains as it reduces. However, the disincentive cannot be looked at in isolation from the job market. Also reducing benefits to reduce the disincentive is a blunt tool which will catch some people you want to and punish some people you don't want to. It's a tricky balance, andone that this country has managed by having low benefits by North European standards.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 16:15
I counter this, in all (developed) countries all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants, because it is perhaps the hardest physical work you can do, for the lowest wage. Try it and you'll see (I've done my bit overseas myself)

Whilst a lot of people do take the micky, I hate this generalising that "unemployed" can mean Lazy, or not. Everyone is individual and there will be individuals that are lazy and those that are not.

I think a lack of opportunity is the problem, especially in ex industrial / mining towns.

There's only so many call centre jobs to go round.

Greg says what I can't much more elequently. We all need to see the world through other peoples eyes, rather than judging everything on your own personal experiences (and I can improve this too).

Quite frankly, right wing rhetoric never sounds good from rich people in nice developed areas down south.
Left wing doesnt sound very good from people like me either (poor , from an ex industrial city up north, broken home etc).

Just because I turned my life around, I know how incredibly difficult it can be; its certainly not the land of opportunity that those in the South East can argue.

I think any blanket rule is totally wrong, but paying for individual assessment thats supposed to be being done already is not an option either. (What if the job centre got in on the agents game and turned the whole thing into a profit making enterprise? Why don't they?)

Final example on the Job Centre - I went for the dole after finishing Uni and got 2 weeks pay out of 6 - I questioned why I get the spanish inquisition and reduced payment for doing 1 days work cleaning cars, whilst an entire Sunderland family come in and just get the docket signed with no argument.

The answer was - "Because you have hope, and you can move away, there's nothing for them".

That for me, is the problem.

So you are saying we should pay these people to do nothing? If you go to Sunderland you will find that the buses are driven by Polish bus drivers. Even though there were 10,000 capable men unemployed in 2007 none of them wanted to do this sort of work because to do so would have meant earning less than benefits were paying them.

The only part of the blanket rule that should not apply is to those who genuinely cannot work and those who can but have severe disadvantages. The crime is that the patronising "guilt ridden" left by supporting this terrible state of affairs are making the lives of the genuinely disadvantages very difficult.

Doggy Styles
25th June 2012, 16:15
But if he abolished the housing benefit for under 25 year olds, they wouldn't keep popping out sproggs. This would have a severely detrimental effect on my sex-life and where would i stay when contracting in london?With someone over-25. :D

Ketchup
25th June 2012, 16:18
With someone over-25. :D

:rollin:

Diver
25th June 2012, 16:19
It's all feck'd and will remain so until immigration is stopped and there is a negative impact on deliberate single parentage (or Compulsory Birth control for those unable to support a child pre-pregnancy).

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 16:28
I think they should be paid because there are not jobs for them. Taking the money away would not lead to them having jobs.

Instead of hammering away at those without jobs, why not look at why there are not enough jobs? Unemployment has gone up because jobs have disappeared.

I am however glad that you are now saying that my system leads to misery, rather than implying that it is my dastardly intention. You see, we have a difference in analysis.

The question of disincentive is interesting. Of course if people were paid £2k per week, that would be a disincentive. We must therefore agree that this disincentive diminishes but remains as it reduces. However, the disincentive cannot be looked at in isolation from the job market. Also reducing benefits to reduce the disincentive is a blunt tool which will catch some people you want to and punish some people you don't want to. It's a tricky balance, andone that this country has managed by having low benefits by North European standards.

Taking the money away would lead them to finding jobs however "blunt" you think this is it is a adarn site better than paying people not to work. It is amazing just how motivated people become when they dont have food or shelter (in Africa refugees travel barefoot across an entire continent to reach South Africa) - they would have to. having said that so wretched have some of these multi generation unemployed become that they are unemployable - thanks to your lot taking such a blase view (oh we are not as generous as the rest of Northern Europe -.
The under 25s are not beyond hope which is why they need to be incentivised to work.
the reason there are not enough jobs around is because the left have undermined private sector job creation with their obsessive employment laws and heavy taxation to pay out for unemployment benefit.

I do not think people like you have any idea of what your liberal policies actually do to people. You see the problem as purely a statistical comparison to other countries in "Northern Europe" . You view your own patronising "generosity (I care about the poor) as somehow doing the poor a favour. Not for a minute do you accept that these people were once and still could be as capable of holding down a job as you can. You seem to think in your selfish arrogance that "they" should not be expected to work unless they have "the right job" in "the right "area" .

The results of this liberal left wing dogma is that there are thousands of families imprisoned within the welfare state with no hope of getting out of it. No wonder we have so much crime. Still without them you would have no moral "cause" would you?

Ketchup
25th June 2012, 16:35
It is the goverment allowing these spongers to sit on their fat behinds all day which will ultimately mean the country is no longer the economic leader it once was. These degenerate jeremy-kyle oxygen-theives have numerous children to stop themselves having to go to work, the goverment give them money and homes to do this. There is then a defecit in the roles these people would have taken up (generally service sector) so the salaries for these roles are artifically high (compared to other countries) this causes migran workers to come into the country (that is in no means racist, it is fact).

The council estates breed a culture of laziness and work-shyness, so the bastard kids of the original doll-dossers will then do the same, and their kids the same, until this country is the worlds biggest council estate and the economy collapses under its own welfare bill.

There is no easy way to stop it, each goverment is too pragmatic, and the number of voters who claim welfare is such a high percentage, that any dramatic changes to the welfare system making them have to a days work will mean they guarantee they wont get into power at the next election.

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 16:37
Taking the money away would lead them to finding jobs however "blunt" you think this is it is a adarn site better than paying people not to work. It is amazing just how motivated people become when they dont have food or shelter (in Africa refugees travel barefoot across an entire continent to reach South Africa) - they would have to. having said that so wretched have some of these multi generation unemployed become that they are unemployable - thanks to your lot taking such a blase view (oh we are not as generous as the rest of Northern Europe -.
The under 25s are not beyond hope which is why they need to be incentivised to work.
the reason there are not enough jobs around is because the left have undermined private sector job creation with their obsessive employment laws and heavy taxation to pay out for unemployment benefit.

I do not think people like you have any idea of what your liberal policies actually do to people. You see the problem as purely a statistical comparison to other countries in "Northern Europe" . You view your own patronising "generosity (I care about the poor) as somehow doing the poor a favour. Not for a minute do you accept that these people were once and still could be as capable of holding down a job as you can. You seem to think in your selfish arrogance that "they" should not be expected to work unless they have "the right job" in "the right "area" .

The results of this liberal left wing dogma is that there are thousands of families imprisoned within the welfare state with no hope of getting out of it. No wonder we have so much crime. Still without them you would have no moral "cause" would you?

Oh you are silly.

However we now know that when a workplace is closed down in a recession, you want the workers reduced to the state of starving African refugees.

vetran
25th June 2012, 16:48
I would suggest a good 20% of benefit claims are fraudulent (non existant/eligible claimants/dependants).
Eliminating those would be a good start.

Then make sure its not possible to work while on benefits.

Those that have never worked need to be pushed hard to change.

While doing that it makes sense to give the people hope. Training, work experience, measurable performance reports. So open training venues for those that have done well in the initial work for benefits phase.

Pare away those that are comfortable or do not need the benefit. As you do that encourage new business.

Make sure that it is more profitable to work for fit people (don't tell me this doesn't happen 2 friends have faced the issue where going back to work meant they had less money).

Build small business in the areas where there is deprivation. Not just giving away bribes to large business or moving government agencies there. I'm pretty sure successful business people will want to help set up small business. Create national projects such as the olympics / rail network/ green intiatives etc that are partially restricted to hiring unemployed workers. Lets have a great unwashed quota as well as the BGLT quota.

The transition from working to non working should have a decreasing benefit depending on your contributions. So 2 years out of work you are the same as long term unemployed.

oh and add a tailing off of benefits for 3rd child onwards and close completely for any not conceived yet.
If you are on benefits then don't have more children its simple.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 18:00
Oh you are silly.

However we now know that when a workplace is closed down in a recession, you want the workers reduced to the state of starving African refugees.

So this justifies paying out billions in welfare and ruining people's lives does it?

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 18:07
So this justifies paying out billions in welfare and ruining people's lives does it?

What, not reducing them to the level of starving African refugees?

doodab
25th June 2012, 18:16
I ask again - WHO needs to provide this? And who can?

Why is everyone entitled to 'quality work', and what is it anyway?



"Society" needs to provide it. Government, the private sector, the public sector, entrepreneurs. The system needs to be engineered to encourage the creation of jobs that pay a living wage, provide some sort of fulfillment and actually encourage people to work, rather than low wage pseudo slavery that predominantly benefits large corporations. The alternative is a low wage, low skill, low value add economy that makes work unattractive.

It's not a question of entitlement, it's a question of managing the economy so that the UK is nice place to live and work. Whether you give a **** about the wellbeing of other people or not, cultivating an environment where people are given a choice between a life of crime, subsistence on benefits or eeking out a soul destroying existence devoid of dignity on minimum wage, leaving contributing to society in a meaningful and satisfying way as a luxury option not open to many, doesn't seem like a great idea.

doodab
25th June 2012, 18:23
If fruit picking is so unrewarding then make it rewarding by removing benefits.

Removing benefits doesn't make it rewarding. It's still borderline slavery. If companies can't afford to pay a living wage and the shortfall has to be made up from benefits then they are being subsidised and should instead be left to fail.


If someone spends a year picking fruit they are much more likely to have the confidence to aspire to other better paid jobs.

Spoken by a man who clearly has **** all idea what a year of surviving on £50 quid a week, stripped of ones dignity and being unable to support ones family actually does to a person's psyche.

Cliphead
25th June 2012, 18:26
When I was sixteen and school finished for the holidays I took a notion to find a job instead of kicking a ball around with the mates. Twenty four hours later after knocking on doors I had three job offers and spent an enjoyable summer working as a hotel porter earning a wage and about the same in tips before going back to studying.

I think any teenager trying this now would get nowhere, much more difficult to find work these days. True, there's a workshy / benefits culture but there must be better ways of tackling the problem.

lilelvis2000
25th June 2012, 18:30
What, not reducing them to the level of starving African refugees?

One of my wife's recent client was a man from Gambia, He came in and got himself a decent job at a plant that make plastics parts. This was within one month of his arrival in the country. Why some of the drunks I see wandering past my office each day couldn't do that job I've no idea.

Thing about African's is they just get on with it because they know that the government won't help them out at all. We need the same idea here. All I hear is
"I expect the government to make jobs"
"There are no jobs and the government needs to sort it out"
etc... etc..

The "best" place is a middle ground. That is a limited time benefit say max six months.

My sis was telling me that in Vancouver they are changing the law so that a person cannot claim employment insurance - equivalent to job seekers - if there are any jobs of any sort in the area. Now that's tough.

doodab
25th June 2012, 18:31
I think any teenager trying this now would get nowhere, much more difficult to find work these days.

They'll have to compete with the long term unemployed working for nothing to get "experience".

In the creative industries especially people will work for free or not much more to get a foot in the door because they want a "cool" job working in a studio / on a film set, and that's been the way for a long time. I never expected the practice to spread to shelf stacking though...

doodab
25th June 2012, 18:37
The problem with a lot of the "cuts" that we've seen is that we all know there are real problems needing real solutions and quite probably some real savings to be made and what we get is a succession of ill thought out hare brained schemes that it seems aren't actually saving any money.

We are very ******* ****ed if this keeps up. I might not be overly keen on the idea of another Thatcher but I'd pick her over any of the current lot, lab, lib or con.

Cliphead
25th June 2012, 18:38
They'll have to compete with the long term unemployed working for nothing to get "experience".

In the creative industries especially people will work for free or not much more to get a foot in the door because they want a "cool" job working in a studio / on a film set, and that's been the way for a long time. I never expected the practice to spread to shelf stacking though...

Aye, didn't think of that. Changed days...

EternalOptimist
25th June 2012, 19:07
The safety net idea is a good one, and I have taken advantage of it when I was forced to.

But when people use it as a blanket, and milk it, we have a problem. When the system is so generous that it reduces the fight in people, we have a problem.

most people here are atypical, they have lots of fight, and always will have. But there are millions out there who will roll over and stay in bed for an extra hour if they are paid for it


:rolleyes:

SueEllen
25th June 2012, 19:51
The safety net idea is a good one, and I have taken advantage of it when I was forced to.

But when people use it as a blanket, and milk it, we have a problem. When the system is so generous that it reduces the fight in people, we have a problem.

most people here are atypical, they have lots of fight, and always will have. But there are millions out there who will roll over and stay in bed for an extra hour if they are paid for it


:rolleyes:

Then how do you stop them without the vunerable being harmed?

Suggestions such as dorms for young single mothers under 25 who can't live with a relation cost more money than giving them benefits.

(Though I guess in this example in the long term if you knew you were going to be put in a dorm, birth control or an abortion would be more attractive.)

norrahe
25th June 2012, 19:57
Then how do you stop them without the vunerable being harmed?

Suggestions such as dorms for young single mothers under 25 who can't live with a relation cost more money than giving them benefits.

(Though I guess in this example in the long term if you knew you were going to be put in a dorm, birth control or an abortion would be more attractive.)

It's certainly worked as a deterrent in The Netherlands, teen single mums are not given free housing or special benefits, the policy being if you get knocked up you go and live with the folks!

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 19:58
Removing benefits doesn't make it rewarding. It's still borderline slavery. If companies can't afford to pay a living wage and the shortfall has to be made up from benefits then they are being subsidised and should instead be left to fail.



Spoken by a man who clearly has **** all idea what a year of surviving on £50 quid a week, stripped of ones dignity and being unable to support ones family actually does to a person's psyche.

Firstly we have a minimum wage in this country and if fruit picking was done by British people it would be very hard for employers to cheat on it. Secondly are you saying that it is preferable not to work than pick fruit?

bless 'em all
25th June 2012, 20:06
The safety net idea is a good one, and I have taken advantage of it when I was forced to.

Me too. Once. Right up to the point where I saw the person dealing with those signing on was my bunny-boiler ex-girlfriend. I felt employment of any type was preferable to a show-down in the DSS office. :o


But when people use it as a blanket, and milk it, we have a problem. When the system is so generous that it reduces the fight in people, we have a problem.

Indeed, and I may have a closer view of this blanket than some. My daughter, who's 22 and was 'brought up' by her mother is a prime example. No qualifications, no drive and living off the state. I tried, really tried, to explain to her that only she can make her life better. It went in one ear and out the other. She couldn't be arsed to go to college, she couldn't be arsed when she was basically given a job. The bank of Dad closed shortly after that. It's not going to open again in the foreseeable.


most people here are atypical, they have lots of fight, and always will have. But there are millions out there who will roll over and stay in bed for an extra hour if they are paid for it

We have fight, drive and the view that WE can make something better for ourselves. We're some of the few people who snort in derision when offered the chance to earn 'only' 60k a year.

I've done truly sh1t jobs. I mean jobs where I've thrown up from the stench (dairy), been half cooked by the heat (commercial bakery) and bored to death (working nights re-stacking packs of baked-beans onto different sized pallets).

My father came from the Netherlands in the 60's and has worked without stopping, into his late 60's. He's not asked the state for anything.

Perhaps that's why I'm contracting now. Because I know that no-one is obliged to help me, or give me anything, or be my excuse for f-ing up my life.

AtW
25th June 2012, 20:14
Here is fresh idea - rent cheap social housing in friendly places like Spain, Romania, Bulgaria etc: anybody who can't find a job within 6 months will have to relocate there.

doodab
25th June 2012, 20:25
Firstly we have a minimum wage in this country and if fruit picking was done by British people it would be very hard for employers to cheat on it. Secondly are you saying that it is preferable not to work than pick fruit?

Revealed: Scandal of Britain's fruit-farm workers - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-scandal-of-britains-fruitfarm-workers-1740207.html)

I would prefer not to work than pick fruit in those conditions. Given that I'm a hard working bastard who started on the markets when I was 14 and has never claimed benefits even when I haven't had work I think that says something about what a tulipe job it is. Feel free to chuck in your cushy number talking tulipe on the phone and go work on the tan if you want to prove me wrong.

Another factor to consider, and I have had to at some points, is that even without benefits I'd be better off not taking a low paid job as it would prevent me looking for decent work. In among the "lazy scum" there must be a few people in a similar position i.e they have skills and if they can find work that uses them they can earn a lot more than minimum wage. The opportunity cost of taking a minimum wage job and having to work 60 hours a week to make ends meet with little flexibility for interviews and job hunting is surely going to dissuade those people, who in general do actually want to work.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 20:35
Revealed: Scandal of Britain's fruit-farm workers - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-scandal-of-britains-fruitfarm-workers-1740207.html)

I would prefer not to work than pick fruit in those conditions. Given that I'm a hard working bastard who started on the markets when I was 14 and has never claimed benefits even when I haven't had work I think that says something about what a tulipe job it is. Feel free to chuck in your cushy number talking tulipe on the phone and go work on the tan if you want to prove me wrong.

Another factor to consider, and I have had to at some points, is that even without benefits I'd be better off not taking a low paid job as it would prevent me looking for decent work. In among the "lazy scum" there must be a few people in a similar position i.e they have skills and if they can find work that uses them they can earn a lot more than minimum wage. The opportunity cost of taking a minimum wage job and having to work 60 hours a week to make ends meet with little flexibility for interviews and job hunting is surely going to dissuade those people, who in general do actually want to work.


Within those insults lies the classic entitlement phrase of "it prevents ME from applying for the job I want" like a true leftie with a sense of entitlement you fail to realise that whilst you are looking for the job "you want" someone else is being forced to pay you.
You still have not explained why it is better for our society to pay such a large proportion of the population NOT TO WORK.

AtW
25th June 2012, 20:40
I agree with DodgyAgent.

doodab
25th June 2012, 20:56
Within those insults lies the classic entitlement phrase of "it prevents ME from applying for the job I want" like a true leftie with a sense of entitlement you fail to realise that whilst you are looking for the job "you want" someone else is being forced to pay you.
You still have not explained why it is better for our society to pay such a large proportion of the population NOT TO WORK.

What insults? You have a persecution complex mate. The lefties are coming, you better watch out, ooo-hoo-hoo, you better watch out, the lefties are coming and they're coming for you-hoo-ooo.

It's not really a question of preventing me applying for the job I "want" BTW, and no one has ever been forced to pay me while I look for work, and I've taken plenty of jobs I didn't want. It's simply the case that when one is advanced in years, has a family to look after and so on, one simply can't afford to risk a permanent drop down the pay scale. It's not like taking a minimum wage job would be a stop gap, or make ends meet, it's not "something to tide one over", it's the first step on a slippery slope to getting trapped and ending up at the bottom. It's one thing to suggest people live within their means but to suggest that everyone live within the means of a minimum wage employee because they might lose their job and be forced to accept minimum wage is frankly silly and would do just as much to discourage ambition as the benefits trap. To some extent this is another consequence of the inequality in British society. There are probably more people trapped in jobs they hate who would love to break out and start their own business as there are people trapped on benefits.

FWIW, I know a couple of families who receive housing benefit in my local area, each have two people working and simply would not be able to survive without it. The debt bubble hasn't just caused unsustainable house price inflation, rents have risen more or less as fast. Minimum wage in London is about £315 for a standard working week, although a lot of that sort of work is part time so they won't clear that, and of course self employed folk can't guarantee a particular level of income at all which tends to put landlords off.

doodab
25th June 2012, 20:57
I agree with DodgyAgent.

You're just upset because no one wants to harvest your cherry.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 21:03
What insults? You have a persecution complex mate. The lefties are coming, you better watch out, ooo-hoo-hoo, you better watch out, the lefties are coming and they're coming for you-hoo-ooo.

It's not really a question of preventing me applying for the job I "want" BTW, and no one has ever been forced to pay me while I look for work, and I've taken plenty of jobs I didn't want. It's simply the case that when one is advanced in years, has a family to look after and so on, one simply can't afford to risk a permanent drop down the pay scale. It's not like taking a minimum wage job would be a stop gap, or make ends meet, it's not "something to tide one over", it's the first step on a slippery slope to getting trapped and ending up at the bottom. It's one thing to suggest people live within their means but to suggest that everyone live within the means of a minimum wage employee because they might lose their job and be forced to accept minimum wage is frankly silly and would do just as much to discourage ambition as the benefits trap. To some extent this is another consequence of the inequality in British society. There are probably more people trapped in jobs they hate who would love to break out and start their own business as there are people trapped on benefits.

FWIW, I know a couple of families who receive housing benefit in my local area, each have two people working and simply would not be able to survive without it. The debt bubble hasn't just caused unsustainable house price inflation, rents have risen more or less as fast. Minimum wage in London is about £315 for a standard working week, although a lot of that sort of work is part time so they won't clear that, and of course self employed folk can't guarantee a particular level of income at all which tends to put landlords off.

You are dribbling

doodab
25th June 2012, 21:10
You are dribbling

Is that the best you can do?

AtW
25th June 2012, 21:15
Is that the best you can do?

Yes.

Robinho
25th June 2012, 21:19
Nobody really needs housing benefits.

If you think you won't be able to afford the rent if you get laid off, remember to save up more when you are working.

You won't have to pay as much tax because you won't be having to pay other people's housing allowance.

You see life would be so much simpler without a big government.

doodab
25th June 2012, 22:36
Nobody really needs housing benefits.

If you think you won't be able to afford the rent if you get laid off, remember to save up more when you are working.

You won't have to pay as much tax because you won't be having to pay other people's housing allowance.

You see life would be so much simpler without a big government.

You do realise that telling someone on minimum wage who can't afford to pay their rent when they are working that they should save money in order to pay their rent when they aren't working doesn't really add up don't you?

AtW
25th June 2012, 22:42
You do realise that telling someone on minimum wage who can't afford to pay their rent when they are working that they should save money in order to pay their rent when they aren't working doesn't really add up don't you?

Have some living rather than minimum wage perhaps that allows people to pay rent, taxes and have some money to save?

doodab
25th June 2012, 22:59
Have some living rather than minimum wage perhaps that allows people to pay rent, taxes and have some money to save?

Well, yes, but my argument was that the best way to achieve this was to structure the economy in such a way as to ensure that working results in people earning a living wage. The blackshirts unfortunately seem to disagree and think everything would be much nicer if slavery had never been abolished. I'm surprised DA thinks like that to be honest, cos his profits are going to take a hammering if his contractors are bringing in 15% of nothing. I suspect he seeks to reinvent himself as a slave trader.

AtW
25th June 2012, 23:03
I suspect he seeks to reinvent himself as a soul trader.

FTFY

Robinho
25th June 2012, 23:09
You do realise that telling someone on minimum wage who can't afford to pay their rent when they are working that they should save money in order to pay their rent when they aren't working doesn't really add up don't you?

You do realise that the minimum wage, housing benefits and other populist wealth distribution policies only serve to inflate the lower end letting rates don't you?

doodab
25th June 2012, 23:24
You do realise that the minimum wage, housing benefits and other populist wealth distribution policies only serve to inflate the lower end letting rates don't you?

Yes, which means they ultimately hand money back to those wealthy enough to play landlord. Although of course this sector of the economy needs propping up and it's probably not cost effective to simply let the arse fall out of it and have to provide social housing on a large scale, not to mention rectify the health and social issues that will result from widespread homelessness and the growth of slums in our inner cites.

One could of course introduce something like the plague and simply cull the poor, although I suspect that even the rightest of the righties would find that unpalatable.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 06:17
So you want to prop up the housing market by giving poor people money in order to keep the landlords rich?

Or we could just let house markets decline, meaning poor people can afford housing and the landlords who have just made it rich off the back of an enormous credit-fuelled housing boom less rich.

I really thought Keynesian economics was dead.

doodab
26th June 2012, 06:49
So you want to prop up the housing market by giving poor people money in order to keep the landlords rich?

Not at all, I'd be glad to see rents and house prices fall. I think house price and rent inflation, coupled with the failure of wages to keep pace, particularly for the low paid, has resulted in a large increase in the number of working people claiming housing benefit to the point where something like 25% of working households claim housing benefit. Which brings me back to the point that you need jobs that provide a living wage. The fact that 25% of working people can't afford to pay their rent is a pretty damning statistic IMO.

The root cause of this is bad government IMO. We've had 20 years of it.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 08:00
Not at all, I'd be glad to see rents and house prices fall. I think house price and rent inflation, coupled with the failure of wages to keep pace, particularly for the low paid, has resulted in a large increase in the number of working people claiming housing benefit to the point where something like 25% of working households claim housing benefit. Which brings me back to the point that you need jobs that provide a living wage. The fact that 25% of working people can't afford to pay their rent is a pretty damning statistic IMO.

The root cause of this is bad government IMO. We've had 20 years of it.

"The fact that 25% of working people cannot afford to pay" What does this mean? is it the "lead in" to justify whatever point you are making? Is it a statement to illicit a guilt reaction to make us think that you have the moral high ground?

What is interesting is how you have tried to move the debate from arguing about the desirability of paying benefits to people to not work onto the availability of benefits as a "fill in support" between jobs. You have completely ignored in true left wing fashion the underlying problem of people living off benefits. I have argued that any form of benefit disincentivises people, but I will cede that in a civilised society such as ours not only must we look after those who genuinely cannot easily find work (terminally ill/severly disabled) but we must help those who are caught on hard times.
The caveat is that this has to be paid for by someone else and money paid to people "not to work" is dead money, again something that the "money on trees" brigade conveniently forget.

This individual has also started a diatribe of cliche ridden garbage about "living wages" and "cannot afford". I am sorry but indulging people in this way is simply ridiculous. If they cannot afford to live for example in London then move somewhere else. This is how economies rebalance themselves and how wealth is spread around. Also these people talk about job provision as if jobs are somehow conjured up out of thin air. They are not. Jobs are not being created because we as a society are instead choosing to spend money on paying people to not work instead of creating a climate of job creation. We are choosing to heap ridiculous job prevention laws and we are telling people that if they work hard most of their money will be taxed (to spend on welfare).

It is a vicious circle and we cannot have it both ways. As manufacturing and IT are shipped off shore we remain hostage to the left wing idiots and their "entitlement". They want to maintain this welfare state because it patches up the failings of the rest of the useless left wing institutions (The Euro, the state education system, the welfare industry, public sector in general) and it makes these left wing liberals feel smug about themselves. One thing is for sure is that they dont give a sh*t about the people caught in the benefits trap.

I will accept that it is desirable for this country to make it as comfortable as possible for people on low wages to live and I thus endorse the building of "social housing". I also believe that the public services should be made to perform for lower earners by subjecting them to consumer style competition instead of pandering to their monopolies and allowing them to deliver services on their terms rather than those of the consumer.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 08:09
You do realise that telling someone on minimum wage who can't afford to pay their rent when they are working that they should save money in order to pay their rent when they aren't working doesn't really add up don't you?

There are many workers in this situation who are perfectly aware of their circumstances who are quite capable of working it out for themselves. Also they are perfectly capable of moving up the job ladder to earn more. Or are you suggesting that they should be taken out of work and paid more to sit at home? It is indeed tough working on a minimum wage but I am pretty sure they do not need lefty do gooders patronising them. If the lefties did their bit and delivered proper public services they would not for example have to worry about their kids schooling.

doodab
26th June 2012, 08:47
"The fact that 25% of working people cannot afford to pay" What does this mean? is it the "lead in" to justify whatever point you are making? Is it a statement to illicit a guilt reaction to make us think that you have the moral high ground?

It means that 25% of people with jobs cannot afford to pay their rent. It's not the lead in to anything, or designed to make you feel guilty, it's a simple fact. It's also a fact that most of the recent increases in the housing benefit bill are down to working claimants, not the feckless lazy people with a sense of entitlement that you seem to think. If you want a reduced housing benefit bill then that is something you need to change.



What is interesting is how you have tried to move the debate from arguing about the desirability of paying benefits to people to not work onto the availability of benefits as a "fill in support" between jobs. You have completely ignored in true left wing fashion the underlying problem of people living off benefits. I have argued that any form of benefit disincentivises people, but I will cede that in a civilised society such as ours not only must we look after those who genuinely cannot easily find work (terminally ill/severly disabled) but we must help those who are caught on hard times. The caveat is that this has to be paid for by someone else and money paid to people "not to work" is dead money, again something that the "money on trees" brigade conveniently forget.

What is interesting is that is that I haven't ignored the underlying problem at all, I've tried to point out repeatedly that to reduce dependence on benefits you need to not only make claiming less attractive but make working more attractive. Unfortunately you are so blinded by your obsession with labelling me a leftie that you haven't actually understood what I'm saying at all.



This individual has also started a diatribe of cliche ridden garbage about "living wages" and "cannot afford". I am sorry but indulging people in this way is simply ridiculous. If they cannot afford to live for example in London then move somewhere else. This is how economies rebalance themselves and how wealth is spread around. Also these people talk about job provision as if jobs are somehow conjured up out of thin air. They are not. Jobs are not being created because we as a society are instead choosing to spend money on paying people to not work instead of creating a climate of job creation. We are choosing to heap ridiculous job prevention laws and we are telling people that if they work hard most of their money will be taxed (to spend on welfare).


The point I am making is that we are providing a clear message to people that if they work hard they still won't have enough money to make ends meet. How in your myopic worldview does telling them that it's just tough tulip and they have to move away from their families, friends and roots provide them with an incentive? How does being forced to move away from the south east to somewhere with worse employment prospects achieve anything? Who will do all of the tulipty low paid jobs in London?

It really isn't about "indulging" individuals. It's about looking at the big picture and realising that after a decade of debt fuelled property price and rent inflation with little real wage inflation, we have a situation where a sizeable minority of employed people cannot afford to live without state aid and that clearly isn't a sustainable way to run an economy. You can take umbrage at my terminology if you like but you aren't going to get those people off benefits unless the cost of living comes down or their non-benefit income goes up.

Looked at another way, tax credits and benefits paid to working people are nothing less than a state subsidy artificially depressing wages. So yes, I agree we need a "climate of job creation", but we need to avoid a situation where jobs are so low paid that the people that take them need handouts in order to survive. That is what I mean by paying a "living wage", because like you I believe that people should be able to support themselves if they are prepared to work.



It is a vicious circle and we cannot have it both ways. As manufacturing and IT are shipped off shore we remain hostage to the left wing idiots and their "entitlement". They want to maintain this welfare state because it patches up the failings of the rest of the useless left wing institutions (The Euro, the state education system, the welfare industry, public sector in general) and it makes these left wing liberals feel smug about themselves. One thing is for sure is that they dont give a sh*t about the people caught in the benefits trap.

Mate, just for once, try moving beyond the simplistic left vs right game of noughts and crosses in your head and start looking at the actual world the rest of us live in. I'm sure you find it convenient to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a lefty and therefore an idiot but the world is a lot more nuanced than that.



I will accept that it is desirable for this country to make it as comfortable as possible for people on low wages to live and I thus endorse the building of "social housing". I also believe that the public services should be made to perform for lower earners by subjecting them to consumer style competition instead of pandering to their monopolies and allowing them to deliver services on their terms rather than those of the consumer.

So why can't you accept that it's undesirable, from anyone's perspective, that people on low wages are so much poorer than everybody else that they need helping out?

doodab
26th June 2012, 08:54
There are many workers in this situation who are perfectly aware of their circumstances who are quite capable of working it out for themselves.

Yes, I know. The poster I replied to seemed blissfully unaware however.


Also they are perfectly capable of moving up the job ladder to earn more.

You need to consider the aggregate. It stands to reason that if a proportion of jobs don't pay enough to survive on then however hard particular individuals compete for better jobs, there will still be a proportion of people who end up with the low paid ones.


Or are you suggesting that they should be taken out of work and paid more to sit at home?

No, I'm not, and you know damn well that I'm not.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 10:35
Not at all, I'd be glad to see rents and house prices fall. I think house price and rent inflation, coupled with the failure of wages to keep pace, particularly for the low paid, has resulted in a large increase in the number of working people claiming housing benefit to the point where something like 25% of working households claim housing benefit. Which brings me back to the point that you need jobs that provide a living wage. The fact that 25% of working people can't afford to pay their rent is a pretty damning statistic IMO.

The root cause of this is bad government IMO. We've had 20 years of it.

Replace the word bad with big and you have the answer.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 10:44
Replace the word bad with big and you have the answer.

You can see where the bleeding heart liberalism comes from. We have infront of us a diatribe of "feeling sorry" for sections of the lower paid. What happens? the liberals then step in with a benefit here, a tax credit there and a patronising desire to interfere. The unintended consequence with this continual interference is to condemn millions to lives on benefit and make employing people very difficult for private sector employers. The other consequence is to make government bigger.

It is a self perpetuating cycle. The more they interfere and the more they pay in benefits the less incentive there is for others to set up businesses and the more people come to rely on benefits. There will come a point when the state takes everything.

Why dont they just get on with what they are supposed to do and run a decent public sector before interfering with everyone else.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 11:07
Well, yes, but my argument was that the best way to achieve this was to structure the economy in such a way as to ensure that working results in people earning a living wage. The blackshirts unfortunately seem to disagree and think everything would be much nicer if slavery had never been abolished. I'm surprised DA thinks like that to be honest, cos his profits are going to take a hammering if his contractors are bringing in 15% of nothing. I suspect he seeks to reinvent himself as a slave trader.

The best and only way is to lower taxes, regulations and spending so the economy thrives and the demand for work increases for all which drives up wages. There is no reason in modern times why a person cannot earn a liveable wage.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 11:14
You can see where the bleeding heart liberalism comes from. We have infront of us a diatribe of "feeling sorry" for sections of the lower paid. What happens? the liberals then step in with a benefit here, a tax credit there and a patronising desire to interfere. The unintended consequence with this continual interference is to condemn millions to lives on benefit and make employing people very difficult for private sector employers. The other consequence is to make government bigger.

It is a self perpetuating cycle. The more they interfere and the more they pay in benefits the less incentive there is for others to set up businesses and the more people come to rely on benefits. There will come a point when the state takes everything.

Why dont they just get on with what they are supposed to do and run a decent public sector before interfering with everyone else.

We are in a bad situation where we have been living beyond our means for years and have been increasing benefits to people that under normal circumstances could not be justified. Now we are in a position where we have to revoke these benefits but the left are going to resist with full fury, and the economical backlash will lead them to demand more benefits to protect themselves.

The idea that we are currently going through austerity is laughable. The Tories are stupid for trumpeting that and diminishing market confidence, whilst at the same time not cutting to anywhere near the necessary degree.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 11:16
We are in a bad situation where we have been living beyond our means for years and have been increasing benefits to people that under normal circumstances could not be justified. Now we are in a position where we have to revoke these benefits but the left are going to resist with full fury, and the economical backlash will lead them to demand more benefits to protect themselves.

The idea that we are currently going through austerity is laughable. The Tories are stupid for trumpeting that and diminishing market confidence, whilst at the same time not cutting to anywhere near the necessary degree.

Quite

TimberWolf
26th June 2012, 11:17
I wonder what we'd save if we let Scotland and Wales go independent? When I say 'let', I mean a make a small investment into advertising/propaganda/pay-offs, so that they vote for it themselves. Of course that might have the unfortunate consequence of no more Scottish Prime Minsters or Labour being voted in again.

darmstadt
26th June 2012, 11:24
Why dont they just get on with what they are supposed to do and run a decent public sector before interfering with everyone else.

Sadly the public sector no longer exists due to 'get rich, pay less' principles fobbed on to the populace by right wing governments and elected officials. Now we have outsourcing, the PFI and other countless privitisation efforts which although run by corporations are paid for by your taxes.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 11:32
Sadly the public sector no longer exists due to 'get rich, pay less' principles fobbed on to the populace by right wing governments and elected officials. Now we have outsourcing, the PFI and other countless privitisation efforts which although run by corporations are paid for by your taxes.

It is nothing to do with "right wing" .It is a sad phenomenon that governments are so inept at running anything that they have to let public services be run by private enterprise. The disaster is brought about by the absence of competition.

One only has to look at the incompetence of the left wing's grip on public services to realise that private sector is the lesser of the two evils.

darmstadt
26th June 2012, 11:59
It is nothing to do with "right wing" .It is a sad phenomenon that governments are so inept at running anything that they have to let public services be run by private enterprise. The disaster is brought about by the absence of competition.

One only has to look at the incompetence of the left wing's grip on public services to realise that private sector is the lesser of the two evils.

Not really, once upon a time governments were run by people who had worked in the communities that then elected them, therefore they knew what that community required. Modern governments are now run by people who have gone into politics without actually having enjoyed the role of being a 'real life' working person and so therefore have no knowledge of what is needed. Sadly governments are now run by middle class liberals, regardless of left or right wing governments, who have no understanding of what is required of them.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 12:04
All the government is needed for is justice and defense.

The rest can be privatised more or less.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 12:07
All the government is needed for is justice and defense.

The rest can be privatised more or less.

Even I am not that right wing!

Robinho
26th June 2012, 12:13
It's not right wing. It's centrist. Right wing would be things like slavery, feudalism or the caste system.

That's the way i see it anyway.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 12:15
I've been theorising with this idea of a School token system, where all Schools are private and each kid gets a grant of the same value to go to a private school.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 12:22
I've been theorising with this idea of a School token system, where all Schools are private and each kid gets a grant of the same value to go to a private school.

Cue a lefty with a lowest common denominator argument:yay:

SupremeSpod
26th June 2012, 12:25
I've been theorising with this idea of a School token system, where all Schools are private and each kid gets a grant of the same value to go to a private school.


Cue a lefty with a lowest common denominator argument:yay:

Oi Dodgy, leave him alone. I'm using him as an example for why I want to have my son privately educated.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 12:28
Oi Dodgy, leave him alone. I'm using him as an example for why I want to have my son privately educated.


Where have you put him down for? No doubt he will be scholarship material. :happy

SupremeSpod
26th June 2012, 12:29
Where have you put him down for? No doubt he will be scholarship material. :happy

He'll bloody have to be!

I'm not paying to educate a thick child!

TimberWolf
26th June 2012, 12:32
I'm not paying to educate a thick child!

It worked out okay for George Osborne.

SupremeSpod
26th June 2012, 12:35
He'll bloody have to be!

I'm not paying to educate a thick child!


It worked out okay for George Osborne.

He's the only one of my children I prefer to forget. :facepalm:

BrilloPad
26th June 2012, 12:37
He's the only one of my children I prefer to forget. :facepalm:

You don't prefer to forget andyw?

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 12:38
He'll bloody have to be!

I'm not paying to educate a thick child!

Didnt you go to a comp? :happy

Diver
26th June 2012, 12:41
Originally Posted by SupremeSpod
He'll bloody have to be!
I'm not paying to educate a thick child!




Didnt you go to a Remedial class :happy

FTFY :smokin

gingerjedi
26th June 2012, 12:57
All the government is needed for is justice and defense.

The rest can be privatised more or less.

Money wasted on non jobs, money wasted on shareholder dividends and executive pay, what's the difference other than the number of people on the dole?

Robinho
26th June 2012, 13:07
tulip companies go bust

tulip public sector bodies get more money pumped into them

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 13:09
Money wasted on non jobs, money wasted on shareholder dividends and executive pay, what's the difference other than the number of people on the dole?

"wasting money" on shareholder dividends and executive pay is a choice that people make. "wasting money" on public sector is not a choice.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 13:10
tulip companies go bust


I think what you meant to write was:

Shit companies get bailed out by public money that should be spent on life saving and education among others.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 13:12
"wasting money" on shareholder dividends and executive pay is a choice that people make.

Thats rubbish, no MD or CEO - BY LAW is allowed to make any decision other than one intended to make money. This is what you miss when you loudmouth how the answer is to privatise everything. No moral decisions other than increasing the margin, or reducing the costs.

There is a middle ground you know?

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 13:21
Thats rubbish, no MD or CEO - BY LAW is allowed to make any decision other than one intended to make money. This is what you miss when you loudmouth how the answer is to privatise everything. No moral decisions other than increasing the margin, or reducing the costs.

There is a middle ground you know?

Where have I said privatise everything?
Of course there is a middle ground but until you lefties first acknowledge that there is a serious problem with welfare and public services it is not worth discussing.

SupremeSpod
26th June 2012, 13:25
Didnt you go to a comp? :happy

Yep, have you got a problem with that?

BrilloPad
26th June 2012, 13:27
Yep, have you got a problem with that?

Mrs BP will! Her public school taught her to look down at everyone.

I think I am just her bit of rough.

Doggy Styles
26th June 2012, 13:27
Yep, have you got a problem with that?Comp? Is that where the chavs from the estates occasionally disappear to?

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 13:35
Yep, have you got a problem with that?

I'll introduce you to my chauffeur, you two have a lot in common :happy

darmstadt
26th June 2012, 13:35
"wasting money" on shareholder dividends and executive pay is a choice that people make. "wasting money" on public sector is not a choice.

I suspect that voting at a shareholder's meeting is very much like voting in the general election now.

SupremeSpod
26th June 2012, 13:37
I'll introduce you to my chauffeur, you two have a lot in common :happy

How is your wife these days? Shall I ask your chauffeur?

AtW
26th June 2012, 13:38
I suspect that voting at a shareholder's meeting is very much like voting in the general election now.

It depends how many votes one got :smokin

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 13:41
How is your wife these days? Shall I ask your chauffeur?

:ohwell

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 13:42
I suspect that voting at a shareholder's meeting is very much like voting in the general election now.

quite, it does'nt matter who you vote for the Germans are in power :happy

Robinho
26th June 2012, 13:43
I think what you meant to write was:

tulip companies get bailed out by public money that should be spent on life saving and education among others.

If you have a shit government they do yes.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 13:45
Thats rubbish, no MD or CEO - BY LAW is allowed to make any decision other than one intended to make money. This is what you miss when you loudmouth how the answer is to privatise everything. No moral decisions other than increasing the margin, or reducing the costs.

There is a middle ground you know?

The only purpose of companies is to make money, competition ensures they stay in line.

doodab
26th June 2012, 13:56
Dodgy does seem to have a massive chip on his shoulder about "lefties" to the point where reasoned argument passes him by. I can only hope that if one day he gets to fester in his private sector utopia I don't have to live there with him.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 14:01
Lefties don't really have reasoned arguments.

Most of them are based on jealousy and their own greed.

doodab
26th June 2012, 14:07
Lefties don't really have reasoned arguments.

Most of them are based on jealousy and their own greed.

Whatever you say. It seem to me that most of the counter arguments we get on here are based on little more than a half arsed understanding of GCSE economics and a dogmatic belief that competition among private sector firms is the best way to achieve anything despite any evidence to the contrary.

As for jealousy and greed, it seems to me to be mostly the right wingers who are all in favour of keeping their cash in their pockets.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 14:13
Yes, i'm the one who doesn't understand economics here.


As for jealousy and greed, it seems to me to be mostly the right wingers who are all in favour of keeping their cash in their pockets.

That's the thing, to lefties keeping your own money that you've earnt is greedy, but praying the rich will give you more than you deserve is not.

darmstadt
26th June 2012, 14:14
quite, it does'nt matter who you vote for the Germans (except in the UK where the Americans) are in power :happy

FTFY

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 14:15
The only purpose of companies is to make money, competition ensures they stay in line.

We wish. Competition is as wooly a term as "Market Forces".

As we reduce regulation and increase "globalisation" we reduce competition - but competition does nothing to "ensure companies stay in line" - regulation does.

Competition does nothing to ensure the oil companies behave, or our high street banks, or our externally operating chemical companies, or our fisheries, or..........

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 14:19
We wish. Competition is as wooly a term as "Market Forces".

As we reduce regulation and increase "globalisation" we reduce competition - but competition does nothing to "ensure companies stay in line" - regulation does.

Competition does nothing to ensure the oil companies behave, or our high street banks, or our externally operating chemical companies, or our fisheries, or..........

Competition keeps them keen and customer focussed, regulation - properly conceived and properly enforced keeps them honest.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 14:19
We wish. Competition is as wooly a term as "Market Forces".

As we reduce regulation and increase "globalisation" we reduce competition - but competition does nothing to "ensure companies stay in line" - regulation does.

How is competition reduced with lower regulations? Ease of business makes barriers to entry lower and increases competition. Same with Globalisation, how does increasing the size of the market reduce competition? - it directly gives you more.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 14:28
Dodgy does seem to have a massive chip on his shoulder about "lefties" to the point where reasoned argument passes him by. I can only hope that if one day he gets to fester in his private sector utopia I don't have to live there with him.

I have not said that everything has to be privatised. You have not argued logically any of the points that I have made about benefits. You have simply cited cliches about poverty in order to justify the maintenance of the status quo. The lefties I do not like are the patronising ones who do not give a sh*t about the poor yet they say they do.

There is no connection between your cliches and a solution to a problem (that you do not even accept exists). The left have'nt a creative bone in their witless bodies. They spend their lives sneering at wealth creation whilst filling their own troughs from the spoils of other people efforts.

It is the hypocrisy of people like you that I object to that support a system that is patently wrong and that condemns millions to lives of unemployed squalor. The best you can come up with is that because we argue that public services should be of the highest order and that everyone be encouraged to work that we are "smeared" as wishing to privatise everything "for the sake of preserving right wing integrity".

doodab
26th June 2012, 14:35
I have not said that everything has to be privatised. You have not argued logically any of the points that I have made about benefits. You have simply cited cliches about poverty in order to justify the maintenance of the status quo. The lefties I do not like are the patronising ones who do not give a sh*t about the poor yet they say they do.

Are you actually ******* illiterate? Or just too lazy to actually read? The one thing we actually agree on is that the status quo is undesirable. The main point I've made as regards poverty in this thread is that it shouldn't be the case that a household with two people working should require benefits to make ends meet. I can only assume from your continued belligerence that you consider this state of affairs desirable.


There is no connection between your cliches and a solution to a problem (that you do not even accept exists). The left have'nt a creative bone in their witless bodies. They spend their lives sneering at wealth creation whilst filling their own troughs from the spoils of other people efforts.

See above. Yet again you are arguing with the imaginary leftie monsters that haunt your waking nightmares.


It is the hypocrisy of people like you that I object to that support a system that is patently wrong and that condemns millions to lives of unemployed squalor. The best you can come up with is that because we argue that public services should be of the highest order and that everyone be encouraged to work that we are "smeared" as wishing to privatise everything "for the sake of preserving right wing integrity".

The trouble with most of your arguments for change is that what you are calling for doesn't actually bear up to logical scrutiny. Neither public or private sector can achieve the logically impossible yet anyone who points this out to you is dismissed as a hypocrite. You really do come across as incredibly hard of thinking sometimes.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 14:37
How is competition reduced with lower regulations? Ease of business makes barriers to entry lower and increases competition.

What a lovely textbook quote, which works well in micro economics for small businesses in a mixed economy in the late 20th century. I'm not really sure how valid it is in the UK and US now, how many barriers to entry are there in the UK, We have the EU an open door policy and have a government that believes that increasing GDP is a sign of success.

I personally believe that competition is reduced by aquisition and globalisation. Although we may have many multinationals with subsidiaries I don't believe that they really compete in the way that believers in market forces think. - Do you believe that Lux compete against Dove, or do you think that the smart multinational (unilever) instead pitches different brands at different groups of consumers?

Our food, pharma, media and many other sectors are each slowly becoming "aquisitioned" into single big bohemoths of international, unregulated , faceless multinationals. E.G Unliver for Food, News International for media, Glaxo Smith Kline for pharma.

How does this increase competition, I'm open to "re-education" :)

Robinho
26th June 2012, 14:38
I've made as regards poverty in this thread is that it shouldn't be the case that a household with two people working should require benefits to make ends meet.

This means they are living in too big a house or too nice and area, or are spending too much on beer and food etc. You really can live on absolute pittance in this country.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 14:41
What a lovely textbook quote, which works well in micro economics for small businesses in a mixed economy in the late 20th century. I'm not really sure how valid it is in the UK and US now, how many barriers to entry are there in the UK, We have the EU an open door policy and have a government that believes that increasing GDP is a sign of success.

I personally believe that competition is reduced by aquisition and globalisation. Although we may have many multinationals with subsidiaries I don't believe that they really compete in the way that believers in market forces think. - Do you believe that Lux compete against Dove, or do you think that the smart multinational (unilever) instead pitches different brands at different groups of consumers?

Our food, pharma, media and many other sectors are each slowly becoming "aquisitioned" into single big bohemoths of international, unregulated , faceless multinationals. E.G Unliver for Food, News International for media, Glaxo Smith Kline for pharma.

How does this increase competition, I'm open to "re-education" :)

But if they are being inefficient then a small and agile company should be able to come in and survive. If they are being efficient enough that this can't happen, then it doesn't matter does it?

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 14:42
What a lovely textbook quote, which works well in micro economics for small businesses in a mixed economy in the late 20th century. I'm not really sure how valid it is in the UK and US now, how many barriers to entry are there in the UK, We have the EU an open door policy and have a government that believes that increasing GDP is a sign of success.

I personally believe that competition is reduced by aquisition and globalisation. Although we may have many multinationals with subsidiaries I don't believe that they really compete in the way that believers in market forces think. - Do you believe that Lux compete against Dove, or do you think that the smart multinational (unilever) instead pitches different brands at different groups of consumers?

Our food, pharma, media and many other sectors are each slowly becoming "aquisitioned" into single big bohemoths of international, unregulated , faceless multinationals. E.G Unliver for Food, News International for media, Glaxo Smith Kline for pharma.

How does this increase competition, I'm open to "re-education" :)

I have to agree with this. It is impossible for a start up company to compete with these organisations because regulations have been set to control the multi nationals that stick up barriers to new entrants. Having said there is again a neat little side track going on here and that the control of multi nationals is a different argument to the notion of competition in the supply of goods and services.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 14:42
There is no connection between your cliches and a solution to a problem (that you do not even accept exists). The left have'nt a creative bone in their witless bodies. They spend their lives sneering at wealth creation whilst filling their own troughs from the spoils of other people efforts.


That really is some nasty rhetoric , right there... Could come from the mouth of the leader of a totalitarian regime .

"filling their own troughs" really, people who think differently to you are sneering pigs?

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 14:44
But if they are being inefficient then a small and agile company should be able to come in and survive. If they are being efficient enough that this can't happen, then it doesn't matter does it?

Microsoft and Google are massively inefficient, as they have grown organically at an uncontrolable rate.

Lets see a "small agile" OS developer come in and take it... Not even with the power of (I believe) some astute and well made EU anti competition regulation, can anyone do this.

The same goes for ALL the multinationals - the govt has to bend over if Vodafone say they want to pay less tax, or get fined less for pollution (just an example).

doodab
26th June 2012, 14:46
How is competition reduced with lower regulations? Ease of business makes barriers to entry lower and increases competition. Same with Globalisation, how does increasing the size of the market reduce competition? - it directly gives you more.

In the real economy market failures are rife. Nearly every market of significance has sizeable barriers to entry, often due to the presence of incumbent players, and opening markets to foreign participants often raises them further.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 14:47
That really is some nasty rhetoric , right there... Could come from the mouth of the leader of a totalitarian regime .

"filling their own troughs" really, people who think differently to you are sneering pigs?

Show me some examples of creative leftie activities. I will give you an endless stream of examples of left wing people who create nothing except wealth, power and influence for themselves.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 14:49
Microsoft and Google are massively inefficient, as they have grown organically at an uncontrolable rate.

Lets see a "small agile" OS developer come in and take it... Not even with the power of (I believe) some astute and well made EU anti competition regulation, can anyone do this.

The same goes for ALL the multinationals - the govt has to bend over if Vodafone say they want to pay less tax, or get fined less for pollution (just an example).

Microsoft and Google are some of the most revolutionary companies of the last 30 years.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 14:51
Creative or not, your analogy of sneering pigs eating from troughs is something Mugabe would be proud of and is not very creative.

I'll entertain you though, with 1 single example thats from the top of my head.. I'd love you to start thinking in shades of grey rather than black and white.

Albert Einstein

Oh no you're right, he's totally uncreative :fight:

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 14:52
Microsoft and Google are some of the most revolutionary companies of the last 30 years.

That's why I think they are good examples.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 14:53
Microsoft and Google are some of the most revolutionary companies of the last 30 years.

They were founded and built on good old fashioned capitalist principles :happy

AtW
26th June 2012, 14:55
They were founded and built on good old fashioned capitalist principles :happy

"Sun co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim writes a check for $100,000 to an entity that doesn’t exist yet: a company called Google Inc."

Our history in depth ? Company ? Google (http://www.google.com/about/company/history/)

In this country that's just not possible.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 14:56
Creative or not, your analogy of sneering pigs eating from troughs is something Mugabe would be proud of and is not very creative.

I'll entertain you though, with 1 single example thats from the top of my head.. I'd love you to start thinking in shades of grey rather than black and white.

Albert Einstein

Oh no you're right, he's totally uncreative :fight:

Fair enough and how many jobs did he create?

Mich the Tester
26th June 2012, 14:57
"Sun co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim writes a check for $100,000 to an entity that doesn’t exist yet: a company called Google Inc."

Our history in depth ? Company ? Google (http://www.google.com/about/company/history/)

In this country that's just not possible.

Well it certainly won't be if venture capitalists and other private investors aren't allowed to lend money to themselves or other people 'because that's denying state-owned banks their income', as you would like things to be.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 14:58
I'm not playing with you anymore DA - I'm miffed about your lack of apology for trying to insinuate that lefties are greedy uncreative pigs ; and as far as "How many jobs did A.E. create" you have to be having a laff there... you have to be..

Regarding google et al, they were founded in a different economic world to this one, Globalisation in the early 80's was not a patch on what we have now; which has always been my argument - that we've just gone far too far.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:01
As long as you are deciding what and what is not too far.

doodab
26th June 2012, 15:01
They were founded and built on good old fashioned capitalist principles :happy

Microsoft by Bill Gates, who is an advocate of giving his money away to fight poverty and increasing taxes on the rich. Just another jealous lefty no doubt.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 15:06
Microsoft by Bill Gates, who is an advocate of giving his money away to fight poverty and increasing taxes on the rich. Just another jealous lefty no doubt.]

And which bit of socialism did he practice when building his business? A philanthropist is not a socialist

"And if you look at what Gates actually said, he didn't call for governments to seize control of the means of production. Nor, truth be told, did he actually say anything profoundly new. He just wants to push for "an approach where governments, businesses, and nonprofits work together to stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world's"

AtW
26th June 2012, 15:07
Well it certainly won't be if venture capitalists and other private investors aren't allowed

You work for banks and don't know the difference between lending and investing?

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 15:09
As long as you are deciding what and what is not too far.

Fair comment Robinho, I didn't mean it that way ,as in I'm the god or anything. But in my opinion we have gone too far - we are losing control of our countries to unelected, unpunishable, global and psychopathic faceless entities we call corporations. I do not believe for one minute that multinationals operating in the UK are doing anything other than diminishing the competition and reducing the opportunity of our citizens. Sure they create jobs, but as they drive to maximise profits (rather than work to an equilibrium that's sustainable) they wont hire anyone in the UK on our wages if they can hire abroad and ICT in , or just externalise operations .

Just my opinion of course.

Mich the Tester
26th June 2012, 15:11
You work for banks and don't know the difference between lending and investing?

No, YOU make an artificial division between a company lending a person money to 'invest' in a house (e.g. Chris Hoy) and a venture capitalist using money from his company to lend to an entrepreneur, or invest in shares in that entrepreneur's business. It's an entirely artificial and arbitrary difference that you are making so you can push your ideology of government bossing businesses around and stripping people of the right to keep as much of their hard earned money as the law allows.

Investing IS lending. A company issues shares. I buy some, and in return they commit to pay me dividends and give me a vote in the AGM. Nothing different to a bank taking my deposits and paying me interest, or lending me money in return for interest. A loan to someone IS an investment. An investment is basically a loan, whereby you can agree many different types of payback, including and not limited to interest, dividends, influence, power, nice webby thingummies, etc.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:11
they wont hire anyone in the UK on our wages if they can hire abroad and ICT in , or just externalise operations

Hiring people abroad for cheaper wages means we get our products cheaper here.

Protectionism always fails.

doodab
26th June 2012, 15:13
Hiring people abroad for cheaper wages means we get our products cheaper here and can't afford to buy them

There are two sides to that though.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:14
]

And which bit of socialism did he practice when building his business? A philanthropist is not a socialist

"And if you look at what Gates actually said, he didn't call for governments to seize control of the means of production. Nor, truth be told, did he actually say anything profoundly new. He just wants to push for "an approach where governments, businesses, and nonprofits work together to stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world's"

He is displaying socialist tendencies. If he feel he isn't paying enough tax, charity is avenue (which he is exploring tbf). Voluntary charity should be the only channel for wealth redistribution.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:15
There are two sides to that though.

Go on...

doodab
26th June 2012, 15:16
]A philanthropist is not a socialist

Quite. So why, according to you, is anyone who advocates philanthropy or espouses philanthropic principles a leftie?

AtW
26th June 2012, 15:29
Investing IS lending.

No, it's not cretin - you need to learn the difference between bonds (loans) and shares.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 15:30
Hiring people abroad for cheaper wages means we get our products cheaper here.



I don't want to (and categorically DON'T) buy products made in a way which would be illegal in my own country. In the past 10 years this has definately become a MUCH harder thing to do, not better - so competition, globalisation whatever you want to call it has not done anything to ensure "people play fair" it gets unfairer by the year.

I don't want to be involved in exploitation.

gingerjedi
26th June 2012, 15:31
Hiring people abroad for cheaper wages means we get our products cheaper here.

Protectionism always fails.

Christ on a bike, just where do British workers fit into your 'plan' when you deny them work and benefits?

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 15:34
Quite. So why, according to you, is anyone who advocates philanthropy or espouses philanthropic principles a leftie?

There is nothing philanthropic about condemning people to a life of unemployment and supporting inefficient public services. If you look carefully at what gates is doing he is trying to bring the best out of free market capitalism to benefit everyone. He wishes to bring together the public and private sector to extend the benefits of capitalism to all.
This is very different to what lefties want -they want everyone except themselves to be poor.
Lefties are more preoccuppied with trying to send messages about themselves and worrying about other people making more money than them. The last thing they want to do is to enter a debate about raising standards for everyone.

Mich the Tester
26th June 2012, 15:34
No, it's not cretin - you need to learn the difference between bonds (loans) and shares.

They are all, effectively, loans with different forms of pay out. Anyway, what makes you think it's impossible for the google story to happen in the UK? There are plenty of venture capitalists in the UK, I happen to know a few of them, and some of them do have the guts to write a big cheque to a tech start-up. However, they'll probably also be lending themselves money from their own Ltds, so you wouldn't want to know them.

AtW
26th June 2012, 15:40
They are all, effectively, loans with different forms of pay out.

Are you stupid of what?

Lending implies return of the loan + %: often requires security and this much lower risk - this is RENTING MONEY.

Investing into share is BUYING some shares in exchange of SOLD money. The risks are completely different and transaction is completely different - that's very obvious in accounting but I guess you mainly know how loans look on your balance sheet.


Anyway, what makes you think it's impossible for the google story to happen in the UK? There are plenty of venture capitalists in the UK

Google story is something that happens once in a decade, Facebook is the only story after tham and prior to that Microsoft - all US companies.

UK VC scene has no money for this sort of effort - never had and never will.

What's worse is that even at lower end it's still very hard - certainly nobody will write you a cheque for $100k before company even created (like it happened in Google's case).

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:43
I don't want to (and categorically DON'T) buy products made in a way which would be illegal in my own country. In the past 10 years this has definately become a MUCH harder thing to do, not better - so competition, globalisation whatever you want to call it has not done anything to ensure "people play fair" it gets unfairer by the year.

I don't want to be involved in exploitation.

It's not exploitation. It is opportunity. Nobody forces them to work. You're denying them the only thing that in the long run can get them out of poverty.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 15:44
That got a sick belly laugh from me.....

As if .....

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:45
Christ on a bike, just where do British workers fit into your 'plan' when you deny them work and benefits?

We get things for cheaper remember. It's about purchasing power, not outright wage. We are also able to sell other things to these countries that are also getting richer from outsourcing. Meaning we all benefit.

Life is NOT a zero sum game.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:46
That got a sick belly laugh from me.....

As if .....

That's because you are clueless.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 15:48
That got a sick belly laugh from me.....

As if .....

Are you exploited when you work?

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 15:51
DA I've told you, Im not playing with you anymore today - tommorrow.

Rob - Awww, you lose - first to turn to insults.

You have no idea how lucky you are to be born where you are...

You have no idea about developing nations and the "choice to work" or the hand we play in LIMITING these opportunities.

Go out and work in Indonesia and come back and tell me how much "choice" you think people have, or how great work its doing for the country...

Its very very similar to the OP - lots of people (like David C) who are so detached from the life that the MAJORITY of the world (or country for Dave) live, that they think everyone has the same opportunity they did or do.

It's tosh, and if you don't support the weakest members they will rise up and bite you , be that the "underclass" in the UK, or the grossly exploited citizens of foreign countries who's rights are quashed in the name of external profit.

We give NOTHING back to the countries, as soon as they get anywhere near the ability to start introducing fair wages, workers rights etc, the companies just move operations to the next poor victim.


There are hundreds of examples of things like this:

http://plan-international.org/about-plan/resources/news/child-tobacco-pickers-poisoned-reveals-report/

"This research on tobacco farms in Malawi reveals that child labourers, some as young as 5, are suffering severe physical symptoms from absorbing up to the equivalent of 50 cigarettes a day through their skin.

As the tobacco industry continues to shift its production to developing countries, more vulnerable children are being exposed to these hazardous working conditions."

Thats good is it? That's building opportunity for the country?

As soon as it's eradicated there it will go elsewhere...

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:53
No i think it was you who resorted to insults first....


That got a sick belly laugh from me....

:confused:

You really suck at this don't you.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 15:56
Awww, you lose - first to turn to insults.

You have no idea how lucky you are to be born where you are...

You have no idea about developing nations and the "choice to work" or the hand we play in LIMITING these opportunities.

Go out and work in Indonesia and come back and tell me how much "choice" you think people have...

Its very very similar to the OP - lots of people (like David C) who are so detached from the life that the MAJORITY of the world (or country for Dave) live, that they think everyone has the same opportunity they did or do.

It's tosh, and if you don't support the weakest members they will rise up and bite you , be that the "underclass" in the UK, or the grossly exploited citizens of foreign countries who's rights are quashed in the name of external profit.

We give NOTHING back to the countries, as soon as they get anywhere near the ability to start introducing fair wages, workers rights etc, the companies just move operations to the next poor victim.

So speaks a man who is amongst the top earners in the world who happily takes his fat wages from multi national companies.

I presume your cliche about "weakest members" means paying them to sit at home and do nothing?

Robinho
26th June 2012, 15:57
The more jobs we outsource to these countries the more companies have to pay and the better conditions they have to provide to get adequate employment. It is basic supply and demand.

Thus if we inhibit outsourcing, we continue to impoverish these countries.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 15:58
DA - ok you goaded me into it.

Look through our previous posts, where I showed you I don't fit into your "lefty" cookie cutter template.

I also don't earn much and work for a charity.. Don't judge everyone else by your own standards.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 16:00
DA I've told you, Im not playing with you anymore today - tommorrow.

Rob - Awww, you lose - first to turn to insults.

You have no idea how lucky you are to be born where you are...

You have no idea about developing nations and the "choice to work" or the hand we play in LIMITING these opportunities.

Go out and work in Indonesia and come back and tell me how much "choice" you think people have, or how great work its doing for the country...

Its very very similar to the OP - lots of people (like David C) who are so detached from the life that the MAJORITY of the world (or country for Dave) live, that they think everyone has the same opportunity they did or do.

It's tosh, and if you don't support the weakest members they will rise up and bite you , be that the "underclass" in the UK, or the grossly exploited citizens of foreign countries who's rights are quashed in the name of external profit.

We give NOTHING back to the countries, as soon as they get anywhere near the ability to start introducing fair wages, workers rights etc, the companies just move operations to the next poor victim.


There are hundreds of examples of things like this:

Child tobacco pickers poisoned, reveals report &mdash; About Plan &mdash; Plan International (http://plan-international.org/about-plan/resources/news/child-tobacco-pickers-poisoned-reveals-report/)

"This research on tobacco farms in Malawi reveals that child labourers, some as young as 5, are suffering severe physical symptoms from absorbing up to the equivalent of 50 cigarettes a day through their skin.

As the tobacco industry continues to shift its production to developing countries, more vulnerable children are being exposed to these hazardous working conditions."

Thats good is it? That's building opportunity for the country?

As soon as it's eradicated there it will go elsewhere...

Rather than patronise these people and tell them what sort of jobs they should be taking why dont you let the Indonesians be the judge of what is good for them?

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 16:00
The more jobs we outsource to these countries the more companies have to pay and the better conditions they have to provide to get adequate employment. It is basic supply and demand.
Thus if we inhibit outsourcing, we continue to impoverish these countries.

No its a fantasy.

What happens is the more jobs we outsource, the more companies have to pay in bribes to keep the workers from forming unions or lobbying for rights.

Then once salaries and rights increase, the companies move off to Laos, or Cambodia , or whatever next "fresh" exploitation ground there is.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 16:00
DA - ok you goaded me into it.

Look through our previous posts, where I showed you I don't fit into your "lefty" cookie cutter template.

I also don't earn much and work for a charity.. Don't judge everyone else by your own standards.

So what are you doing an a contractor board?

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 16:01
Rather than patronise these people and tell them what sort of jobs they should be taking why dont you let the Indonesians be the judge of what is good for them?

Don't go there, I love indonesia and indonesia loves me.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 16:01
No its a fantasy.

What happens is the more jobs we outsource, the more companies have to pay in bribes to keep the workers from forming unions or lobbying for rights.

Then once salaries and rights increase, the companies move off to Laos, or Cambodia , or whatever next "fresh" exploitation ground there is.

And out of all these cliches your point is?

Robinho
26th June 2012, 16:02
No its a fantasy.

What happens is the more jobs we outsource, the more companies have to pay in bribes to keep the workers from forming unions or lobbying for rights.

Then once salaries and rights increase, the companies move off to Laos, or Cambodia , or whatever next "fresh" exploitation ground there is.

You don't need unions. You just need an opportunity to choose another job.

And what when these companies are out of exploitation ground?

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 16:04
Don't go there, I love indonesia and indonesia loves me.

I can go where I please. I am interested that you presume to know what is so good for them.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 16:06
And out of all these cliches your point is?

Its not cliched from my experience, its the real world I think many are detached from, there's no discussing with you DA. Take some time to read the thread here and see how you avoid all questions and have the audacity to use such horrible analogies and so passionately attack those that just simply have a different mindset to you...

To play your earlier game - I can name an extreme right wing person who matches the description above perfectly. Adolf Hitler.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 16:09
Adolf Hitler was centrist.

Scoobos
26th June 2012, 16:10
And what when these companies are out of exploitation ground?

That's a good question.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 16:15
Sounds like you might be beginning to understand it now.

Basically companies will continue to outsource until it isn't costs effective to do so any more, because pay levels have reached parity with the 1st world.

By blocking this process they will be forever impoverished.

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 16:17
Its not cliched from my experience, its the real world I think many are detached from, there's no discussing with you DA. Take some time to read the thread here and see how you avoid all questions and have the audacity to use such horrible analogies and so passionately attack those that just simply have a different mindset to you...

To play your earlier game - I can name an extreme right wing person who matches the description above perfectly. Adolf Hitler.

I am merely arguing that for 25 year olds it is better for them to be made to work than it is to pay them to stay at home. The harsh answer is to deprive them of benefits. You have tried every trick in the book to shift the debate. We are now in Indonesia identifying with the poor!. I can only presume that you are resorting to this tactic in order to create the illusion that you actually care about poor people.

My analogies about Poles taking jobs as Bus drivers in large UK cities where local workers are paid more to do nothing seems entirely reasonable.

TimberWolf
26th June 2012, 16:20
This thread is quite long. Has anyone mentioned Adolf Hitler yet?

DodgyAgent
26th June 2012, 16:23
This thread is quite long. Has anyone mentioned Adolf Hitler yet?

I have Stalin and Pol Pot up my sleeve

TimberWolf
26th June 2012, 16:32
Who knows why the "west" ended up richer than, shall we say, "hot places".

As an aside it seems to me we in the UK got motoring after the peasant revolt circa 1400, Magna Carta, and the adoption of more socialist tenancies. And again after the Cromwell fellow. Perhaps people become more effective and industrious workers when they have achievable goals that benefit themselves rather than the rich and a little justness and equality exists.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 16:36
The were not socailist policies. They were policies to minimise the power of the state and protect the rights of individuals. See US constitution for a more refined example.

That is the key to good forture and what has gone wrong in many of the hot countries.

Doggy Styles
26th June 2012, 16:39
This thread is quite long. Has anyone mentioned Adolf Hitler yet?Yes, Robinho. He's got a yellow card.

TimberWolf
26th June 2012, 16:51
The were not socailist policies. They were policies to minimise the power of the state and protect the rights of individuals. See US constitution for a more refined example.

That is the key to good forture and what has gone wrong in many of the hot countries.

Being made more equal is not socialist?

Nevertheless Britain seemed to do well after the circa 1400 peasant uprising.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 16:56
Maggie believed in individual freedoms and liberties.

Would you call her a socialist?

OwlHoot
26th June 2012, 16:57
..

Nevertheless Britain seemed to do well after the circa 1400 peasant uprising.

Only because half the population had died in the plague 40 years before.

The unpalatable truth is that a lot of the financial problems we are seeing today are due, directly or otherwise, to overpopulation, combined with ever increasing fluidity of the world economy.

TimberWolf
26th June 2012, 16:58
Maggie believed in individual freedoms and liberties.

Would you call her a socialist?

I'm not sure I know what a socialist is. Surely all UK political parties have socialist tendencies, and have done since 1400 or so.

TimberWolf
26th June 2012, 17:01
Only because half the population had died in the plague 40 years before.

The unpalatable truth is that a lot of the financial problems we are seeing today are due, directly or otherwise, to overpopulation, combined with ever increasing fluidity of the world economy.

I agree to an extent, although Robinho appears to think bringing cheaper workers in to the UK is a capitalist thing. Where capitalist is a synonym for good.

Robinho
26th June 2012, 20:35
Not sure where i've said that. Just think that people should be able to decide what their own minimum wage is and not the government.

Spacecadet
26th June 2012, 20:40
12 pages, have you lot still not decided who's right?

gingerjedi
26th June 2012, 21:21
12 pages, have you lot still not decided who's right?

No but it turns out Robinho is in favour of mega corps exploiting cheap foreign labour in the 3rd world as it empowers the poor beggars.

I must admit, I never saw that one coming. :D

Confused? You will be. :freaky:

Robinho
26th June 2012, 21:36
Childishness aside (unless you seriously still don't understand the utter basics of economics) I am actually very much against corporations.

BrilloPad
27th June 2012, 11:26
Slaughter of first-borns could save £50bn in Child Benefit, pledges Cameron (http://newsthump.com/2012/06/26/slaughter-of-first-borns-could-save-50bn-in-child-benefit-pledges-cameron/)