• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

It's already started on CUK!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    As UKIP are older and pre over generous welfare state I suggest UKIP support is likely to increase. I would suspect Labour should be worried if they could actually get the welfare class to vote.
    Wasn't the welfare state actually at its most generous in the 60s and 70s before 'maggiefatchah' came along?
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    Comment


      #12
      An alternative theory (100,000 years)

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by SunnyInHades View Post
        An alternative theory (100,000 years)

        So testers are actually in the vanguard of evolution?
        The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

        George Frederic Watts

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
          Wasn't the welfare state actually at its most generous in the 60s and 70s before 'maggiefatchah' came along?
          not really against GDP the claimant count changed and what it has been spent on has changed.

          http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
          Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by speling bee View Post
            So testers are actually in the vanguard of evolution?
            Since when was MF a tester?
            And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

            Comment


              #16
              I was reading "10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014"
              One thing rang very true "The middle class is being hollowed out"

              When you look at what you have planned for your pension, you need to be in the upper class, not the under class.


              10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014 | LinkedIn
              Fiscal nomad it's legal.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
                I think that's a valid concern - professional women are now often leaving it later to have children, meaning they're more likely to have fewer children and/or fertility problems. If one makes the assumption that professional generally equates to more intelligence/motivation, then society will be come bottom heavy in a couple of generations.
                At the present rate of progress, in a couple of generations hardly anyone will be in any meaningful employment, professional or otherwise.

                God knows how society will then decide who gets what, maybe some rotation system combined with a lottery, or an advanced rep system.
                Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by speling bee View Post


                  So testers are actually in the vanguard of evolution?
                  Sasguru will be furious to hear himself described as a tester.

                  He's a pharma consultant, if you don't mind.
                  Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by Gibbon View Post
                    BBC NEWS | UK | Human species 'may split in two'

                    Judging by the 'good contractor' threads.
                    That article is dated 2006: anything more recent?
                    Growing old is mandatory
                    Growing up is optional

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by Halo Jones View Post
                      That article is dated 2006: anything more recent?
                      This one looks quite interesting

                      I don't buy the idea of everyone "converging to the same coffee colour", much as that might appeal to those trying to encourage racial harmony, because before long parents will be able to opt for all kinds of (legally allowed) genes for their offspring including any skin colour and possibly novel capabilities like lungs that work in air or water etc.

                      Eventually even gene choices will become less relevant, as people will probably be able change their characteristics temporarily "on the hoof", for example acquiring black skin for a month or two while visiting Africa on holiday and later changing it back after they return.
                      Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X