Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Good one Coalition Govt.
Above average? Below average?
Hmm...int...no, just can't bring myself to do it.
probably didnt deserve the wages they were getting before.
albeit, it's been caused bynthe adoption of right-wing neo-liberal economic policy by successive governments.
The problem is that this government seemingly have no strategy for, hope of, or desire to, reverse the situation, and are standing by while those at the top see their wages and wealth increase at a frankly obscene rate, allowing the tax burden to shift to those at the bottom through policy, tax avoidance and tax evasion.
their policies are simultaneously making housing more unaffordable too!
My salary has risen at an above inflation rate since the Coalition came to power. Thanks Dave and Nick!
what a bunch of cunts
But I'm not sure that's an excuse to pay them less in real terms.
The assumption around this thread is that the average British *deserves* more money or has some kind of right to higher wages. I'm not sure that's the case, or why it would be.
But to work a 40 hours and struggle to house, cloth and feed yourself and your family (which is the reality for plenty of working families) ...
That's a bit shit.
curiously empty statement ...
Going on the Daily Mail, or a football forum, or facebook/twitter, or online shopping or banking etc etc.
That said, if we take this erroneous assertion as true, the point remains:
- they still have to be there for their contracted hours, it is not 'time off' because your freedoms are limited ... this is in part, why you are recompensed in the first place.
- You are paid for a mixture of output and physical presence .. if this takes up the vast majority of your waking life, it would seem a fair pay off that your wages might allow you to exist with some degree of comfort in the economy you are serving.
no-one deserves the money that they earn because they're probably not doing as much as we think they are. why pay them at all?
...but somewhere in there is a point about `waste` in the British economy and the inefficiencies caused by laziness and complacency amongst some workers/sectors.
Whether or not this `waste` is significant enough to skew any economic figures is another matter. I suspect not, myself.
I mean, arguably, we could go to Nth degree and move away from a labour-based economy, but we'd have to have a serious word with ourselves about how we wanted the future of the planet to be... resource-based economy maybe?
he is a bit shit
hes a tory
they like some people not having enough to survive without misery
dont ask me why
(disclaimer - I am aware that not all tories are this callous, but they are probably misguided in their supporting the party they do therefore)
but then, nor do you
that this will be an inevitable consequence as a result of feedback (under the auspices of a passive administration) from the (SINGLE) catastrophe that is unfurling. Of course some of the consequences of less dosh for workers is less dosh for them to spend on products (especially as taxation (local and central)) will not reduce overall to a commeasurate amount) (nor will unitility bills) .....thus meaning more recession for the retail sector meaning more closures or lower wages or redundancies also meaning less tax revenues which will need to be made up elsewhere.
ALSO meaning more strain on benefits (due to more unemployed or below the breadline)
ALSO meaning more forclosures on mortgages meaning increased benefits burden (possiblo resulting in further cuts to benefits - dependant upon the admin) which will also place increasing pressure on the mortgage lenders as their repayments stream reduces and they are unable to sell on the reclaimed property (unless their is a conversion to letting these to the newly homeless - except that the rents will not be affordable either from decreased wages or decreased benefits)
ALSO this in turn will put increased strain on the property prices so there will be more pressure for them to decrease (unless currency inflation goes mega) meaning that a lot of debt secured against property in positive equity might effectively become unsecured debt etc etc
It really baffles me when items of news are reported in isolation (like the wages) rather than being an (almost - again depends on where the admin allows consequences to be passed on to) inevitable consequence of what is occuring overall.
Are people really not able to see this?
Am I really deluded?
Are things not linked? just random?
I was taught that there was cause and effect, with effect being moderated by decisions made at a high enough level to circumvent 'just letting the chips fall where they do'.
Im utterly baffled as to why this sort of thing is being reported as news, as if 'SUDDENLY out of the blue' we realise this because someone has read a report. DURRRRRRRR
but instead of societies viewpoint and news reporting
THE WORLD IS COMPLETELY FUCKED, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
If you watch it/listen to it for more than half an hour, you kind of come to that conclusion anyway.
what they should be getting concerned about, I want them to understand WHAT decisions will effect WHAT. I want the news to help the public from not being hoodwinked by simplistic statements from politicians that ignore the consequences from what they say they will do. I want them to demand from the politicians what they will do with the consequences of their decisions.
I want them to demand that politicians debate and explain (properly, not just putting on a show)
Otherwise news should not allow politicians to merely deseminate what they say, this is tantamount to being a broadcaster of party statements (just reporting what other parties says DOES NOT mean they have equalised it....what that means is that it has reduced balance to dramatic one liners)
Of course the
well does that not make every single person offering their opinion or talking about issues like this also stupid?
Surely if it is stupid to talk when it doesnt effect anything then it makes news nothing more than scaremongering gossip?
Perhaps we would be better off without news all together and allow the rulers to get on with it without having to alter their plans to accomodate the ridiculous pantomime that is political debate within the media, it might actually be better that way?
i just don't think that's how the news works
or is it just really infotainment then?
Not really what most people want or expect from the news.
where we have 'never been more educated' and never had as much tech or processes, and yet still manage to carry on like we do?
but i feel pretty powerless to do anything about it, and i don't think engaging on any serious level would a) do any significant good and b) be good for for mental health
I think my energies can be better spent in other ways
It's a bit fingers in ears LALALA can't hear you, but I prefer that to that alternative of being constantly angry / frustrated / dissappointed / despairing
and agree with it, unfortunately I do not have big enough fingers for my ears, they are freakishly large......I have no choice.....If only I had some druks :D
just set me off
The reasons for this go the very heart of the issues you talk about ... it is more than just a convention of communication.
what we (I) couldn't see was your complete DOOMSDAY predictions where we would all be stocking up on beans, wearing nightvision googles and bartering with pebbles
that indicate that they do see this, if they do not start behaving according to the true situation then yes things will get really nasty and things will totally collapse......the systems that support this vast population are very unstable and weak, they cannot be sustained and unless there is a transformation process and unless the public are engaged in it, then the systems will collapse catastrophically
they haven't yet - and we are about 5 years into it
why can't we just have a decade long depression without everything going totally apocalyptic?
but I dont think that you quite understand, what exactly do you think will pull us out of depression? resources/land/will are all at breaking point, secondary (old fashioned and auxilliary) control and support systems have been nearly obliterated by the hegemony, diversity in administration and organisation is almost extinct, more and more systems than ever before are stressed to near breking point.
The extant global system is capable of devouring almost all remaining surviving alternative systems or societies resources to feed itself in its dying throes.........
THIS IS A NEW THING, that humans have not seen before (with a few exceptions see also easter islanders for a simplistic microcosm of it)
Of course they have. Over and over and over again for millenia. Just the scale of it that would be different this time.
where there is then an alternative which will be able to expand into the niche or several which people will be absorbed into, they may nhave been separated by distance but these were often not hard boundaries
it's something I really have very very little knowledge of, and don't have the means to gain enough knowledge to form any opinions that are well informed enough to comment with any firm belief.
So in the absence of a phd in social economics or something, I'm going to assume that it'll be OK - not GREAT - but OK.
what does this mean 'control and support systems have been nearly obliterated by the hegemony'?
I meant alternatives, where someone is still operating by another model, perhaps not as outright efficient on the flat (I have used this analagy before) but more robust.
Business evolution has used 'maximum gain in minimum time' as the prime evolutionary factor, rather than say 'small profit or break even but with a robustness that will enable it to endure different economic climates' admins/govs have artificially attempted to maintain a 'flat environment where apparently it was essential to maintain a steady 2% growth per year.......in times when there was boom and choice other (still profitable or break even companies) were swallowed up by 'the flat racers' (sometimes using outrageous artificial leverage). 'Return' became more and more of an exagerated important factor as globalisation meant that this could be converted to what ever expediancy excuse you cared to mention. Appearance of health rather than actual health of companies became more and more important as this would be what attract investment/take up and favourable rates.
when entities become a certain size they start to have their own gravity, meaning that when they are in danger govs/admins (who previously stayed 'snivillingly' out of it, saying let the markets decide) have to step in.
Robust, yet not as high yielding, alternative systems were methodically eliminated by the hegemony is what I wanted to say
You've been banging your tambourine on your head for years now and you want acknowledgment, we get it.
why do you try to interpret something that has really really huge implications for people, into something else? you seem to think that this is a personal quest of mine? it is not, this is a latest piece of news which acknowledges a problem which is part of a greater malaise that I am trying to convince people of, and which I have failed to convince people of in the past, because I am not up to the job of convincing people of the extent, when there is more evidence that is put on a plate in front of everyone, I try again.
I think that you are a very spiteful rude disser, and compared to all the other disers you seem to be one with the least graciousness.
and yet you are a mod!.......have you considered a career as a politician?
and you're sat here berating us over the innate compartmentalism of the human race and the duplicity of mainstream media. Most people who contribute to the political threads on this forum understand these concepts but they don't find it necessary to berate everyone else for not getting it within a larger tapestry of tinfoil. I find that whilst you are well informed and that your rambling diatribes often have a decent point hiding in them they are needy in the extreme and they would benefit from you learning the concept of brevity.
But they pay me the least I deserve a medal
but also the *quality* of the product they can spend it on?
For example, if someone wanted to buy a mobile phone and had £100 to spend on it now, they could surely get a better product than if they had £200 to spend on it 5 years ago.
Obviously for stuff like housing (or food/drink/going out) this is hardly applicable since the quality of housing changes only very slowly, but particularly for electronic products it must surely be worth considering the quality of them before deciding whether standards of living have fallen.
The 'basket of goods' contains numerous electronic items that are actually decreasing in price, rather than increasing.
It's why you get lots of people in the Telegraph commenting that 'real' inflation is actually higher for the upper classes, as the figures include flat-screen televisions (which are going down in price) and don't include private school fees (which are going up).