Page 4 of 5 [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

02 Nov 2011, 2:26 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
The thing I would have to argue though - I've heard it said before by people and it seems like, at *least* within the first world, income-wise yes, the rich get richer, the middle-class get richer but at maybe a 1/3 to 1/2 pace with the rich, and the poor get richer but by only 1/3 to 1/2 the pace of the middle class; hence yes, the income inequality gaps are widening although they're trending upward for those who aren't in the bottom 10% where they stay the same (and none of this is counting technological innovation and what that does for all).



but this is not necessarily the case. recent reports have actually found that in real terms, in the uk at least, those earning around the minimum wage and on benefits are actually worse of now than they were a decade ago:

http://www.socialequality.org.uk/~sepuk/content/britain’s-rowntree-foundation-poor-are-getting-poorer

Donald Hirsch, Head of Income Studies at the Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University, who co-authored the Rowntree report wrote:
This new research underlines how people living close to the minimum income standard can end up not having enough if economic trends start going against them. For example, a single person who a decade ago had just enough to get by, and whose income has risen in line with official inflation, cannot afford a minimum budget today. Big rises in the prices of things like food and council tax means that they are nearly £20 a week short of what they need, and must think of what essentials they will go without.


in addition to this, the general trend is that relative poverty is increasing yearly.

Quote:
As far as the third world is concerned though you do have major charities attempting to do work, you do have things like the Gates Foundation, which both Bill and Warren will be giving their entirety to, and within the next twenty years if our manufacturing of infrastructure type items strengthens it means that our ability to actually even GIVE Africa or remote parts of Asia infrastructure or technology to unfold it in a couple decades, such actions on our part will be within our means to give thanks to the march of technology; something which is, while not on a personal level but on an economic/societal one, is elevated by capitalism in ways that it couldn't as easily be under a pure egalitarian system.



the problem with this is that the problems the third world nations are facing are, in reality, a consequence of neocolonial/neoliberal intervention. the activities of the imf, the world bank and multinational corporations are not at all in the interests of the general populations of these nations. rather, they are in the interests of furthering the neoliberal agenda. they are driven by corporate profit, and are in no way benevolent. third world nations need to be self-sufficient, the propping up of corrupt regimes and selling off of assets and resources to the ruling classes is not in any way in their best interests. rather, it further increases the quandary that such nations find themselves in.

this report, using copper mining in zambia as an example, is a case in point, and fairly.

http://www.actsa.org/Pictures/UpImages/ ... report.pdf


additionally, i think it is imprudent to cite examples of the activities of the most hideously wealthy of the western elites. organisations such as the gates foundation exist to further an agenda in which those in control of such organisations have a clear vested interest.

see, for example, this analysis of their activities in africa:

this report, using copper mining in zambia as an example, is a case in point, and fairly.

http://www.actsa.org/Pictures/UpImages/ ... report.pdf

Quote:
We can also look at the original act of colonialism and the acts of barbarism that were carried out by the big five empire builders at the time and see that yes, we treated people terribly back then. The only question though is; would these places without outside influence be much more advanced of their own action or would they be indiscernible from what they were in 1000 AD, 2000 BC, etc.? I'll never say that colonialism was a great thing but we may be fantasizing, more than a little, to assume that they'd be first world countries or anything close without it either. In an anthropology sense it seems like groups of people flip culture or move forward when things aren't practical anymore. Same reason the Europeans out-teched everyone would be the same reason Filipino morrow could hand anyone their head in hand to hand combat - the environment and pool of influences lent that reality. A lot of it is climate, a lot of it is geography, the prevailing local religious mythology plays a big role as well.


i don't think anyone is arguing that these nations would be first world countries, and indeed this is not really the point. the point is that what is happening there today is nothing more than colonialism operating under the guise capitalist globalisation. the lot of workers in the third world has not been improved by neoliberal intervention, and indeed neoliberal intervention is not in any way benevolent. it is purely agenda driven.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

02 Nov 2011, 3:06 am

There are parts in the country that live off the grid or live in extremely rural areas. but people vote with their feet and the general trend in the search for a more enjoyable quality of life where one can consume has been to:

1.) move to more urbanized places with community,
2.) private property,
3.) infrastructure,
4.) private sector jobs,
5.) free education powered by taxes from a powerful workforce,
6.) public services and safety nets,
7.) and it certainly offers more vices, places of entertainment, and options for recreational fun.

Your 9 to 5 to maintain this may be, from a certain perspective, slavish and most people have their issues with their employer but it, for the most part, works :)


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Nov 2011, 7:54 am

peebo wrote:
Quote:
We can also look at the original act of colonialism and the acts of barbarism that were carried out by the big five empire builders at the time and see that yes, we treated people terribly back then. The only question though is; would these places without outside influence be much more advanced of their own action or would they be indiscernible from what they were in 1000 AD, 2000 BC, etc.? I'll never say that colonialism was a great thing but we may be fantasizing, more than a little, to assume that they'd be first world countries or anything close without it either. In an anthropology sense it seems like groups of people flip culture or move forward when things aren't practical anymore. Same reason the Europeans out-teched everyone would be the same reason Filipino morrow could hand anyone their head in hand to hand combat - the environment and pool of influences lent that reality. A lot of it is climate, a lot of it is geography, the prevailing local religious mythology plays a big role as well.


i don't think anyone is arguing that these nations would be first world countries, and indeed this is not really the point. the point is that what is happening there today is nothing more than colonialism operating under the guise capitalist globalisation. the lot of workers in the third world has not been improved by neoliberal intervention, and indeed neoliberal intervention is not in any way benevolent. it is purely agenda driven.

When people get into motive-mongering I really don't go down that road simply because its about as meaningless when supposedly selfish intentions have good outcomes as it is when good intentions have bad outcomes. Particularly with the later a bad outcome is a bad outcome and negligence is still negligence.

If they have been able to go into starving continents, take all their stuff, and leave no industry behind or locals owning more resources I'd love to know how they'd achieve that. Military coupe? Banana Republics?

peebo wrote:
Quote:
As far as the third world is concerned though you do have major charities attempting to do work, you do have things like the Gates Foundation, which both Bill and Warren will be giving their entirety to, and within the next twenty years if our manufacturing of infrastructure type items strengthens it means that our ability to actually even GIVE Africa or remote parts of Asia infrastructure or technology to unfold it in a couple decades, such actions on our part will be within our means to give thanks to the march of technology; something which is, while not on a personal level but on an economic/societal one, is elevated by capitalism in ways that it couldn't as easily be under a pure egalitarian system.


the problem with this is that the problems the third world nations are facing are, in reality, a consequence of neocolonial/neoliberal intervention. the activities of the imf, the world bank and multinational corporations are not at all in the interests of the general populations of these nations. rather, they are in the interests of furthering the neoliberal agenda. they are driven by corporate profit, and are in no way benevolent. third world nations need to be self-sufficient, the propping up of corrupt regimes and selling off of assets and resources to the ruling classes is not in any way in their best interests. rather, it further increases the quandary that such nations find themselves in.

this report, using copper mining in zambia as an example, is a case in point, and fairly.

http://www.actsa.org/Pictures/UpImages/ ... report.pdf

The question we're still stuck with - if no one had never interceded in their continents respectively, where or who would they be today in terms of development? In many cases I would figure they'd still be either living in villages or hunter-gatherer depending on the region but they would not have electricity, running water anywhere, medicine, etc.. Its far from peaches and cream over there and I agree that history could have been much kinder, particularly to Africa, but if we are now in a place where we can assist in their development I think we by all means should. If the innovation we're coming up with can get a lot done then by all means, if we can apply nanotech to infrastructure building in a few decades they may be in a place no one's been in - like the American experiment before you'll have Africa as the most futuristic society of the 22nd/23rd centuries in that it will be built from the ground up, quite possibly, on a post fossil fuel basis. They may have most of their power supplied by fusion, they'll have electric or hydrogen cars without the need of changing out fossil fuel based infrastructure. It seems like there are very big and promising things for that continent as well as rural Asia in the future.

Also, there's tremendous capitalistic incentive to turn continents like South America and Africa into 'have' regions, partly for tourism, partly for development, but just in that the world does crave new thoughts, new ideas, new blood in the science and technology world, etc..

peebo wrote:
additionally, i think it is imprudent to cite examples of the activities of the most hideously wealthy of the western elites. organisations such as the gates foundation exist to further an agenda in which those in control of such organisations have a clear vested interest.
Some people like to say that, I still don't see anywhere that its warranted. They're a venture in philanthrocapitalism that at worst has done things awkwardly and at times may not have realized that while handing out vaccines helps 'some' its still not the same thing as building infrastructure or working to get farming so efficient that they can leave their aggrarian base. The good news is that people are critical of them, are examining their actions and results, and many people over here (this is where I agree - people like yourself can do a lot of good) are giving them input on how they're doing it wrong, if and when they are, and what they should be doing instead to help these countries be self-sufficient rather than skewing their economies with a foreign parasite sector that collapses when that foreign power leaves.

You have to remember as well that with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet they're not born or legacy money. The legacy rich can often be out of touch with what reality is for other people just because they've never had the possibility over their heads that most people do - ie. that if they don't keep their job or don't make something of themselves they'll fall and that they could legitimately be in poverty. Being self-made means that for Bill and Warren thinking that way and understanding it isn't a hypothetical exercise. That and - no one, aside from maybe John D Rockafeller, has given this much money; and really, you have the second and third richest men in the world not just giving token amounts to these organizations but when they pass their entire wealth accumulation.

When you really think about it the world is filled with the rich. Yes, they have a lot and yes they can live flashy if they want but on the pages of history, like anyone else, if they don't do something great, perhaps after another 100 years very few people will remember them for much and after 200 it will be like they never existed. When you realize that you have the monumental opportunity to do something great, something world-changing with the wealth you've been given simply by being able to direct other people's money better than they can and create jobs with that money (when you can give people close to 20% ROE or better money quite literally chases you), also when you see the Paris Hiltons of the world and realize you'd just be propping up decades of trailer trash with what you accumulated; I think most people would rather give themselves to the history books rather than be a name no one has ever heard of. You get a lot farther with generosity in that sense and, if you need to see that as a selfish motivation as well - people have a need to do things and give back simply because they feel vacant without it. As for Bill and Warren as well being 2nd or 3rd richest, what kinds of overarching capitalistic goals would they have? Push Carlos Slim down to 3rd? Trying to take top position really doesn't give much gratification and as soon as you beat someone else for the richest spot someone else will likely pass you. In a realistic respect they're at the finish line and then some.

I think this is what people forget when they scourge the rich. Some people just have tremendous talents with money and at the same time they have souls and they want to contribute back to things simply because its part of being human. They're wealth comes largely from their investments and it is housed in their 'net worth' or the companies they own which are in and of themselves cultivators of wealth for people who work within them. To that extent, for those who are successful simply because they are, yes - you do need to be clear that anti-trust laws can't be broken and monopolies are to be avoided at all cost, but aside from that issue the act of knocking them down is like knocking down a brilliant front-running physicist for being better than other people at what they do. I suppose that wealth without contribution or wealth without giving back can be seen as a bit stingy but, even there the bare minimum is that wealth resides in investments and typically these are still industry and leadership.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

02 Nov 2011, 2:15 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
We can also look at the original act of colonialism and the acts of barbarism that were carried out by the big five empire builders at the time and see that yes, we treated people terribly back then. The only question though is; would these places without outside influence be much more advanced of their own action or would they be indiscernible from what they were in 1000 AD, 2000 BC, etc.? I'll never say that colonialism was a great thing but we may be fantasizing, more than a little, to assume that they'd be first world countries or anything close without it either. In an anthropology sense it seems like groups of people flip culture or move forward when things aren't practical anymore. Same reason the Europeans out-teched everyone would be the same reason Filipino morrow could hand anyone their head in hand to hand combat - the environment and pool of influences lent that reality. A lot of it is climate, a lot of it is geography, the prevailing local religious mythology plays a big role as well.


i don't think anyone is arguing that these nations would be first world countries, and indeed this is not really the point. the point is that what is happening there today is nothing more than colonialism operating under the guise capitalist globalisation. the lot of workers in the third world has not been improved by neoliberal intervention, and indeed neoliberal intervention is not in any way benevolent. it is purely agenda driven.


When people get into motive-mongering I really don't go down that road simply because its about as meaningless when supposedly selfish intentions have good outcomes as it is when good intentions have bad outcomes. Particularly with the later a bad outcome is a bad outcome and negligence is still negligence.


but this isn't motive mongering. i think an objective look at the facts bears my statement out.

Quote:
If they have been able to go into starving continents, take all their stuff, and leave no industry behind or locals owning more resources I'd love to know how they'd achieve that. Military coupe? Banana Republics?


is it fair to conclude you are not particularly familiar with the foreign policy of the us of a over the last century or so?
Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
As far as the third world is concerned though you do have major charities attempting to do work, you do have things like the Gates Foundation, which both Bill and Warren will be giving their entirety to, and within the next twenty years if our manufacturing of infrastructure type items strengthens it means that our ability to actually even GIVE Africa or remote parts of Asia infrastructure or technology to unfold it in a couple decades, such actions on our part will be within our means to give thanks to the march of technology; something which is, while not on a personal level but on an economic/societal one, is elevated by capitalism in ways that it couldn't as easily be under a pure egalitarian system.


the problem with this is that the problems the third world nations are facing are, in reality, a consequence of neocolonial/neoliberal intervention. the activities of the imf, the world bank and multinational corporations are not at all in the interests of the general populations of these nations. rather, they are in the interests of furthering the neoliberal agenda. they are driven by corporate profit, and are in no way benevolent. third world nations need to be self-sufficient, the propping up of corrupt regimes and selling off of assets and resources to the ruling classes is not in any way in their best interests. rather, it further increases the quandary that such nations find themselves in.

this report, using copper mining in zambia as an example, is a case in point, and fairly.

http://www.actsa.org/Pictures/UpImages/ ... report.pdf




The question we're still stuck with - if no one had never interceded in their continents respectively, where or who would they be today in terms of development? In many cases I would figure they'd still be either living in villages or hunter-gatherer depending on the region but they would not have electricity, running water anywhere, medicine, etc.. Its far from peaches and cream over there and I agree that history could have been much kinder, particularly to Africa, but if we are now in a place where we can assist in their development I think we by all means should. If the innovation we're coming up with can get a lot done then by all means, if we can apply nanotech to infrastructure building in a few decades they may be in a place no one's been in - like the American experiment before you'll have Africa as the most futuristic society of the 22nd/23rd centuries in that it will be built from the ground up, quite possibly, on a post fossil fuel basis. They may have most of their power supplied by fusion, they'll have electric or hydrogen cars without the need of changing out fossil fuel based infrastructure. It seems like there are very big and promising things for that continent as well as rural Asia in the future.


well all of this is conjecture really. perhaps if things worked out as you've described here, we could all live peacefully and co-operatively in a world of happiness, but i don't think it's likely. perhaps to some it would be great to live in a world where the oligarchs of big business watch over us in a benevolent fashion and benignly sculpt for us a technological paradise, but unfortunately a cursory glance at reality strongly suggests this is not going to be the case.

Quote:
Also, there's tremendous capitalistic incentive to turn continents like South America and Africa into 'have' regions, partly for tourism, partly for development, but just in that the world does crave new thoughts, new ideas, new blood in the science and technology world, etc..


again, reality suggests that this is not in any way at all what is actually happening.

Quote:
peebo wrote:
additionally, i think it is imprudent to cite examples of the activities of the most hideously wealthy of the western elites. organisations such as the gates foundation exist to further an agenda in which those in control of such organisations have a clear vested interest.


Some people like to say that, I still don't see anywhere that its warranted. They're a venture in philanthrocapitalism that at worst has done things awkwardly and at times may not have realized that while handing out vaccines helps 'some' its still not the same thing as building infrastructure or working to get farming so efficient that they can leave their aggrarian base. The good news is that people are critical of them, are examining their actions and results, and many people over here (this is where I agree - people like yourself can do a lot of good) are giving them input on how they're doing it wrong, if and when they are, and what they should be doing instead to help these countries be self-sufficient rather than skewing their economies with a foreign parasite sector that collapses when that foreign power leaves.


i really feel that you are missing the point in the criticism that is poured on the likes of gates. it's not that he is simply a slightly clumsy and naive but ultimately well meaning benefactor making silly mistakes, who needs to be gently nudged in the right direction by his critics. gates is a ruthless, cut-throat capitalist tycoon who has systematically built his empire on the back of building monopolies, using the might of his empire to shut down opposition, there are screeds of information all over the internet exposing him as an egomaniacal narcissist. while there may be a lot of exaggeration, through his own behaviour he has exposed many of these traits.

Quote:
You have to remember as well that with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet they're not born or legacy money. The legacy rich can often be out of touch with what reality is for other people just because they've never had the possibility over their heads that most people do - ie. that if they don't keep their job or don't make something of themselves they'll fall and that they could legitimately be in poverty. Being self-made means that for Bill and Warren thinking that way and understanding it isn't a hypothetical exercise. That and - no one, aside from maybe John D Rockafeller, has given this much money; and really, you have the second and third richest men in the world not just giving token amounts to these organizations but when they pass their entire wealth accumulation.


while gates has clearly amassed a disgusting fortune through his own foul deeds, it's a well known fact that he came from a wealthy and powerful family, the wealth of which, not at all incidentally, was responsible for his rise to global oligarch. trying to paint gates as some average guy off the streets who at any point whatsoever was at risk from poverty is at the very least disingenuous.


Quote:
When you really think about it the world is filled with the rich. Yes, they have a lot and yes they can live flashy if they want but on the pages of history, like anyone else, if they don't do something great, perhaps after another 100 years very few people will remember them for much and after 200 it will be like they never existed. When you realize that you have the monumental opportunity to do something great, something world-changing with the wealth you've been given simply by being able to direct other people's money better than they can and create jobs with that money (when you can give people close to 20% ROE or better money quite literally chases you), also when you see the Paris Hiltons of the world and realize you'd just be propping up decades of trailer trash with what you accumulated; I think most people would rather give themselves to the history books rather than be a name no one has ever heard of. You get a lot farther with generosity in that sense and, if you need to see that as a selfish motivation as well - people have a need to do things and give back simply because they feel vacant without it. As for Bill and Warren as well being 2nd or 3rd richest, what kinds of overarching capitalistic goals would they have? Push Carlos Slim down to 3rd? Trying to take top position really doesn't give much gratification and as soon as you beat someone else for the richest spot someone else will likely pass you. In a realistic respect they're at the finish line and then some.

I think this is what people forget when they scourge the rich. Some people just have tremendous talents with money and at the same time they have souls and they want to contribute back to things simply because its part of being human. They're wealth comes largely from their investments and it is housed in their 'net worth' or the companies they own which are in and of themselves cultivators of wealth for people who work within them. To that extent, for those who are successful simply because they are, yes - you do need to be clear that anti-trust laws can't be broken and monopolies are to be avoided at all cost, but aside from that issue the act of knocking them down is like knocking down a brilliant front-running physicist for being better than other people at what they do. I suppose that wealth without contribution or wealth without giving back can be seen as a bit stingy but, even there the bare minimum is that wealth resides in investments and typically these are still industry and leadership.



praising the actions of cut-throat, ruthless people who make their way to the top via underhand and at times outright criminal means is all well and good, but in reality, as i see it at least, they and their actions serve as nothing more than an indictment on the nature of neo-liberal capitalism. rather than being praised, i really feel they should be pilloried. i can't be bothered getting further mired in this discussion though, i feel the thread has drifted pretty far away from the topic at hand.


so, what do you think on the notion that work = slavery? :lol:


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

02 Nov 2011, 6:09 pm

peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Peebo wrote:
the fact that you are asking for evidence of this suggests that you do not live in the uk

Baseless speculation used in an ad hominem way.


not at all. most of the people i come across and have cause to discuss this major issue that is affecting millions in the uk at present, in addition to those who read newspapers, are well aware of this.

it is not speculation at all. it is a big issue in the uk at the moment. and neither is it used in an ad hominem way. i simply made a suggestion about your country of residence.

It is used in an ad hominem way. You were saying that because I didn't know about something then I mustn't live in a particular country. That sounds like you are discrediting my argument because of a characteristic, my place of residence.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
Peebo wrote:
as claimants are migrated from incapacity benefit and income support to employment support allowance, they are sent to a mandatory tribunal, where the majority of them are being stripped of their disability related benefits and forced to go through lengthy and stressful appeals to have them reinstated

This is disgusting! I'd like to see proof of this though. Also last time I checked this isn't opression of the proletariat like you have been going on about.


proof:
http://www.disabilityalliance.org/ibmigrate.htm

it's clearly a penal policy being used against the poor. describe it as you see fit. regardless, the discussion drifted onto this.

This just tells me what is happening and I have already said why you are wrong below. This is also misuse of the word penal because noone is actually being punished. Even more insanely you are trying to


peebo wrote:
Quote:
Peebo wrote:
forcing someone with, for instance, long term, enduring, mental health problems, who might have problems even going out of the house, to sit in front of a doctor, who is answering multiple choice questions on a computer with no recourse to use his own discretionary judgement, with the view to sending the person a letter saying they do not qualify for disability related benefits, thus forcing them to go through a lengthy appeal process, all the while worrying about their ability to carry on in life, is indeed penal.

And now we work from an argument of choice reassembly.


i have no idea what you mean by this.

The answer is just below? *facepalms*

peebo wrote:
Quote:
I doubt that all disabled people are this way at all and if any were I doubt they would be on disability benefit. I think they'd be in an institution.

then you are betraying your general lack of knowledge in the area. firstly, we don't really have institutions anymore, other than for "mentally disordered offenders". have you never heard of care in the community? it's been a fact for quite a long time. besides, people in psychiatric hospitals, even long term in-patients, generally ARE on disability benefits.

You talk about people who would be absolutely overcome because of a questionnaire. Exactly how mentally unfit do you have to be in order to be disturbed to do what most people do when they give a tax return? They receive disability benefit even though they might not use it?

peebo wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore you have to try and speculate about what might be going on in their lives to make a point.

no i don't. i work with people every day who are in such situations as outlined above. there is no speculation.

Yes there is because I bet many of them don't have mobility problems and I think mobility problems are well provided for in the Uk in many places. Furthermore you are presupposing that these people will instantly be disallowed benefit.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
And then you go and say that they don't qualify because you say so. I know about this. It's ATOS. Not every company is Atos. :/ And furthermore disabled people aren't the workers.

what do you mean, i say so? i don't say who qualifies for benefits or who doesn't. you just need to look at the statistics. i've been looking around for a page clearly outlining this but the most accurate information is to be found on rightsnet, a subscription website run for people working in the area of welfare rights. the following article is not available without a subscription, and i can't post it here, however the headline, available on the front page of the site, says it all really:
rightsnet.org.uk wrote:
62 per cent of completed work capability assessments find claimant ‘fit for work’
New statistics also show that 39 per cent of those found fit for work have had appeal heard by tribunal and that 38 per cent of those appeals successful
26 October, 2011


here is a recent guardian article discussing the issue in more general terms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... y-benefits

as for atos, they are the company that oversee benefit tribunals, and who built the computer system that is used to make decisions.

as for disabled people not being workers, as i said, the discussion has drifted onto the benefits system after you brought it up. the benefit system is in no way any kind of real safety net for people who are out of work or those who can't work. it is, in effect, a penal system.

I said it because benefits is something that is provided because it shows that no people in the UK are in danger of bleeding dying and they certainly paid a pittance like they used to be. You're the one who turned it in to a nine million paragrapher.


Peebo wrote:
Quote:
peebo wrote:
the fact is that the vast majority of workers do not earn hundreds of thousands. and you clearly don't understand the word "praxis".

I dont understand Praxis because... because... Because you say so. Fantastic job. And I am saying that the communist conception of capitalism is based on a completely false premise.

can you outline what this false premise is, please?

I will. It's based on the premise that all workers are the same and are being opressed and could work better if noone was in charge. I don't deny that workers can be opressed. They were and are. But the solution is not to then decide everyone is equal and to give people equal ownership in something by fiat, use a bumpkis pricing system and a whole raft of shameful ideas.

peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
peebo wrote:
you were talking about rights, so unequal bargaining power is certainly something relevant to bring into the discussion.

That is a complete load of utopia. Whether it favours workers or managers or even the damned top brass bargaining power will always favour someone. I'd just prefer a good wage, a perk or two and no industrial strife thanks. Voicing your opinion is a right. protest is a right. Life is a right. Liberty is a right. That covers this already.


the opinions of the poor are ignored. if they protest, they are demonised. look at the difference in reactions between the student riots and the more recent rioting. and neither do the masses of low paid workers have liberty.

Of course they are demonized. That doesn't just mean the rich are all doing it. Quite a few people who want more worker's rights aren't even workers. Many people who don't want socialism are workers. Why? because socialism as it is isn't a wholesale solution. If they don't have liberty that isn't workers v capitalists, that is society allowing people to be unfair and socialism can be just and more unfair than capitalism in many ways.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
peebo wrote:
your point of view is completely skewed towards capitalism. of course the point i am arguing won't equate with capitalist logic, since capitalism relies on wage slavery under the guise of choice.

That is disgustingly self-centred and doesn't explain why I am wrong at all. It is just an ad hominem attack that is explained by using an ad hominem attack. Why don't you actually use reason about why you think I am wrong?


it is not in any way an ad hominem attack. it appears you don't really understand the meaning of ad hominem, either.

Yes it is. Capitalist logic is basically an insult against me which you use to say that I am wrong. You say that I am skewed towards capitalism by way of saying that I am wrong. That is ad hominem.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
Gedrene wrote:
Workers can't be paid a share according to their 'input' because first: Nobody would make any profit and all economic growth and progress would stall without saving. Second managers play an important part in organising labour that means that in the end they contribute more to the final profit than workers do. It is also an oblivious fantasy because it tries to equate worker's input with wages when in fact many things have input in both direct and indirect ways.


Quote:
innovative enough for what? we do not need "entrepreneurial skills". we need meaningful existence

And innovation leads to a meaningful existence. You propose a system of wages that completely ignores the importance of management and entrepreneurs and try to use a pricing system that wont lead to profit, advancement and thus a meaningful existence.[/'quote]

why do you assume that human beings can be motivated by nothing other than money and advancing their status over others? Because even socialism is about advancing status really. It lionizes workers. It tries to impose equality and thus supposedly raise worker's economic condition. Furthermore I don't strictly believe that advancing status and money are the only reasons why people do things. I myself strive for the truth over all other things. Why? It stops me being screwed over by a lying society and sheming manics. You'd be a fool to think that money and status aren't important to most people, even feuding groups of socialists.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
peebo wrote:
life expectancy for those living in the poorest area of glasgow is 25 years shorter than that of those living in the wealthiest.

That's probably partly down to poor diet from overeating for a start, and alcohol intake. No offence but poorer people tend to eat unhealthy food and drink more alcohol than the rich. Furthermore this isn't DEATH FROM STARVATION. You said people in minimum wage struggle to survive. Your argument has already died and you're trying to ignore it.


your argument has unfortunately descended to bigoted nonsense. no offence??

None taken. Partly because it isn't bigoted nonsense. It's true that poor people in glasgow eat more unhealthily than the rich. Furthermore it is rue that they drink more. This affects they health negatively.

Peebo wrote:
Quote:
peebo wrote:
why? did you present any evidence whatsoever that poor people live in bigger houses? your arguments are laughable.

Two wrongs don't make a right. So what you say is crap even before I disprove it.


the point is, you haven't proven or disproved anything. you post unsubstantiated nonsense, and when i counter it with the actual reality of the situation, you demand proof? are you for real?

I have and now you're making another ad hominem attack with unsubstantiated nonsense without saying how I am wrong. I dare demand proof for things you say? How dare I?

Gedrene wrote:
http://thebarrowboy.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/poor-family.jpg
This is an east end family from 1912. An average one. As one can see the setting is more like a barn.
I live next door to crawley and in crawley I can see what is relative poverty. I tell you what. They look far from as bad as these people. These poor would have likely to have been able to get their own house. They might have lived with another family. They don't seem properly dressed. The man's face looks harassed. It's a sight to melt your heart. It also isn't the state of the British poor today. You tried to talk about overty today as if you were saying like it was yesterday. Wage slavery. That's complete rubbish. The poor have become less poor.


unfortunately this is a ridiculous argument. you have to consider relativity.

It isn't ridiculous because you were arguing from absolute poverty not relative poverty. Or did you try to forget that? Your unwarranted sarcasm belies your arrogance.

peebo wrote:
of course things were worse for the poor in the uk in 1912. that doesn't mean that poverty no longer exists. and regardless, it's not necessarily relevant to the original argument anyway.

peebo wrote:
why? did you present any evidence whatsoever that poor people live in bigger houses? your arguments are laughable.

peebo wrote:
you clearly don't get out much if you really believe what you are typing here. people living on minimum wage struggle to survive.

That's a lie. You were arguing from absolute poverty not relative poverty. If struggling to survive means relative poverty and not absolute poverty then I am the Queen of Canada.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
Peebo wrote:
You haven't found what interesting?

You can't read. I said arguing with you is interesting because it's different.


fair enough, i must have misunderstood you.

That's fine then. Good we cleared that up.


peebo wrote:
Quote:
Peebo wrote:
your arguments are nonsense, you are asking me to quote studies when i reply to your spurious claims that you have in no way backed up.

They're nonsense because you say so. So in denial again? Anyways I ask you to quote studies because you are making the points. Your only way of disproving was either to say that only a capitalist would think that, a remark I resent because I don't care about capitalism, I care about what works. Your other excuse basically amounted to two wrongs make a right.

firstly, i'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right. you attempted to make the patently absurd absolute claim that poor people live in bigger houses today than they did in the 1960s. this is clearly wrong. it's perhaps not easy to prove with statistics, i don't know where i would find them for a start, but i can assure you that it is wrong.

So you are deciding that I am wrong because you think I am wrong or on blind faith. Well nothing else here needs to be said. Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. So why then do you say I am wrong on blind faith?

peebo wrote:
]
after i counter your patently absurd and unsubstantiated claim, you then ask me to provide proof. do you see the flaw here??

Yes I do, it's that you believe that you can't be wrong whilst thinking you don't need evidence to back this claim up.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
Then what do you say? You say that I don't back up anything despite the fact that you only provided one link and that only said what was happening. In order to say it was cruel you had to invent some speculative fiction whereby you spoke about a person with all sorts of characteristics and issues that aren't necessary to be called disabled. Not that this has anything to do with the absurd labour theory of value. It's absurd to believe that manual labour is the only consideration with pricing. It's also a fiction.

ok.

Do you feel any shame?



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

03 Nov 2011, 2:17 am

Gedrene wrote:
peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Peebo wrote:
the fact that you are asking for evidence of this suggests that you do not live in the uk

Baseless speculation used in an ad hominem way.


not at all. most of the people i come across and have cause to discuss this major issue that is affecting millions in the uk at present, in addition to those who read newspapers, are well aware of this.

it is not speculation at all. it is a big issue in the uk at the moment. and neither is it used in an ad hominem way. i simply made a suggestion about your country of residence.

It is used in an ad hominem way. You were saying that because I didn't know about something then I mustn't live in a particular country. That sounds like you are discrediting my argument because of a characteristic, my place of residence.


i don't think so. i was in no way trying to undermine you or attack you personally. but whatever, if you took it as a personal slight, then accept my apologies.


Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
Peebo wrote:
as claimants are migrated from incapacity benefit and income support to employment support allowance, they are sent to a mandatory tribunal, where the majority of them are being stripped of their disability related benefits and forced to go through lengthy and stressful appeals to have them reinstated

This is disgusting! I'd like to see proof of this though. Also last time I checked this isn't opression of the proletariat like you have been going on about.


proof:
http://www.disabilityalliance.org/ibmigrate.htm

it's clearly a penal policy being used against the poor. describe it as you see fit. regardless, the discussion drifted onto this.

This just tells me what is happening and I have already said why you are wrong below. This is also misuse of the word penal because noone is actually being punished. Even more insanely you are trying to


it clearly is penal. disabled people are having their financial safety net removed from them, being put through unnecessary and undue stress and anxiety, and being forced to attend tribunals where there status as a disabled person and their inability to work is being put under scrutiny. it is effectively a tacit accusation of benefit fraud, and in addition, it is clearly undermining the medical profession in this country.

Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
Peebo wrote:
forcing someone with, for instance, long term, enduring, mental health problems, who might have problems even going out of the house, to sit in front of a doctor, who is answering multiple choice questions on a computer with no recourse to use his own discretionary judgement, with the view to sending the person a letter saying they do not qualify for disability related benefits, thus forcing them to go through a lengthy appeal process, all the while worrying about their ability to carry on in life, is indeed penal.

And now we work from an argument of choice reassembly.


i have no idea what you mean by this.

The answer is just below? *facepalms*


below where? i don't see it.

Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
I doubt that all disabled people are this way at all and if any were I doubt they would be on disability benefit. I think they'd be in an institution.

then you are betraying your general lack of knowledge in the area. firstly, we don't really have institutions anymore, other than for "mentally disordered offenders". have you never heard of care in the community? it's been a fact for quite a long time. besides, people in psychiatric hospitals, even long term in-patients, generally ARE on disability benefits.

You talk about people who would be absolutely overcome because of a questionnaire. Exactly how mentally unfit do you have to be in order to be disturbed to do what most people do when they give a tax return? They receive disability benefit even though they might not use it?


a questionnaire the outcome of which might result in their benefits being removed and being pressured into unsuitable work. and yes, people in psychiatric hospitals generally receive benefits. people qualify for benefits on certain criteria, whether they will be used or not is not one of the criteria.



Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore you have to try and speculate about what might be going on in their lives to make a point.

no i don't. i work with people every day who are in such situations as outlined above. there is no speculation.

Yes there is because I bet many of them don't have mobility problems and I think mobility problems are well provided for in the Uk in many places. Furthermore you are presupposing that these people will instantly be disallowed benefit.


this affects people with any sort of disability, mobility problems included. many of them are instantly disallowed benefit. 62% according to the latest figures.

rightsnet.org.uk wrote:
62 per cent of completed work capability assessments find claimant ‘fit for work’



Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
And then you go and say that they don't qualify because you say so. I know about this. It's ATOS. Not every company is Atos. :/ And furthermore disabled people aren't the workers.

what do you mean, i say so? i don't say who qualifies for benefits or who doesn't. you just need to look at the statistics. i've been looking around for a page clearly outlining this but the most accurate information is to be found on rightsnet, a subscription website run for people working in the area of welfare rights. the following article is not available without a subscription, and i can't post it here, however the headline, available on the front page of the site, says it all really:
rightsnet.org.uk wrote:
62 per cent of completed work capability assessments find claimant ‘fit for work’
New statistics also show that 39 per cent of those found fit for work have had appeal heard by tribunal and that 38 per cent of those appeals successful
26 October, 2011


here is a recent guardian article discussing the issue in more general terms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... y-benefits

as for atos, they are the company that oversee benefit tribunals, and who built the computer system that is used to make decisions.

as for disabled people not being workers, as i said, the discussion has drifted onto the benefits system after you brought it up. the benefit system is in no way any kind of real safety net for people who are out of work or those who can't work. it is, in effect, a penal system.

I said it because benefits is something that is provided because it shows that no people in the UK are in danger of bleeding dying and they certainly paid a pittance like they used to be. You're the one who turned it in to a nine million paragrapher.


but i've just provided you with evidence that disabled people are routinely having their benefits cut, effectively putting them in a situation where they can ill afford to live.

and besides, your general point is just wrong. in real terms, benefit payments are substantially less than they were in the 1970, and have been progressively cut since then, to the point where job seekers allowance is paid at a rate well below the relative poverty level in this country.

Quote:
Peebo wrote:
Quote:
peebo wrote:
the fact is that the vast majority of workers do not earn hundreds of thousands. and you clearly don't understand the word "praxis".

I dont understand Praxis because... because... Because you say so. Fantastic job. And I am saying that the communist conception of capitalism is based on a completely false premise.

can you outline what this false premise is, please?

I will. It's based on the premise that all workers are the same and are being opressed and could work better if noone was in charge. I don't deny that workers can be opressed. They were and are. But the solution is not to then decide everyone is equal and to give people equal ownership in something by fiat, use a bumpkis pricing system and a whole raft of shameful ideas.


nobody is saying all workers are the same. however i think you are encroaching on dangerous ground if you are suggesting all people should not be considered equal. in pragmatic terms, i'm not even necessarily saying that everyone should be paid a flat rate. ideally, workers SHOULD earn the full value of their production. but putting aside idealistic notions, i don't see how any justification can be made for the huge disparity in pay scales. it's disgusting, as you would put it.


Quote:
peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
peebo wrote:
you were talking about rights, so unequal bargaining power is certainly something relevant to bring into the discussion.

That is a complete load of utopia. Whether it favours workers or managers or even the damned top brass bargaining power will always favour someone. I'd just prefer a good wage, a perk or two and no industrial strife thanks. Voicing your opinion is a right. protest is a right. Life is a right. Liberty is a right. That covers this already.


the opinions of the poor are ignored. if they protest, they are demonised. look at the difference in reactions between the student riots and the more recent rioting. and neither do the masses of low paid workers have liberty.

Of course they are demonized. That doesn't just mean the rich are all doing it. Quite a few people who want more worker's rights aren't even workers. Many people who don't want socialism are workers. Why? because socialism as it is isn't a wholesale solution. If they don't have liberty that isn't workers v capitalists, that is society allowing people to be unfair and socialism can be just and more unfair than capitalism in many ways.


this reply doesn't make sense. and i wonder if you misunderstood my point.

i was pointing out the disparity in treatment of middle/upper middle class protesters (the student protests) and lower/working class protesters (many of whom were given hugely disproportionate jail sentences and evicted from social housing for very minor offences).

it was an example of the disparity in rights between poor and affluent people.


Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
peebo wrote:
your point of view is completely skewed towards capitalism. of course the point i am arguing won't equate with capitalist logic, since capitalism relies on wage slavery under the guise of choice.

That is disgustingly self-centred and doesn't explain why I am wrong at all. It is just an ad hominem attack that is explained by using an ad hominem attack. Why don't you actually use reason about why you think I am wrong?


it is not in any way an ad hominem attack. it appears you don't really understand the meaning of ad hominem, either.

Yes it is. Capitalist logic is basically an insult against me which you use to say that I am wrong. You say that I am skewed towards capitalism by way of saying that I am wrong. That is ad hominem.


how is "capitalist logic" an insult? you seem to be supporting capitalism in your posts, so i don't understand why you would be insulted by this term? i think you ARE wrong. but me saying this doesn't constitute a personal insult.


peebo wrote:
Quote:
Gedrene wrote:
Workers can't be paid a share according to their 'input' because first: Nobody would make any profit and all economic growth and progress would stall without saving. Second managers play an important part in organising labour that means that in the end they contribute more to the final profit than workers do. It is also an oblivious fantasy because it tries to equate worker's input with wages when in fact many things have input in both direct and indirect ways.


Quote:
innovative enough for what? we do not need "entrepreneurial skills". we need meaningful existence

And innovation leads to a meaningful existence. You propose a system of wages that completely ignores the importance of management and entrepreneurs and try to use a pricing system that wont lead to profit, advancement and thus a meaningful existence.

why do you assume that human beings can be motivated by nothing other than money and advancing their status over others? Because even socialism is about advancing status really. It lionizes workers. It tries to impose equality and thus supposedly raise worker's economic condition. Furthermore I don't strictly believe that advancing status and money are the only reasons why people do things. I myself strive for the truth over all other things. Why? It stops me being screwed over by a lying society and sheming manics. You'd be a fool to think that money and status aren't important to most people, even feuding groups of socialists.[/quote]

there is something inherently bad about equality?

you talk of socialism, but seem unaware of the fact that there has never actually been a socialist society.


Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
peebo wrote:
life expectancy for those living in the poorest area of glasgow is 25 years shorter than that of those living in the wealthiest.

That's probably partly down to poor diet from overeating for a start, and alcohol intake. No offence but poorer people tend to eat unhealthy food and drink more alcohol than the rich. Furthermore this isn't DEATH FROM STARVATION. You said people in minimum wage struggle to survive. Your argument has already died and you're trying to ignore it.


your argument has unfortunately descended to bigoted nonsense. no offence??

None taken. Partly because it isn't bigoted nonsense. It's true that poor people in glasgow eat more unhealthily than the rich. Furthermore it is rue that they drink more. This affects they health negatively.


but your comment begs the question, WHY is this the case?


Quote:
Peebo wrote:
Quote:
peebo wrote:
why? did you present any evidence whatsoever that poor people live in bigger houses? your arguments are laughable.

Two wrongs don't make a right. So what you say is crap even before I disprove it.


the point is, you haven't proven or disproved anything. you post unsubstantiated nonsense, and when i counter it with the actual reality of the situation, you demand proof? are you for real?

I have and now you're making another ad hominem attack with unsubstantiated nonsense without saying how I am wrong. I dare demand proof for things you say? How dare I?


ok, what did you prove? did you prove that poor people now live in bigger houses than they did in the fifties? i don't think you did. but if so, can you go over this again, because unfortunately i completely missed it.

Quote:
Gedrene wrote:
http://thebarrowboy.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/poor-family.jpg
This is an east end family from 1912. An average one. As one can see the setting is more like a barn.
I live next door to crawley and in crawley I can see what is relative poverty. I tell you what. They look far from as bad as these people. These poor would have likely to have been able to get their own house. They might have lived with another family. They don't seem properly dressed. The man's face looks harassed. It's a sight to melt your heart. It also isn't the state of the British poor today. You tried to talk about overty today as if you were saying like it was yesterday. Wage slavery. That's complete rubbish. The poor have become less poor.


unfortunately this is a ridiculous argument. you have to consider relativity.

It isn't ridiculous because you were arguing from absolute poverty not relative poverty. Or did you try to forget that? Your unwarranted sarcasm belies your arrogance.[/quote]

did you actually read this? http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/socia ... sion.shtml
Quote:
peebo wrote:
of course things were worse for the poor in the uk in 1912. that doesn't mean that poverty no longer exists. and regardless, it's not necessarily relevant to the original argument anyway.

peebo wrote:
why? did you present any evidence whatsoever that poor people live in bigger houses? your arguments are laughable.

peebo wrote:
you clearly don't get out much if you really believe what you are typing here. people living on minimum wage struggle to survive.

That's a lie. You were arguing from absolute poverty not relative poverty. If struggling to survive means relative poverty and not absolute poverty then I am the Queen of Canada.


i'm not sure what you've done with the quotes here. however, i'll direct you once again to this article http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/socia ... sion.shtml

Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
Peebo wrote:
You haven't found what interesting?

You can't read. I said arguing with you is interesting because it's different.


fair enough, i must have misunderstood you.

That's fine then. Good we cleared that up.



Quote:
Quote:
Peebo wrote:
your arguments are nonsense, you are asking me to quote studies when i reply to your spurious claims that you have in no way backed up.

They're nonsense because you say so. So in denial again? Anyways I ask you to quote studies because you are making the points. Your only way of disproving was either to say that only a capitalist would think that, a remark I resent because I don't care about capitalism, I care about what works. Your other excuse basically amounted to two wrongs make a right.


i'm not making the points, though. i was replying to unsubstantiated points that YOU made. whether you consider yourself a capitalist, a supporter thereof, or not, your arguments support capitalism.
Quote:
Quote:
firstly, i'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right. you attempted to make the patently absurd absolute claim that poor people live in bigger houses today than they did in the 1960s. this is clearly wrong. it's perhaps not easy to prove with statistics, i don't know where i would find them for a start, but i can assure you that it is wrong.

So you are deciding that I am wrong because you think I am wrong or on blind faith. Well nothing else here needs to be said. Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. So why then do you say I am wrong on blind faith?


i'm not saying you are wrong on blind faith. i'm saying you are wrong as a matter of general observation and common sense.

Quote:
peebo wrote:
after i counter your patently absurd and unsubstantiated claim, you then ask me to provide proof. do you see the flaw here??

Yes I do, it's that you believe that you can't be wrong whilst thinking you don't need evidence to back this claim up.


i think you are getting somewhat confused here. of course i can be wrong. but that's beside the point.



Quote:
peebo wrote:
Quote:
Then what do you say? You say that I don't back up anything despite the fact that you only provided one link and that only said what was happening. In order to say it was cruel you had to invent some speculative fiction whereby you spoke about a person with all sorts of characteristics and issues that aren't necessary to be called disabled. Not that this has anything to do with the absurd labour theory of value. It's absurd to believe that manual labour is the only consideration with pricing. It's also a fiction.

ok.

Do you feel any shame?


unfortunately i do not feel any shame. neither do i understand this comment at all.

i provided one link, that said what was happening. and clearly, what is happening is undeniably cruel (i.e. disabled people being placed under the scrutiny of a multiple choice computer system to decide whether they deserve disability benefits or not, the outcome being that disability benefits are being ultimately denied 62% of claimants, causing undue stress and anxiety, and implicitly suggesting a level of dishonesty on their part, and for no reason other than the governments wish to cut spending. of course this is undeniably cruel.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

19 Nov 2011, 7:18 am

i am resurrecting this thread to bring up recent developments in the united kingdom, whereby unemployed benefit claimants are forced to work full time hours for no pay. the article linked describes this happening for periods of up to two months, but additional research has suggested circumstances under which an unemployed claimant might in fact be required to work for little or no additional pay on top of basic jobseekers allowance for rolling six month periods.

bear in mind that this work is often carried out on the behalf of multi-national corporations such as tesco etc. and that at the rate of benefit currently paid it would average out at somewhere below £1.50 per hour. so much for minimum wage, eh?

guardian report on working a 30 hour week for no pay

and bear in mind that the ceo of tesco is paid a basic salary of £1 100 000 per year, and that tesco's pre-tax profit for the 26 weeks to 27 August this year was £1 900 000 000.





the following site is rather informative on the subject also:

boycott workfare


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Kris30
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 147
Location: Scotland

19 Nov 2011, 10:23 am

sometimes - call centres are the modern day coal mines!!



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

19 Nov 2011, 10:30 am

Kris30 wrote:
sometimes - call centres are the modern day coal mines!!


truer than most people would give credence.

and at least coal mines were productive. the way many call centres are run is completely illogical and counterproductive. rather than attempting to robustly deal with customer enquiries, they generally are only concerned with throughput and getting people off the phone within a specific time frame (say, 3 or 5 minutes). call centres are the visible symptom of the truly deep-seated insanity of modern capitalism.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


mikecartwright
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 398

20 Nov 2011, 9:20 pm

It can equal wage slavery.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

21 Nov 2011, 2:34 am

it can, of course, however the issue i brought up above demonstrates that now, in the uk, it can also equal "un-waged" slavery. forced labour.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


NineTailedFox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 84

21 Nov 2011, 5:17 am

A very interesting essay, if you can get past your incredulous stare, is Bob Black's The Abolition of Work.



piroflip
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 352

21 Nov 2011, 5:23 am

Slaves? No

TAX slaves? Yes

In the UK we pay staggeringly high taxes so that out government can give it away to anybody who lands on our shores with a false passport and a hard luck story.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Nov 2011, 11:22 am

peebo wrote:

and bear in mind that the ceo of tesco is paid a basic salary of £1 100 000 per year, and that tesco's pre-tax profit for the 26 weeks to 27 August this year was £1 900 000 000.







If his salary was seized and subdivided how many blokes would that help and to what extent?

If the uneven income were divided evenly among the people of the U.S. the result would be a society wracked with poverty and squalor. Given our national debt each man, woman, child is $50,000 in the hole. And that is just for being born!

The U.S. is broke. It is also broken.

ruveyn