Metropol

Are we going with full names now, Chie Chieson? Weird.

Anyway I note this fabulous story in the mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209429 featuring the exact comment spectrum you'd expect with the exact voting pattern you'd expect. And a bonus: someone claiming to be 91 years old.

I didn't take to Nick -- anyone who sees things in purely theoretical capitalist economic terms disregarding any other factors (or at the very most paying lip service) surely cannot enter a genuine debate about society's woes. It's a shame he's cut off his nose to spite his face... but there we go.

Alexia wrote:I didn't take to Nick

He had a nice avatar though.

Alexia wrote:I didn't take to Nick -- anyone who sees things in purely theoretical capitalist economic terms disregarding any other factors (or at the very most paying lip service) surely cannot enter a genuine debate about society's woes. It's a shame he's cut off his nose to spite his face... but there we go.

Yeah it's a bit like wading into a debate about driving when you don't have a license.

wells wrote:

Alexia wrote:I didn't take to Nick

He had a nice avatar though.

Well I'm glad we can all take something positive away from the experience.

Sput wrote:

Alexia wrote:I didn't take to Nick -- anyone who sees things in purely theoretical capitalist economic terms disregarding any other factors (or at the very most paying lip service) surely cannot enter a genuine debate about society's woes. It's a shame he's cut off his nose to spite his face... but there we go.

Yeah it's a bit like wading into a debate about driving when you don't have a license.

Touche

Mr Q wrote:

Sput wrote:Care to clarify your definition of "choice"? I am assuming it's quite a scientific one, like "not physically dragged to a loom and forced at gunpoint to work"

In a developed country with a welfare system in place to support those on low or no incomes, that's actually not far off it.

I didn't say it was a good choice - it's not a position I would ever want to be in. But yes, it's a choice.

I'm sure this particular point is moot, since Mr Q has decided not to return to Metropol - but why should tax payers have to pick up the burden of supplementing "low incomes" which are a direct result of people being paid shitpence an hour?

Unless you have children, the minimum wage removes that "top-up" burden from the Government.

Seems peculiar to me that its acceptable for employers to pay £2 per hour, and have the rest of us supplement their employees who can't home and feed themselves on their own wages.

Gavin Scott wrote:I'm sure this particular point is moot, since Mr Q has decided not to return to Metropol - but why should tax payers have to pick up the burden of supplementing "low incomes" which are a direct result of people being paid shitpence an hour?

Unless you have children, the minimum wage removes that "top-up" burden from the Government.

Seems peculiar to me that its acceptable for employers to pay £2 per hour, and have the rest of us supplement their employees who can't home and feed themselves on their own wages.

It's down to personal choice and responsibility. I know I can afford to work for £3 per hour, so I would. If I tell an employer than I'm willing to work for £3 per hour then they're going to overlook the fact that I have relatively little experience and probably hire me. So both the employer and myself would benefit from this deal.

Again there are lots and lots of young people who still live at home and don't have to pay any bills or rent that could afford to work for £3 per hour.

You mentioned earlier in the thread that 'vulnerable people' would be taken advantage of by such a system. Personally I don't see how that could happen because it's down to the individual to decide how much money they require to live on. Nobody would be forced into anything.

Anyway, I came on here to talk about a party called the SWP. I just can't get my head around their ideologies at all. Their attitude seems to be, 'half the world lives on $2 a day so we should all live on $2 a day.' Well great, so you end capitalism and go from 50% of the population living on $2 a day, to 100% of the population living on it! That doesn't decrease poverty, it just increases it.

These people really are barking mad.

67% of the wealth is owned by just 2% of the population

Perspective please. 2% = 120 million people.

They pay tax, spend money in shops, employ people, make things, build stuff and generally make the world go round. It's not as if they hoard their money away and take it out of circulation.

The US spends $400 billion a year on weapons

America has a lot to defend - the biggest economy in the world, a population of 300 million and a vast amount of land.

It's amazing how so many people are happy to indulge in buying an iPod or iPhone and watch American films and programmes, yet they never seem to get tired of whinging about America :roll:

It would take $324 billion to end extreme poverty worldwide

Well apparently half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day - $324 billion would mean they get $108 each. Wow, that's really going to 'end poverty'! The biggest reason there are so many people in poverty around the planet is that there are simply too many people living on the damn thing.

I conclude that the SWP is no more than a bunch of fantasists at best and a cult at the worst, and most of them are students whose issues with the world are born out of adolescent angsnt. 'Jealous' is something of a clichéd word now, but the other members are just that - jealous. There's no point wasting your energy being angry at the system / wallowing in misery and longing for the world to change to suit you, because it never will. Most people get on with their lives, enjoy it and be grateful for what they've got, as opposed to wasting their life away fanatically pontificating about what a terrible world we live in (and how much better it would be under communism) :roll:

Chie wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:I'm sure this particular point is moot, since Mr Q has decided not to return to Metropol - but why should tax payers have to pick up the burden of supplementing "low incomes" which are a direct result of people being paid shitpence an hour?

Unless you have children, the minimum wage removes that "top-up" burden from the Government.

Seems peculiar to me that its acceptable for employers to pay £2 per hour, and have the rest of us supplement their employees who can't home and feed themselves on their own wages.

It's down to personal choice and responsibility. I know I can afford to work for £3 per hour, so I would. If I tell an employer than I'm willing to work for £3 per hour then they're going to overlook the fact that I have relatively little experience and probably hire me. So both the employer and myself would benefit from this deal.

Again there are lots and lots of young people who still live at home and don't have to pay any bills or rent that could afford to work for £3 per hour.

You mentioned earlier in the thread that 'vulnerable people' would be taken advantage of by such a system. Personally I don't see how that could happen because it's down to the individual to decide how much money they require to live on. Nobody would be forced into anything.

Actually Chie, the minimum wage already makes a distinction for younger people in your circumstance.

There are three levels of minimum wage, and the rates from 1 October 2008 are:

* £5.73 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older
* A development rate of £4.77 per hour for workers aged 18-21 inclusive
* £3.53 per hour for all workers under the age of 18, who are no longer of compulsory school age

This surely is the best of all worlds, isn't it? Those who have lesser burdens in terms of clothing, feeding and housing themselves are paid the smaller amount, allowing relatively unskilled young people into the workplace.

For the adults, though, you say, "nobody would be being forced into anything". Well how can that be true if your Jobseeker's allowance is stopped after you decline three jobs in a row? I'm all for clearing lazy dole monkeys off the register when they are too idle to work, but I couldn't live on £3 an hour. If I had been living on the dole I'd get no housing benefit if I accepted full time work, but wouldn't earn enough to pay the rent. That doesn't sound right, does it?

There are benefit top-ups for those earning below a certain threshold, but to reiterate my earlier point - why should the tax payer have to pay top-up benefits to support employers who pay so poorly?

I think the balance of the minimum wage as it stands is a good thing.

Gavin Scott wrote:Actually Chie, the minimum wage already makes a distinction for younger people in your circumstance.

There are three levels of minimum wage, and the rates from 1 October 2008 are:

* £5.73 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older
* A development rate of £4.77 per hour for workers aged 18-21 inclusive
* £3.53 per hour for all workers under the age of 18, who are no longer of compulsory school age

To be fair, I didn't think of that. But being over 22 I would be earning £5.73 per hour.

Chie wrote:To be fair, I didn't think of that. But being over 22 I would be earning £5.73 per hour.

I should think so, too.