|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Dec 12, 2014 16:26:49 GMT
Personal comment as a moderator (without speaking on behalf of anyone else) You cannot direct the flow of any particular thread. Yes this one has veered into current affairs, but what I have read has been debated sensibly. If the current affairs section had been debated along these lines then it wouldn’t have become an issue Current affairs was never the issue, it was the way that sub section was used So if this thread is becoming boring, all I have to do is suggest that poor people are lazy, unwashed ba**tards, Muslims and foreigners - and probably gay as well. Then (a) I'll be banned and (b) the moderators will delete the thread - sorted! If only life were that simple..... Thought I'd be the first to not debate sensibly!! BTW this is an attempt at humour - I don't view people in that way at all, other than 'teds
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 16:27:23 GMT
I don't think the arguments of "We need to address poverty and help the people at the bottom of the scale" has to be one that says "We need to undermine those at the top of the scale". And yet the living wage is one that tries to help the people at the bottom of the scale without undermining those at the top. But it helps the lower end people in the least efficient way. It just perpetuates the cycle rather than breaks it.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 12, 2014 16:34:36 GMT
Sorry can we just keep things simple. How is paying catering staff at Chelsea a living wage "directing value where the market says there is none"? Does the market insist in "its" wisdom that staff must/ should be paid the bare minimum? Baring in mind this works as an argument against the minimum wage as well so surely it would be better were they on less than that. Oh so simple. The market works on supply and demand whilst there is a supply of labour willing to work for minimum wage why would the market pay more? The last Labour government instead of incentivising the unemployed to work instead invited poor East Europeans to do the work cheaply. That cheap supply of labour will exist as long as the EU retains control of immigration and businesses will happily continue paying minimum wage. I'd suggest the quickest way to a 'living wage' is to vote UKIP, of course you won't then still be getting 4 pints of milk for a quid at lidl. Oh did someone already say that you the consumer will have to pay for a 'living wage'?That will alter things dramatically for the ''thinkers'' of this world. They would rather pontificate, and let someone else pick up the bill.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 16:39:54 GMT
Oh so simple. The market works on supply and demand whilst there is a supply of labour willing to work for minimum wage why would the market pay more? The last Labour government instead of incentivising the unemployed to work instead invited poor East Europeans to do the work cheaply. That cheap supply of labour will exist as long as the EU retains control of immigration and businesses will happily continue paying minimum wage. I'd suggest the quickest way to a 'living wage' is to vote UKIP, of course you won't then still be getting 4 pints of milk for a quid at lidl. Oh did someone already say that you the consumer will have to pay for a 'living wage'?That will alter things dramatically for the ''thinkers'' of this world. They would rather pontificate, and let someone else pick up the bill. You don't like thought? Prefer blind graft? Like an ant?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 12, 2014 16:43:16 GMT
And yet the living wage is one that tries to help the people at the bottom of the scale without undermining those at the top. But it helps the lower end people in the least efficient way. It just perpetuates the cycle rather than breaks it. So you think the most efficient way to help people at the bottom of the scale is to pay them less?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 12, 2014 16:58:19 GMT
That will alter things dramatically for the ''thinkers'' of this world. They would rather pontificate, and let someone else pick up the bill. You don't like thought? Prefer blind graft? Like an ant? Kindly point out to me LJG, where I said that I don't like thought.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 17:07:31 GMT
But it helps the lower end people in the least efficient way. It just perpetuates the cycle rather than breaks it. So you think the most efficient way to help people at the bottom of the scale is to pay them less? Where did I say that?
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 17:08:29 GMT
You don't like thought? Prefer blind graft? Like an ant? Kindly point out to me LJG, where I said that I don't like thought. You inferred it with the use of quotation marks around "thinkers". Which lead me to ask a question.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 12, 2014 17:13:14 GMT
Delete
|
|
|
Post by warmleygas on Dec 12, 2014 17:17:16 GMT
People who oppose raising the minimum wage or paying the living wage etc always earn plenty of money themselves, so therefore must consider themselves more worthy human beings than others, which i'd say makes them ammoral and evil.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 12, 2014 17:19:50 GMT
Kindly point out to me LJG, where I said that I don't like thought. You inferred it with the use of quotation marks around "thinkers". Which lead me to ask a question. Inferred eh? I'm just relieved that you had the good sense to expand on your previous post.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 12, 2014 17:22:24 GMT
So you think the most efficient way to help people at the bottom of the scale is to pay them less? Where did I say that? I don't know. I'm just trying to work out what you mean. Afaict, you don't think living wage is a good idea. You prefer a method that doesn't penalise the wealthy, the living wage doesn't penalise the wealthy, but you think it's too inefficient to pay people more (against the market, presumably), so presumably you'd rather pay them less but help them in a more efficient way?
|
|
|
Post by oviedista on Dec 12, 2014 17:35:37 GMT
Sorry can we just keep things simple. How is paying catering staff at Chelsea a living wage "directing value where the market says there is none"? Does the market insist in "its" wisdom that staff must/ should be paid the bare minimum? Baring in mind this works as an argument against the minimum wage as well so surely it would be better were they on less than that. Oh so simple. The market works on supply and demand whilst there is a supply of labour willing to work for minimum wage why would the market pay more? The last Labour government instead of incentivising the unemployed to work instead invited poor East Europeans to do the work cheaply. That cheap supply of labour will exist as long as the EU retains control of immigration and businesses will happily continue paying minimum wage. I'd suggest the quickest way to a 'living wage' is to vote UKIP, of course you won't then still be getting 4 pints of milk for a quid at lidl. Oh did someone already say that you the consumer will have to pay for a 'living wage'? Why would it pay more? Because it can afford to and because it cares about the well being of the local community which (in the case of football clubs especially) it represents. Besides "it" in many cases is represented by super rich chairman and directors who have money to burn (E.G Abramovitch/ Man City's Sheiks). Beyond all this talk of market there actual individuals making decisions based on greed and disregard for working people. Also personally I don't care where people are from they deserve a decent wage either way. As for 'inviting EEs to do cheap labour jobs - I don't think that is what the last govt. did but to keep this thread about football (specifically the role of football clubs) and not simply current affairs I don't want to get into that debate.
|
|
|
Post by warmleygas on Dec 12, 2014 17:36:19 GMT
we are slowly regressing to the kind of inequality seen in the Victorian times, surely nobody here thinks that is a good thing? Or is it all I'm alright Jack?
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 17:43:20 GMT
I don't know. I'm just trying to work out what you mean. Afaict, you don't think living wage is a good idea. You prefer a method that doesn't penalise the wealthy, the living wage doesn't penalise the wealthy, but you think it's too inefficient to pay people more (against the market, presumably), so presumably you'd rather pay them less but help them in a more efficient way? No no. Just giving people more cash doesn't really change enough. You need to let people keep the money they earn, not take it back in tax and national insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 12, 2014 17:45:54 GMT
I don't know. I'm just trying to work out what you mean. Afaict, you don't think living wage is a good idea. You prefer a method that doesn't penalise the wealthy, the living wage doesn't penalise the wealthy, but you think it's too inefficient to pay people more (against the market, presumably), so presumably you'd rather pay them less but help them in a more efficient way? No no. Just giving people more cash doesn't really change enough. You need to let people keep the money they earn, not take it back in tax and national insurance. ok, that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 12, 2014 17:55:49 GMT
Oh so simple. The market works on supply and demand whilst there is a supply of labour willing to work for minimum wage why would the market pay more? The last Labour government instead of incentivising the unemployed to work instead invited poor East Europeans to do the work cheaply. That cheap supply of labour will exist as long as the EU retains control of immigration and businesses will happily continue paying minimum wage. I'd suggest the quickest way to a 'living wage' is to vote UKIP, of course you won't then still be getting 4 pints of milk for a quid at lidl. Oh did someone already say that you the consumer will have to pay for a 'living wage'? Why would it pay more? Because it can afford to and because it cares about the well being of the local community which (in the case of football clubs especially) it represents. Besides "it" in many cases is represented by super rich chairman and directors who have money to burn (E.G Abramovitch/ Man City's Sheiks). Beyond all this talk of market there actual individuals making decisions based on greed and disregard for working people. Also personally I don't care where people are from they deserve a decent wage either way. As for 'inviting EEs to do cheap labour jobs - I don't think that is what the last govt. did but to keep this thread about football (specifically the role of football clubs) and not simply current affairs I don't want to get into that debate. Ah a labour voter that doesn't want to go there, oh diddums what a surprise eh? If your not willing to consider all the issues that drive wages at both end of the scales it's because you can't cope with the answers, god help the country if people like you vote in another labour government. If that happens it will be time to consider emigrating & leave you with the millions choosing to live on welfare, a government that allows it & a never ending supply of cheap labour from abroad to keep the country afloat. Oh what a s**t future that is
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 12, 2014 17:59:00 GMT
we are slowly regressing to the kind of inequality seen in the Victorian times, surely nobody here thinks that is a good thing? Or is it all I'm alright Jack? If everyone had the work ethic of Victorian times the country would be a better place, oh hold on people do but they are the east Europeans
|
|
|
Post by oviedista on Dec 12, 2014 18:03:47 GMT
Why would it pay more? Because it can afford to and because it cares about the well being of the local community which (in the case of football clubs especially) it represents. Besides "it" in many cases is represented by super rich chairman and directors who have money to burn (E.G Abramovitch/ Man City's Sheiks). Beyond all this talk of market there actual individuals making decisions based on greed and disregard for working people. Also personally I don't care where people are from they deserve a decent wage either way. As for 'inviting EEs to do cheap labour jobs - I don't think that is what the last govt. did but to keep this thread about football (specifically the role of football clubs) and not simply current affairs I don't want to get into that debate. Ah a labour voter that doesn't want to go there, oh diddums what a surprise eh? If your not willing to consider all the issues that drive wages at both end of the scales it's because you can't cope with the answers, god help the country if people like you vote in another labour government. If that happens it will be time to consider emigrating & leave you with the millions choosing to live on welfare, a government that allows it & a never ending supply of cheap labour from abroad to keep the country afloat. Oh what a s*** future that is A. I'm not a Labour voter B. My reasons for not 'going there' is that this is a football thread and I'm trying to keep loosely within that topic area (as clearly stated - and now proven by the tangent you are taking). I'm more than happy to debate such things, and do, in other spaces.
|
|
|
Post by warmleygas on Dec 12, 2014 18:08:14 GMT
we are slowly regressing to the kind of inequality seen in the Victorian times, surely nobody here thinks that is a good thing? Or is it all I'm alright Jack? If everyone had the work ethic of Victorian times the country would be a better place, oh hold on people do but they are the east Europeans I've worked with eastern europeans briefly in a warehouse when I did some temporary work after I was made redundant. In this warehouse you were basically rewarded for working faster, so these guys were absolute b*stards, just obsessed with making money so much they would push you out of the way, throw your pallet to the end of the row while you changed a cage. I hardly think that is something to aspire to, money obsessed crazed lunatics with no manners or common courtesy.
|
|