Tories whose dads are well off.
- Thread starter Vespasian777
- Start date
Pretty sure if the pay was the same, most people would rather arse about and do nothing than stack shelves, hence the benefits trap.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
elmarko1234, with reference to your last post quoting mine.
Ultimately what I am trying to say is no matter how nice we become morally, no matter how much empathy we develop there will always be selfish instincts that can't be overriden (which we share with other elements of nature) and which would ultimately see communism fail.
Ultimately what I am trying to say is no matter how nice we become morally, no matter how much empathy we develop there will always be selfish instincts that can't be overriden (which we share with other elements of nature) and which would ultimately see communism fail.
Maybe just like thinking having more money than next door will make them happier they believe that idleness will make them happy when it generally does not.
People who do not work and are happy you usually find have some productive effort in their personal life (gardening, home making, model making, whatever) which gives them purpose. Sleeping in and watching day-time TV doesn't do that.
There is also nothing to say that in utopia gardening, home making and model making aren't perfectly valid occupations. Of course it may not be your choice, because utopia is an illusion, but you can still benefit from the choices made for you.
Let me guess, you consider these jobs good enough for everybody else but not you? (as you are above them & thankfully possess the skills not to have to do them).
I work in a skilled industry but don't for a second blame somebody for being demotivated working 40 hours a week & having nothing to show for it at the end.
I guess it raises the question, if these are important jobs which need doing - why do they pay so little?.
Because anybody can do them. Pretty simple really?
Home, family, car, sky tv, holidays - why is this having nothing to show for it and why is it so little? Because it's less than somebody in a skilled profession?
And un-skilled jobs pay less than skilled because there is a larger labour pool for the un-skilled, it's always been like that. It's only a problem when we let ourselves measure our self-worth by our pay packet.
I'm not even advocating communism, but I don't think these "selfish nature arguments" hold water.
As people are pleasure maximisers, I could use the same argument that capitalism won't work - as some people just hate "hard work" too much.
You don't need 100% of the population to be totally in line for a system to function - it's an unrealistic condition to apply to a potential government type which unfairly dismisses it as "impossible" - when we have no evidence to say it is.
As I've said before, I'd be in favour of a Technocracy - one which must act within the boundaries of a set formal constitution (protecting personal freedoms, the protection of innocents/vulnerable).
Then let those most qualified come up with solutions with problems (instead of following blind ideology like Labour or the Tory's do).
I don't care for a "left wing" or "right wing" method of problem solving, just the best method which actually works.
People need to apply the same kind of scientific rationalism they use to dismiss other whacky concepts (religion as one example) to politics.
Not anybody can do them to a reasonable standard, neither is the work done to a high standard by people who are paid peanuts.
The company I work for pays customer service agents (a job anybody can do) well above the national average for that kind of job (about 20k) - it's hardly surprising that we have the highest customer service rating in the industry & have done for the last 10 years.
I'm not advocating paying people who do manual labour £50,000 PA - just enough so they have a bit of a disposable income to spend in the economy & live reasonably stress free.
I'm happy to take a small pay cut for our contracted cleaners/service staff, I've even suggested that those at my level take one to pay for it to my CEO (he wasn't so keen on the idea).
A home, car & holidays on minimum wage?, are you kidding me?.
A TV & Sky is hardly a massive luxury to somebody who works 40 hours a week.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
elmarko1234, we are actually pretty close politically speaking. I too favour a technocracy (although that too brings it's own problems like who decides that person X is the oracle on subject Y and how you make them lose all political/worldview bias when making decisions) and think democracy is over-rated (Turkeys don't vote Christmas even if Christmas is what they need).
But a technocracy is how you'd make up the governing body. Communism relates to the economic system you use so they are not mutally exclusive concepts.
But a technocracy is how you'd make up the governing body. Communism relates to the economic system you use so they are not mutally exclusive concepts.
Neither of my parents worked, we were a benefit family. If I had to pick between Labour, and the Tories, I'd go Tory. Neither party particularly reflects my opinions though, the world is not black and white.
A few examples:-
I'm pro state education
I'm pro state healthcare
I'm pro public infrastructure
These are all left wing policies, but I think if managed correctly , would have a net benefit to the country.
I'm against our outrageous benefits system
I'm against using public money on trivialities such as the Olympics
I'm against big Government sticking it's nose in where it don't belong
I'm for lowering taxes
I'd say those were ring wing policies.
I'm for transparency, and open government
I'm for repealing all laws which aren't backed by solid scientific consensus
I'm for freedom, particularity freedom of speech
I'm against nanny states
I'm for revamped voting system, going towards PR / German system.
I'd say neither the right nor left are going to be particularly helpful to me on these mattes.
The funny thing is, no matter which party we vote for, they'll all raise taxes (either stealthily, or blatantly), they'll all create new legislation, they'll all find ways of spending more money, and making things worse. Voting for their party for idealogical reasons is nuts. I'd pick the Tories because I think they'll break the country less.
A few examples:-
I'm pro state education
I'm pro state healthcare
I'm pro public infrastructure
These are all left wing policies, but I think if managed correctly , would have a net benefit to the country.
I'm against our outrageous benefits system
I'm against using public money on trivialities such as the Olympics
I'm against big Government sticking it's nose in where it don't belong
I'm for lowering taxes
I'd say those were ring wing policies.
I'm for transparency, and open government
I'm for repealing all laws which aren't backed by solid scientific consensus
I'm for freedom, particularity freedom of speech
I'm against nanny states
I'm for revamped voting system, going towards PR / German system.
I'd say neither the right nor left are going to be particularly helpful to me on these mattes.
The funny thing is, no matter which party we vote for, they'll all raise taxes (either stealthily, or blatantly), they'll all create new legislation, they'll all find ways of spending more money, and making things worse. Voting for their party for idealogical reasons is nuts. I'd pick the Tories because I think they'll break the country less.
Last edited:
No, I'm not. It's very much the norm.
Well, overall the most educated people will have a better view on how to solve problems than the average person - not to mention scientists are usually motivated for more noble reason than either the acquisition of wealth or power.
You can't trust individuals (self serving & lack the knowledge) - not that it matters as we live in a plutocracy anyway.
Politicians are too concerned with getting voted in (which deviates from the intended purpose (running the country).
The rich tend to be wealthy from a strong desire to obtain greater wealth, which will rarely be in line with the interests of the rest of the population (So business leaders are out of the race also).
I'll take a group who's main focus is on "being right" over any of the above groups any-day.
Regarding the economic point, I'd apply the same scientific principle to the economy as the social structure - so money would once again become an abstract construct.
I doubt we will move from capitalism any-time soon, people are afraid of change, don't care, ignorant politically, caught up in life (can't blame them for this one - life is transitory) or apathetic on the issue (again, can't blame them).
Ok,
UK Min wage = 6.08 an hour at last check - that's £243.2 a week, £12,646 per year.
For a house the most you could borrow would be £50,584 per month - with a monthly repayment of £223.67 for 35 years (tracker/repayment).
That's £927.74 a month (After tax).
house £223.67
ctax £70.41
energy £83.33
phone £40
food £151
Car/run/ins £250
clths/misc £30
Leaves about £20 a week left, for living...
Not sure how they are meant to fit holiday into that.
My thoughts, increase lowest wages to around £18,000 - changes that £20 a week to something a little better at £76 a week (a 370% increase in disposable income about)
A little increase at the bottom would make a big difference in the quality of life of many.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,331
- Location
- The Orion Spur
For couples I'd agree, it's a different ball game though if your single.
parents were tory and reasonably well of if you class having servants as well of i guess.
i was tory recently but drifting to ukip i think most people start by following in their parents footsteps etc peer pressure etc and eventualy makle their own minds up
i was tory recently but drifting to ukip i think most people start by following in their parents footsteps etc peer pressure etc and eventualy makle their own minds up
If referring to a crappy apartment above a shop, a run-down banger and an annual caravan trip to Blackpool, then probably, but there isn't much scope for anything better on minimum wage.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 553
- Location
- Bora Bora
Cloud cuckoo land mate.
Fixed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Hmm there's a lot of cliches there. Scientists are noble and have no vested interests, business leaders are greedy and self serving etc. Whilst I realise you are not tarring all those people with the same brush I'm not so sure there is much evidence to suggest those character traits are more common in those people.
If scientists were nearly wholly noble, then science wouldn't require the group acceptance and peer review system it uses to judge claims made by scientists, we'd just accept a single scientists word for it. It's not that scientists are inherently noble people, it's more that science has very good way of sorting the truthful scientific claims from the junk ones.
A business leader may claim that by employing 1,000 people they are doing more for society than they take from it.
I'm not really sure what kind of econominc system you are advocating though as you say you don't want communism but it seems you think/want capitalism will die off eventually too.
Personally, I want a meritocratic capitalism. I have no problem with the likes of Bill Gates being as rich as he is because he was a huge part of a revolution that ses the computer being something we all use daily. But what I don't like are the people who makes millions of pounds through banking type services that provide no tangible benefit to society. I don't think it's fair that someone can earn the same amount as a nurse can in year by simply moving a lump of cash from one bank account to another with a slightly different interest rate.
Doing so would push up the operating costs of all the businesses that people use, so they will need to up their prices, rendering the increase somewhat moot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Only if the business looked at the 18k minimum as an extra cost rather than a nudge to maybe look at it's overall wage distribution policy.
If the business paid the same in overall wages, but lowered the amounts at the top, they could afford to pay the people at the bottom more.