UK faces the highest inequality levels for 40 years

[brennan]

I think you are forgetting one key part of economics. As the supply of those workers shrink and there is still demand, their wage will go up.

Obvious corollary: there will be an excess of managers and their wages will go down... leaving us in exactly the same situation, with an odd twist on the jobs market.

Most people in these jobs aren't mentally disabled, college kids, or high school kids. Particularly in Europe where very few college and high school aged kids work. The fact of the matter is that if everyone was well educated, that there would be more entrepenuerism, more markets for higher end jobs. You are correct that there must always be people to do those lower jobs, but with education comes the ability to demand a higher wage. If everyone had a BS degree in something, they would want to be in the field of their choice, but they would have the ability to say, "I'm not gonna clean your toilets unless you pay me a higher wage." Don't want to pay me that wage? Fine, clean your own damn toilet. It will increase national productivity.

NB: In a recent discussion Skadistic said that these were the sort of jobs that should only be done by college kids or retards. Hence my wording.

Sorry, but the reason toilet cleaning pays poorly, despite being the sort of job most people would say they'd never do is that there's always someone desperate enough for work to do it. And do it for peanuts at that. When people with a BS degree are doing toilet cleaning jobs, they'll still be doing it for virtually nothing and the system will be even more screwed than it is now.

I agree with your comments about the 'lower classes' being stuck there unless they get themselves out, but the trouble is it's very hard to persuade them that's an option and that it's a good idea to buck up their ideas.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, I heard you the first 3 times. If you have a TV you're not poor. At least, accoording to you.

To me it's sounds like BS, but there you go

Nobody is saying they are not poor, just not poverty stricken. You can survive and live just fine without a computer or TV, I mean we've only had those for less than 75 years of human existence, and I bet King Louis wasn't considered poverty stricken without his TV and computer at court.

Why should the government pay to provide me with a television or other amenity of life? Food, sure, I've no objection to that, as long as it is the State and not Federal government, but as a general principle, no objection. Medical care for those truly unable to afford it themselves? Sure, okay, but don't be providing medical care if they are spending $100 / month on cigarettes and/or booze. My medical insurance costs me, as a smoker, $141 a month, so you darned well better really not be able to afford it if you expect me to support the State paying for it.

 

[skadistic]

In a recent discussion Skadistic said that these were the sort of jobs that should only be done by college kids or retards. Hence my wording.

Thats not what I said. If that is then link to the post.

 

[Godwynn]

Obvious corollary: there will be an excess of managers and their wages will go down... leaving us in exactly the same situation, with an odd twist on the jobs market.

There are floods of CEOs and highly educated managers coming to the U.K.?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nobody is saying they are not poor

Actually this started my "Is!"-"Is not!" argument with Skad.

just not poverty stricken. You can survive and live just fine without a computer or TV, I mean we've only had those for less than 75 years of human existence, and I bet King Louis wasn't considered poverty stricken without his TV and computer at court.

See Skad, this is exacly the reason I hammered on my wording when I said: "able to afford". To avoid this. Not arguing semantics, but avoiding this.

Being able to survive doesn't cut it for me.

Why should the government pay to provide me with a television or other amenity of life? Food, sure, I've no objection to that, as long as it is the State and not Federal government, but as a general principle, no objection. Medical care for those truly unable to afford it themselves? Sure, okay, but don't be providing medical care if they are spending $100 / month on cigarettes and/or booze. My medical insurance costs me, as a smoker, $141 a month, so you darned well better really not be able to afford it if you expect me to support the State paying for it.

I feel that everyone deserves a little luxury in their life. If you cannot afford things like a tv or increasingly important internet you will lose touch with the rest of society. To me it's a small sacrifice to someone who can easily spare that amount of money to provide others with those. To me. But I am not hung up on money, and I often forget to fill in refund form so I can get 20 bucks back on a medical bill. I have no problem with paying a little more taxes to do that.

If you feel diffwerent about this, by all means, that's your perogative.

King Louis

 

[bhsup]

Heh, yeah okay I admit the King Louis example wasn't really fair.

 

[brennan]

Thats not what I said. If that is then link to the post.

Bear wih me & i'll try to find it. It was what your position appeared to be, yes.

There are floods of CEOs and highly educated managers coming to the U.K.?

There would be if Skadistic were right.

 

[Godwynn]

There would be if Skadistic were right.

I don't understand, so there isn't a surplus of highly educated managers and CEOs?

 

[brennan]

No, but according to Skadistic's scenario there would be.

College kids & retards:

The guy flipping burgers had better be a high school student. If hes 30 then hes an idiot and has failed himself.

You do know that there are jobs that pay better then burger flipper that need the same or less IQ. Janitor is a great job that pays more and uses about as much IQ. So no burger flipper isn't anyones limit intellectually.

Or are you talking ******** people? Again janitor is a fine job that pays more and even mildly ******** people can do. Severly ******** people may be dish washers at the burger joint but then again they are all ready a burden on sociaty in many ways.

 

[skadistic]

No, but according to Skadistic's scenario there would be.

College kids & retards:

And again you don't comprehend the the words right. Your woeful misunderstanding of what I meant isn't surprizing.Why don't you put those in context with the post they were a reply to? Or is gonna be like when you took my words on abortion way out of context to make it look like I was contradicting my self? You know the one where you said context wasn't needed, then the context was given and it showed you were vastly misrepresenting my views? I don't have the patience to hold your hand through the whole thread you got those from so you would understand. But I stand by what I said.

 

[brennan]

Well here it's poor=lazy.

You can hardly blame me for making obvious assumptions when you post in such a black & white fashion.

 

[skadistic]

Well here it's poor=lazy.

You can hardly blame me for making obvious assumptions when you post in such a black & white fashion.

No I can blame you very easily for making assumptions because its your own fault. And if they are so obvious how do you get them wrong?

 

[brennan]

Well now: you can either persist in saying you didn't mean what I think you said (which helps my understanding not at all), or you could help by elucidating...

 

[Atlas14]

No, but according to Skadistic's scenario there would be.

College kids & retards:

Do you have beef with young people living and hovering around the poverty line for a few years before they establish themselves a secure budget, house, job, salary?

It is rather common here in the US for people right out of college to be living very humbly, there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Whomp]

Moderator Action: Do you two need a room? Lighten up.

 

[El_Machinae]

Do you have beef with young people living and hovering around the poverty line for a few years before they establish themselves a secure budget, house, job, salary?

Not at all. I learned a great deal about thriftyness and letting go of materialistic desires. I wish it had a similar effect on more people, though.

 

[brennan]

Do you have beef with young people living and hovering around the poverty line for a few years before they establish themselves a secure budget, house, job, salary?

It is rather common here in the US for people right out of college to be living very humbly, there is nothing wrong with it.

Eh? Where the hell do you get that from? I haven't said anything about my opinion. Which btw is 'been there done that'.

And doing it again incidentally.

Spoiler :

Hey look! When misunderstood I clarify my position.

 

[BasketCase]

The mistake you are making is that you are thinking in extremes. Full equal distribution of weath or the system you have today.

If you can show me where I am advocating absolute equal distribution of wealth, then you got me. Otherwise: meh!

Actually, I never asked.

Should all human beings receive an equal share of human wealth? Yes or no?
("Not sure" is also an acceptable answer if you're still thinking it over)

Either distribution of wealth is equal, or it is not. Either everybody gets the same amount of goodies, or they do not. If they should not, then where should the line be drawn? How big is an "acceptable" wealth divide? Why?

 

[BasketCase]

The only thing you poll proved is that there is a shortage fulfill everyone's greed but not to fulfill everyone's needs

Heheh. I made the mistake of saying that to my economics instructor in college. He levelled a scary stare at me (mostly because my comment revealed to him that I hadn't read the assigned chapter in our textbook!) and said "there's no such thing as 'needs' in economics".

The only things strictly necessary for survival (i.e. the only things we actually "need") are food, water, and sex. But one day a long time ago, our ancient ancestors decided they no longer wanted to be wild animals and started to build civilization.

So some degree of greed is, in fact, necessary. When we fall below that point, we get angry and start going to war against each other. Take a look at all the poor people who are screaming and yelling at us Greedy Americans this very moment. Those people live a lot better than the average medieval citizen did, yet they're less happy.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't like the OP's title. The main problem with the ' examining the wealth gap' is that it causes people to no longer be satisfied with improving the quality of their lives but fosters jealousy.

This right here is the key, in my opinion. Too many people are trying to "solve" their poverty problem by taking wealth away from others. Which merely moves the poverty around and solves nothing.

I have no objection to working to improve the quality of one's life. But don't do it at the expense of others.