News Strikes

[Wij]

Actually, it started in America, under Bushes reign as Republican president, and spread to the rest of the world. It began because greedy American banks (private sector) began throwing sub-prime mortgages at people who had no hope of affording them. Loads of bad, ill-thought out and unrecoverable debt resulted, banks had to be bailed out by the governments, job losses and private debt spiralled out of control and the massive decline in personal wealth plunged America into a recession. And because the US is such a major financial player on the global market, it spread to everyone else, and hit the fledgling "euro-zone" badly. The likes of Greece may now take decades to recover financially.

Sub-prime was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The problem was SYSTEMIC levels of debt and companies with business plans that could only work if levels of debt kept increasing. The biggest profit-making banks in the west were run like pyramid schemes. Did you see the programme on how RBS was run the other month ?

Easy access to credit pushed house prices up. People were getting the same house for more money. But they felt richer so they borrowed EVEN MORE.

Sub-prime in the US was just one part of the whole system of debt-upon-debt-upon-debt. New Labour played their part in that

 

[Tom]

The whole house pricing saga makes me very, very glad I was lucky enough to be in a position to buy in 2001. My only regrets are that I coudn't buy at an earlier point and that I didn't buy a cheap second house.

 

[rynnor]

There was a telly programme on tonight on Beeb 2 which specifically stated that for most people employed by corporations only the better-off have had real-term pay rises for decades.

That's probably true but thats why you have to change jobs every few years if you want to earn more - working for the same employer in the private sector is like never moving your car insurance and always accepting the quote they give. I generally manage about a 50% rise per move. Thinking about a new job next year.

 

[Scouse]

Not really. When the highest tax rates were taken in the 60s and 70s very little tax was actually collected from the rich.

I meant about leaving the UK.

The rich don't pay income tax, if they've got much sense. When you own a business you pay a lot less tax period.

In fact, as soon as you stop being a regular employee, where all your effort goes to earning cash for the shareholders and directors, you pay a lot less. I haven't paid more than 19% on my entire income ever since I went contracting.

Income tax doesn't affect the rich.


Edit: You're right about it being systemic and down to easy credit. The banks themselves had very cheap access to money and therefore lent it out very very easily.

Who's at fault for that? The central banks - for making money too easily available to the banks. When Lehmans went cap-in-hand to the Fed asking for 70bn after years of saying "yes" the fed suddenly said "no". Just like in the 1920's.

Now we're having european fiscal integration undemocratically foisted upon us, with central bankers sat as heads of state in Greece and Italy.

But of course no-one saw it coming. Apart from all the people who saw it coming and tried to say something about it, just prior to being dismissed as being "consipiracy nuts"...

 

[Raven]

I suppose it depends on the type of company you work for. I spent years in one job in a large company, not really going anywhere. Moved to a small company about 3 years ago and gone up about 50% since starting, through various promotions. Getting lined up for further promotion too.

I find it harder to get noticed in large companies, you have to have a boss that actually gives a shit I suppose (my old boss didn't) but I felt pretty anonymous.

 

[Embattle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017znzt/The_Partys_Over_How_the_West_Went_Bust_Episode_1/

Government
Banks
People

All borrowed money they couldn't realistically pay back, it is why I blame all three.

 

[rynnor]

In fact, as soon as you stop being a regular employee, where all your effort goes to earning cash for the shareholders and directors you pay a lot less. I haven't paid more than 19% on my entire income ever since I went contracting.

Income tax doesn't affect the rich.

Absolutely - if tax rates get any higher I'll be back contracting and paying 7% tax again - its very hard to get tax out of the affluent/corporations - thats why the state should never grow too large because it crushes the poorer folk with crippling tax burdens.

 

[Moriath]

The whole house pricing saga makes me very, very glad I was lucky enough to be in a position to buy in 2001. My only regrets are that I coudn't buy at an earlier point and that I didn't buy a cheap second house.

Hehe ok to make you feel sick i bought in early 1999 and a pre coucil property for 80k with 5k deposit .. no worht over 200 k

no way i would want to pay 200k for my house lol

 

[Moriath]

That's probably true but thats why you have to change jobs every few years if you want to earn more - working for the same employer in the private sector is like never moving your car insurance and always accepting the quote they give. I generally manage about a 50% rise per move. Thinking about a new job next year.

I kow a lot of people in the IT industry and further afield that havent had pay rises for 4 or 5 years so far .. and counting

So its not like the public sector have all the hardship

 

[rynnor]

I kow a lot of people in the IT industry and further afield that havent had pay rises for 4 or 5 years so far .. and counting

So its not like the public sector have all the hardship

Have they stayed at the same employer though?

Oh the other complicating factor is that Public Sector pay rises are under reported.

Each year you get a payrise + you move up the payscale for your grade - this isnt counted as a payrise but you still end up taking home more cash.

So for example theres currently a pay freeze but this means they will still get more money each year due to movement up the current payscale...

 

[DaGaffer]

There's only one reason to stay with any company for a long time, and that's your pension. As your pension is increasingly worthless, move and take the pay rises that come with it and just make sure you've got a roof over your head that's paid for by the time you retire. No company is loyal to its employees (no company can be loyal to its employees), and employees are fools if they think their loyalty will be rewarded.

 

[Moriath]

Have they stayed at the same employer though?

Oh the other complicating factor is that Public Sector pay rises are under reported.

Each year you get a payrise + you move up the payscale for your grade - this isnt counted as a payrise but you still end up taking home more cash.

So for example theres currently a pay freeze but this means they will still get more money each year due to movement up the current payscale...

yesthey stayed at the same company .. most ppl know only way to get payrise in this industry is to shift employers heh

 

[Jupitus]

Something a friend of mine sent me today, which I'll use to stir some shit up



When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Is this man truly a genius? Checked out and this is true...it DID happen!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.

 

[Kryten]

That's almost funny! Well actually it is. It's almost certainly bollocks, but if it were true there's one blatant thing overlooked.

Why the fuck is he a teacher/lecturer and not President?

 

[Raven]

Dodgy tie, that's why.

 

[rynnor]

Dodgy tie, that's why.

And the nazi salute he does at the start of each lesson

 

[Moriath]

Thats why they say lifes unfair cause it is ... and it has to be cause humans always look for a fair way.

Tho i wouldnt trade socialised medicine for the usa model

 

[Hawkwind]

Hehe ok to make you feel sick i bought in early 1999 and a pre coucil property for 80k with 5k deposit .. no worht over 200 k

no way i would want to pay 200k for my house lol

Similar case here, purchased a buy-to-let property in UK in 1996, was working in Hong Kong at the time and did not even view it myself. Sent the girlfriend around there. Cost me 76k for a 4 bed Victorian terraced opposite a cricket ground with a quiet street. Spent around 20k on new kitchen, gas central heating and decorating. Now worth between 400-450k. 18 months ago it was valued at 550k!

I don't care that much about the value, it was purchased to keep and let out, long term. Only ever had two tenant families over past 15 years and only empty for 1 month.

So glad I did it now. It hurt at the time and was a big step, especially when working abroad and not having direct control over it.

 

[Scouse]

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?

Yes, I can: It's very much like the "dicks, pussies and arseholes" speech from Team America: World Police.

The DP&A speech seems to make perfect sense. It's also quite amusing. It seems to have, amazingly, boiled down a very complex situation into something easy and understandable - and we stupid humans like nothing more than to feel clever by understanding complex things in an easily-digestible way, especially if it makes us smile.

The problem is: it's total fucking bullshit. Some things are complex and can't be boiled down to something so simple. We want to believe them - and aren't actively looking for ways we can shoot the "logic" down - because we like it, its simplicity appeals and that's our nature.


Both systems are obvious failures. The above "exercise" is a fantastic propaganda tool to promote one of the broken systems to stupid humans.

 

[Gumbo]

No Scouse, it makes sense. The anecdote itself is probably not true, but it does go some way to illustrate the point. If you get something for nothing, you will do nothing. At some point, people with work ethics, and a conscience like me might just go, oh fuck it, why bother.

Once again, you're shooting the theory illustrated above down, but like Tom has been banging on at you about, you haven't advanced any suggestion of your own.

What is this magical 3rd way of which you speak, but haven't expanded on?

 

[Scouse]

No Scouse, it makes sense.

In thought-experiment isolation, maybe. In reality? Bullshit.


As for the rest of your guff, go read the arguments I put forward to Tom. I'm not doing it again.

 

[Chilly]

I think it's clear that whatever system we have now is malfunctioning badly. I heard an argument by a bishop against our current mode of capitalism. He pretty much said that whatever the academic justification of how we are set up today, it's obviously not working because so many people live in misery. As a society, our aim should be to minimise shitness - one way of doing that is to become rich, fair enough, but not the way we currently go about it. We exploit the fuck out of developing nations to sustain our pisstake way of living, which is clearly not sustainable.

 

[Gumbo]

In thought-experiment isolation, maybe. In reality? Bullshit.

Why do you think we have 3rd generation people who have never worked now? Could it be because they don't have to? Because being out of work, if you and your family have played the system right, isn't actually that much of a hardship anymore?

I live in a small bungalow, myself and my partner, our 3 year old and one of her sons. We both work like mad, and I've just booked us a holiday. 4 days in centre parcs in January. It's our first holiday in 4 years, and is all that we can afford.

Meanwhile, 2 doors down in a four bed council semi lives a couple about my age with 4 kids. Neither work, or have ever worked. The house they are in was his parents council house, both of whom also never worked. When he moved his partner in and started dropping sprogs, his parents got moved to another council house to make room. They have sky tv with all the channels. They have new furniture every 3 years or so, carpets too. All maintenance on the house is paid for, the council even come and cut his grass. He goes to centre parcs too. Only for 2 weeks in the summer.

This illustrates the point of the anecdote perfectly. I work my arse off and could easily argue that my quality of life is significantly worse than the workshy cunt next door. It is my self esteem which prevents me exploring the ways possible to work the system and get everything for nothing, which I'm sure applies to many of us. It's not a massive leap to think that at some point that self esteem will be overtaken by 'why do I bother' thoughts.

In my opinion the gap isn't nearly big enough. I work a lot, I generate a lot of taxes for the government, I am punished for it. They don't work, they take a lot and are rewarded for it.

The country needs a correction, only it's not the correction which all the socialist wankers want.

It needs to go the other way.

If anything the sort of thing that should be happening is someone looking at my circumstances and going, "well done John, the business you run, the people you employ, and the wages you pay tax on are earning the country £150k a year."

"Dave 2 doors down from you, and his layabout family are costing the country similar or more. Right, how about we address that right now. Squeeze him and his family into the little bungalow that you currently live in, make sure they're fed and warm and that's it. Any more the fuckers can work for it. You get the big house, you'll have to pay for the carpets and cut your own grass, but I'm sure you can manage that can't you."

"Keep up the good work, perhaps when you've had 2 holidays a year you'll feel nice and rested and can generate even more money for the country eh?"

That's the kind of correction there should be, and would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I don't care, if the poor want to get richer they should work for it, not have it handed to them.

All that has little to do with strikes or private/public sector debate, but I think the thread had drifted far enough anyway, and I had 5 minutes before a meeting to have a rant

 

[Scouse]

Yep. The anecdote feeds into your righteous anger because you're pissed off and poor, working your arse off and yet don't realise that capitalism has done this to you - not the work shy you're so (rightly) jealous of.

"Dave 2 doors down from you, and his layabout family are costing the country similar or more. Right, how about we address that right now. Squeeze him and his family into the little bungalow that you currently live in, make sure they're fed and warm and that's it. Any more the fuckers can work for it. You get the big house, you'll have to pay for the carpets and cut your own grass, but I'm sure you can manage that can't you."

Idiocy borne out of anger and jealousy.

The guy 2 doors down from you would turn up and take all your shit off you. We know this is true because we know, and have understood as indisputable fact for well over a century, that inequalities of wealth increase crime.

That's why the biggest-crime societies are the centres of capitalism.

That's the kind of correction there should be, and would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I don't care, if the poor want to get richer they should work for it, not have it handed to them.

Your answer would be to increase the inequalities of wealth. And you're angry and stupid enough to think that these people would take it lying down, despite the fact that they're rioting already?

(You're also labouring under the popular misapprehension that a fair days work gets you a fair days pay in a capitalist economy - it doesn't)

Sheesh. I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to your post

 

[Gumbo]

No, constant pandering to socialism every time the country is stupid enough to vote in a labour government has done this.

What should be corrected to make me have to work less and get more time to myself and money in my pocket to spend on luxuries?

 

[Gumbo]

So the answer to crime is to give people stuff for doing nothing?

You're beyond hope. You live in an unsustainable dreamworld.

I suppose Cambodia in the 70's and 80's and North Korea now are pretty free of crime though, so you might be on to something. So long as we just set aside the massive genocide.

 

[Raven]

Capitalism is failing, there is no question about that but it is far better than socialism or communism, both of which are just fronts for iron grip control by the top of the hierarchy, both social and financial.

Distribution of wealth is bullshit and would never work. While that story posted further up is a bit simplistic it is partly true. Would you really work if you got the same as the man next door who plays Xbox all day? Yeah, sure personal pride and all that but really? I know I wouldn't.

We don't live in a purely capitalist society, if we did then most people would be buggered and living in the poor house, people may bleat on about the poor of this country struggling along. But its crap, yeah there are people who are destitute but if they would just get off their arses there is help available. Most poor people aren't actually poor, they are just greedy and want more than they have got. They have a roof over their head, they have food on the table, the have warmth, not to mention flat screen TVs and games consoles. They should move to a 3rd world country and see what poor actually means.

We have a lot to thank socialism for, pensions, the NHS, short working hours, holidays etc but we have even more to thank capitalism for, we live a very privileged lifestyle in the UK all thanks to capitalism.

At the end of the day people got greedy under capitalism, more more more. Those that did got burnt, from Jo Public right up to the banks.

I didn't get greedy and nothing has really changed for me, except the price to fill the car with petrol has gone up. I live in a house that I can afford and buy very little on credit. We tend to have 1 item on credit at a time, be it a bed, a 3 piece suite or a bunch of furniture. No more than £50 a month. We wait until we can afford something, not get it all in one go then moan we have no money left to spank up the wall.

I work hard and then treat myself at Xmas, this year my treat is a PC, not bought on credit but bought with cash...next year we will get a new TV as a treat, the current one is 5 years old. I can do that because of capitalism.

 

[Scouse]

Angry angry angry raaaaaaaage!

You're too angry to have a sensible discussion with - if you can't even concede that increasing inequalities of wealth equals increasing crime then I can't see any point continuing...

 

[Himse]

You know what gets me, it goes right back down to when I was at school, a D counts as a pass.

Sorry, but no it doesn't, I didn't do amazing at GCSE (B's & C's), because I was a lazy kid, but D's and E's are not 'pass' marks.

It's similar to now, everyone thinks because they got a D in life, they deserve everything the person who got an A has.

I think they need to stop softening the blow on people from the start, not saying oh you got a low pass, but you just outright failed, maybe it'll give people a reality check and they can work hard!

 

[Himse]

You're too angry to have a sensible discussion with - if you can't even concede that increasing inequalities of wealth equals increasing crime then I can't see any point continuing...

How would you do that? I'm not sharing my stuff with the random public just because it'd 'increase their wealth' they can jog on.

In reality, it doesn't work, because it pisses people who did well in life off and they just decide to do nothing like the rest of the chumps.

You're a fool if you think that'd actually work.