Lefties who like McDowell

mountainyman

Any other lefties out there who admire McDowell. I just like the way he is such a gurrier and so sly and sneaky. He is full on a complete and unashamed asshole.

He also seems to be quite effective and he is good in interviews. Obviously very intelligent.

MM

samb

I know what you mean. I hate the way most politians are so ambiguous about everything. They seem to be waiting to see what the feeling is from the public before speaking out on an issue. If they are on to something, then they will shout. McDowell in that regard (although guilty also sometimes) has the qualities of the leadership that this country badly needs. I believe that the general public are generally misinformed and do not have an understanding of the complexities of issues. What the public wants (i.e huge prison population) is not always best, so we need strong leadership from people who are well informed to convince the public. FF espiecally and Bertie absolutely all seem to think that if the public like it, it is the thing to do. So McDowell in my view deserves respect for this quality, his intelligence, and I also like his manner. Many friends of mine would be shocked to here me say this but, I'd love to have a pint with him.
That said, I would be considered a bit left of centre and as such disagree with him on much.

Diorraing

He is the antipithy of most things left wing. What was it that he once said: Inequality is a good thing

gilroyb

Not that I really want to get into this, but why do you think equality is a good thing? Say you study in school, work hard in college, fight for a top job, should you everything the same as someone who never applied themselves at all in their life?

I'm not McDowells biggest fan, but he makes clear he believes in equality of opportunity but not of outcome. I fully agree with him on this.

I'm not sure his view on it, but I know many of the explanations of positive discrimination are based on equality of opportunity (not outcome) arguements,.


Regarding my view of McDowell, I think he can be a bit too politically savy sometimes. He changed the intoxicating liquor act so that publicans could discriminate on the basis of age. The legal age to drink in Ireland is 18. If he believed in people not being discriminated against on the basis of age, as he says he does, then he would not have allowed publicans decide their establishments were over 20/21 only. The legal drinking age can be set at any age but once set it must be the age that is enforced.

I know it sounds like a little issue and I should get over it, but imagine a person in their 20's hurt themselves in a rugby accident and lost the use of their legs for 3 years. If a pub refused to allow wheelchair access for them there would be a very expensive court case soon enough.

I think he gets a huge amount of unwarranted flak, but his actions on this issue really annoy me.

Sand

Im not a lefty, but McDowell is far and away the best political representitive in this country. I like the way he seems to get a kick out of enraging people (i.e. that equality thing....equality of opportunity is good, equality of outcome isnt - thats what McDowel said afair). Its clear he really couldnt give a damn about packaging himself as bland, non-offensive left of right of center like every other politician does. He also deserves full credit for calling a spade a spade with regard to Adams and Co long before it became popular.

fly_agaric

mountainyman wrote:

Any other lefties out there who admire McDowell

Very smart man with some great ideas (very strange) and the determination to try and implement them (even odder!) but his massive arrogance/my way or the highway attitude is hard to stomach at times. Don't know if I'd go so far as to say I admire him.

Orion

samb wrote:

McDowell in that regard (although guilty also sometimes) has the qualities of the leadership that this country badly needs.

I disagree entirely. I think he's simply the master of the soundbite and does very little at all. The Criminal Justice Act is a good case in point. Herr Flick has stalled it for 2 years now with amendment after amendment (118 in total now) so that it hasn't even reached committee stage. Yet everytime there's a gandland shooting or an innocent woman gets shot at a party he trots it out as the cure to all our ills. The Tribune last Sunday did a very good analysis of what McDowell has promised over the last 2.5 years and what he's actually delivered on. Let's just say that the ratio wasn't very flattering to him.

Diorraing

gilroyb wrote:

I'm not McDowells biggest fan, but he makes clear he believes in equality of opportunity but not of outcome. I fully agree with him on this.

With all due respect he did attend one of Dublin' most prestigious private schools and his children attend the same one. If he truly believed in "equality of opportunity he wouldn't be buying his childrens' education.

Akrasia

It's a complete red herring, Equality of opportunity is what everybody on the left is in favour of. The fact that he chose to make that statement is because he wants to build a straw man to make lefties look thick and him look smart.

The difference between McDowell and lefties on this issue is that Lefties want Equality of opportunity in order to promote a more equal society, but when Mcdowel says this, he wants equality of opportunity so there can be more competition with the same number of winners and losers as there already is, and this is in reality means that there can never really be equality of opportunity. He wants to lower barriers to competition and a free market because he thinks this gives everyone the same opportunity to work really hard and become wealthy, but when there are blatant inequalities in the basic services citizens can avail of, like health and education and sports facilities, and when some people grow up surrounded by crime and drugs and despair while others are given private tutors for school, private coaches for sports and gated communities to keep crime out, it's obvious which group has the greater opportunity.

Mcdowell sees equality of opportunity like this
'Everybody can enter the national lottery if they want, so everybody has an equal opportunity to win the national lottery jackpot' which of course is nonsense if some people can afford to buy a million tickets and others can only afford to buy one.

gilroyb

Diorraing wrote:

With all due respect he did attend one of Dublin' most prestigious private schools and his children attend the same one. If he truly believed in "equality of opportunity he wouldn't be buying his childrens' education.

I don't think that has any due respect to be honest. The suggestion would be to try and bring other schools up to the standard on this private school, not for him to put his children in the worst school he can find just to make a political point. Pat Rabbitte's children attended private school, and across the water the children of Tony Blair and other New Labour members have also done the same.

With regard to the lottery example, that isn't equality of opportunity and I'd be surprised if that was what McDowell believes or supports.

MontgomeryClift

Macros42 wrote:

I disagree entirely. I think he's simply the master of the soundbite and does very little at all.

I agree. He's a windbag.

Akrasia

the lottery example is a simplification of free market capitalism. In theory people can all avail of the market to better themselves, but in reality, access to the market is easier for those who are already in a privileged position. The basis for free market capitalism it that it allows some class mobility, and that is why people support it, it seems like it's fair, that the hardest working people will win out in the end, but in reality, it's like the lottery, people play the lottery because 'someone has to win so why not me?' but there are always many times more losers than there are winners. The stories of the winners are enough to inspire people to play but the winners are the exception, not the rule.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

samb

gilroyb wrote:

I don't think that has any due respect to be honest. The suggestion would be to try and bring other schools up to the standard on this private school.

I think the main reason why private schools are bad for society is that if they become common then all professional and/or well paid parents will send thier children there. THis then leads to a vicous cycle whereby if I don't send my child to a private school then their peers will all be from less advantaged backgrounds. Regradless of teacher/pupil ratio, teacher quality, facilties etc, a childs peers are hugely important.
Let's be frank, well educated parents generally breed well educated children, so if I want my childs peers to have an ethos of learning, I may need to send them to a private school.
I hope the above hasn't come across snobby, what I would like is schools with a broad range of pupils form different backgrounds.

Akrasia

the rising tide, and 'trickle down effect' are another two arguments put forward by free market capitalists to justify the massive increases in wealth of a small minority of people compared with the rest of the population, but this is a fraud in my opinion for one simple reason.

Money is a mechanism to divide economic power amongst all the participants in an economy. While wages are increasing (slowly), the profits for the already wealthy are increasing much faster, therefore the economic power of the wealthy is increasing at the expense of the lower paid which makes the lower paid actually worse off than they were before. this is built into the system. A successful company might pay workers an extra 10% in exchange for a 30% increase in productivity, which means the workers share of the wealth is decreasing the harder he/she works or the more he/she produces.
In a competitive economy, if everyone is improving, but some people are improving far faster than others, then the people that are improving the slowest are losing the most power. it's the same in competitive sports. In Rugby even Italy of today would probably be able to beat a World cup winning team of 20 years ago, but they're losing almost every game because while they're improving, the other teams are improving just as fast or faster. Eventually Italy might be able to catch up, but that is within the strict rules of the game of rugby where there are many mechanisms in place to ensure nobody gets an unfair advantage, those mechanisms don't exist in real life.

In Ireland this is demonstrated through health care, where the cost of health insurance is always going up, the health care provided to insured people is of a very high quality, but the quality of care to uninsured people is far worse than it was 20 years ago. In education, the number of people who go on to do the leaving cert is higher than ever before, but now the leaving cert is useless by itself, and even a primary degree isn't enough to get a decent job. In the leaving cert, private schools and public schools in affluent areas produce pupils with the highest results, and because these standards keep going up, it means the people who can afford to provide extra tuition to their children are going to benefit the most.

The only rising tide that the poor people of ireland really benefit from is in consumer goods. If you measure poverty based on what size tv people have, then obviously people are gonna be better off than they were 10 years ago, but that bigger tv has no relationship to happiness. People were perfectly happy watching 21inch televisions before they knew about 42 inch plasma screens, and what is the real cost of that bigger tv? Longer working hours, longer commutes to work, less family time, fewer friends, more stress, unfulfilling jobs and the destruction of local communities. In terms of economic power and the potential that each individual can ever hope to achieve, the trickle down effect is sinking some of the boats on that rising tide.

And Ireland isnt seeing the worst effects of our chosen economic model, not by a long shot. Our insistance that we want to be closer to boston than berlin means that we are storing up many of the problems that we are seeing in the U.S. at the moment where Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have declined significantly from 20 years ago while the executives are making a thousand times more money than the workers on the shop floor.

sovtek

Some of the kudos for McDowell sound strangely like some of the positive arguments I've heard for Bush.

Akrasia

samb wrote:

I think the main reason why private schools are bad for society is that if they become common then all professional and/or well paid parents will send thier children there. THis then leads to a vicous cycle whereby if I don't send my child to a private school then their peers will all be from less advantaged backgrounds. Regradless of teacher/pupil ratio, teacher quality, facilties etc, a childs peers are hugely important.
Let's be frank, well educated parents generally breed well educated children, so if I want my childs peers to have an ethos of learning, I may need to send them to a private school.
I hope the above hasn't come across snobby, what I would like is schools with a broad range of pupils form different backgrounds.

that isn't snobby at all, it's a very important point. But as well as that, if children only interact with children of their own class, then they won't experience the full range of human experiences and they won't be able to experience empathy with other people who aren't their class peers. This is the same reason i am opposed to religious schools, because it seperates children who should be interacting and coming to understand each other. Private schools are bad for the rich children as well as the children who are left behind.
The best solution to the education inequality would be to enshrine in law, the principle that all schools should be funded by the state, and all schools should recieve the same funding per pupil with no exceptions other than for pupils with special medical or psychological needs. This would mean that if the rich want their children to have better educational facilities, they have to accept higher funding for every school in the country.

Diorraing

gilroyb wrote:

I don't think that has any due respect to be honest. The suggestion would be to try and bring other schools up to the standard on this private school, not for him to put his children in the worst school he can find just to make a political point. Pat Rabbitte's children attended private school, and across the water the children of Tony Blair and other New Labour members have also done the same.

I'm not saying he should send his children to the worst schools, indeed many public schools are far better than private schools. All I'm saying is that if he honestly believed in "equality of opporunity" as has been said on this thread, he wouldn't support private schools. He does support private schools, and thus it cannot be said that he supports equality of opportunity.
As for Pat Rabbitte, he typifies the attitude of the middle-class support Labour now has. He thinks left but lives right - same with Fintan O'Toole and the rest of them. The only principled lefty in the Dáil as far as I can see is Joe Higgins

gilroyb

Akrasia wrote:

the rising tide, and 'trickle down effect' are another two arguments put forward by free market capitalists to justify the massive increases in wealth of a small minority of people compared with the rest of the population, but this is a fraud in my opinion for one simple reason.

Money is a mechanism to divide economic power amongst all the participants in an economy. While wages are increasing (slowly), the profits for the already wealthy are increasing much faster, therefore the economic power of the wealthy is increasing at the expense of the lower paid which makes the lower paid actually worse off than they were before. this is built into the system. A successful company might pay workers an extra 10% in exchange for a 30% increase in productivity, which means the workers share of the wealth is decreasing the harder he/she works or the more he/she produces.
In a competitive economy, if everyone is improving, but some people are improving far faster than others, then the people that are improving the slowest are losing the most power.

Firstly, what is wrong with the person who organises this great increase in productivity getting a payoff? The company becomes more productive, more competitive, and so the company and so workers jobs become more secure.

Secondly, you seem to assume that the '20%' simply goes to the capitalist profiteer. In reality there would only be a small increase going to the owner of this company, while the rest of the productivity increase will go towards lowering the price that customers pay to use the service/good.

The productivity increase will make all customers of the good better off. The more an economy can improve the better it is for ALL people in society. All people buy things, and making them cheaper makes everyone better off, rather than just the small set of workers.

Akrasia wrote:

it's the same in competitive sports. In Rugby even Italy of today would probably be able to beat a World cup winning team of 20 years ago, but they're losing almost every game because while they're improving, the other teams are improving just as fast or faster. Eventually Italy might be able to catch up, but that is within the strict rules of the game of rugby where there are many mechanisms in place to ensure nobody gets an unfair advantage, those mechanisms don't exist in real life.

Are you suggesting that improvements in sports are a bad thing? People like to watch competitive games, every side tries to find new tactics to win which makes for exciting matches. Perhaps every side should be assured an equal number of wins before the season starts? Your analysis seems to suggest that Italy somehow deserve to win more. This would be to the detriment of not only the better teams, but to all those who follow rugby.
What would sport be without improvements in performance? Italy are improving almost every year, and could well be competitive in the next five years.

Akrasia wrote:

In Ireland this is demonstrated through health care, where the cost of health insurance is always going up, the health care provided to insured people is of a very high quality, but the quality of care to uninsured people is far worse than it was 20 years ago. In education, the number of people who go on to do the leaving cert is higher than ever before, but now the leaving cert is useless by itself, and even a primary degree isn't enough to get a decent job. In the leaving cert, private schools and public schools in affluent areas produce pupils with the highest results, and because these standards keep going up, it means the people who can afford to provide extra tuition to their children are going to benefit the most.

I'd like to see you go to the 1980's health care system for cancer treatment. [not that I'm wishing you harm] Contemporary healthcare is hugely more expensive due to the advancements that have been made. Something tells me that it's a lot better today for everyone than it was 20 years ago.

Education in itself is good for a person. As most degree lecturers will tell you, a degree isn't for a particular job, but teaches/allows you to consider issues in a broader context. The Irish economy has improved by such an amount that Irish people can afford to develop themselves to a greater extent and still earn a large amount of money after college. You say that a primary degree isn't enough for a decent job. Almost any construction job in Ireland is a decent job at the moment and has been for the last decade.

Akrasia wrote:

The only rising tide that the poor people of ireland really benefit from is in consumer goods. If you measure poverty based on what size tv people have, then obviously people are gonna be better off than they were 10 years ago, but that bigger tv has no relationship to happiness. People were perfectly happy watching 21inch televisions before they knew about 42 inch plasma screens, and what is the real cost of that bigger tv? Longer working hours, longer commutes to work, less family time, fewer friends, more stress, unfulfilling jobs and the destruction of local communities. In terms of economic power and the potential that each individual can ever hope to achieve, the trickle down effect is sinking some of the boats on that rising tide.

The rising tide allows more opportunities for employment in Ireland. In the past there were a limited number of job types in Ireland, but with the economic advancement, people have more job types to choose from.

With regard to consumer goods, you seem to think that people are forced to get new products. Some people prefer broadband, some don't bother getting it. Some prefer 42 inch plasma screens, some don't. The rising tide gives more choice.

Akrasia wrote:

And Ireland isnt seeing the worst effects of our chosen economic model, not by a long shot. Our insistance that we want to be closer to boston than berlin means that we are storing up many of the problems that we are seeing in the U.S. at the moment where Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have declined significantly from 20 years ago while the executives are making a thousand times more money than the workers on the shop floor.

How many executives are in this position? Would you prefer if they hadn't set up that company so that everyone could be equal (but on the dole)? Real wages may be slipping slightly at the moment, but they are supporting a huge amount more people than they used to. The workforce in America expands greatly every month due to imigration. The apparent fall in real wages is due to the fact that more people are being supported.

Mighty_Mouse

Inequality is a good thing

I dont like the man but in fairness he was a little taken out of context on this.

I lost all time for him after the F Connelly thing. For all his shouting and roaring he's just another politician that won't let simple little things get in his way : like a judicial process .

Akrasia

gilroyb wrote:

Firstly, what is wrong with the person who organises this great increase in productivity getting a payoff? The company becomes more productive, more competitive, and so the company and so workers jobs become more secure.

there would be nothing wrong if the person was rewarded for the work he/she does with an equal proportion of the increase in wealth generated by the increase in productivity, but inequality is increased when the owner of the business gets a much higher proportion of the gains than hs/her workers. It's the basis for a pyramid scheme. If the business was run as a workers co-operative then the workers would get an equal share of the productivity increase after all the other expenses are paid.

The productivity increase will make all customers of the good better off. The more an economy can improve the better it is for ALL people in society. All people buy things, and making them cheaper makes everyone better off, rather than just the small set of workers.

that assumes the increase in consumption produces enough happiness to offset the costs of the increase in labour or the changes in work conditions. That is rarely the case. And often the increases in prices for essentials like food, healthcare and accommodation take up most of the increases in wages. The costs of living in Ireland are massive now.

Are you suggesting that improvements in sports are a bad thing? People like to watch competitive games, every side tries to find new tactics to win which makes for exciting matches. Perhaps every side should be assured an equal number of wins before the season starts? Your analysis seems to suggest that Italy somehow deserve to win more. This would be to the detriment of not only the better teams, but to all those who follow rugby.
What would sport be without improvements in performance? Italy are improving almost every year, and could well be competitive in the next five years.

You miss my point. I'm saying that rising standards for the poor are very often offset by faster rising standards for the rich, which leaves the poor even further behind. In sport the aim is competition, Losing is part of the game, In society competition should not be the objective. at best, it should be a means towards achieving something.

I'd like to see you go to the 1980's health care system for cancer treatment. [not that I'm wishing you harm] Contemporary healthcare is hugely more expensive due to the advancements that have been made. Something tells me that it's a lot better today for everyone than it was 20 years ago.

cancer treatment is better, but there are also rising incidences of cancer and other serious illnesses because of the degredation of our environment. Hospital waiting lists and lack of basic facilities such as trauma beds are a far bigger problem than they were in the past.

Education in itself is good for a person. As most degree lecturers will tell you, a degree isn't for a particular job, but teaches/allows you to consider issues in a broader context. The Irish economy has improved by such an amount that Irish people can afford to develop themselves to a greater extent and still earn a large amount of money after college. You say that a primary degree isn't enough for a decent job. Almost any construction job in Ireland is a decent job at the moment and has been for the last decade.

I'll agree that education is a positive thing in itself, but unless people are given jobs that allow them to use that education and be creative and fulfil their potential, they won't be happy. Unfulfilled potential is a major cause of human despair. When a job takes up most of your life and it offers you no creative outlet then its going to hurt you as a person. Division of labour and the huge increase in low skilled services jobs as a proportion of the Irish economy are a serious problem.

How many executives are in this position? Would you prefer if they hadn't set up that company so that everyone could be equal (but on the dole)? Real wages may be slipping slightly at the moment, but they are supporting a huge amount more people than they used to. The workforce in America expands greatly every month due to imigration. The apparent fall in real wages is due to the fact that more people are being supported.

In the 1970s the average american CEO made 42 times the average industrial wage. Now, they make 420 times the average industrial wage. They have gotten 10 times as powerful in 30 years. This means the power of the average american compared to the Plutocracy is 1/10 of what it was only 30 years ago. This trend continues across the rest of the capitalist world although america hosts by far the greediest executives. They earn about 10 times more than U.K CEOs

gilroyb

Akrasia wrote:

there would be nothing wrong if the person was rewarded for the work he/she does with an equal proportion of the increase in wealth generated by the increase in productivity, but inequality is increased when the owner of the business gets a much higher proportion of the gains than hs/her workers. It's the basis for a pyramid scheme. If the business was run as a workers co-operative then the workers would get an equal share of the productivity increase after all the other expenses are paid.

If you're in this worker co-operative, what is the incentive to work hard and find ways to improve the company when everyone else will get the same return anyway?

Akrasia wrote:

that assumes the increase in consumption produces enough happiness to offset the costs of the increase in labour or the changes in work conditions. That is rarely the case. And often the increases in prices for essentials like food, healthcare and accommodation take up most of the increases in wages. The costs of living in Ireland are massive now.

Even the workers who lose out through changes in their work practices gain as consumers. If it's going to work out more costly to change then stay the same then there is no reason to introduce this change.

Akrasia wrote:

You miss my point. I'm saying that rising standards for the poor are very often offset by faster rising standards for the rich, which leaves the poor even further behind. In sport the aim is competition, Losing is part of the game, In society competition should not be the objective. at best, it should be a means towards achieving something.

You miss my point. You say the poor (Italy) get poorer. I say they started off worse, they have a drive to catch up, and judging by their games against Ireland and Wales are doing just that. The are not falling further behind, they are coming closer to the other teams. In football certain teams seem to be very far ahead, but after a few while other teams can improve and catch up.
Manchester United, like Liverpool before then, were not able to use there advantage to become unstopable.

Akrasia wrote:

cancer treatment is better, but there are also rising incidences of cancer and other serious illnesses because of the degredation of our environment. Hospital waiting lists and lack of basic facilities such as trauma beds are a far bigger problem than they were in the past.

The Irish health service is overly politicised and mismanaged. However to say these issues are a far bigger problem than they were assumes that the body is doing the same job now as it was then. If it was dealing with the same number and same type of health problems then there would be absolutely no problem, but due to advancements people who would have just died in the past can be helped.

Akrasia wrote:

I'll agree that education is a positive thing in itself, but unless people are given jobs that allow them to use that education and be creative and fulfil their potential, they won't be happy. Unfulfilled potential is a major cause of human despair. When a job takes up most of your life and it offers you no creative outlet then its going to hurt you as a person. Division of labour and the huge increase in low skilled services jobs as a proportion of the Irish economy are a serious problem.

You talk about unfulfilled potential, but would you not agree that the more varied the types of career available, the more likely people are to find one that fulfills their potential? Division of labour allows people to find the creative outlet that best suits them.

Akrasia wrote:

In the 1970s the average american CEO made 42 times the average industrial wage. Now, they make 420 times the average industrial wage. They have gotten 10 times as powerful in 30 years. This means the power of the average american compared to the Plutocracy is 1/10 of what it was only 30 years ago. This trend continues across the rest of the capitalist world although america hosts by far the greediest executives. They earn about 10 times more than U.K CEOs

This assumes that it is the same pyramid. In fact the pyramid is simply getting bigger, not thinner. The power of the Average american is the same (or greater) seeing as there are a huge amount more in the workforce. Bill Gates gives huge amounts of money to his foundation which supports education around the world, as well as battling malaria and AIDS. Getting paid for working is not greed. Americans don't seem to want to be an 'average American', they want the chance to do their best and get rewarded as an individual.

Anyway, this isn't really the thread for all this.

m1ke

Yeah i'm more or less a leftie - not a great stereotype as they go - but I agree with the general aspirations of the left. I think McDowell is an excellent public representative. He is not a typical Irish politician - medicore beyond belief. Even the better politicians such as Bertie Ahern are one-dimensional strategic creatures. However, McDowell has many more dimensions and can clearly express his ideas and even implement some of them. Which is impressive considering the constraints that accompany his job.

Akrasia

gilroyb wrote:

If you're in this worker co-operative, what is the incentive to work hard and find ways to improve the company when everyone else will get the same return anyway?

What is the incentive in a PLC company? Workers co-operatives share the profits from their work, the harder they work and the more efficient they are, the more profits they will make. Workers can still be fired if they refuse to contribute their fair share, the decision will be in the hands of their fellow employees, and not in some authority figure. There are plenty examples of highly successful workers co-operatives all around the world. One of which is the Mondragon C-Operative Corporation in the Basque region of Spain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

Even the workers who lose out through changes in their work practices gain as consumers. If it's going to work out more costly to change then stay the same then there is no reason to introduce this change.

the workers don't get to make the decision. The only costs and profits that are considered are the costs and the profits for the owners of the enterprise. If they have a choice between changing work practises or being laid off, many are forced to accept the changes. The costs to the worker in terms of their quality of life are completely ignored by the corporation when deciding what business decision to make. And the CEOs are always gonna make the decision that increases the margin of the Company instead of giving a higher share to the worker, thus increasing inequality.

You miss my point. You say the poor (Italy) get poorer. I say they started off worse, they have a drive to catch up, and judging by their games against Ireland and Wales are doing just that. The are not falling further behind, they are coming closer to the other teams. In football certain teams seem to be very far ahead, but after a few while other teams can improve and catch up.
Manchester United, like Liverpool before then, were not able to use there advantage to become unstopable.

All of the figures out there indicate that income inequality in Ireland is increasing. We are the most unequal society in Europe. Forget about the sports analogy, it was probably a bad idea to bring that up.

The Irish health service is overly politicised and mismanaged. However to say these issues are a far bigger problem than they were assumes that the body is doing the same job now as it was then. If it was dealing with the same number and same type of health problems then there would be absolutely no problem, but due to advancements people who would have just died in the past can be helped.

if i fall and break my arm i'll be waiting for 10 hours to get an x-ray in my local hospital and I'll have to pay something like 50 quid just for turning up at A+E. Broken limbs are hardly a new phenomena, and i doubt there are a higher incidence of these accidents happening. In fact, the numbers of Road accidents are falling, and these make up a huge proportion of trauma injuries, but the Trauma facilities are getting more and more crowded because investment in public health in this country is far too low. Hearney is promoting the idea of private casualty facilities to solve this problem, but that's adding another tier to the inequality in health provision.
The number of X-ray machines per head of population has to be far lower than it was 10 years ago. At least it is in Ennis where I'm from, and the politicians want to close down the ennis A+E service and send us all to limerick.

You talk about unfulfilled potential, but would you not agree that the more varied the types of career available, the more likely people are to find one that fulfills their potential? Division of labour allows people to find the creative outlet that best suits them.

The vast majority of jobs in ireland offer little or no creative element. Services and factory jobs are designed to be as simple and repetitive as possible. Almost all the exciting and interesting jobs that actually do reward the worker are reserved for the upper classes. The only challenging jobs that are available to the average person are to be a tradesperson, teacher, Garda, or nurse or something like that, but these are jobs that have existed for thousands of years. The new economy jobs are mainly in call centres, paper pushing, catering and customer services and these are boring unrewarding tasks.

This assumes that it is the same pyramid. In fact the pyramid is simply getting bigger, not thinner. The power of the Average american is the same (or greater) seeing as there are a huge amount more in the workforce. Bill Gates gives huge amounts of money to his foundation which supports education around the world, as well as battling malaria and AIDS. Getting paid for working is not greed. Americans don't seem to want to be an 'average American', they want the chance to do their best and get rewarded as an individual.

Anyway, this isn't really the thread for all this.

Its not quite a pyramid. The bigger it gets the more people there are at the bottom and there are always roughtly the same amount at the top. The bigger the size of the workforce that have to share the same proportion of the wealth, the less power each individual worker has, and the more power the people at the top have.

Getting paid for working is not greed, but if you get paid 400 times more than the average worker, unless you can claim that you work 400 times harder than the average worker, then you are getting more than your fair share.
Poor people give to charity too, Bill gates only makes the headlines because he has so much more money to spare than ordinary people. Bill gates sacrifices absolutely nothing to donate to charity, but a woman who gives 10 euros out of her €150 pension to charity is giving up a large proportion of her income.

This might be slightly off the main topic, but it is a critique of McDowells ideology from a left wing perspective, and this is a thread about whether Lefties can admire McDowell. McDowell claims he wants Equality of opportunity, but I am trying to demonstrate that his entire ideology is designed to promote inequality.

The_Minister

Akrasia wrote:

What is the incentive in a PLC company? Workers co-operatives share the profits from their work, the harder they work and the more efficient they are, the more profits they will make. Workers can still be fired if they refuse to contribute their fair share, the decision will be in the hands of their fellow employees, and not in some authority figure. There are plenty examples of highly successful workers co-operatives all around the world. .

Then set one up. The whole point of capitalism is to reward the innovators who propel humanity. If you think it could work then set up a cooperative.

Akrasia wrote:

All of the figures out there indicate that income inequality in Ireland is increasing. We are the most unequal society in Europe. Forget about the sports analogy, it was probably a bad idea to bring that up..

Thats because we were all poor. Inequality afaik is measured by comparing the top 10% with the bottom 10%. As we get richer it is natural that dole-dwellers etc would fall behind.

Akrasia wrote:

if i fall and break my arm i'll be waiting for 10 hours to get an x-ray in my local hospital and I'll have to pay something like 50 quid just for turning up at A+E. .

Thats cause lazy ****s were using it as a free GP service.

Akrasia wrote:

The vast majority of jobs in ireland offer little or no creative element. Services and factory jobs are designed to be as simple and repetitive as possible. Almost all the exciting and interesting jobs that actually do reward the worker are reserved for the upper classes. The only challenging jobs that are available to the average person are to be a tradesperson, teacher, Garda, or nurse or something like that, but these are jobs that have existed for thousands of years. The new economy jobs are mainly in call centres, paper pushing, catering and customer services and these are boring unrewarding tasks..

How would cocialism/communism change this? Or is it that you just don't like people being happier than you?

Akrasia wrote:

Getting paid for working is not greed, but if you get paid 400 times more than the average worker, unless you can claim that you work 400 times harder than the average worker, then you are getting more than your fair share..

You are not factoring in enterprise. Also if a owner buys a machine to do the work of ten men he as vastly increased his productivity, why should the other workers get it.

Akrasia wrote:

Poor people give to charity too, Bill gates only makes the headlines because he has so much more money to spare than ordinary people. Bill gates sacrifices absolutely nothing to donate to charity, but a woman who gives 10 euros out of her €150 pension to charity is giving up a large proportion of her income..

Gates is giving away most of his fortune. AFAIK his kids are only getting a few million so proportionally hes giving away lots more than the old one.

Akrasia

Firespinner wrote:

Then set one up. The whole point of capitalism is to reward the innovators who propel humanity. If you think it could work then set up a cooperative.

Well i don't have any money and that's what it takes to turn Enterprise into reality

Thats cause lazy ****s were using it as a free GP service.

They're lazy? how do you work that out. People don't go to the hospital unless they need to.

How would cocialism/communism change this? Or is it that you just don't like people being happier than you?

Actually I'm very happy, but i have unusually fortunate social and family circumstances.
Socialism should allow people a better work life balance. Efficiency should lead to a reduction in the amount of work we need to do and not just higher profits or lower prices.

You are not factoring in enterprise. Also if a owner buys a machine to do the work of ten men he as vastly increased his productivity, why should the other workers get it.

Many CEOs are hired from outside the Company, they do a job, they are not entrapreneurs but they are given huge wages even though they take no risk. And the owner buys the machine with the money generated from the work of his employees.

Gates is giving away most of his fortune. AFAIK his kids are only getting a few million so proportionally hes giving away lots more than the old one.

That is a decision he made that he thinks is best for his family. There is no sacrifice for him to do that. He is giving up nothing. He can still buy anything he wants without even having to think twice about it if he chooses.

Sand

Getting paid for working is not greed, but if you get paid 400 times more than the average worker, unless you can claim that you work 400 times harder than the average worker, then you are getting more than your fair share.

There was that survey a week or two ago that demonstrated that top managers in companies had a worse standard of life than patients with terminal illness. Ill see if I can dig up a link, but it was bounced around. Generally managers/decision makers get paid a lot because they are expected to be available 24/7 especially in the age of modern communication.

the workers don't get to make the decision. The only costs and profits that are considered are the costs and the profits for the owners of the enterprise.

True, because any worker can simply walk away to a better offer tommorrow, having lost or contributed nothing but their time/expertise for which they are compensated by their salary. They didnt invest any cash in setting up the firm, leasing the place of business, taking out loans to cover the initial losses whilst the firm was looking for contracts. *All* the risk is taken on by the owners. They are locked into their investment. They cant walk away to another investment just like that. They certainly cant suddenly dump their shares on the market and expect the price to hold. Hence, the costs and profits of the owners are the only costs that need to be considered at the end of the day.

The new economy jobs are mainly in call centres, paper pushing, catering and customer services and these are boring unrewarding tasks.

If work was fun theyd be charging you to do it tbh.

What is the incentive in a PLC company?

Indirect job security, but more directly promotion/bonus. There are people Ive worked with and the concept of sharing profits equally with them would inspire me to beat the lazy ****ers to death. And no, they wouldnt be voted out as they were the life and soul of the party.

All of the figures out there indicate that income inequality in Ireland is increasing. We are the most unequal society in Europe.

Eh, so? Whats the problem with inequality so long as basic minimum standards of living are met? The reason Ireland is becoming more unequal is that a large proportion of people have finally got the opportunity to work *in* Ireland, earn a decent wage and enjoy a good standard of life as payoff for their hard work up until that point. And then you have the layabout underclass who we saw on display in the riots a few weeks back. Not even working class, these people simply have stood still through the sheer unwillingness to get a job or put their heads down and study for qualifications. So theyre at the bottom of the heap and being left behind by those who have worked. They seem wealthy enough to afford their Celtic shirts so they cant be starving. **** em tbh.

Johnny Storm

IMHO MsDowell is a borderline psychotic. I look forward to the day when he reveals his true nature in public. (e.g. bites the head off a puppy or something ).
He is smart, devious, eloquent etc but I really do think there is something mentally wrong with him. I think what I'm trying to say is that he appears to lack any empathy with others, does not seem to have anything resembling a conscience and genuinely believes that the rules apply to everyone else except him.
Just my opinion.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

There was that survey a week or two ago that demonstrated that top managers in companies had a worse standard of life than patients with terminal illness.

lol

You think the top managers would swap places? lol

The_Minister

Johnny Storm wrote:

IMHO MsDowell is a borderline psychotic. I look forward to the day when he reveals his true nature in public. (e.g. bites the head off a puppy or something ).
He is smart, devious, eloquent etc but I really do think there is something mentally wrong with him. I think what I'm trying to say is that he appears to lack any empathy with others, does not seem to have anything resembling a conscience and genuinely believes that the rules apply to everyone else except him.
Just my opinion.

I sorta know him actually. He's a nice guy but quite arrogant. I think he looks at the big picture so he often does lack empathy, but I would trust him more than most politicians (not that I wouldn't keep an eye on him)

Cronus333

Firespinner wrote:

I sorta know him actually. He's a nice guy but quite arrogant. I think he looks at the big picture so he often does lack empathy, but I would trust him more than most politicians (not that I wouldn't keep an eye on him)

Id agree with that. his kids go to my school and we are also streamed on grades here so we're wealthy smart kids. the real elitists! you cant compete.....