Socialist Party's policies

BoJack Horseman

Manach wrote: »

Would this be similar to the mechanism used by U.S. companies when Argentina defaulted?. Seizing their state assets. Asking out of couristy only.

What US company forcibly seized what Argentinian state asset?

FreudianSlippers

Manach wrote: »

Would this be similar to the mechanism used by U.S. companies when Argentina defaulted?. Seizing their state assets. Asking out of couristy only.

You're referring to Elliott Management? If so, that's quite different as it is a private investor who purchased Argentinian bonds on which they defaulted. They were therefore legally allowed to (for lack of an easier way of explaining a quite complex situation) repossess state assets.

It's something potentially that the Troika could do to Ireland if we were to default on our loans.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BlutendeRabe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What US company forcibly seized what Argentinian state asset?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/10/argentinian-naval-ship-ghanaian-port?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

A hedge fund owed money by Argentina when it defaulted ordered the ship impounded despite laws protecting military vessels from civil claims in foreign ports. Thankfully the ship was released. I find the idea that nation states have to be somehow subservient to a private company abhorrent.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/20/argentina-sailing-ship-ghana-release

FreudianSlippers

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/10/argentinian-naval-ship-ghanaian-port?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

A hedge fund owed money by Argentina when it defaulted ordered the ship impounded despite laws protecting military vessels from civil claims in foreign ports. Thankfully the ship was released. I find the idea that nation states have to be somehow subservient to a private company abhorrent.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/20/argentina-sailing-ship-ghana-release

Then don't borrow money from a private company to keep your lights on and then default.

I find it equally abhorrent that it would even be suggested that a private foreign company would be nationalised.

BlutendeRabe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Then don't borrow money from a private company to keep your lights on and then default.

I find it equally abhorrent that it would even be suggested that a private foreign company would be nationalised.

On the question of Dell being nationalised, I agree with you. Its a stupid asinine idea with no benefits whatsoever.

On some vulture hedge fund manager (eg Paul Singer) trying to sieze a military vessel ship: If I was Cristina Kirchner I'd probably try to have him and his associates killed.

Singers gotten into trouble with his business plan. He buys debt cheaply and then sues the countries in question. Also Ghana had to allow the ship to depart after a maritime court ruling which states the ship was immune to seizure.

RobertKK

Its ok people, the billionaires will pay for everything, we won't have to pay for anything...


https://twitter.com/JoeHigginsTD/status/538023624264130560

hatrickpatrick

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Another thing. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a "neo-liberal hack".

It's entirely possible to consider yourself a socialist and think that nationalising Dell's Limerick plant is a daft idea.

I agree with you here, but I have to ask why it's taboo to smear right wing posters while referring to left wing posters as the "loony left" is commonplace and no eyelashes are batted?

hatrickpatrick

jank wrote: »

I would suggest you travel the world a little and you will see very quickly how bad it could be. Stop listening the the Joe Duffy/Paul Murphy negative group think that Ireland is a terrible place because it has a relatively open economy that relies on FDI and its access to the EU markets to thrive.

If you honestly cannot imagine anything worse than the current status quo in Ireland, then there is no help for you or you are being genuinely willfully disingenuous.

Car sales are booming at present
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/number-of-cars-on-road-back-at-boomtime-levels-30653124.html

I'm pretty sick of having to say this, but the status quo isn't just about the economy. We could have the most prosperous economy in the world and still be repulsed by the inequality, impunity, and corruption within it.

garhjw

RobertKK wrote: »

Its ok people, the billionaires will pay for everything, we won't have to pay for anything...


https://twitter.com/JoeHigginsTD/status/538023624264130560

Is that a real poster? Very distasteful but to be expected from the communists. What ever about Dennis obrien but Michael oLeary pays a lot of tax in this country and creates a lot of jobs.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm pretty sick of having to say this, but the status quo isn't just about the economy. We could have the most prosperous economy in the world and still be repulsed by the inequality, impunity, and corruption within it.

But the point people make is corruption is endemic in Communist countries and democracy nonexistant. If you're living in Ireland you are living in one the worlds least corrupt countries (21st out of 177)

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results

Doesn't mean its acceptable or corruption isn't present here but some perspective is needed. Politicians make bad/stupid decisions which some people here judge as corrupt, the banking implosion being a perfect example. A complex situation and multiple different causes boiled down a very simplistic situation of bankers and politicians being corrupt.

Its not as if the Socialist Party would change anything. All they would do is concentrate power in the hands of a few senior government ministers. As they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is something thankfully no one in Ireland has.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Socialists need to understand how easy money can be transferred from one jurisdiction to another. I am an Australian tax resident for example. I am not a billionaire or millionaire, just a normal Joe Soap but I do have equities in an Irish/UK, American and Australian brooking accounts where I pay tax in Australia on this income and any Capital gains I may make. All legit all legal. If I were to go home to live and work I would become an Irish tax resident but if some party came to power with a pledge for massive redistribution of wealth than I would easily be able to move myself and/or my wealth to the UK/Europe or Australia/NZ. They couldn't really do much about it as very little of what I have is actually held in Ireland, so Capital controls and like would not really factor in. If Joe Higgins et all came to power, the state would see a massive flight of capital which have dire effects on the economy.

garhjw

Careful guys, way too much sense being spoken in this thread. You will anger the commies. They don't want to hear about the real world.

garhjw

Another thing, why do the commies hate wealthy people so much? You can see it in the way Higgins and Murphy speak to and look at people

BoJack Horseman

garhjw wrote: »

Another thing, why do the commies hate wealthy people so much? You can see it in the way Higgins and Murphy speak to and look at people

Indoctrinated hate.

It goes with the territory.

Tbh, if you buy into communism 1-iota, you have to hate people in general, otherwise why subscribe to such a doctrine.

The history of communism has shown it hates all peoples equally.

jank

The right hate on race, the left hate on class. Class warfare is all around us, so there ya go.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

But the point people make is corruption is endemic in Communist countries and democracy nonexistant. If you're living in Ireland you are living in one the worlds least corrupt countries (21st out of 177)

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results

Two points here, first it depends on how corruption is defined and I suspect most of these indexes rely on a narrow definition involving bribery, as opposed to including issues of cronyism, deceit and nest-feathering which are Ireland's particular vice. Secondly, just because most other places are far worse, doesn't mean we should just say "Ah sure the corruption we do have doesn't matter then". A little like how the ridiculous "sure in Egypt you'd be tortured" argument doesn't work to excuse Garda brutality.

Doesn't mean its acceptable or corruption isn't present here but some perspective is needed. Politicians make bad/stupid decisions which some people here judge as corrupt, the banking implosion being a perfect example. A complex situation and multiple different causes boiled down a very simplistic situation of bankers and politicians being corrupt.

Alright then, let's amend "corruption" to "corruption and incompetence". It's my opinion that in a decent system, both of these would carry actual consequences. And By consequences I mean politicians and officials losing their jobs, losing their entitlements, being tried in court, etc.
The Iceland model is a pretty good example. Why in God's name can we not implement such a system here?

Its not as if the Socialist Party would change anything. All they would do is concentrate power in the hands of a few senior government ministers.

But they probably would end the influence of the super-rich over political decisions - or do you think that's just posturing? If it is then fair enough, but doesn't change the fact that it needs to happen, which those on the right seem intent on denying. All citizens should be regarded equally by the government. Those on the right appear, through their silence on it, to at least have tacit support for the current "money talks" paradigm, which is fundamentally what I want to see changed.

As they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is something thankfully no one in Ireland has.

Politically speaking, the cabinet has something pretty close to it because of the whip system, and you only need to look as far as IW to see how damaging that is.

hatrickpatrick

garhjw wrote: »

Another thing, why do the commies hate wealthy people so much? You can see it in the way Higgins and Murphy speak to and look at people

Most on the left don't hate wealthy people, only people who are gatekeepers of wealth and are only wealthy because they can pay themselves whatever they want, regardless of incompetence. Bankers being a prime example - the financial elite f*cked up the world beyond belief, the idea that those individuals shouldn't pay a financial penalty makes absolutely no sense.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree with you here, but I have to ask why it's taboo to smear right wing posters while referring to left wing posters as the "loony left" is commonplace and no eyelashes are batted?

I am left-wing with a Green tinge.

I support a progressive income tax system, charges for water and bins to ensure sustainability, property taxes including on home-owners, taxes on inheritance and on capital gains, free primary and secondary education, a subsidised healthcare system, a social welfare system that looks after the most vulnerable but maintains an incentive to work. Most people in Ireland share a similar left-wing view.

Many posters on here falsely attach a "neo-liberal hack" label to that kind of position.

As a country, we can't go much further left without being in "looney left" territory. That is why I find it acceptable to characterise silly policies such as nationalising Dell as "looney left".

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Two points here, first it depends on how corruption is defined and I suspect most of these indexes rely on a narrow definition involving bribery, as opposed to including issues of cronyism, deceit and nest-feathering which are Ireland's particular vice. Secondly, just because most other places are far worse, doesn't mean we should just say "Ah sure the corruption we do have doesn't matter then". A little like how the ridiculous "sure in Egypt you'd be tortured" argument doesn't work to excuse Garda brutality.

The corruption index works on perceived corruption so I imagine would include items your talking about. I'm not saying corruption in other countries makes anything in Ireland ok but just we living in a relatively clean society. Some perspective is needed.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Alright then, let's amend "corruption" to "corruption and incompetence". It's my opinion that in a decent system, both of these would carry actual consequences. And By consequences I mean politicians and officials losing their jobs, losing their entitlements, being tried in court, etc.
The Iceland model is a pretty good example. Why in God's name can we not implement such a system here?

If your including incompetence you pay as well build a jail to house the majority of the population as we all are incompetent in our jobs at some point in our lives. Anglo directors are on trial. So there is some accountability. Its taking time but situations like Anglo take time. On the point in general everyone make honest mistakes deal with it you can't make it a criminal offence to make
a mistake. There are laws around reckless trading currently.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But they probably would end the influence of the super-rich over political decisions - or do you think that's just posturing? If it is then fair enough, but doesn't change the fact that it needs to happen, which those on the right seem intent on denying. All citizens should be regarded equally by the government. Those on the right appear, through their silence on it, to at least have tacit support for the current "money talks" paradigm, which is fundamentally what I want to see changed.

Politically speaking, the cabinet has something pretty close to it because of the whip system, and you only need to look as far as IW to see how damaging that is.

All citizens are equal in front of the law in Ireland. In a Socialist country there is no rule of law and the corruption that goes with its absence.

On the Whip system I support it. I vote for a party and couldn't care less about an individuals TD's policies. For people like me the Whip system enables democracy as makes TD's do what I voted them. Even though I understand where you are coming. However in Ireland you can always vote for independents who don't have to worry about the Whip.

By "Money talks" I think you mean people and businesses being free to do what they want within reason. The government has to work within limitations and they can't make certain decisions without facing very bad consequences. The same applies to private organisations. That's what I mean by no person/organisation has absolute power in Ireland. There's no such balance in a communist country.

If Socialists got into power and implemented their policies many businesses and Irish Citizens would leave the country. Remember the Berlin Wall was build to try and stop a brain drain from communist countries. To be honest anyone who things extreme socialism/communism would make thing better hasn't learnt the lessons of history or how well off practically everyone in Ireland is relative to the rest of the world.

Saipanne

“We’ve seen Dell leaving Limerick. I would have advocated that they should be taken into public ownership"


The dumbest statement in the history of human thought.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

I am left-wing with a Green tinge.

I support a progressive income tax system, charges for water and bins to ensure sustainability, property taxes including on home-owners, taxes on inheritance and on capital gains, free primary and secondary education, a subsidised healthcare system, a social welfare system that looks after the most vulnerable but maintains an incentive to work. Most people in Ireland share a similar left-wing view.

Many posters on here falsely attach a "neo-liberal hack" label to that kind of position.

As a country, we can't go much further left without being in "looney left" territory. That is why I find it acceptable to characterise silly policies such as nationalising Dell as "looney left".

And yet you seem to take up a contrary position almost any time anyone points out any examples of cronyism, corruption, or undue corporate influence on politics...?
IW being a particularly good example, you've consistently argued that it's perfectly fine for them to waste millions of euro on non-water-related projects and then expect ordinary people to pay for it through what they are falsely told is in fact a water bill...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've also defended the concept of selective bailouts have you not?

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

The corruption index works on perceived corruption so I imagine would include items your talking about. I'm not saying corruption in other countries makes anything in Ireland ok but just we living in a relatively clean society. Some perspective is needed.

True, but it's still rife with cronyism and corruption.

If your including incompetence you pay as well build a jail to house the majority of the population as we all are incompetent in our jobs at some point in our lives. Anglo directors are on trial. So there is some accountability. Its taking time but situations like Anglo take time. On the point in general everyone make honest mistakes deal with it you can't make it a criminal offence to make
a mistake. There are laws around reckless trading currently.

Making a mistake isn't the same as deliberately being reckless with other people's safety for your own profit. Anglo directors are on trial for possible fraud, but not for criminal negligence. None of the politicians who sanctioned their behavior are or will ever be on trial, nor will any of the regulators who turned a blind eye to dodgy dealings. This is not only a trend in Ireland - not a single person in the US has been prosecuted over the subprime crash.

The difference of opinion is that some people believe that this is the result of the cases being too complex or the principle parties involved being too clever, while I and others on "the left" regard it as a blindingly obvious case of friends in high places helping friends in high places evade justice.

All citizens are equal in front of the law in Ireland. In a Socialist country there is no rule of law and the corruption that goes with its absence.

In principle, all citizens are equal in front of the law (not in all cases in fact, see our disgraceful law around underage sex for example), but in practise those in high places are almost never held to real account.
The various tribunals which have reported over the last number of years unearthed a number of instances of wrongful behavior. Not a single person fingered by any of these reports has ever seen the inside of a jail cell as a result.

Equal before the law?

On the Whip system I support it. I vote for a party and couldn't care less about an individuals TD's policies. For people like me the Whip system enables democracy as makes TD's do what I voted them. Even though I understand where you are coming.

In practise it simple means that the cabinet of 14 people decides everything and there is almost no room for negotiation by anyone else in parliament. This is not how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

What about Irish Water? Do you accept that without the government having been able to guillotine the bill so quickly there might have been a proper debate and an early reform of some of the chickens which have come home to roost in the last few months?

Finally, I disagree about "making TDs do as you voted them". You vote for one policy, the government once in office pursues a different policy and through the whip system, you as a citizen are powerless to lobby your local TDs to reject these flip flops. To me, this is profoundly undemocratic.

However in Ireland you can always vote for independents who don't have to worry about the Whip.

Which is what many are doing. The interesting thing is that I for one

By "Money talks" I think you mean people and businesses being free to do what they want within reason.

To be fair I can understand that assumption, but that's not what I mean. What I meant was the situation in which an entire county can object to a county council manager's proposal (see Dun Laoghaire Library) but powerful vested interests want it to go ahead, so f*ck the ordinary citizens.

The government has to work within limitations and they can't make certain decisions without facing very bad consequences. The same applies to private organisations. That's what I mean by no person/organisation has absolute power in Ireland. There's no such balance in a communist country.

Those on the left in terms of the independents running for office, seem less likely to take the above "I might get something out of this even if the majority of the people don't want it, so let's go ahead!" approach. Richard Boyd Barrett for instance succeeded mobilizing a campaign against redevelopment of the Sandycove seafront to include massive office and apartment blocks. The council and in particular the council manager were pressing unbelievably hard for this to go ahead at the time. Do you think it's a coincidence that shortly after this, the county manager's term was up and he almost immediately went on to join Treasury Holdings as a senior director?
This is what I mean about money talking. In a proper democracy, these decisions should be based on the desires of the population. Whether those in power can profit from ignoring the wishes of the people shouldn't come into it.

To be honest, if there was a centrist party of the people I'd vote for it. At this stage, I'll support anyone who refuses to get involved in the above described cronyist sh!te and will listen to the desires of the majority of the people first and foremost. If that means electing people from the "loony left" then so be it - I don't care what political persuasion they labels themselves as, as long as fundamentally they listen to the majority of the people rather than the privileged minority. Again, Richard Boyd Barrett, whatever you think of his political theory stances, has always supported the people against vested interests as a local lobbyist in Dun Laoghaire and Sandycove - this is the type of politician I want to see in power, rather than the golf buddies of bank executives.

In a real deomcracy it wouldn't have taken two years of non stop street protests to stop Sandycove green being built on. The council would have polled local residents and abandoned the plan purely because the people who live here didn't like it.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

True, but it's still rife with cronyism and corruption.



Making a mistake isn't the same as deliberately being reckless with other people's safety for your own profit. Anglo directors are on trial for possible fraud, but not for criminal negligence. None of the politicians who sanctioned their behavior are or will ever be on trial, nor will any of the regulators who turned a blind eye to dodgy dealings. This is not only a trend in Ireland - not a single person in the US has been prosecuted over the subprime crash.

The difference of opinion is that some people believe that this is the result of the cases being too complex or the principle parties involved being too clever, while I and others on "the left" regard it as a blindingly obvious case of friends in high places helping friends in high places evade justice.



In principle, all citizens are equal in front of the law (not in all cases in fact, see our disgraceful law around underage sex for example), but in practise those in high places are almost never held to real account.
The various tribunals which have reported over the last number of years unearthed a number of instances of wrongful behavior. Not a single person fingered by any of these reports has ever seen the inside of a jail cell as a result.

Equal before the law?



In practise it simple means that the cabinet of 14 people decides everything and there is almost no room for negotiation by anyone else in parliament. This is not how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

What about Irish Water? Do you accept that without the government having been able to guillotine the bill so quickly there might have been a proper debate and an early reform of some of the chickens which have come home to roost in the last few months?

Finally, I disagree about "making TDs do as you voted them". You vote for one policy, the government once in office pursues a different policy and through the whip system, you as a citizen are powerless to lobby your local TDs to reject these flip flops. To me, this is profoundly undemocratic.



Which is what many are doing. The interesting thing is that I for one



To be fair I can understand that assumption, but that's not what I mean. What I meant was the situation in which an entire county can object to a county council manager's proposal (see Dun Laoghaire Library) but powerful vested interests want it to go ahead, so f*ck the ordinary citizens.



Those on the left in terms of the independents running for office, seem less likely to take the above "I might get something out of this even if the majority of the people don't want it, so let's go ahead!" approach. Richard Boyd Barrett for instance succeeded mobilizing a campaign against redevelopment of the Sandycove seafront to include massive office and apartment blocks. The council and in particular the council manager were pressing unbelievably hard for this to go ahead at the time. Do you think it's a coincidence that shortly after this, the county manager's term was up and he almost immediately went on to join Treasury Holdings as a senior director?
This is what I mean about money talking. In a proper democracy, these decisions should be based on the desires of the population. Whether those in power can profit from ignoring the wishes of the people shouldn't come into it.

To be honest, if there was a centrist party of the people I'd vote for it. At this stage, I'll support anyone who refuses to get involved in the above described cronyist sh!te and will listen to the desires of the majority of the people first and foremost. If that means electing people from the "loony left" then so be it - I don't care what political persuasion they labels themselves as, as long as fundamentally they listen to the majority of the people rather than the privileged minority. Again, Richard Boyd Barrett, whatever you think of his political theory stances, has always supported the people against vested interests as a local lobbyist in Dun Laoghaire and Sandycove - this is the type of politician I want to see in power, rather than the golf buddies of bank executives.

In a real deomcracy it wouldn't have taken two years of non stop street protests to stop Sandycove green being built on. The council would have polled local residents and abandoned the plan purely because the people who live here didn't like it.

Ireland isn't rife with corruption.There is corruption here alright but to say its rife is hypebole.

On the whole Irish water situation. Personally I think Irish water is a good thing and should have been done decades ago. There was plenty of time for debate it was in Fine Gael manifesto. For years people have had to put up substandard water quality and treatment facilities. One of the big reasons unless your local water supplies were affected it didn't matter. During the boom when houses were being built there was no requirement to ensure water treatment facilities were upgraded to cope. Where were all these protesters then? Its only now that people face paying they are actually demanding some accountability in the system.

Richard Boyd Barrett for me represents the worst hype of Irish politicians. His actions at Jobstown were a disgrace. If he is ever fortunate to get into government he will have to make unpopular decisions and he's set a bad precedent on how he feels he would like to be treated in that situation. Or put it another way anyone who actually believes he'd actually implement the policies he's advocating would believe anything.

Even though on the whole County Council situation I'd agree that they're not fit for purpose and would like to see a large amount of consolidation. The water and house planning situations are thinks they've messed up for decades.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet you seem to take up a contrary position almost any time anyone points out any examples of cronyism, corruption, or undue corporate influence on politics...?
IW being a particularly good example, you've consistently argued that it's perfectly fine for them to waste millions of euro on non-water-related projects and then expect ordinary people to pay for it through what they are falsely told is in fact a water bill...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've also defended the concept of selective bailouts have you not?

htp I remember before the last election you excoriated Fianna Fail and all their works and pomps.

More than once I assured you that getting rid of FF per se would not give you what you wanted. Because your view of politics is childish and naive in the extreme - you're young and inexperienced.

Rather than writing all this s***e on boards I suggest you might read 'The Economist' magazine for a few months.

To get a flavour how politics really works in the big, bad world. There you will get grade A information of the nuts and bolts of corruption and it's intimate entanglement with politics in every country in the world.

It will be ever thus.

Incidentally there is only one country in the world run by a 'saint'. That is Uruguay named 'country of the year' in 2013 by 'The Economist' being 'one of the most liberal and socially developed nations in the world and excelling globally on personal rights, tolerance and inclusion'.

Zillah

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Uh huh. If I offered you 200k a year to work as either:
- A senior executive in a large company, or
- A guy assembling toys in a factory

...which would you take? Because, while no sensible person thinks the executive doesn't do any work, the stress and responsibility is largely offset by the business lunches, the autonomy and the comfy desk. If you think a guy working in a factory doing mindless repetitive work all day every day isn't working harder than the guy who gets to sit around and talk about share prices and sales estimates then I think you probably lack a bit of empathy for how miserable that first guy is.

It somewhat depends on how you gauge "harder". If we're talking about raw hours then it might be the executive is working more, but I'd rather a ten hour day in a nice office with dignity and responsibility that a six hour day of mindless drudgery.

I'd suggest that maybe rich people are the last people that need you defending them.

poor rich people

Saipanne

Zillah wrote: »

Uh huh. If I offered you 200k a year to work as either:
- A senior executive in a large company, or
- A guy assembling toys in a factory

...which would you take? Because, while no sensible person thinks the executive doesn't do any work, the stress and responsibility is largely offset by the business lunches, the autonomy and the comfy desk. If you think a guy working in a factory doing mindless repetitive work all day every day isn't working harder than the guy who gets to sit around and talk about share prices and sales estimates then I think you probably lack a bit of empathy for how miserable that first guy is.

It somewhat depends on how you gauge "harder". If we're talking about raw hours then it might be the executive is working more, but I'd rather a ten hour day in a nice office with dignity and responsibility that a six hour day of mindless drudgery.

I'd suggest that maybe rich people are the last people that need you defending them.

poor rich people

Lol. Executives work longer than ten hours...

Zillah

Yeah and working class people don't work 6 hour days either, that's not the point. Whatever the average hours are, do you see how it is not exactly fair to compare hours worked in a rewarding, dynamic job where you are respected and can choose what to take on and how to do it, with a job where you have to repeat the exact same single physical task over and over again for your entire shift?

Rich people "work harder" isn't exactly a fair statement, is my point. Everyone knows most service/working class jobs are deeply unpleasant and that's one of the main reasons people aspire to escape them.

Godge

Zillah wrote: »

Uh huh. If I offered you 200k a year to work as either:
- A senior executive in a large company, or
- A guy assembling toys in a factory

...which would you take? Because, while no sensible person thinks the executive doesn't do any work, the stress and responsibility is largely offset by the business lunches, the autonomy and the comfy desk. If you think a guy working in a factory doing mindless repetitive work all day every day isn't working harder than the guy who gets to sit around and talk about share prices and sales estimates then I think you probably lack a bit of empathy for how miserable that first guy is.

It somewhat depends on how you gauge "harder". If we're talking about raw hours then it might be the executive is working more, but I'd rather a ten hour day in a nice office with dignity and responsibility that a six hour day of mindless drudgery.

I'd suggest that maybe rich people are the last people that need you defending them.

poor rich people

You have obviously never worked as a senior executive in a large company because you haven't a clue of what is involved.

Saipanne

Zillah wrote: »

Yeah and working class people don't work 6 hour days either, that's not the point. Whatever the average hours are, do you see how it is not exactly fair to compare hours worked in a rewarding, dynamic job where you are respected and can choose what to take on and how to do it, with a job where you have to repeat the exact same single physical task over and over again for your entire shift?

Rich people "work harder" isn't exactly a fair statement, is my point. Everyone knows most service/working class jobs are deeply unpleasant and that's one of the main reasons people aspire to escape them.

Once the word chief appears in your title, your job becomes your life. Theoretically, I could reach that role, but I absolutely never ever want it.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet you seem to take up a contrary position almost any time anyone points out any examples of cronyism, corruption, or undue corporate influence on politics...?
IW being a particularly good example, you've consistently argued that it's perfectly fine for them to waste millions of euro on non-water-related projects and then expect ordinary people to pay for it through what they are falsely told is in fact a water bill...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've also defended the concept of selective bailouts have you not?

Allegations of cronyism, corruption etc. in respect of Ireland are generally overblown hyperbole. Yes, there was the Galway tent but the corruption in Ireland with a strongly whipped Parliamentary Party system is relatively low compared to somewhere like the US where pork-barrel politics is the norm.

Don't know what you are talking about with regards to my posting history on IW. Water meters are a good thing, a centralised water authority is a good thing. Sure, some of the details have been wrong and the opposition has been opportunistic and populist but the principle of Irish Water is 100% correct.

Zillah

Godge wrote: »

You have obviously never worked as a senior executive in a large company because you haven't a clue of what is involved.

Feel free to enlighten us with specific details instead of delivering snide one-liners if you like.

And whatever it is, I strongly suspect it is going to be far more pleasant than serving coffee all day, or packing bags at a checkout, or cleaning your office for you after you've gone home from your laborious day of back-breaking exertions.

Saipanne

Zillah wrote: »

Feel free to enlighten us with specific details instead of delivering snide one-liners if you like.

And whatever it is, I strongly suspect it is going to be far more pleasant than serving coffee all day, or packing bags at a checkout, or cleaning your office for you after you've gone home from your laborious day of back-breaking exertions.

How do 16 hour days sound?

Arbiter of Good Taste

Saipanne wrote: »

How do 16 hour days sound?

Or how about setting the alarm off in your office building as you're leaving at midnight on a Friday night?

Zillah

Saipanne wrote: »

How do 16 hour days sound?

Am I sitting in my own office pursuing a range of intellectually involved tasks for those sixteen hours or am I sitting at an assembly line attaching Part A to Part B with no autonomy, stimulation or respect?

Because before we even begin to consider that I'm getting paid up to dozens of times more for the former, I'd still prefer virtually any amount of that to mindless drudgery.

Saipanne

Zillah wrote: »

Am I sitting in my own office pursuing a range of intellectually involved tasks for those sixteen hours or am I sitting at an assembly line attaching Part A to Part B with no autonomy, stimulation or respect?

Because before we even begin to consider that I'm getting paid up to dozens of times more for the former, I'd still prefer virtually any amount of that to mindless drudgery.

8 hrs of cleaning, five days a week, or 16 hours of CEO, five days a week, where you are also expected to be on call all weekend and on holidays?

Arbiter of Good Taste

Zillah wrote: »

Am I sitting in my own office pursuing a range of intellectually involved tasks for those sixteen hours or am I sitting at an assembly line attaching Part A to Part B with no autonomy, stimulation or respect?

Because before we even begin to consider that I'm getting paid up to dozens of times more for the former, I'd still prefer virtually any amount of that to mindless drudgery.

I think it's safe to say that no factory worker would be allowed in this day and age to work anything close to 16 hours a day.

The point being made is that in most cases, the role of senior management involves long hours and great responsibility. No one is saying that the lot of the lower skilled worker is easy, but don't assume that in the case of executives, the money just lands in their laps.

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-party-nationalise-dell-1796089-Nov2014/



Did you ever see such bad policy from any party?

The state taking over a Dell factory is about as idiotic as a some random company taking over the delivery of an essential service like drinking water... oh hang on.

Zillah

CEO, no hesitation.

That said I think cleaning offices is probably much nicer than something where you're stuck to a single location, like the counter in starbucks or a factory assembly line. I did bag packing in a supermarket as a teenager, it's soul destroyingly vacuous and repetitive.

Zillah

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

don't assume that in the case of executives, the money just lands in their laps.

But I haven't said anything of the sort. I conceded in my very first post that executives must work hard. All I'm saying is that the blanket statement of "rich people work harder than poor people" is not exactly fair. A lot of working class people work very long hours in utterly miserable work that I and these rich people we're discussing wouldn't touch with a barge poll, because it is horrible and repetitive and unrewarding. If soldiering through that isn't "hard work" then I don't know what is.

Saipanne

Zillah wrote: »

CEO, no hesitation.

That said I think cleaning offices is probably much nicer than something where you're stuck to a single location, like the counter in starbucks or a factory assembly line. I did bag packing in a supermarket as a teenager, it's soul destroyingly vacuous and repetitive.

Ok, I don't think you're thinking this through. You never really see your wife and kids. You often work weekends. You really have no life outside of your career.

I honestly would prefer to live on a low wage, and be able to spend time with the people I love.

Maybe we have different priorities.

Dan_Solo

Saipanne wrote: »

Ok, I don't think you're thinking this through. You never really see your wife and kids. You often work weekends. You really have no life outside of your career.

I honestly would prefer to live on a low wage, and be able to spend time with the people I love.

Maybe we have different priorities.

Problem is when you have long ****ty hours and the pay is still crap...

Zillah

Saipanne wrote: »

Ok, I don't think you're thinking this through. You never really see your wife and kids. You often work weekends. You really have no life outside of your career.

I honestly would prefer to live on a low wage, and be able to spend time with the people I love.

Maybe we have different priorities.

So, you work as a cleaner then? Or you aspire to?

Also it just occurred to me: My very own father, who is retired now, worked as a senior executive, earned six figures and was always home in time for dinner and never had to work weekends. So while the whole image of the beleaguered CEO with no life is a popular one, it's by no means necessary.

Saipanne

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Problem is when you have long ****ty hours and the pay is still crap...

So, most min wage workers have 80+ hour weeks?

Saipanne

Zillah wrote: »

So, you work as a cleaner then? Or you aspire to?

I try to maximize the work/life curve.

I certainly don't want chief in my title.

Dan_Solo

Saipanne wrote: »

So, most min wage workers have 80+ hour weeks?

Most well paid people don't either. It's a myth to justify the wages.

Saipanne

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Most well paid people don't either. It's a myth to justify the wages.

You don't know what you are talking about, clearly. But I do, because I work just a few steps behind these people. I would never do their jobs.

Dan_Solo

Saipanne wrote: »

You don't know what you are talking about, clearly. But I do, because I work just a few steps behind these people. I would never do their jobs.

I know many of them (100k+) and hope some day to join them.
They don't work 80 hour weeks.