At what point does right wing just mean racist/d1ck/heartless baxtard?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The right wing isn't a homogeneous entity. I'm fine with spending as long as it'll improve things.

No you specificity, but others in this thread seem to have an issuer with state spend and equate it with big government and the welfare state.

K-9

Geuze wrote: »

That's a good question. I'll try to get the data.

---

2006

---

2013

Total recipients = 1,004,000

---

1,467,918
Total beneficiaries = 1,507,000

---

2,273,000----half the population

JSA = 75,801

---

295,077
JSB = 50,542

---

55,000

OPF = 83,081

---

78,246, falling due to age reforms

Carers Allowance = 27,474

---

57,136, huge increases here

DA = 83,697

---

106,279, big increases

IB = 65,774

---

59,000

That's about 800,000 getting no payment but outside the Labour force, that seems huge to me.

Don't think adult dependants are counted in the SW figures.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

That's about 800,000 getting no payment but outside the Labour force, that seems huge to me.

Don't think adult dependants are counted in the SW figures.

But how many are part of a couple with children, who have opted to have one person in the couple be a stay at home parent?

Geuze

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd disagree on both counts there. I'm not sure how a job guarantee would work but subsidising childcare will just encourage price gouging. I'd much rather see the regulation and occupation licencing either scrapped or severely cut back.

Okay, well either way I'd want less barriers preventing higher female LFPR.

Geuze

Jayop wrote: »

Not sure what the figures really mean there. Are you saying that in 2013 half the population received some benefit? That seems amazingly high even taking pensions into account.

Half the pop were either recipients or beneficiaries of weekly social welfare, yes.

Note that excludes CB.

Geuze

mariaalice wrote: »

This an interesting point, is you point that a family with one person in employment for 35 hours a week and say a partner and two children at home is bad for the economy

No, not bad, that's great, both adults are contributing to society. They deserve support.

What I don't like is supporting able-bodied adults who don't contribute to society, and who won't engage in training, education, etc.

Geuze

mariaalice wrote: »

or is a man in his fifties who was made redundant,is unemployed and lives with his wife who works 30 hours a week in retail, is there something inherently bad with that arrangement?.

Nothing bad here either.

The unemployed man would get JSB, which I would increase.

He would not get JSA, which is means-tested.

I would support him in getting a new job.

Geuze

mariaalice wrote: »

What about the working week which had creep down from 40 to 39 or 38 hours for a lot of people is there something wrong with that,

Nothing wrong with that either.

PT employment gives flexibility to ee and er, sounds good.

K-9

mariaalice wrote: »

But how many are part of a couple with children, who have opted to have one person in the couple be a stay at home parent?

Yeah, thinking about it again, stay at homes and pensioners wouldn't be included so 800k isn't that high maybe after all.

Carers allowance doubled but it's quite hard to get it. 54k people looking after children with disabilities and the elderly, wouldn't say that's out of the way.

Unless somebody knows otherwise.

ancapailldorcha

Geuze wrote: »

Okay, well either way I'd want less barriers preventing higher female LFPR.

This'd apply to everyone, no? The issue is that childcare is too expensive and subsidising it is unlikely to help.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Okay, well either way I'd want less barriers preventing higher female LFPR.

I think you have to explain why that is a good thing for the economy, Working to support yourself should be the norm, but you also have to give people choice. Why is a transfer to individuals or family's of financial support by the state, of what ever sort a bad thing? I am not talking about someone spending their life on welfare, The welfare state has modernised and the sort of thinking about just leaving someone on welfare is not the norm now, especially for young people.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that either.

PT employment gives flexibility to ee and er, sounds good.

But surely work force intensity is about the amount of hours someone works, not just about working per say?

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

No, not bad, that's great, both adults are contributing to society. They deserve support.

What I don't like is supporting able-bodied adults who don't contribute to society, and who won't engage in training, education, etc.

I agree with that in fact I would cut welfare again for the under 25, however if they engaged in training( certified and labour force orientated ) or education full time I would pay them the same rate as the over 25 get. That is giving someone the choice to improver their situation.

and The 'cure' for he issue of DA is simple there should be a presumption of the ability to work! now the person might only be able to work 3 hours a week and have to be supported by the state the rest of the time, but the orientation should be towards work. The trouble is that employers are rarely as flexible as that.

steddyeddy

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The Brookings Institute (leftist) have 3 recommendations for staying out of poverty in the USA.

1. Finish High School.

2. Find Employment.

3. Do not have a child outside of wedlock.

Same could apply here. You must make good life choices to succeed.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins

The Brookings institute need to lay off the crack pipe. These three suggestions are choices you make later in life. Most research indicates educational requirements and development occur in your early years.

In America the quality of the school you go to is highly dependent on the income of your parents. University is made significantly less accessible to lower income children.

I get the impression that some right wing people sometimes privately educated and beneficiaries of vast parental support ect like to cite "choice" in the failings of others. Simply because admitting that circumstance played a part in a person's circumstance (sounds obvious doesn't it?) would mean that they would have to concede that circumstance played a part in their success.

20Cent

steddyeddy wrote: »

The Brookings institute need to lay off the crack pipe. These three suggestions are choices you make later in life. Most research indicates educational requirements and development occur in your early years.

In America the quality of the school you go to is highly dependent on the income of your parents. University is made significantly less accessible to lower income children.

I get the impression that some right wing people sometimes privately educated and beneficiaries of vast parental support ect like to cite "choice" in the failings of others. Simply because admitting that circumstance played a part in a person's circumstance (sounds obvious doesn't it?) would mean that they would have to concede that circumstance played a part in their success.

Reminds me of this cartoon.
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

steddyeddy

20Cent wrote: »

Reminds me of this cartoon.
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

Quite accurate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Listen, you. All real goods and services are provide by people; makers, "allocators of capital" really don't create anything, though they like to consume much real world goods and services, and feel so entitled. Takers.

The funding of private and public pensions, regardless of what form they take, comes from the young makers. How much those pensions can pay out in the future is dictated by how many young makers there are in the future. If there are too many old people, the entire society suffers and becomes impoverished.

Those young women, who seem to bother you intensely, they are creating the people who will pay for pensions in the future. They're worth every penny they get, though the lions share of the subsidy they receive goes to their landlord (Dictionary definition of a Taker).

England is already in the midst of a demographic crisis that will only become worse. Who's to blame? The people most to blame are the greedy piggies who made family formation prohibitively expensive. And those piggies will have to settle for a lower standard of living, as it doesn't matter how you slice or dice it, England has less makers to go around.

Waestrel

Those young women, who seem to bother you intensely, they are creating the people who will pay for pensions in the future.

Except that the children of single mothers often perform very poorly as adults, with poor educational attainment, low confidence and poor job prospects.

The model where a woman can marry the state is not superior to the model where the women marries the father of her children. One produces good citizens, the other does not.

The nuclear family produces wealth for the family, and for society at large. Single motherhood does not. Yet you want to subsidize it.

They're worth every penny they get, though the lions share of the subsidy they receive goes to their landlord (Dictionary definition of a Taker).

Does a landlord not create a rentable property? Or perhaps that fell from the sky, fully formed?

Jayop

Waestrel wrote: »

Except that the children of single mothers often perform very poorly as adults, with poor educational attainment, low confidence and poor job prospects.

The model where a woman can marry the state is not superior to the model where the women marries the father of her children. One produces good citizens, the other does not.

The nuclear family produces wealth for the family, and for society at large. Single motherhood does not. Yet you want to subsidize it.


Does a landlord not create a rentable property? Or perhaps that fell from the sky, fully formed?

That's a bit of a statement without evidence to back it up.

Labarbapostiza

Waestrel wrote: »

Except that the children of single mothers often perform very poorly as adults, with poor educational attainment, low confidence and poor job prospects.

That's not the case in the Scandinavian countries. And here you could put the poor performance of these kids really down to how they are treated socially. My schools all had teachers who were more in their jobs because who they knew, not what they knew. Bitter right-wing gob****s. I have a few celebratory drinks whenever I hear another has bought the farm, or kicked the bucket; if due to some excessively painful ailment, the celebration is all the more jolly.

The model where a woman can marry the state is not superior to the model where the women marries the father of her children. One produces good citizens, the other does not.

Makes absolutely no difference. A "respectable" marriage is one where there's a reception held in hotel.

The nuclear family produces wealth for the family, and for society at large. Single motherhood does not. Yet you want to subsidize it.

I want to subsidise the creation of the people who will pay my pension. I would be willing to subsidise family formation too.

Does a landlord not create a rentable property? Or perhaps that fell from the sky, fully formed?

Did the landlord build the house? What did the landlord create? Just getting the loan from the bank, someone who actually works is going to pay off. Take, take, take and take. Who is making the young makers poor; the single mothers, or Mr "wealth creator" gouging rent from them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Waestrel

That's not the case in the Scandinavian countries. And here you could put the poor performance of these kids really down to how they are treated socially.

its more to do with the traits learned from a father, such as self control, discipline and masculinity, things mothers often have difficultly imparting. There is a huge amount of research on this topic, but for a more practical view, look at black america. Illegitimacy rates close on 80% in those communities, and fathers are nearly absent. Sadly not a community associated with self control, hard work or law abidance

My schools all had teachers who were more in their jobs because who they knew, not what they knew. Bitter right-wing gob****s. I have a few celebratory drinks whenever I hear another has bought the farm, or kicked the bucket; if due to some excessively painful ailment, the celebration is all the more jolly.

Not sure what this is about, - but are you enjoying the suffering of others?

Makes absolutely no difference. A "respectable" marriage is one where there's a reception held in hotel.

Makes every difference, the father can impart values and lessons and act as a loving parent, the state just redistributes wealth. Which is mor elikley to make a the tax paying citizen you are salivating funding your retirement?

I want to subsidise the creation of the people who will pay my pension. I would be willing to subsidise family formation too.

so you want to subsidize those who will subsideze you? Why not just invest your money and leave the state out of it? Also, hardly altruistic.

Did the landlord build the house?

very possibly, or bought it from the builder with the wages of his own labour,

What did the landlord create?

Something people are willing to pay to live in. Construction , maintenance, upgrades, upkeep, legal end, are these not things the require human effort to carry out? Or again, do you think a rentable property fell from the sky, fully formed?

The level of economic ignorance is at times shocking. I mean of a basic "cause and effect" type understanding of human behavior.

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you see our salvation in a sci-fi future; something like the communism of Star Trek. All needs such as food and medicine provided by robots, and we travel the universe just for the pleasure of exploring.

That's also wrong. Yes, public pensions are funded from taxation. But private pensions are not, and I can invest my private pension internationally if I want.

But you're going to have to invest in a growing economy; one where there is a Goldilocks ratio of old to children to young adults. Where is that? And if you remain in a country with bad demographic ratio, it's going to be an overall impoverished dump.

Too many children, a society is impoverished, too few, and the impact may be put off for decades, there will even be a rise in prosperity, but eventually it will bite, and bite hard. China is facing a terrible demographic crisis. Russia too, everyone stopped having babies in Russia during the 90s.

I think you could also blame those foolish feminists who told women that they could get educations and have careers instead of being baby-making machines, or the eejits who fought to remove the ban on contraception in the '70s and '80s.

Is that your bottom mouth speaking....sounds like it.

Blaming the costs of family formation for declining birth-rates ignores the fact that as people become wealthier, they have fewer children. There is a strong and documented inverse correlation between income and fertility rates -- so that the people who can most afford children are actually having the fewest.

How much does an extra bedroom cost a lower-middle-class family? Do you have statistics backing up your claims?

I don't know about you, but I'm definitely getting poorer...though my landlord is doing quite well...gave himself a 25% pay rise recently. Sure he must have earned, though it's not clear exactly how he did, otherwise it would be outright theft, nothing short of a home invasion.

Waestrel

though my landlord is doing quite well...gave himself a 25% pay rise recently. Sure he must have earned, though it's not clear exactly how he did, otherwise it would be outright theft, nothing short of a home invasion.

Are you saying your rent has gone up 25%?
If the petrol station prices change over time, is that theft too? Or is it market forces of supply and demand?

Is that your bottom mouth speaking....sounds like it.

this sort of stuff is pretty uncivil. And seems to be more prevalent on the left sadly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Labarbapostiza

Waestrel wrote: »

Not sure what this is about, - but are you enjoying the suffering of others?

I enjoy watching the suffering of people who once enjoyed watching and inflicting suffering on me. It's not like I'm killing them. Just getting a little satisfaction in the world being made a better place....by their absence.

very possibly, or bought it from the builder with the wages of his own labour,


Something people are willing to pay to live in. Construction , maintenance, upgrades, upkeep, legal end, are these not things the require human effort to carry out? Or again, do you think a rentable property fell from the sky, fully formed?

Listen...My father is a landlord....He didn't build the houses...He doesn't even bother collecting rent or doing maintenance; he pays someone to do it for him. His little "business" just vomits money, like a free ATM. But Jesus, you never met someone who's so embittered and persecuted.

My father feels wicked bad for any farmer being kicked off their farm for some bad investment they've made - he believes they should be allowed stay and keep their farm; they're "respectable" people. But, be the jaysus, when it comes to single mothers. One of his favourite stories, is one of his landlord pals, kicking a single mother out onto the street. When she was out, he entered took all her stuff out and changed the locks. I know what the law says, but how often do you hear of a landlord being prosecuted for that kind of thing, doesn't really happening. But the part my father liked the most, and gave him much mirth in the retelling, was how his pal threw all the child's toys out into the street, and passing cars rolling over them....Hilarious.

The level of economic ignorance is at times shocking. I mean of a basic "cause and effect" type understanding of human behavior.

Indeed....Indeed, indeed...indeed.

Waestrel

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I enjoy watching the suffering of people who once enjoyed watching and inflicting suffering on me. It's not like I'm killing them. Just getting a little satisfaction in the world being made a better place....by their absence.








Listen...My father is a landlord....He didn't build the houses...He doesn't even bother collecting rent or doing maintenance; he pays someone to do it for him. His little "business" just vomits money, like a free ATM. But Jesus, you never met someone who's so embittered and persecuted.

My father feels wicked bad for any farmer being kicked off their farm for some bad investment they've made - he believes they should be allowed stay and keep their farm; they're "respectable" people. But, be the jaysus, when it comes to single mothers. One of his favourite stories, is one of his landlord pals, kicking a single mother out onto the street. When she was out, he entered took all her stuff out and changed the locks. I know what the law says, but how often do you hear of a landlord being prosecuted for that kind of thing, doesn't really happening. But the part my father liked the most, and gave him much mirth in the retelling, was how his pal threw all the child's toys out into the street, and passing cars rolling over them....Hilarious.





Indeed....Indeed, indeed...indeed.

Your father sounds like a man with no compassion, and a deep misanthropic streak. Also, possibly a hypocrite. I do however think some of those views will die with that generation.

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know what's been said at Davos. And I know they don't have a clue what they're on about. The Japanese have been offsetting their demographic problem with robots for decades. It works to a point, but not to the point it's stopped the acceleration of their demographic problem.

I used to have a suspicion that the attendees at Davos were just powerful cretins.......Since they'v been posting the talks on Youtube, I know they are powerful cretins.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yea the same economic experts who roundly predicted the last crisis, right? The ones who couldn't possibly be so clueless, as to miss the biggest economic crisis in the best part of a century - when all they had to do was recognize how unsustainably high Private Debt, is a danger to economies, and look at a graph of 'Private Debt vs GDP', in order to predict a crisis...no, they could never collectively miss something so obvious...except of course they did.


The whole automation argument is a funny one really - basically what the proponents of that argument state, is that it will become impossible for the private sector to employ everybody over time, as automation advances.

Well fine then, if the private sector becomes incapable of providing Full Employment - that leaves public sector as the last possible source for providing Full Employment...(except usually the same people pushing the automation argument, view providing Full Employment this way, as ideologically unacceptable)

The intention behind (predominantly tech-industry) elites, pushing the automation argument, is really to try and get people softened up, to the idea of permanent high-unemployment being an acceptable state of affairs.

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh please...don't make me laugh. The hiring heuristic, that creates these "experts" is, first can they do the job, second will they do the job, but third and most importantly; will they "fit in"?

And one of the features of "fishing in", not only not coming from a tramp family, is spewing feel-good horsehsit, to make the rest of the soulless mindless clones feel good.

Even better, let's dismiss them as "powerful cretins." Sounds better.

They are powerful cretins. You have these people talking about technology and robots, and they couldn't tell you the first thing, even answer the most rudimentary questions; like how does a transistor work. They don't know. And they prove they don't know.

Come on, you know how it works; a good "education" to their kind, means going to a school where knackers were excluded.

They don't have "skills", they don't have intelligence. Just power. Sheryl Sandberg was hired to Facebook for nothing more than political reasons. Her contribution to the mechanics of the operation are virtually zero. Christine Lagarde talks as if she has brain damage; she doesn't, she's just stupid. At Davos where she gave a talk how robots were going to make millions unemployed, she bemoaned the fact that these people, unlike her, did not have "skills" that made them permanently employable. What "skills"? She's an ignorant know-nothing, she was never in fact a lawyer though it's claimed in all her biographies, she graduated from being an "office wife" into management. The only skill she ever had was fishing in.

The people you claim to be experts are beneath contempt, beneath addressing...I wouldn't even have them shot. (I might do a battle royale, where I promise the last man standing gets to live and go free...arm them with hammers and scissors and let them at it. You know their kind. Their kind given the right conditions, are like a self-flushing toilet )

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know exactly how Sheryl Sandberg got where she is today. And it has a lot to do with the gig she got with Lawerence Summers when she was a student. And this had a lot to do with her family.

She is an ignorant know-nothing.

Next you'll be telling me Olivier Sarkozy made his fortune in banking on basis of his talent alone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Richard Hillman

If a psychologist read the last couple of pages he/she would have a field day.

JaCrispy

RayM wrote: »

They really aren't. People who oppose racism are never going to be on the same side of the asshole scale as racists.

Such a simplistic view on the differences between right wing and left wing.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If a psychologist read the last couple of pages he/she would have a field day.

AH its self would keep a whole heap of psychologists and psychiatrist occupied for years.

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yep, and that would have a lot to do with being taken under Larry Summers wing. Come on Perma, you know how these things and places work. And it's often remarked that the curriculum in these elite institutions is often weaker than what you'd find in a community college.

Under Larry's wing all the way to the Whitehouse. And I'm not impressed by Larry Summers either. His achievements being more the result of his political skills than his economic brilliance. Joseph Stiglitz has written books, where the preface lauds and praises Summers, but the rest of the text goes on to savage him without using his name. Summers is probably too stupid to realise the preface is bullhsit. But power is power, no matter how stupid you are.

is now worth over $1.3 billion thanks to her hugely successful career in the tech industry,

And all those tech appoints have been down to her political connections. I could give a long list of "elite" educated people, who've been involved in politics at an "elite" level, who've gone on to be dropped in at the top all over the place. There isn't any distinction between these people and the essential fixers the Russian oligarchs need to hire in order to hold onto their businesses....No distinction, whatsoever.

and has been named among the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine.

So has....Lady Gaga.....Your point is?

All the hallmarks there of an ignorant know-nothing.

You don't get very far in life by making people feel stupid.