The difference between leftists and the truth.

realitykeeper

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

One way to do this is to sell our labour cheap.

The concept of a minimum wage flies in the face of this logic, after all, not every enterprise is profitable and thereby sustainable with our existing minimum wage and so in principle, it should not exist.

By capitulating to the demands of the low paid, all higher paid workers demand more and we end up borrowing much of this money from abroad through the issue of bonds to pay for our high pay. Granted interest on these bonds are low but even if Irish bonds yielded negative interest, the small profit we make is not enough because we spend the principle of the bond too without the means to pay it back should the economy go south.

The point here is that by demanding more than we are worth, we are all pulling against each other instead of pulling together.

Union members are also part of this selfish movement, because they are only out for themselves as opposed to society at large.

That as I say is truth. The left is different to the truth. Leftists favour the trade union movement so they are opposed to the truth that working for the common good is a desirable outcome. They also favour a minimum wage which is also anti truth as the truth is that we should be trying to do as much as we can for a little as possible for each other.

Thinking about it logically, if nothing gets done, that is bad. By contrast, if lots gets done, that is good. To gets lots done, lots of work must be carried out. For lots of work to be carried out, work must be cheap. After all, if something is cheap, it is likely to be produced and consumed more than something that is expensive.

For example, liter for liter, shops in this country sell a lot more cheap wine than expensive wine. High priced labour means nothing gets done. Is that not the truth?

One eyed Jack

I’m only following for the funnies.

Eric Cartman

its also an oxymoron that most on the left admire unions for making people have to work less hours, yet at the same time they demand more work be done to provide for all the services.

The biggest issue I have is that often those on the left who champion collectivism, communism etc... what have you, have the least desire to actually work and contribute and imagine a marxist government which would allow them paint or write poetry all day and have the same outcome and lifestyle as a site foreman, rather than have to do 50 hours a week in a mine or bicycle factory.

For Forks Sake

FTA69

Always a picket, never a scab.

FTA69

We’re balloting a load of bin workers in SE London to go on strike and I’m heading down there tomorrow at 5am to meet the lads and get them riled up it should be a right laugh.

Eric Cartman

FTA69 wrote: »

Always a picket, never a scab.

scab : man trying to feed his own family instead of a union bosses.

osarusan

Don't we have enough of these f**king threads?

El_Duderino 09

So just to clarify, the poorest people are the ones with too much money. Is that the gist? If the poor people would settle for less money, then the rich people would be happier.

Presumably, the rich people would be so happy, they’d reduce the price of rent so the poor people could afford to rent on their new reduced pay. And the banks would tell the landlords not to worry about paying back the mortgage because we’re all pulling together now.

Lol. OP, how about you go first and offer to sell your labour for a fraction of your current pay. Be sure to come back and tell us how much happier you are afterwards, otherwise get up the yard with your nonsense.

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good...For example, liter for liter, shops in this country sell a lot more cheap wine than expensive wine. High priced labour means nothing gets done. Is that not the truth?

OP, do you have a source for that?

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

You can start by "pulling" the wire off yourself OP, at a safe distance from the keyboard.

kowloon

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

That sounds like communism to me.

Eric Cartman

looksee wrote: »

OP, do you have a source for that?

its a commonly known metric, 90% of all wine consumed in the US is <$10 a bottle

realitykeeper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So just to clarify, the poorest people are the ones with too much money. Is that the gist? If the poor people would settle for less money, then the rich people would be happier.

Presumably, the rich people would be so happy, they’d reduce the price of rent so the poor people could afford to rent on their new reduced pay....

I`ll stop you there. In market capitalism, the market sets the price. There is no point asking for rent nobody can afford. Renters drop the price low enough so someone will pay it. If you are having difficulty paying your rent, it is because market capitalism ended years ago and the bank bailouts were the final nail in the coffin. You could have been a mortgage free homeowner years ago if banks and individuals with debts were pursued instead of pandered to. Defaulters years in arrears are still living it up in the lap of luxury a decade after the crash and you are wondering why your rent is so high.

Inquitus

Duty on Wine is €3.19 a bottle here plus 23% VAT, add in bottling and transport on top of that and for €10 bottle of wine the value of the contents is about 50c. Therein lies the problem, you need to pay significantly on top of that €10 to raise the quality of what you are drinking into the realms where it is enjoyable to drink.

s7ryf3925pivug

Since the 1950s we have made huge increases in productivity due to technological advances. All of the benefits from this have gone to the shareholders, not to the staff. Prior to the 1950s increases in productivity resulted in improvements for workers.

The concentration of wealth that is ongoing is a bit absurd and a bit horrific. Billionaires shouldn't exist and 40 hour weeks shouldn't be the norm.

Eric Cartman

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Since the 1950s we have made huge increases in productivity due to technological advances. All of the benefits from this have gone to the shareholders, not to the staff. Prior to the 1950s increases in productivity resulted in improvements for workers.

The concentration of wealth that is ongoing is a bit absurd and a bit horrific. Billionaires shouldn't exist and 40 hour weeks shouldn't be the norm.

and who invested the money for these machines and owns the equity in the company, of which part is those machines as assets....

El_Duderino 09

realitykeeper wrote: »

I`ll stop you there. In market capitalism, the market sets the price. There is no point asking for rent nobody can afford. Renters drop the price low enough so someone will pay it. If you are having difficulty paying your rent, it is because market capitalism ended years ago and the bank bailouts were the final nail in the coffin. You could have been a mortgage free homeowner years ago if banks and individuals with debts were pursued instead of pandered to. Defaulters years in arrears are still living it up in the lap of luxury a decade after the crash and you are wondering why your rent is so high.

And presume the banks will just go along and forget the mortgages because landlords have dropped their prices.

Sounds like a lot more impoverished, homeless, and destitute people under your system. Where does Christianity fit into all this.

But in reality, wealthy people could start the process by putting down their gun first since they could afford to do so. Let's see if that happens. You could go first and set the trend. Lol.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And presume the banks will just go along and forget the mortgages because landlords have dropped their prices.

Sounds like a lot more impoverished, homeless, and destitute people under your system. Where does Christianity fit into all this.

But in reality, wealthy people could start the process by putting down their gun first since they could afford to do so. Let's see if that happens. You could go first and set the trend. Lol.

see your answers are completely predicated on the current system we have being the forebarer, "we can't do this because of debts etc.. that happened in the past" if you had an overhaul like that it would be during a period of massive inflation or growth or a lot of debt writeoffs and defaults.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

see your answers are completely predicated on the current system we have being the forebarer, "we can't do this because of debts etc.. that happened in the past" if you had an overhaul like that it would be during a period of massive inflation or growth or a lot of debt writeoffs and defaults.

Grand. You go ahead and sell your labour cheap, as the OP prescribes. Let us know how you get on.

The great news is that wealthy people can implement this plan straight away and if it would work, then everyone else will follow. Don't delay if it's a good idea. Go for it straight away, tell the boss in the morning that you'll accept whatever they want to pay you.

nthclare

I'm always wary of people who want to hit the reset button

El_Duderino 09

nthclare wrote: »

I'm always wary of people who want to hit the reset button

The OP specifically wants poor people to hit the reset button for themselves and they the OP will presumably follow suit at some point later completely of their own volition. Of course, they could lead by doing it now of their own volition. But there waiting for the o es who can least afford to have less money, to volunteer to have less money.

Being honest, it's just a way to blame the poor people for having too much money without any chance of any of this actually happening. So the good news is that it's all poor people's fault for not being poorer.

s7ryf3925pivug

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and who invested the money for these machines and owns the equity in the company, of which part is those machines as assets....

Automation should improve things for both the investor and the worker, not the investor alone. Otherwise all that happens is wealth becomes more concentrated.

Tuisceanch

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m only following for the funnies.

jaxxx

A wooden spoon.

Doctor Jimbob

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and who invested the money for these machines and owns the equity in the company, of which part is those machines as assets....

No one is suggesting the shareholders shouldn't get anything in return though. The issue is that the workers get a pittance while the shareholders make a fortune. That's not a fair or sustainable system. It's a system biased towards the already wealthy.

El_Duderino 09

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Automation should improve things for both the investor and the worker, not the investor alone. Otherwise all that happens is wealth becomes more concentrated.

I really don't think they're concerned with the worker. Once the worker is replaced by automation they aren't a worker any longer so no need to worry about them. Jobs oxo. And bonus if they enjoy giving out about people without a job or people who are poor and rely on government subsidy.

Eric Cartman

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No one is suggesting the shareholders shouldn't get anything in return though. The issue is that the workers get a pittance while the shareholders make a fortune. That's not a fair or sustainable system. It's a system biased towards the already wealthy.

why don't the workers become shareholders, the bigger the company the easier that is, most of them just don't think beyond the paycheck though.

Eric Cartman

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Automation should improve things for both the investor and the worker, not the investor alone. Otherwise all that happens is wealth becomes more concentrated.

automation has almost always improved safety, environmental conditions, work effort required and the longevity with which a worker can perform their job. Automation has lowered the skills barrier to entry to employment for millions and increased productivity to the point at which affording workers time off or more comfortable conditions has been not only possible but almost a given.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why don't the workers become shareholders, the bigger the company the easier that is, most of them just don't think beyond the paycheck though.

Should they use all their spare disposable income to buy shares? Maybe when they drop their wages to a fraction of the current level, then they'll have more money to buy the shares.

Not having disposable income. Classic poor people. What idiots, amirite?

Doctor Jimbob

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why don't the workers become shareholders, the bigger the company the easier that is, most of them just don't think beyond the paycheck though.

Plenty of people on minimum wage don't have the luxury of thinking beyond the paycheck. I dont see how it's easier the bigger the company either. It doesnt matter how big the company is if a worker is barely making enough to make ends meet.