What does being Right Wing Mean?

Sparks

Let's look at a country facing a shortage of doctors. Under capitalism, the solution to this problem is simple and efficient -- just pay doctors more, and more people will choose to be doctors. If too many people become doctors, doctor's salaries will fall and fewer people will choose medicine as a career.

Meh, there's a flaw there. A decade ago, computing was becoming the best-paid area in Ireland. Huge numbers of people applied for C.S./C.Eng/I.T. degrees on the basis that the job paid well. Speaking as someone who then teaches those classes, this is an appaling way to decide on your career - we're seeing 2, maybe 3 students a year now in classes of 200 that have a genuine affinity and vocation to pursue the subject, and while the bulk of the class can proceed to graduation, there are always about a quarter of the courses that shouldn't be there, don't have the ability to do the course and aren't happy doing the job even if they do manage to graduate.


By the way, how did this get into a "pick at Eomar's arguments" thread after the truly excellent posting by Bob?

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Meh, there's a flaw there. A decade ago, computing was becoming the best-paid area in Ireland. Huge numbers of people applied for C.S./C.Eng/I.T. degrees on the basis that the job paid well. Speaking as someone who then teaches those classes, this is an appaling way to decide on your career - we're seeing 2, maybe 3 students a year now in classes of 200 that have a genuine affinity and vocation to pursue the subject, and while the bulk of the class can proceed to graduation, there are always about a quarter of the courses that shouldn't be there, don't have the ability to do the course and aren't happy doing the job even if they do manage to graduate.

That's precisely my point. Without the good pay, only those 3 people with the true vocations would have chosen your course. The increased pay has attracted 150 more students (discounting the unsuitable 25%) to your course. These 150 are still competent enough at IT* , even though they don't have the same dedication as the more talented minority.

Also note that this problem isn't specific to capitalism -- under Éomer's system, you would have people with no "true vocation" trying to become doctors just for the social prestige.


* otherwise they wouldn't pass your course, right?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
By the way, how did this get into a "pick at Eomar's arguments" thread after the truly excellent posting by Bob?

Probably because he was beginning to sound like a left wing version of Turnip.

Éomer of Rohan

I consider that offensive Corinthian and I don't actually believe you meant it.

Also note that this problem isn't specific to capitalism -- under Éomer's system, you would have people with no "true vocation" trying to become doctors just for the social prestige

But at the least it would be less prevalent, correct?

The slogans and tactics of revolution and incitement to overthrow the existing order. Nostalgia for the slogans and tactics of revolutions that took place a century ago. An adoption of a social and economic policy that was authored over a century ago.

Slogans such as "Against monopoly socialism, for democratic socialism" that were used during the November 1918, failed German revolution, are still being bandied from time to time, generally by Trotskyite groups, for some bizarre reason.

I have yet to see any of that. The Socialist Party I will use as a case in point because it is both a Trotskyist group and is the one I am for obvious reasons most familiar with...anyway... I have yet to see any of those slogans being used in any shape or form. Nor do they encourage the overthrow of the existing order - they are a democratic group. Nor do they even advocate the breaking of the law; at the Anti-War protests, it was the ISP who tried to stop students from sitting in the middle of the road since they knew this was in breach of law and order - and of course they knew that the police would respond. I was one of those who went around with a white armband (ie an organiser) to try and get them to move to the footpath.

Oh... educate only those who would agree with you...

Oh good grief. NO. What I said was..

when I say it would be disastrous to give an unprecedented education in politics and so forth to the young, I meant from the point of view of those interested in protecting capitalism

which means that from the p.o.v. of the capitalist institutions etc, a free and complete education in politics for all young people would be disastrous for them [ie; the capitalist institutions]. Not indoctrination and not just those who agree with me.

Sparks

Meh,
Incorrect. We were getting 150 or so before the IT boom. During the boom, we suddenly got swamped with large numbers of inept and uninterested students, whose sole motivation was the perceived promise of a large paycheck for little work at the end of the four years.

Éomer of Rohan

You dismissed it without full knowledge about it, admit to that, and yet insist in a seperate argument that I (as a supporter of capitalism) must be wrong supporting this form of capitalism because I am the one who is ill-informed or underinformed

And still you offer no proof nor particulars in order that we may engage in rational argument.

You dismissed it without full knowledge about it

Do not even presume to tell me that you have never generalised in your life - and given that there are countless more examples of capitalist nations on earth, many of them democracies and that I have a good working knowledge of various of these, then I generalised. Ok?

The point I was making is that you criticise the Right for engaging in these tactics, and yet engage in them yourself.

I am guilty of jingoism and using perception of the facts to distort an issue, or so you say, right?

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Incorrect. We were getting 150 or so before the IT boom. During the boom, we suddenly got swamped with large numbers of inept and uninterested students, whose sole motivation was the perceived promise of a large paycheck for little work at the end of the four years.

So you need to improve your selection procedures. In my degree, a C in honours maths was required, which seemed to keep out most of the no-hopers. The first year exams were also notoriously difficult, which weeded out the rest of them.

In any case, this problem applies whatever incentive system you use for a job, whether it is based on money or social prestige.

(A better university admissions system with interviews and essays would go a long way towards fixing the problem completely, but that's a topic for a different thread.)

Éomer of Rohan

Then maybe we should balance the idea of incentive with personal fulfilment? 'If you have the ability to do something you will enjoy doing and feel that it will help people to do, then do it' sort of attitude?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I consider that offensive Corinthian and I don't actually believe you meant it.

Well maybe not quite as bad, but you both share a certain black and white conviction in your being absolutely right and the other side being fundamentally wrong. Some of your arguments, while more erudite, have been no less superficial and dismissive of opposing views as his. Not an offence, just an observation.

“Do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster”

Sparks

Meh,
The trouble was that these kids were getting the required entry requirements - they were just not interested in the subject.

A better university admissions system with interviews and essays would go a long way towards fixing the problem completely, but that's a topic for a different thread.

And one I'd be interested in taking part in...

QBall

At the risk of being seriously off-topic:

Originally posted by Meh
So you need to improve your selection procedures. In my degree, a C in honours maths was required, which seemed to keep out most of the no-hopers. The first year exams were also notoriously difficult, which weeded out the rest of them.

A C in honours maths is the minimum requirement for the courses that Sparks teaches. I (as a student in one of the C.S. courses that Sparks doesn't teach) believe that that requirement is completely irrelevant. I got an A2 in Leaving Cert maths yet found 1st year C.S. maths quite difficult while some students who got in with the minimum requirement found it easy.

The problem is that intelligent people will always get past the entrance requirements. Just because they are intelligent doesn't mean that they have the abilities required for a particular course. There are some incredibly intelligent people in my year (3rd) who not only can't code but don't care that they can't.

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the problem of people who aren't interested in the subject yet don't change course to something they are interested in.

--

Anyway, in an attempt to make this post at least partly on-topic:

IMHO "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs" is flawed in several ways as it appears to make the following assumptions:

1) People will give what they are able to give rather than what they want to give.
2) People are satisfied with getting what they need. (i.e. there are no greedy people).
3) One or more of the following are true:
3a) Everyone's abilities are self-evident.
3b) You can trust everyone to declare their abilities honestly.
3c) You can trust the state/some official body to correctly and fairly determine everyone's abilities with no prejudice against those who disagree with the policies of the state/official body.
4) Repeat 3) for needs.

I would much prefer a system which took account of how hard you worked. If two doctors have the same needs and abilities yet one works twice as hard as the other should they get the same rewards (money/benefits/whatever)? Maybe "from each what they are willing to give to each what they deserve" is more reasonable? (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to show how dificult calculating what someone deserves is.)

Socialism appears (at least to me) to lack a method of proper incentive for hard work. A link (http://www.geocities.com/young_socialist_106/incentive.htm) from EOR's homepage goes part of the way towards explaining the way socialism proposes to deal with the problem but it seems to spend more time saying how work will disappear rather than how you encourage people to contribute. If I decide that my goal in life is to retire at 30 to an island in the south Pacific with my every wish catered for you have a very good way of encouraging me to work hard (and maybe even better the lives of the whole of society while I'm at it). Since that goal is far beyond my needs, I could never achieve it in a Socialist world. In short, socialism throws out the carrot with the stick.

Maybe I'm not as politically sophisticated as some of you are, but don't socialists rely far too much on assuming that people are inherently interested in the well-being of society? I'm generally an optimist, but there's optimism and then there's pure fantasy...

Pet peeve time:

Is it just me or are other people annoyed by the all too frequent references to "the workers" and "the working class" by socialists? It is extremely insulting to those who are not "working class" yet who work hard. It also fails to take into the account that many of the people who don't work are "working class". EOR, I hate to single you out but reading your homepage is one of the things that reminded me of this pate hate of mine. You said in a previous post that you are middle class. Does that mean high ranking police officers and bank managers don't work as hard (or harder) than so called "working class" people?

Éomer of Rohan

Maybe I'm not as politically sophisticated as some of you are, but don't socialists rely far too much on assuming that people are inherently interested in the well-being of society? I'm generally an optimist, but there's optimism and then there's pure fantasy...

NO. We acknowledge that people are generally interested in themselves - as much as we would like to counter that. There is indeed a carrot to communism, to use a phrase you mentioned - the reduced working hours brought about by the centrally planned economy. I don't want to go into detail, but that page is for youth members of the Socialist Party - there are seriously more detailed versions in the party archive (I have actually seen the economic plan for the UK - it is even bigger than the 20,000 pages which set the WTO in place lol). Needless to say, not being an economist, I have very little real idea how it would be implemented. I have a good idea of the end result and I know the people who work on it and trust them.

Is it just me or are other people annoyed by the all too frequent references to "the workers" and "the working class" by socialists? It is extremely insulting to those who are not "working class" yet who work hard. It also fails to take into the account that many of the people who don't work are "working class". EOR, I hate to single you out but reading your homepage is one of the things that reminded me of this pet hate of mine. You said in a previous post that you are middle class. Does that mean high ranking police officers and bank managers don't work as hard (or harder) than so called "working class" people?

You are fundamentally right. They would be classed as 'petit beourgois' in Marx's time. The group from which reactionary supporting counter revolutionaries, the intelligentsia and many working class sympathisers come. The working class are not 'the good guys' but they are the less better off guys and thus need the benefits offered by communism - our society has been spared the continued hardships of the industrial world - something that is attributed largely to globalisation. Do not consider Ireland or Britain as a seperate entity anymore - rather consider the working class to be those poverty stricken people in places like IndoChina, the Australasian Archipelago, India, much of Africa, the Pacific and South and Latin America. Because the role of working class was transfered there years ago, it freed up the developed nations to grow a greater proportion of middle class people and now people say that communism is irrelevent because they do not see the parallels. With the extension of the middle class came the extension of the petit-beourgois and so when we say 'working class' we mean those also - however, this terminology annoys me also - it seems somewhat outdated at times.

Pet Hate of Mine
Will you call me Éomer or Dave please rather than EOR?

Winning Hand

Time to chip in with my two free market earned two cents.
I consider myself to be a right leaning individual so this post is from an ill informed, ignorant scumbag. What I am mainly looking for is a clarification of the statement, which is one reason (i have many) why I cannot grasp the concept of or support socialism
"From each according to their ability to each according to their needs"
What makes an ability? Is it genetic? Enviromental? Who decides from an early age what my ability is. Is it dependant on my parents abilities, or is it decided by a centeralised government. How do we determine if someone will make a good binman? Would this binman make an equally good police officer, and if he would, and wants to be, havent we as a society failed him?
To each according to their needs.
Again who decides what needs are? If you judge needs as being survival needs, food, shelter etc, and that you do not receive anything past what is considered, again by a centeralised government to be a "need", firstly is there any way to obtain more than your survival needs and if so who gets them? Given that the worlds resources are finite we need a way to evenly divide up what we have. Is this done based on work input? The you start quantifying work which as eomar mentioned is impossible "everyone has their part to play in society". Now the binman is wondering why the laywer gets the merc while he only has an opel, because without him to collect the rubbish the lawyer wouldnt be able to get to work, an equal society would surely not allow this event to happen. So how do you prevent it?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Meh
Let's look at a country facing a shortage of doctors. Under capitalism, the solution to this problem is simple and efficient -- just pay doctors more, and more people will choose to be doctors.

That's extremely misleading. People generally don't become doctors, nurses, teachers, social counselors for the huge pay packets, they do it because they believe in helping people. It's a vocation, not a dog-eat-dog profession like business or the law. And the fundamental flaw is that no matter how much doctors are paid, if the health care system they work in is fundamentally flawed in delivering services, there won't be many more doctors.

Just look at the US, my own country. Medical apps have been falling steadily since the Bush administration came to office. Down 34% this year as it happens- and doctors at all levels in the US receive incredibly larger salaries than European physicians. But the horribly corrupt and tortuous Tort that forces doctors to look over their shoulder, having to turn patients away simply because they're poor- refusing to save a child's life because of an insurance bracket...that hurts job satisfaction. You can't throw money at a problem like that, the system itself is fundamentally flawed. You could pay doctors as much as Bill Gates, if they're trained to save life and that opportunity is being ruined by a greedy self-serving system, you'll lose more doctors than you'll recruit.

And here's the other fundamental flaw- the number of job positions, salaried posts and bonus clauses has no bearing on the number of people needing care. In other words, the size of the market for physicians has absolutely 0 to do with the number of people who are sick, perhaps dying. It also in effect actively encourages hospitals to behave like businesses and extract the maximum possible fee from their patients for the lowest amenable cost. It panders to pharmaceutical companies, all eager for a slice of the patient market- some of which have less morals than Rush Limbaugh. It encourages people to think of patients as customers with a dollar to spend rather than human beings who deserve to be treated.

If too many people become doctors, doctor's salaries will fall and fewer people will choose medicine as a career.

What about people who can't afford to pay a doctor's fee? They're conveniently and expediently excluded from this little free market choice about their health aren't they? That's the problem Meh, right there- people with large enough pocketbooks can influence the market, but the poor get no say in how healthcare is provided to them because they cannot afford it. Market forces alone dictating the number of healthcare professionals will by definition exclude those who the market cannot serve.

Under your system, if you want more people to become doctors, you have to somehow increase the social prestige associated with being a doctor -- a much more difficult and uncertain task than just giving them a payrise.

Not at all- you just need to give them a system that works. And one in which they feel job satisfaction can be accrued. If teachers have enough to survive reasonably in their community, paying them more has little or nothing to do with their job peformance or with recruitment. Same deal with the army- people don't join for the pay-checks, they join it for the prestige and the job satisfaction they accrue for serving their country, doing their bit and trying to make a difference. Talk to anyone in a vocational calling and ask them if cutting their pay by 10% will make them consider quitting their jobs. Or indeed not applying if they're university students.

I hate to use people as examples, but take our own Shinji from boards.ie. Having talked to him a few times, I'm pretty sure he'd take a 10% pay cut and keep his current job, simply because he loves writing about games and shaping opinions in his industry. As long as it allows people the chance to rise in position & influence living within their means, most people work jobs because it's what they love to do. That's not necessarily true in the business world, but for the jobs you mention, it is. Police, fire service, medical or paramedical, even politics- I doubt you'll find people who go into those jobs because of how much it pays. All professional courses pay well, that's a fact- if it allows people to survive reasonably and pursue reasonable dreams then that's all it takes to keep them in that job. A system that works, and the chance of progression. Your argument considers the latter exclusively, not the former.

It is also difficult for you to reduce that prestige when a few years down the road you have too many doctors.

Ha, too many doctors? If you can point to a single nation on the planet with an avowed *glut* of medical personnel you get a cookie. There are always far too many patients per physician, far too many operations per surgical consultant, far too many of the elderly needing near-constant medical supervision on a regular basis. You'll be telling me there's too many teachers & social workers next. Tell me, have you ever visited the planet Earth? Most people are selfishly motivated, but the kinds of people that generally go into these fields are not. And that cuts both ways- money isn't a particularly huge motivating factor in what they do beyond living a reasonable contained lifestyle.

Turnip

Actually the freedom to pursue one’s happiness is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracy (remember all that equality, fraternity, etc. stuff?). It is also essential for consumerism to flourish; after all, without that freedom of choice there is no free market.

The ultimate extension of the free market into society would amongst other things, mean that there’d be no police and no justice system, cornerstones of civilised society. If someone decided to whack you over the head and steal all your stuff then that’s hard luck. It’s survival of the fittest isn’t it? The thug is just pursuing his happiness and expressing himself as he wishes after all, albeit at your smashed head’s expense. Can you afford 24/7 private security? And the costs of punishing or imprisoning thugs? Every society has it’s losers but what you’re on about makes no practical sense. I'm right wing but I'm not that right wing.

People in Europe don't truly realize what a good deal they're getting for their taxes either...I could take you to any one of a dozen hospitals & clinics in my hometown Seattle and show you destitute patients begging for treatment and being refused due to lack of insurance. I could show you single parents being forced into remaining on welfare because no jobless scheme covers them outside of food stamps and basic amenities. Under Clinton, MedicAid national insurance gave everyone the basic right of healthcare on the spot- costs were to be addressed after treatment, with the aid of state loans if need be.

Last time I checked, America was a democracy. If your fellow citizens want european standard health and education services then nothing is stopping them from voting for a party that would implement them. Most of them seem pretty happy with the way things are though. At the end of the day, people prefer to act in their own self-interest. Human nature. But you sound like a reasonably erudite fellow, when you grow up a bit, why don’t you start up a party? See how far you get with your sob stories about irresponsible single parents.

So, does this mean that we can conclude you think every Japanese, German and Vietnamese civilian who died in the relevant wars was an active supporter of its government and therefore deserved to die?

Of course not. I’ve clarified my position.

Would you also say that all of the Iraqi civilians who were killed during the liberation of Iraq all deserved to die because they actively supported Saddam???

I’m afraid I’d have to say absolutely. They were evil people, no question about it. In fact those who died quickly were much luckier than Saddam’s victims who suffered mutilation, torture and rape before being killed. I find it amazing that the liberal/left in this country still won’t admit they were wrong about the war.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
The ultimate extension of the free market into society would amongst other things, mean that there’d be no police and no justice system, cornerstones of civilised society.

Actually there would be a police and justice system - privately owned.

I’ve never said I even supported such an ideology, just that it was as valid as any other; so I really don’t know how I found myself defending it to someone who began by thinking that it was Anarchism...

...on which point, before you come back and start arguing on this point again, for the third time, and for the love of whatever god(s) you worship, actually read up on it.

I’m afraid I’d have to say absolutely. They were evil people, no question about it. In fact those who died quickly were much luckier than Saddam’s victims who suffered mutilation, torture and rape before being killed. I find it amazing that the liberal/left in this country still won’t admit they were wrong about the war.

I wish I was able to see the World in the same shades of black and white :rolleyes:

Your average man on the street in Baghdad may well have been coerced, or was a conformist (not an uncommon occurrence in any Society), or against foreign intrusion (‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’) as opposed to supportive of the regime, or genuinely believed in the Ba’ath movement and principles and/or Saddam himself.

Regardless of his motivation, this average man’s damned as evil in your eyes. I expect you’ve already placed the Ba’ath party up there with the Nazi party for evil movements that should be stamped out. Which begs the question; do you even know the first thing about, it by the way?

Despite your convictions, things are rarely as black and white as you would make out. Saddam and his Ba’ath party ironically created a secular government that gave the Iraqi citizens far more freedom than was enjoyed by most of its neighbours in the region. It may also have brutally gassed many Iraqi people too, but they weren’t the first to do so:

“I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes ... to spread a lively terror” - Winston Churchill, writing as President of the Air Council, in 1919

I’m not saying that they were good guys, if you think that you’re really missing the point, just that things are rarely as clear cut as you would like.

So please don’t start ascribing good and evil so glibly to people and ideologies; at best you’ll look like an ignoramus at worst like a fundamentalist.

Meh

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
That's extremely misleading. People generally don't become doctors, nurses, teachers, social counselors for the huge pay packets, they do it because they believe in helping people.

How many doctors would you have if you paid them the same as a taxi-driver? How many people would be willing to go through the years of training and long hours? I'm willing to bet that it would be fewer than currently. Also interesting that you should mention teachers -- I think we've all seen how selfless and uninterested in money they are.

And here's the other fundamental flaw- the number of job positions, salaried posts and bonus clauses has no bearing on the number of people needing care. In other words, the size of the market for physicians has absolutely 0 to do with the number of people who are sick, perhaps dying.

This is economic nonsense. If I'm sick, I go to the doctor. I'm not sick, I don't go to the doctor. There, a direct and unequivocal relation between numbers sick and the size of the medical services market.

What about people who can't afford to pay a doctor's fee? They're conveniently and expediently excluded from this little free market choice about their health aren't they?

:rolleyes: They have medical cards.

Not at all- you just need to give them a system that works. And one in which they feel job satisfaction can be accrued. If teachers have enough to survive reasonably in their community, paying them more has little or nothing to do with their job peformance or with recruitment. Same deal with the army- people don't join for the pay-checks, they join it for the prestige and the job satisfaction they accrue for serving their country, doing their bit and trying to make a difference.

Well, it's good to hear that you have talked to every single soldier in the Irish army and determined that their motivation in joining up was non-monetary. Question: how big an army would this country have if soldiers were paid nothing?

That's not necessarily true in the business world, but for the jobs you mention, it is. Police, fire service, medical or paramedical, even politics- I doubt you'll find people who go into those jobs because of how much it pays. All professional courses pay well, that's a fact- if it allows people to survive reasonably and pursue reasonable dreams then that's all it takes to keep them in that job. A system that works, and the chance of progression. Your argument considers the latter exclusively, not the former.

And you're doing the same as Éomer did -- you conveniently ignoring all the less-glamorous jobs that can never have prestige or job satisfaction as an incentive.

Most people are selfishly motivated, but the kinds of people that generally go into these fields are not. And that cuts both ways- money isn't a particularly huge motivating factor in what they do beyond living a reasonable contained lifestyle.

Again, the teacher's strike. If you can convince me that that wasn't greed (wrecking students exams for a 30% pay rise?), you get a cookie. Not to mention the firefighters strike in the UK. It would seem that money is important to these "vocations" after all.

Éomer of Rohan

Not to mention the firefighters strike in the UK.

Now this, I can deal with. Jim Barbour and various other heads of the NI FBU spoke to the Socialist Party at great length on this one. Conditions in the fire-service were substandard as it was; Firefighters recieved £19,000 a year - the same as a primary school teacher starting off and £3,000 less than a rookie constable - despite figures showing a decline in police casualties and the reverse for the Fire Service. Attacks on the Fire Service staff had also been dramatically increasing in Northern Ireland - this was the case with Paramedics and a further part of the campaign was to either give the services some defense or to pay them to train to defend themselves from attack. 70% of the Fire Engines had been in use since 1990 or before, staff casualties were on the rise and the number of applicants who fitted government requirements to get into the fire service were declining - and the FBU would not remove the over-time rule (which prevents, for medically sound reasons, a Firefighter from doing overtime shifts). In sum total, before the strike, the Fire Brigade was heading to a crisis point and the government, with its nicely balanced budget - as just published by Gordon Brown if you remember - was not in the mood to deal with it. The negotiations with the government - which started off as negotiations over modernisation - deteriorated rapidly and then the Bain Report hit. I know Mr Bain personally - he is an arrogant git - and a Blair puppet - it was Blair who got him his post at QUB, where I attend. I read the relevent pieces of the report - which required a downsizing in the fire service and the scrapping of the over-time rule to pay for the 'modernisation of the fire service' - which in effect meant that new staff training budgets would be cut and existing staff would be engaged in much more work - for what the Government recommended would be a 7% increase in pay (this pay increase varied according who was spouting it - at one point GB said 16% and Andy Gilchrist said "Done" but then the government denied it had ever happened and referred the Fire Service back to the mediators who were brought in by their contractors). The media slammed the FBU for the £30,000 pay figure - which was acknowledged from the start as a negotiating figure - like any smart negotiators, the FBU aimed high - but Andy Gilchrist had also let it be known that the bottom line was 16% - which was a reasonable figure in my opinion - the media just didn't like to pick up on it as they swung against the Fire Service, calling Andy Gilchrist 'Saddam's Minion' and so on. At the end of it all, the Fire Service got the 16% in increments over a period of years, through which 'modernisation' would occur - so it was hardly what you would call greed that led the Fire Fighters to strike.

Can I have my cookie please?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Meh
How many doctors would you have if you paid them the same as a taxi-driver?

What a retarded question. Doctors will never be paid as much as taxi drivers. My point simply was, that paying them more is no guarantee of recruitment. How do you explain the huge dissatisfaction with the medical profession in my country Meh? Doctors there are paid more than in any other country on the planet- and there's never been a worse time to be a doctor there according to the AMA.

Also interesting that you should mention teachers

My point simply was that if people are paid extraordinarily unreasonably, this is the result. Fact is, beyond a reasonable wage vocational jobs don't depend on salaries for recruitment. Pay rises that have been lagging behind inflation for years will creat problems sooner or later- without fair COLA rises these problems are inevitable.

This is economic nonsense. If I'm sick, I go to the doctor. I'm not sick, I don't go to the doctor. There, a direct and unequivocal relation between numbers sick and the size of the medical services market.

Again, extremely misleading. Hospitals have a huge investment mountain to climb, very few are willing to make that leap of faith simply because of a few people willing to pay medical fees. There is a huge demand for medical services in any nation with privatized health-care systems, the US included. People who are able and willing to pay often can't get health-care where they live and have to drive for 3-4 hours to get it. If there really was a direct market relationship, why is this a problem?

Moreover, why are there shortages of doctors in these countries? There are often practical and very difficult issues with where health care is provided and how much it costs. Not to mention the fact that many people wait until they're extremely ill before they go to a doctor because they're afraid of the cost. If health care were free at the point of delivery, there would be no such fear, and no market obstacles to hospitals in areas where it might not be profitable to build hospitals. It all goes back to what I said- no matter how much doctors are paid, if the system they work in is inherently flawed, people lose out.

:rolleyes: They have medical cards.

I'm not entirely sure how the system in Ireland works (don't live there etc ) but I really can't believe that said medical card guarantees you the same quality of service as private health care. That's to be expected perhaps, but a two-tier health system creates social problems- exclusion, dissatisfaction etc.

Well, it's good to hear that you have talked to every single soldier in the Irish army and determined that their motivation in joining up was non-monetary.

Not at all, but I have numerous friends who've joined up in the US, who have served, and I've read numerous surveys from the USJSC. The primary reason for people joining the services in the US wasn't the paycheck, it didn't even enter the top 5 choices. I wouldn't be suprised if the same were true in Ireland.

At the end of the day, as long as people in the job feel they're being paid a fair wage they'll be happy enough. Above and beyond that fair wage, you won't see a huge increase in recruitment for those positions. Just look at firefighters in the UK- despite the dispute, and the horrendously low pay, there are 20 applicants for every job opening in the fire service, about 50 in London where I am. Job satisfaction is the most important thing in vocational positions. If the pay is so rudimentary and there are yet so many applicants per job, how is money the motivating factor? The answer is that it isn't beyond the need to survive. If people are forced to work second jobs and go into debt just to do the job they love, of course they'll want a better wage, that's only to be expected. But if that wage allows them to live within their means, then that's all most in these jobs care about.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Can I have my cookie please?

The cookie was for someone who successfully defended the teacher's strike, sorry.

In any case, you just proved my point that firefighters do care how much they are paid. They don't work just for the joy of helping people.

How do you explain the huge dissatisfaction with the medical profession in my country Meh? Doctors there are paid more than in any other country on the planet- and there's never been a worse time to be a doctor there according to the AMA.

Not that I'd expect a biased view from the American Medical Association or anything...

If the pay is so rudimentary and there are yet so many applicants per job, how is money the motivating factor?

I would argue that the pay isn't that rudimentary. The working hours for firefighters in the UK (four days on, four days off) leaves them plenty of time to work a second part-time job and still have more free time than many other workers.

People who are able and willing to pay often can't get health-care where they live and have to drive for 3-4 hours to get it. If there really was a direct market relationship, why is this a problem?

Because you can't build a fully-equipped hospital in every tiny rural village, especially in relatively sparsely populated areas. Not under capitalism, not under socialism, not under any economic system.

Éomer of Rohan

The cookie was for someone who successfully defended the teacher's strike, sorry.

In any case, you just proved my point that firefighters do care how much they are paid. They don't work just for the joy of helping people.

No your point was that the Firefighters Strike and the Teachers strikes were out of greed and I have shown that in the former, the great majority of the reason to strike was the wellbeing, the safety of fire-crews.

Not that I'd expect a biased view from the American Medical Association or anything...

If they are expressing the dissatisfaction of the doctors in the USA, what reason does the AMA have to be biased pray tell?

I would argue that the pay isn't that rudimentary. The working hours for firefighters in the UK (four days on, four days off) leaves them plenty of time to work a second part-time job and still have more free time than many other workers.

More than money, I would say that the lack of necessity for academic qualifications plus the prestige associated with the emergency services plus the free time contribute to making firefighting a choice in these cases - and as we have discussed, money really isn't that great an option - after all, would you risk your bacon for £19,000 per annum - not to mention risking getting attacked for putting fires out in Ptroestant/Catholic estates? Not to mention that they were on strike for pay and conditions not so long ago - it shows dedication to a job that they hadn't been out before they did go out - not to mention the way the strikes were run in order to prevent a breakdown in safety - and need I remind you that at several stations during the strikes firefighters crossed picket lines to help with fires.

Because you can't build a fully-equipped hospital in every tiny rural village, especially in relatively sparsely populated areas. Not under capitalism, not under socialism, not under any economic system.

But a fully equipped hospital is not even the issue - consider the alternative suggestions; a paramedic trained in the village, paid for by the government on top of whatever job the occupy on the understanding that when needed, they are there. Or even major hospitals outside of cities/large towns would be useful.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No your point was that the Firefighters Strike and the Teachers strikes were out of greed and I have shown that in the former, the great majority of the reason to strike was the wellbeing, the safety of fire-crews.

No, they were striking for a 30% pay rise. Read your own post.

If they are expressing the dissatisfaction of the doctors in the USA, what reason does the AMA have to be biased pray tell?

To try and get an even better deal for the doctors they represent. The AMA is a special-interest group representing a small group of wealthy professionals. As such, we shouldn't take their word as gospel.

But a fully equipped hospital is not even the issue - consider the alternative suggestions; a paramedic trained in the village, paid for by the government on top of whatever job the occupy on the understanding that when needed, they are there.

You mean like a local GP? We've already got those...

Or even major hospitals outside of cities/large towns would be useful.

So the government should build huge, expensive, useless hospitals in the middle of nowhere?

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
I’m afraid I’d have to say absolutely. They were evil people, no question about it.

So, by that we must conclude that - in fact - every single ciitizen of the nation of Iraq is an unquestionably evil person. After all, without a complete list of the dead, their backgrounds, and so on and so forth there are only two ways to make the assertion you just did :

1) Everyone in the nation is evil
2) You are trolling.

Given that it better not be option 2, I'm wondering if you could explain to me what exactly was evil about the people who didnt want Saddam in power, and who were arrested and/or tortured for their beliefs? What about the young children killed by accidental fire from either side? And so on and so forth....

I'd really like to hear an answer on this one, because otherwise you get to move one step closer to my "definitely just a troll" classification. That would not be good.

jc

Sparks

Meh,

No, they were striking for a 30% pay rise. Read your own post.

Not all strikes are purely monetary in nature though.

The AMA is a special-interest group representing a small group of wealthy professionals.

Who happen to have sworn to a code of ethics...
I can't think of too many groups that can claim that.

You mean like a local GP? We've already got those...

GPs don't have the same skills as paramedics you know. They train for different categories of problems.

So the government should build huge, expensive, useless hospitals in the middle of nowhere?

I've seen a lot of things Meh, but never a useless hospital...

Originally posted by Turnip
I’m afraid I’d have to say absolutely. They were evil people, no question about it.

So every single Irish person supported the logistical support for the invasion that we gave the US, supported the amendment to the FOI act, supports the lack of adaquate oversight of the Gardai, supported the sale of Irish beef to the Iraqi army, or any one of the myriad less-than-ethical things our governments have done down through the years. After all, we elected them, we actually had a choice - that should damn us more, since the Iraqis never had a choice with Hussein.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Not all strikes are purely monetary in nature though.

But the majority of them are. (Not that there's anything wrong with striking over money.)

Who happen to have sworn to a code of ethics...

And that code of ethics doesn't forbid trying to get the best deal they can for their members.

GPs don't have the same skills as paramedics you know. They train for different categories of problems.

Correct. GPs are better trained and more skilled than paramedics.

I've seen a lot of things Meh, but never a useless hospital...

When the revolution happens and Éomer becomes Minister for Health, I'm sure you'll get your wish, what with his policy of building major hospitals in the middle of nowhere.

Sparks

And that code of ethics doesn't forbid trying to get the best deal they can for their members.

Their oath prevents them from harming others. Unnecessary strikes or protests risks harm to others. Avoiding strikes or protests where they would improve the system on the other hand, is something they are compelled to do.
I'd be very hesitant about slamming the AMA on an ethics issue.

Correct. GPs are better trained and more skilled than paramedics

Someday I should introduce you to my ex-GP!
Paramedics may not have the breadth of training of a GP, but the thing is that they are trained specifically to stabilise and safely transport serious trauma cases - the average GP won't be doing this on a regular basis. It's not a simple apples-to-apples comparison...

When the revolution happens and Éomer becomes Minister for Health, I'm sure you'll get your wish, what with his policy of building major hospitals in the middle of nowhere.

I'm afraid you're incorrect. Should the revolution come I think you'd find that the phrase "build it and they will come" applies.

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
So, by that we must conclude that - in fact - every single ciitizen of the nation of Iraq is an unquestionably evil person. After all, without a complete list of the dead, their backgrounds, and so on and so forth there are only two ways to make the assertion you just did :

Er no, those who actively supported Saddam, by informing on neighbours for example, bear responsibility for the crimes of his regime. So good riddance to them. I don't like the 'we were only following orders' excuse. Not good enough quite frankly.

Éomer of Rohan

No your both wrong, when the revolution happens, I will personally hunt down those members of Boards.ie who ever disagreed with me and take great pleasure in having them brainwashed.:D

Sparks

"We were only following orders" was Neuremburg.
Iraq was more "We were told if we didn't do this, they'd hang our family from meathooks and cut bits off them for a few days". For the most part anyway - there obviously were actual Ba'ath party supporters.

Éomer of Rohan

Er no, those who actively supported Saddam, by informing on neighbours for example, bear responsibility for the crimes of his regime. So good riddance to them. I don't like the 'we were only following orders' excuse. Not good enough quite frankly

Does this line of reasoning apply equally to Americans in Vietnam and Iraq?