Forums > Social Discussion > Capitalism and Democracy VS any viable alternatives in the world today
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
I predict that this thread will either be very small, or very long. If it's the latter, I appologise in advance
It's a spur off from [Old link] which started going off topic a bit off topic along the lines of it's ok to comit copyright, because big artists have enough money already. To quote:
Personally I'm happy to live in a capitalist society. I don't see comunisism as being dirty or something to be feared, I've just yet to see it work as it should. It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure it's a viable alternative to capitalism. I have an average graduate job on an average wage for where I live, I earn more than i need to survive which i spend on stuff I like: computers, shiny kitchenware, hifi etc. I try to lead a life which has as little negitive impact on others as I can (I'm vegan, my entire appartment only has vegan products and furniture in, I recycle some things, don't waste plastic (if stuff i buy from the supermarket doesn't fit in my rucksack then 9 times out of 10 i carry the rest as in my hands), I use public transport more than average, etc), helping others where and when i can.
It's capitalism in it's extremes where the problem for me comes in. When people or corperations have stupidly large amounts of money, which could really help a lot of people in desperate need. I guess my idea of how to deal with capitalism in it's extremes is income tax, council tax, death duty and corperation tax, all of which we currently have in the UK. I do think that it's a bit outdated thou, that the current thresholds are set wrong. I have no problems with people working hard, earning lots of money and enjoying it, but i think the level of taxation on earning over x pounds a year should be set so as it is still an insentive, but you can't get stupidly rich without others benefitting more.
Thoughts? I'm not adding a poll to the thread, because I don't think there are clear cut answers
I predict that this thread will either be very small, or very long. If it's the latter, I appologise in advance
It's a spur off from [Old link] which started going off topic a bit off topic along the lines of it's ok to comit copyright, because big artists have enough money already. To quote:
Written by: Sethis
I don't honestly see why rich people can't just make a few million, put it in the bank and *not* buy sports cars, 8 houses and develope a coke habit. I mean, OK maybe they deserve to enjoy their money that they put effort into making, but most of them are just stupid with it. Who, when you get right down to it, actually *needs* an 8 bedroom boat? What's the point? Why have more than one car? Why have more than *at the most* two houses? Why not give some of the money to other people?
Personally I'm happy to live in a capitalist society. I don't see comunisism as being dirty or something to be feared, I've just yet to see it work as it should. It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure it's a viable alternative to capitalism. I have an average graduate job on an average wage for where I live, I earn more than i need to survive which i spend on stuff I like: computers, shiny kitchenware, hifi etc. I try to lead a life which has as little negitive impact on others as I can (I'm vegan, my entire appartment only has vegan products and furniture in, I recycle some things, don't waste plastic (if stuff i buy from the supermarket doesn't fit in my rucksack then 9 times out of 10 i carry the rest as in my hands), I use public transport more than average, etc), helping others where and when i can.
It's capitalism in it's extremes where the problem for me comes in. When people or corperations have stupidly large amounts of money, which could really help a lot of people in desperate need. I guess my idea of how to deal with capitalism in it's extremes is income tax, council tax, death duty and corperation tax, all of which we currently have in the UK. I do think that it's a bit outdated thou, that the current thresholds are set wrong. I have no problems with people working hard, earning lots of money and enjoying it, but i think the level of taxation on earning over x pounds a year should be set so as it is still an insentive, but you can't get stupidly rich without others benefitting more.
Thoughts? I'm not adding a poll to the thread, because I don't think there are clear cut answers
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
It's the 'viable' alternative bit that makes the difference.
I support the ideals of socialism.
But greed, corruption and selfishness will always see capitalism (basically, in my opinion, those traits dressed up in a socially acceptable word) succeed.
It's the 'viable' alternative bit that makes the difference.
I support the ideals of socialism.
But greed, corruption and selfishness will always see capitalism (basically, in my opinion, those traits dressed up in a socially acceptable word) succeed.
Getting to the other side 
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Democracy is a nice idea unfortunately it is structured in completely the wrong way in the UK. To me it seems obvious why its wrong and how that should be changed to make it work in the modern era.
Also - most people are so badly informed about politics that they should actually be discouraged from taking part in the democratic process until they educate themselves a bit. Its unfortunate but true.
Do we really want our decisions made by the completely misinformed masses? That scares me just as much as living in a dictatorship!
Democracy is a nice idea unfortunately it is structured in completely the wrong way in the UK. To me it seems obvious why its wrong and how that should be changed to make it work in the modern era.
Also - most people are so badly informed about politics that they should actually be discouraged from taking part in the democratic process until they educate themselves a bit. Its unfortunate but true.
Do we really want our decisions made by the completely misinformed masses? That scares me just as much as living in a dictatorship!
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
I think we also need to break from the Capitalism vs Communism vs Socialism debate and come up with a new system. One that truly incorporates freedom and safety for all.
By just continually arguing about these three points all we do is get further away from a solution.
I too believe in socialist ideals. But then I also think that socialism, in its political form, is sadly lacking in substance.
I think there is far too much to say on this topic to write here.
I think we also need to break from the Capitalism vs Communism vs Socialism debate and come up with a new system. One that truly incorporates freedom and safety for all.
By just continually arguing about these three points all we do is get further away from a solution.
I too believe in socialist ideals. But then I also think that socialism, in its political form, is sadly lacking in substance.
I think there is far too much to say on this topic to write here.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Just some ideas...
Flid, I basically agree with you, I'm just not sure how you mean the "so as it is still an insentive, but you can't get stupidly rich without others benefitting more"? Do you mean you have to give over 50% to others, or just others get more money as your income rises?
I can understand people though who don't see why the money they've worked for should go to others. I agree with putting it into the health service, giving it to children in need or people who are sick or cannot find work. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to pay taxes to get hospital treatment for some idiot who thought he'd have to go skiing off the slope and break his leg, or went drunk driving, or someone who doesn't want to work even though they could. And I'm sure other people would be even more restrictive with their money than I would if I had the choice. But I guess every system with social benefits can be exploited, and I'd rather have a system that can be exploited than have all people depend on themselves.
Seye, your idea about only allowing certain people to vote is understandable, I sometimes wish it, too, especially for people who vote for a party because their family always has etc... However, it's also what Mussolini did when he introduced voting rights for women in Italy; he only allowed it for those of a certain education and with enough money to pay certain taxes (you could say, why should they vote for or against taxes that doesn't concern them). I heard more of that from a friend who wants only people with children to be able to vote for things concerning children, and only people who work to vote about things concerning taxes. It's a dangerous thing to start and may get out of control easily.
Just some ideas...
Flid, I basically agree with you, I'm just not sure how you mean the "so as it is still an insentive, but you can't get stupidly rich without others benefitting more"? Do you mean you have to give over 50% to others, or just others get more money as your income rises?
I can understand people though who don't see why the money they've worked for should go to others. I agree with putting it into the health service, giving it to children in need or people who are sick or cannot find work. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to pay taxes to get hospital treatment for some idiot who thought he'd have to go skiing off the slope and break his leg, or went drunk driving, or someone who doesn't want to work even though they could. And I'm sure other people would be even more restrictive with their money than I would if I had the choice. But I guess every system with social benefits can be exploited, and I'd rather have a system that can be exploited than have all people depend on themselves.
Seye, your idea about only allowing certain people to vote is understandable, I sometimes wish it, too, especially for people who vote for a party because their family always has etc... However, it's also what Mussolini did when he introduced voting rights for women in Italy; he only allowed it for those of a certain education and with enough money to pay certain taxes (you could say, why should they vote for or against taxes that doesn't concern them). I heard more of that from a friend who wants only people with children to be able to vote for things concerning children, and only people who work to vote about things concerning taxes. It's a dangerous thing to start and may get out of control easily.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
I dont think that we should take away people's voting priviledges. I just think that people should be told that if they dont feel well informed on all the options then they should make the decision not to vote themselves.
I think 'party politics' is an outdated and rediculous system which amounts to nothing more than gang mentality. Why do we not vote for people to do specific jobs? If I get a job the company doesnt then employ all my friends because we come as a group. They pick the best person for each individual case. Why should politics be any different?
If we worked by that system we would have lots of small elections which were specific to a certain area of expertise. Then the public could decide whether they felt well informed on individual subjects and choose to vote on the ones that they have an vested interest in.
This would also destroy the 'parties' as there would be no need for them. Politicians could also be left to choose an area that they have an interest in and stick to it rather than being 'minister for transport' one day and 'minister for agriculture' the next. This might even turn parliament into a place for rational discussion of the way forward for the nation rather than a place for opposing gangs to try to make each other look small.
Written by: Birgit
Seye, your idea about only allowing certain people to vote is understandable, I sometimes wish it, too, especially for people who vote for a party because their family always has etc...
I dont think that we should take away people's voting priviledges. I just think that people should be told that if they dont feel well informed on all the options then they should make the decision not to vote themselves.
I think 'party politics' is an outdated and rediculous system which amounts to nothing more than gang mentality. Why do we not vote for people to do specific jobs? If I get a job the company doesnt then employ all my friends because we come as a group. They pick the best person for each individual case. Why should politics be any different?
If we worked by that system we would have lots of small elections which were specific to a certain area of expertise. Then the public could decide whether they felt well informed on individual subjects and choose to vote on the ones that they have an vested interest in.
This would also destroy the 'parties' as there would be no need for them. Politicians could also be left to choose an area that they have an interest in and stick to it rather than being 'minister for transport' one day and 'minister for agriculture' the next. This might even turn parliament into a place for rational discussion of the way forward for the nation rather than a place for opposing gangs to try to make each other look small.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
I mean as income tax. So say if you earn over 100,000 a year, which i think we can all agree on to be quite a nice wage, any money you earn over 100,000 will have quite a higher rate of tax on it. By keeping insentive, I mean that the tax rate doesn't become like 99% or anything like that, but high enough, close to the boundary. At the end of the day, we don't want wealthy individuals and businesses to move to another country where taxes are lower, if that happened on mass we'd be having problems (we already have the problem in the UK of manufacturing companies moving overseas because our minimum wage is higher than they can get away with elsewhere), unless the money that they lost in tax really was used effectively and they liked what the government does with it.
Written by: Birgit
Flid, I basically agree with you, I'm just not sure how you mean the "so as it is still an insentive, but you can't get stupidly rich without others benefitting more"? Do you mean you have to give over 50% to others, or just others get more money as your income rises?
I mean as income tax. So say if you earn over 100,000 a year, which i think we can all agree on to be quite a nice wage, any money you earn over 100,000 will have quite a higher rate of tax on it. By keeping insentive, I mean that the tax rate doesn't become like 99% or anything like that, but high enough, close to the boundary. At the end of the day, we don't want wealthy individuals and businesses to move to another country where taxes are lower, if that happened on mass we'd be having problems (we already have the problem in the UK of manufacturing companies moving overseas because our minimum wage is higher than they can get away with elsewhere), unless the money that they lost in tax really was used effectively and they liked what the government does with it.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
OK, we've got two threads here already. One political, one economic.
Politics: *applauds seye* Now if we elected people to fill posts who *actually knew anything about the job* then we might have a solution. I only found out recently that the people who fill posts like education and agriculture have no experience at all of those areas. Why, exactly, do they not put a teacher into the post, or a farmer? Why don't we have a defence person who has actually been in the armed forces? This is dammed stupid.
Economy:
I think that the main problem with capitalism is its contradictory goals. All the emphasis is on the *individual* gaining wealth. Is it any wonder then, that people do not respond when you say "We have to help the community"? And when I say "Community" I actually mean "The Human Race" and by the "Human Race" I mean the Planet. Everyone is so bloody obsessed with carving their own niche into the fabric of society, that many don't care about the cost to the planet.
It's like people dumping toxic waste in the sea and saying "But the sea is pretty big isn't it?" and "It doesn't matter what we put in it, because the amount is so small". Fine. But you forget what happens if *everyone* thinks like that.
Can I hold America as an example of Capitalism? Ok, right. Now, the "American Dream". What is it? Something like "Everyone deserves to live in a house, with a partner and a kid or two, a car, a job and a bit of money"
OK, and they say that *everyone* should have the right to achieve this? That's what democracy is about, isn't it? Everyone has an equal chance to live a happy life.
Right. How many people are there on this planet? A little over 6 billion? Do you have *any* idea how much pollution 6 billion cars cause? How bad 6 billion fridges and freezers are? Not to mention the industries that people rely on to get things like food, clothing and leisure items.
Even the basic ideal of Capitalism doesn't work in a democratic society.
OK, we've got two threads here already. One political, one economic.
Politics: *applauds seye* Now if we elected people to fill posts who *actually knew anything about the job* then we might have a solution. I only found out recently that the people who fill posts like education and agriculture have no experience at all of those areas. Why, exactly, do they not put a teacher into the post, or a farmer? Why don't we have a defence person who has actually been in the armed forces? This is dammed stupid.
Economy:
I think that the main problem with capitalism is its contradictory goals. All the emphasis is on the *individual* gaining wealth. Is it any wonder then, that people do not respond when you say "We have to help the community"? And when I say "Community" I actually mean "The Human Race" and by the "Human Race" I mean the Planet. Everyone is so bloody obsessed with carving their own niche into the fabric of society, that many don't care about the cost to the planet.
It's like people dumping toxic waste in the sea and saying "But the sea is pretty big isn't it?" and "It doesn't matter what we put in it, because the amount is so small". Fine. But you forget what happens if *everyone* thinks like that.
Can I hold America as an example of Capitalism? Ok, right. Now, the "American Dream". What is it? Something like "Everyone deserves to live in a house, with a partner and a kid or two, a car, a job and a bit of money"
OK, and they say that *everyone* should have the right to achieve this? That's what democracy is about, isn't it? Everyone has an equal chance to live a happy life.
Right. How many people are there on this planet? A little over 6 billion? Do you have *any* idea how much pollution 6 billion cars cause? How bad 6 billion fridges and freezers are? Not to mention the industries that people rely on to get things like food, clothing and leisure items.
Even the basic ideal of Capitalism doesn't work in a democratic society.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
Quick point - not all 6bn people would be old or well enough to drive cars, and some wouldn't want to. Likewise, not everyone would require they're own personal fridge...
Quick point - not all 6bn people would be old or well enough to drive cars, and some wouldn't want to. Likewise, not everyone would require they're own personal fridge...
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
SILVER Member
in a beautiful daze....
134 posts
Location: Liverpool, England
in a beautiful daze....
134 posts
Location: Liverpool, England
Posted:
I don't agree with capatalisim in any respects and where possible try and do all shopping etc in independant shops, however i'm sure everyone knows this is not always possible especially buying common products which tend to in one way or another relate to one major company i.e. coca cola which i stopped drinking and before i did that i had no idea what a hold they had over the soft drinks market both fizzy and non, i think on average coca cola products are the most bought in the world or something stupidly high like that.
I fully support communistic idealisims but realise that in modern society it is simply not achievable mainly due to human nature and greed, so a socialistic view is what i take come election times.
As for an example of a fully working communistic country you only have to look at Cuba which works in harmony and is a true communist society.
The idea of communisim has been ruined by Capitalist industry which has amplified on the "terrors" which have occured in attempted communisim i.e. russia, this has then led to the mass belief that communisim is wrong and evil, so that capitalist companys can continue to rule the world through money.
I don't agree with capatalisim in any respects and where possible try and do all shopping etc in independant shops, however i'm sure everyone knows this is not always possible especially buying common products which tend to in one way or another relate to one major company i.e. coca cola which i stopped drinking and before i did that i had no idea what a hold they had over the soft drinks market both fizzy and non, i think on average coca cola products are the most bought in the world or something stupidly high like that.
I fully support communistic idealisims but realise that in modern society it is simply not achievable mainly due to human nature and greed, so a socialistic view is what i take come election times.
As for an example of a fully working communistic country you only have to look at Cuba which works in harmony and is a true communist society.
The idea of communisim has been ruined by Capitalist industry which has amplified on the "terrors" which have occured in attempted communisim i.e. russia, this has then led to the mass belief that communisim is wrong and evil, so that capitalist companys can continue to rule the world through money.
Whatever happened to my green and pleasant land?
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Capitalism, communism and socialism are all flawed because they are forms of 'fundamentalism'.
Essentially they all share the same problem - the lack of ability to see why the others actually do have benefits (and they all do).
{walks into corner and repeatedly bangs head against the wall}
Capitalism, communism and socialism are all flawed because they are forms of 'fundamentalism'.
Essentially they all share the same problem - the lack of ability to see why the others actually do have benefits (and they all do).
{walks into corner and repeatedly bangs head against the wall}
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Durbs, I'd say that it averages out because some people have more than one car or fridge. Plus things like buses, aeroplanes and industry will make up for the defecit.
I'd say that a Communist system with a benevolent dictatorship (yes there is such a thing) would be the best form of government. But human nature doesn't allow it.
Actually, it might be worth trying to grow a strain of happy baccy that doesn't cause brain damage and have a mandatory 1 spliff per day thing going on... then everyone would be much more mellow...
Believe it or not I don't even smoke it (often anyway), but I think it might be worth a try
Durbs, I'd say that it averages out because some people have more than one car or fridge. Plus things like buses, aeroplanes and industry will make up for the defecit.
I'd say that a Communist system with a benevolent dictatorship (yes there is such a thing) would be the best form of government. But human nature doesn't allow it.
Actually, it might be worth trying to grow a strain of happy baccy that doesn't cause brain damage and have a mandatory 1 spliff per day thing going on... then everyone would be much more mellow...
Believe it or not I don't even smoke it (often anyway), but I think it might be worth a try
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
One problem with pure communism is the lack of motivation.
Why would anyone chose to do lots of high stress, high workload, complicated work, if their pay-back is the same as the person with a fun job looking after puppies (for example...)
If everyone receives the same, people would have to give the same - but the way society is structured means there is a need for some peopel to work alot harder than others. This needs to be reflected in something (salary generally) or key things won't get done.
One problem with pure communism is the lack of motivation.
Why would anyone chose to do lots of high stress, high workload, complicated work, if their pay-back is the same as the person with a fun job looking after puppies (for example...)
If everyone receives the same, people would have to give the same - but the way society is structured means there is a need for some peopel to work alot harder than others. This needs to be reflected in something (salary generally) or key things won't get done.
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Rotate the jobs. This way everyone has multiple skills, and has a balence between say, working in an office and being a riding instructor (or whatever). 6 months of one, 6 months of the other, and it keeps rotating.
Rotate the jobs. This way everyone has multiple skills, and has a balence between say, working in an office and being a riding instructor (or whatever). 6 months of one, 6 months of the other, and it keeps rotating.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
People rotating jobs is a bad idea I think. Maybe not for some, but jobs that require a certain degree of specialisation or need you to be up-to-date with what's been going on can't simply be rotated.
I guess I'd like the idea of people getting paid according to how much use they are to society, and how much effort they put in what they do. The being useful to society would be impossible to judge though, and the effort people make would be judged by colleagues, superiors or customers who would be biased.
People rotating jobs is a bad idea I think. Maybe not for some, but jobs that require a certain degree of specialisation or need you to be up-to-date with what's been going on can't simply be rotated.
I guess I'd like the idea of people getting paid according to how much use they are to society, and how much effort they put in what they do. The being useful to society would be impossible to judge though, and the effort people make would be judged by colleagues, superiors or customers who would be biased.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
yeah if rich people actually paid their taxes *at all* it might be ok, problem is, companies ans rich indivuduals simply dont. The top 500 companies in Australia in terms of turnover and profits pay less than 1% tax. The figures are very similar for the top richest individuals too.
Even if i thought there was an ethical way to get rich (which I dont) the rich simply dont pay their taxes. So theyre doubly damned. How do you get rich in our society without standing on 'little people'? its not possible, because greed is a central tenant of capitalism. Greed is inefficient, and therefore not sustainable.
yeah if rich people actually paid their taxes *at all* it might be ok, problem is, companies ans rich indivuduals simply dont. The top 500 companies in Australia in terms of turnover and profits pay less than 1% tax. The figures are very similar for the top richest individuals too.
Even if i thought there was an ethical way to get rich (which I dont) the rich simply dont pay their taxes. So theyre doubly damned. How do you get rich in our society without standing on 'little people'? its not possible, because greed is a central tenant of capitalism. Greed is inefficient, and therefore not sustainable.
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
My sentiments exactly.
Written by: Durbs
This needs to be reflected in something (salary generally) or key things won't get done
My sentiments exactly.
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
yeah I guess executives whose malpractice ends in company liquidation really do deserve their million pound severance packages? C'mon.
What are the truely bad jobs in our society? you can be damn sure being a politician or a finance banker or an economist dont rate very highly. Collecting rubbish? Sewer worker? These jobs need doing, but they dont exactly attract high rates of pay. Honest people very rarely get rich.
Written by: flidWritten by: Durbs
This needs to be reflected in something (salary generally) or key things won't get done
My sentiments exactly.
yeah I guess executives whose malpractice ends in company liquidation really do deserve their million pound severance packages? C'mon.
What are the truely bad jobs in our society? you can be damn sure being a politician or a finance banker or an economist dont rate very highly. Collecting rubbish? Sewer worker? These jobs need doing, but they dont exactly attract high rates of pay. Honest people very rarely get rich.
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
Supply and demand. Some of the traditional crappy jobs in the UK now have good salaries, because everyone needs them and not many people want to do them. I could potentially be on a better salary now by not going to university and becoming a drain unblocker. The electrician who serviced our office (and am i better qualified than in electronics) the other day made £250 pure profit in one hour doing testing which by law we have to have done once a year
.
Written by:
Collecting rubbish? Sewer worker? These jobs need doing, but they dont exactly attract high rates of pay. Honest people very rarely get rich.
Supply and demand. Some of the traditional crappy jobs in the UK now have good salaries, because everyone needs them and not many people want to do them. I could potentially be on a better salary now by not going to university and becoming a drain unblocker. The electrician who serviced our office (and am i better qualified than in electronics) the other day made £250 pure profit in one hour doing testing which by law we have to have done once a year
. BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I would like to know one thing: Why service people have crap wages.
Footballers, celebrities, actors and corporate bigjobs get millions.
Teachers get paid for half the hours they put in. 8 hours at school, then 4 hours of marking. Plus events with mandatory attendence like parents evenings, school events etc. And their salaries suck.
Doctors and Nurses are overworked, understaffed and underfunded. They also put in tremendous hours, and get paid little.
Can't anyone see that these people are the life blood of our society? Why should a footballer get paid £300 pounds per *second* when all they're doing is playing a game?
Corporate bigjobs divide time equally between stabbing each other in the back, screwing customers, counting their money, and cruising around in private jets. Why? What good are they actually doing to society?
If the media, political and economic systems focused on bettering the society rather than the individual then I imagine that quite a lot of things would get balenced out.
I would like to know one thing: Why service people have crap wages.
Footballers, celebrities, actors and corporate bigjobs get millions.
Teachers get paid for half the hours they put in. 8 hours at school, then 4 hours of marking. Plus events with mandatory attendence like parents evenings, school events etc. And their salaries suck.
Doctors and Nurses are overworked, understaffed and underfunded. They also put in tremendous hours, and get paid little.
Can't anyone see that these people are the life blood of our society? Why should a footballer get paid £300 pounds per *second* when all they're doing is playing a game?
Corporate bigjobs divide time equally between stabbing each other in the back, screwing customers, counting their money, and cruising around in private jets. Why? What good are they actually doing to society?
If the media, political and economic systems focused on bettering the society rather than the individual then I imagine that quite a lot of things would get balenced out.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
I dunno, if you train to be a teacher your course is free, you get your student loan paid off and a starting salary that's half decent, more if you want to do science. That's state system teaching too, there's good money to be made from private school teaching, which is what both my parents did.
Their money doesn't come from tax payers, it comes from people who want to see them play that game. It's entertainment, if people don't want footballers to be paid they shouldn't pay to see them play.
producing products that people want to buy? You don't have to buy their products
Written by: Sethis
Teachers get paid for half the hours they put in. 8 hours at school, then 4 hours of marking. Plus events with mandatory attendence like parents evenings, school events etc. And their salaries suck.
I dunno, if you train to be a teacher your course is free, you get your student loan paid off and a starting salary that's half decent, more if you want to do science. That's state system teaching too, there's good money to be made from private school teaching, which is what both my parents did.
Written by: Sethis
Can't anyone see that these people are the life blood of our society? Why should a footballer get paid £300 pounds per *second* when all they're doing is playing a game?
Their money doesn't come from tax payers, it comes from people who want to see them play that game. It's entertainment, if people don't want footballers to be paid they shouldn't pay to see them play.
Written by: Sethis
Corporate bigjobs divide time equally between stabbing each other in the back, screwing customers, counting their money, and cruising around in private jets. Why? What good are they actually doing to society?
producing products that people want to buy? You don't have to buy their products
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I've gone to school for 13 years, to uni for 5 1/2, and get about 5.20 an hour for doing a PhD, a job I've had more than 5 years' training for. With 40 h a week I'm supposed to work, but of course I'm expected to read papers after work and come in whenever I have to on weekends and outside normal hours. But nevermind that, it's what I want to do and I can live off it so I don't complain, even though I do get jealous at friends who "only" did an apprenticeship or a bachelor's course and are making tons of money now.
Salary doesn't always equal the objective value of the job you do, but the subjective of what people are willing to pay for it. And if millions of kids want to sponsor Britney Spears's new clothes and house and wedding, then she's entitled to that money. As much as I dislike her, her music makes people happy and gets them to sing and dance, and that should be honoured. Same for football players.
If a big company decides it's worth shoving millions up somebody's arse to possibly ruin them, but also possibly keep thousands of people employed, fine, too. As long as you're not a shareholder it's nothing you should really worry about.
I've gone to school for 13 years, to uni for 5 1/2, and get about 5.20 an hour for doing a PhD, a job I've had more than 5 years' training for. With 40 h a week I'm supposed to work, but of course I'm expected to read papers after work and come in whenever I have to on weekends and outside normal hours. But nevermind that, it's what I want to do and I can live off it so I don't complain, even though I do get jealous at friends who "only" did an apprenticeship or a bachelor's course and are making tons of money now.
Salary doesn't always equal the objective value of the job you do, but the subjective of what people are willing to pay for it. And if millions of kids want to sponsor Britney Spears's new clothes and house and wedding, then she's entitled to that money. As much as I dislike her, her music makes people happy and gets them to sing and dance, and that should be honoured. Same for football players.
If a big company decides it's worth shoving millions up somebody's arse to possibly ruin them, but also possibly keep thousands of people employed, fine, too. As long as you're not a shareholder it's nothing you should really worry about.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
Skill/Job sharing:
"This week Mr Matthews - you're on heart surgery"
"Oh good..erm...how do I do that? I only learnt to sweep streets yesterday"
Whilst I admire your ethics - I really can't see they have any application in a realistic way.
Sorry - but people are people. The society you're suggesting has little basis in reality IMO
Skill/Job sharing:
"This week Mr Matthews - you're on heart surgery"
"Oh good..erm...how do I do that? I only learnt to sweep streets yesterday"
Whilst I admire your ethics - I really can't see they have any application in a realistic way.
Sorry - but people are people. The society you're suggesting has little basis in reality IMO
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
hence the word's "viable" and "today" in the topic
hence the word's "viable" and "today" in the topic
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
No, hang on, I'm not suggesting that people do jobs that they are not qualified to do. Note that I said 6 months of each, so they'll have plenty of training for each one. Please pay attention to the post. People will obviously not be doing skilled jobs with no training. What I'm saying is that it might be good incentive to alternate.
And if the education system was better organised, then people would have little trouble doing jobs. Going from A-Level onwards, it would be something like:
"Which job do you want to do?"
"I want to be a doctor."
"Ok, you'll need 2 sciences for that. If you're going to be a doctor, then your other job will probably be something relatively stress free, and you won't have to deal with too many people. How about being a bin-man? We can give you a GNVQ in that."
"Ok"
So then for their degree, they do a Medical doctorate, and because they have finished their GNVQ then they can get a part time job collecting rubbish or whatever. this gives them money to get through Uni, and they leave fully qualified to do two jobs.
Flid: "you get a starting salary that's half decent" No you don't, unless you are wanting to teach a subject in demand. Only the Sciences, Maths and Religious Education are in demand. Private school, yes you do get good pay, but that's because the parents are rich, not because the government acknowledges the value of good teachers.
The people in charge of the company aren't producing the products, the factory workers are. Hence they should get paid the same.
And explain how you can actually survive without buying corporate produced products? Remember "Viable" and "Today"
No, hang on, I'm not suggesting that people do jobs that they are not qualified to do. Note that I said 6 months of each, so they'll have plenty of training for each one. Please pay attention to the post. People will obviously not be doing skilled jobs with no training. What I'm saying is that it might be good incentive to alternate.
And if the education system was better organised, then people would have little trouble doing jobs. Going from A-Level onwards, it would be something like:
"Which job do you want to do?"
"I want to be a doctor."
"Ok, you'll need 2 sciences for that. If you're going to be a doctor, then your other job will probably be something relatively stress free, and you won't have to deal with too many people. How about being a bin-man? We can give you a GNVQ in that."
"Ok"
So then for their degree, they do a Medical doctorate, and because they have finished their GNVQ then they can get a part time job collecting rubbish or whatever. this gives them money to get through Uni, and they leave fully qualified to do two jobs.
Flid: "you get a starting salary that's half decent" No you don't, unless you are wanting to teach a subject in demand. Only the Sciences, Maths and Religious Education are in demand. Private school, yes you do get good pay, but that's because the parents are rich, not because the government acknowledges the value of good teachers.
The people in charge of the company aren't producing the products, the factory workers are. Hence they should get paid the same.
And explain how you can actually survive without buying corporate produced products? Remember "Viable" and "Today"
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
1 + 1 = 3
3,540 posts
Location: Bristol UK
1 + 1 = 3
3,540 posts
Location: Bristol UK
Posted:
Is it OK to mention George Orwell and Animal Farm in this thread?
Is it OK to mention George Orwell and Animal Farm in this thread?
Empty your mind. Be formless, Shapeless, like Water.
Put Water into a cup, it becomes the cup, put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot.
Water can flow, or it can Crash.
Be Water My Friend.
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
"Hmmm - I'll go for the doctor job please. I think I'd like to help people live better lives. I know it's 6 years training, which will be hard, especially working a 2nd job to fund my training - but it'll be worth it. Incidentally, what's the salary?"
"Oh £20k"
"Nice - What's the salary for bin-man?"
"£20k"
"Oh..."
~~~~
Or...
Actually no - otherwise this will turn into a "Why communism will never work" debate
"Hmmm - I'll go for the doctor job please. I think I'd like to help people live better lives. I know it's 6 years training, which will be hard, especially working a 2nd job to fund my training - but it'll be worth it. Incidentally, what's the salary?"
"Oh £20k"
"Nice - What's the salary for bin-man?"
"£20k"
"Oh..."
~~~~
Or...
Actually no - otherwise this will turn into a "Why communism will never work" debate
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Does it not seem perfectly logical for a capitalist but socialist (i.e. health service, police, rescue services, etc) society to be the base but then communes run along side this? This is already possible.
Surely those who feel strongly about communistic living dont have an urge to acquire large piles of money. They don't have to. It is possible for groups to club together buy some land and become semi-self-sifficient. You can generate your own power (small numbers of buildings can run on solar / wind generators, the latter being extremely easy to make yourself), grow your own food even provide some of your own water (water purification is not particularly complex on a small scale). The small amout of things that are left over that NEED to be paid for can be accomodated by selling excess food or sales of creative goods.
What we need is a society where people aren't forced to live in the way that others see fit and where options are presented for any kind of living.
By suggesting communism as a model for society people are totally missing the point. You would be imposing the same restrictions on freedom as capitalsm does.
Does it not seem perfectly logical for a capitalist but socialist (i.e. health service, police, rescue services, etc) society to be the base but then communes run along side this? This is already possible.
Surely those who feel strongly about communistic living dont have an urge to acquire large piles of money. They don't have to. It is possible for groups to club together buy some land and become semi-self-sifficient. You can generate your own power (small numbers of buildings can run on solar / wind generators, the latter being extremely easy to make yourself), grow your own food even provide some of your own water (water purification is not particularly complex on a small scale). The small amout of things that are left over that NEED to be paid for can be accomodated by selling excess food or sales of creative goods.
What we need is a society where people aren't forced to live in the way that others see fit and where options are presented for any kind of living.
By suggesting communism as a model for society people are totally missing the point. You would be imposing the same restrictions on freedom as capitalsm does.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
It doesn't have to be about communism, there may be another option
6 months training to do technical jobs? I wish, that'd make things a lot easier. I've spent most of my free time since the age of about 10 learning things applicable to my job, then 4 years at university.
When I was looking at a PGCE a couple of years back, the starting salary is 18k, which isn't at all bad. You also have your student loan repaid if you stay in it for several years, worth about 15k in my case.
Depends what you're criteria is. Personally I've been boycotting Proctor and Gamble, Unilever, Glaxo Smithkline for years, who together produce most of the world's big brands. In addition companies in niche markets such as Nike, and of course fast food, none of which i eat (other than a couple of small places in London whose business practices i know about). I do all of my shopping for non food household products in health food stores (virtually all is ecover), buy very little in the way of prepared food from supermarkets and make a lot of my own things that most people buy (bread etc). Totally viable, totally today. It isn't perfect, but the point is that the more people like me there are, the more that companies on my naughty list are likely to change. They'll do anything for money, if if it's being nicer to the environment/animals/human workers etc.
So the person who designed the product, who studied design for years and who came up with the good idea gets paid the same as the person who puts them in cardboard boxes? What inscentive is there for anyone to rise above the rest, to be anything more than the minimum needed. The average human's nature doesn't extend to doing stuff for the good of the world full time with no recognition. Oh wait, durbs just made that point
remind me to get private health insurance if that were to happen!
What of people who are disabled, unable to work, or have learning difficulties? Shall we just kill them all off instead?
Written by: Durbs
Actually no - otherwise this will turn into a "Why communism will never work" debate
It doesn't have to be about communism, there may be another option
Written by: Sethis
No, hang on, I'm not suggesting that people do jobs that they are not qualified to do. Note that I said 6 months of each, so they'll have plenty of training for each one. Please pay attention to the post.
6 months training to do technical jobs? I wish, that'd make things a lot easier. I've spent most of my free time since the age of about 10 learning things applicable to my job, then 4 years at university.
Written by: Sethis
Flid: "you get a starting salary that's half decent" No you don't, unless you are wanting to teach a subject in demand.
When I was looking at a PGCE a couple of years back, the starting salary is 18k, which isn't at all bad. You also have your student loan repaid if you stay in it for several years, worth about 15k in my case.
Written by: Sethis
And explain how you can actually survive without buying corporate produced products? Remember "Viable" and "Today"
Depends what you're criteria is. Personally I've been boycotting Proctor and Gamble, Unilever, Glaxo Smithkline for years, who together produce most of the world's big brands. In addition companies in niche markets such as Nike, and of course fast food, none of which i eat (other than a couple of small places in London whose business practices i know about). I do all of my shopping for non food household products in health food stores (virtually all is ecover), buy very little in the way of prepared food from supermarkets and make a lot of my own things that most people buy (bread etc). Totally viable, totally today. It isn't perfect, but the point is that the more people like me there are, the more that companies on my naughty list are likely to change. They'll do anything for money, if if it's being nicer to the environment/animals/human workers etc.
Written by: Sethis
The people in charge of the company aren't producing the products, the factory workers are. Hence they should get paid the same.
So the person who designed the product, who studied design for years and who came up with the good idea gets paid the same as the person who puts them in cardboard boxes? What inscentive is there for anyone to rise above the rest, to be anything more than the minimum needed. The average human's nature doesn't extend to doing stuff for the good of the world full time with no recognition. Oh wait, durbs just made that point
Written by: Sethis
"I want to be a doctor."
"Ok, you'll need 2 sciences for that.
remind me to get private health insurance if that were to happen!What of people who are disabled, unable to work, or have learning difficulties? Shall we just kill them all off instead?
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
No, please READ the post. I said 6 months of every year *doing* each job. Training takes as long as it takes.
Until you compare it to someone who earns 22k at Center Parcs who left school after GCSEs. And your student loan will be reduced when we put more money into education. Therefore the benefits of having it canceled are lessened.
Flid, it's good that you're doing your best to boycott business' with bad practices, but can I ask you some things? Do you own a car? Do you put petrol in it? Do you own a TV or Computer? Do you watch films? Do you listen to music?
Please don't get the wrong impression, I'm not trying to insult you, or criticise. I just want to point out how difficult it is to avoid consumerist giants in today's markets. Like I said, good job on your lifestyle so far, you're probably doing better than me
For the good of society. It's the entire basic principle of Communism. Everyone tries to better themselves, and in doing so, better society. That is the idea anyway...
I've already said that human nature makes *true* communism impossible. This is a hypothetical scenario, if we could create a society from scratch.
Why do you need more? After all, all you need to know is how to diagnose conditions, then the chemists can prescribe the correct treatment.
And at this point, I would like to point out that there can be no alternative to Capitalism while Capitalism itself survives. Presumably you have all heard how Communism has been demonized, and the same will happen to anyone who tries to propose a different way of life. America's duology, Capitalism and Democracy are going to be spread over the entire world soon, because people think that their way of life is the only viable alternative.
Therefore it is kinda pointless to ask for "Viable" alternatives. "You're either for us, or against us"...
Written by: flidWritten by: Sethis
No, hang on, I'm not suggesting that people do jobs that they are not qualified to do. Note that I said 6 months of each, so they'll have plenty of training for each one. Please pay attention to the post.
6 months training to do technical jobs? I wish, that'd make things a lot easier. I've spent most of my free time since the age of about 10 learning things applicable to my job, then 4 years at university.
No, please READ the post. I said 6 months of every year *doing* each job. Training takes as long as it takes.
Written by: Flid
When I was looking at a PGCE a couple of years back, the starting salary is 18k, which isn't at all bad. You also have your student loan repaid if you stay in it for several years, worth about 15k in my case.
Until you compare it to someone who earns 22k at Center Parcs who left school after GCSEs. And your student loan will be reduced when we put more money into education. Therefore the benefits of having it canceled are lessened.
Flid, it's good that you're doing your best to boycott business' with bad practices, but can I ask you some things? Do you own a car? Do you put petrol in it? Do you own a TV or Computer? Do you watch films? Do you listen to music?
Please don't get the wrong impression, I'm not trying to insult you, or criticise. I just want to point out how difficult it is to avoid consumerist giants in today's markets. Like I said, good job on your lifestyle so far, you're probably doing better than me
Written by: Flid
So the person who designed the product, who studied design for years and who came up with the good idea gets paid the same as the person who puts them in cardboard boxes? What incentive is there for anyone to rise above the rest, to be anything more than the minimum needed.
For the good of society. It's the entire basic principle of Communism. Everyone tries to better themselves, and in doing so, better society. That is the idea anyway...
Written by: Flid
The average human's nature doesn't extend to doing stuff for the good of the world full time with no recognition. Oh wait, durbs just made that point
I've already said that human nature makes *true* communism impossible. This is a hypothetical scenario, if we could create a society from scratch.
Written by: FlidWritten by: Sethis
"I want to be a doctor."
"Ok, you'll need 2 sciences for that.
Why do you need more? After all, all you need to know is how to diagnose conditions, then the chemists can prescribe the correct treatment.
And at this point, I would like to point out that there can be no alternative to Capitalism while Capitalism itself survives. Presumably you have all heard how Communism has been demonized, and the same will happen to anyone who tries to propose a different way of life. America's duology, Capitalism and Democracy are going to be spread over the entire world soon, because people think that their way of life is the only viable alternative.
Therefore it is kinda pointless to ask for "Viable" alternatives. "You're either for us, or against us"...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
in a beautiful daze....
134 posts
Location: Liverpool, England
in a beautiful daze....
134 posts
Location: Liverpool, England
Posted:
Incidently in a communist society you would be paid to train to do your job, given a place to live, sufficient transport and all services i.e. police, fire, health etc...
It gives everyone the opportunity to be who they want to be, so long as they ar able to do that i.e. school grades/ability.
I know that not everyone can understand where a communist approach would work for example motivation to do the fundametally higher paid jobs which is why it would work, in that people who were not motivated would go out and get easy no training no thinking jos to make life easy for themselves. Conversley though other people would train for a job that required a great deal of skill simply for personal reward and self satisfaction.
Written by: Durbs
"Hmmm - I'll go for the doctor job please. I think I'd like to help people live better lives. I know it's 6 years training, which will be hard, especially working a 2nd job to fund my training - but it'll be worth it. Incidentally, what's the salary?"
"Oh £20k"
"Nice - What's the salary for bin-man?"
"£20k"
"Oh..."
~~~~
Or...
Actually no - otherwise this will turn into a "Why communism will never work" debate
Incidently in a communist society you would be paid to train to do your job, given a place to live, sufficient transport and all services i.e. police, fire, health etc...
It gives everyone the opportunity to be who they want to be, so long as they ar able to do that i.e. school grades/ability.
I know that not everyone can understand where a communist approach would work for example motivation to do the fundametally higher paid jobs which is why it would work, in that people who were not motivated would go out and get easy no training no thinking jos to make life easy for themselves. Conversley though other people would train for a job that required a great deal of skill simply for personal reward and self satisfaction.
Whatever happened to my green and pleasant land?
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com