Stupid is as stupid does

[videojetman]

getting rid of the estates isnt the answer. getting rid of the bad element is, and generally the bad element is a minority.
why punish the good majority.
i grew up in many of these estates, and they a full of good families.
if you destroy the estates the bad element will just move to another estates.
and i'm sure some of this bad element come from good homes. and in good areas,
where do you draw the line ?

 

[technodup]

Re: Re:

Capitalism is failing most but the infamous 1%
There is nothing democratic about a society that has at one end, people trying to survive on food banks, and at the other the hyper rich.

Capitalism has created such an increase in living standards we now consider kids who share bedrooms 'in poverty'. Some of 'the poor', i.e. those on benefits 'earn' more money than working people.

I have no issue with inequality tbh. We're born unequal, we die unequal. I'm not sure why the state should be trying to impose equality on us in between. Equality of opportunity is a laudable aim, but equality of outcome is impossible and undesirable.

You like to call people stupid. It's often said that if you took all the money in the world and divvied it up equally per person within a few years the rich would be rich again and the poor, poor. I believe it, and I'm not sure what the state could do about it.

Some people are supposed to be poor.

 

[xerxes]

Re:

I have no issue with inequality tbh. We're born unequal, we die unequal. I'm not sure why the state should be trying to impose equality on us in between. Equality of opportunity is a laudable aim, but equality of outcome is impossible and undesirable.

I agree, inequality, is and probably always will be a fact. Whilst complete equality is probably impossible, we could do a lot to improve the chances for an equality of opportunity.

At the moment we have a system that allows the wealthy to opt, or buy, their way out of society. Why should the wealthy care about an education system they don't use, or a healthcare system they don't need, public transport, social housing, legal aid, etc., etc.

Remove the opt out/buy out options and the wealthy and influential will ensure that the institutions and systems they too have to rely on are improved and all would benefit.

It works in Finland: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... nland-gcse

 

[The History Man]

Finland , Finland , Finland
The country where I want to be

 

[Mike Muz]

Finland , Finland , Finland
The country where I want to be

C'mon lads, let's have a whip round! Lol

Selling that Kona should pay for the taxi to the airport matey

 

[Harryburgundy]

Re: Re:

Capitalism is failing most but the infamous 1%
There is nothing democratic about a society that has at one end, people trying to survive on food banks, and at the other the hyper rich.

Capitalism has created such an increase in living standards we now consider kids who share bedrooms 'in poverty'. Some of 'the poor', i.e. those on benefits 'earn' more money than working people.

I have no issue with inequality tbh. We're born unequal, we die unequal. I'm not sure why the state should be trying to impose equality on us in between. Equality of opportunity is a laudable aim, but equality of outcome is impossible and undesirable.

You like to call people stupid. It's often said that if you took all the money in the world and divvied it up equally per person within a few years the rich would be rich again and the poor, poor. I believe it, and I'm not sure what the state could do about it.

Some people are supposed to be poor.

You have some truly disturbingly odd views.

 

[k-rod]

Re:

I knew a young Mexican gal, who came from a very, very, verrrrry wealthy family (the way she spent/wasted money was mind boggling). I never really did find out exactly from where her family's wealth was sourced, but when I asked her if it didn't bother her or impinge upon her conscience when she was at one of their many palatial homes and being driven through Mexico city in her chaffeured limo, and she saw all the homeless and hungry people ... or if she ever felt guilty about it at all ...

her answer was that ... "God wants us to be rich"

 

[technodup]

Re: Re:

At the moment we have a system that allows the wealthy to opt, or buy, their way out of society. Why should the wealthy care about an education system they don't use, or a healthcare system they don't need, public transport, social housing, legal aid, etc., etc.

Remove the opt out/buy out options and the wealthy and influential will ensure that the institutions and systems they too have to rely on are improved and all would benefit.

Don't count on it. Even if the rich opt out of private education and send their kids to the local comp what happens? They want the best comp, naturally, so they move house. This moving around causes house prices to jump in good school catchments, and you're back to square one, the rich getting the best option.

Then you have 'rich' parents who will tend to be better educated and able to better answer children's questions etc, not to mention able to pay for extra tuition here and there when necessary. All things less well off people probably couldn't do.

Equality is impossible. If we just accept that and concentrate on getting the best into university and the rest into training/apprenticeships/jobs which suits them we might be better off.

 

[Chapeau! Velo]

Re: Re:

At the moment we have a system that allows the wealthy to opt, or buy, their way out of society. Why should the wealthy care about an education system they don't use, or a healthcare system they don't need, public transport, social housing, legal aid, etc., etc.

Remove the opt out/buy out options and the wealthy and influential will ensure that the institutions and systems they too have to rely on are improved and all would benefit.

Don't count on it. Even if the rich opt out of private education and send their kids to the local comp what happens? They want the best comp, naturally, so they move house. This moving around causes house prices to jump in good school catchments, and you're back to square one, the rich getting the best option.

Then you have 'rich' parents who will tend to be better educated and able to better answer children's questions etc, not to mention able to pay for extra tuition here and there when necessary. All things less well off people probably couldn't do.

Equality is impossible. If we just accept that and concentrate on getting the best into university and the rest into training/apprenticeships/jobs which suits them we might be better off.

I have to agree. Equality of opportunity is what should be strived for to allow social and economic mobility / prosperity on merit. Society will always try and differentiate so trying to baseline everyone at the same level is pointless

An example is the Blair government setting university attendance targets. This has driven an explosion in university courses (some in subjects that their employment fields arguably didn't require university education to enter) that has resulted in employers having to go to greater levels of differentiation to filter which candides are genuinely suitable for the role. Those graduates who don't stack up are angry and disappointed as their expectations (both in economic and social terms) are not being met.