Ukip candidate: 'Gay donkey tried to rape my horse'
- Thread starter ededwards
- Start date
Of course that leaves us with the usual problem, the one no-one ever brings up:
Working benefits. Those only exist because employers are often too stingy to pay employees enough to live on. So the government has to step in and subsidize them.
Bloody mental, if you think about it. If a bike shop went "sorry Mrs The Queen, I can't be arsed paying for all the bikes I want to sell, can you do it? Oh and the shop rent and the electricity as well" they'd get laughed at. So I don't see why they're allowed to do it with human beings.
Now if they really need the government to step in and fill the gap between what they can afford, and what labour actually costs, then they're not actually profitable at all. If we're going to stick with capitalism they should just be made to go bust... or admit they're just greedy sods.
Working benefits. Those only exist because employers are often too stingy to pay employees enough to live on. So the government has to step in and subsidize them.
Bloody mental, if you think about it. If a bike shop went "sorry Mrs The Queen, I can't be arsed paying for all the bikes I want to sell, can you do it? Oh and the shop rent and the electricity as well" they'd get laughed at. So I don't see why they're allowed to do it with human beings.
Now if they really need the government to step in and fill the gap between what they can afford, and what labour actually costs, then they're not actually profitable at all. If we're going to stick with capitalism they should just be made to go bust... or admit they're just greedy sods.
suburbanreuben
Old School Grand Master
Re:
Can't see that happening anytime soon...
Can't see that happening anytime soon...
jonnugget69
Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
Why don't people stop having families until they can afford them?
Well, there's your homework for tonight.
I'll be interested in the bit where you figger out how we can convince everyone to not do anything that'd even risk babies happening until they're absolutely, 100% certain they can afford it, with no expensive unfortunate surprises in the future. And then I wanna know how you do that without causing a big massive civilization wrecking drop in birth rates.
Its not really a helpful line of thinking.
I'll be interested in the bit where you figger out how we can convince everyone to not do anything that'd even risk babies happening until they're absolutely, 100% certain they can afford it, with no expensive unfortunate surprises in the future. And then I wanna know how you do that without causing a big massive civilization wrecking drop in birth rates.
Its not really a helpful line of thinking.
jonnugget69
Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
Well it is entirely reasonable to start by thinking if you can afford it before you start.
Obviously some people are struck by unfortunate circumstances but many families are unplanned and brought into this world in to existing poverty.
The world population has more than doubled since 1960. It wouldn't take much of a drop in births to arrest this massive increase...and starting with better financial planning would be a decent start.
Obviously some people are struck by unfortunate circumstances but many families are unplanned and brought into this world in to existing poverty.
The world population has more than doubled since 1960. It wouldn't take much of a drop in births to arrest this massive increase...and starting with better financial planning would be a decent start.
That'd be brilliant that. Turn everyone into accountants or perfectly logical vulcans... They'll never pop babies out until they can personally afford it. Most of them never would afford it.
Now this is the bit where I start thinking about phrases like "replacement rate", "negative population growth", "retirement homes that can't find the staff", "labour shortage", "negative economic growth", "prolonged depression", "this was a bad idea"...
I dunno, seems that if the best answer you can come up with to wages not meeting the actual cost of labour is "labourers should chop their own cost of living so harsh they can't even breed", then maybe you're not good at this sort of thing. That's actually a million times worse than just letting the welfare state carry on paying rest of the cost of labour, and completely unimplementable anyway.
Now this is the bit where I start thinking about phrases like "replacement rate", "negative population growth", "retirement homes that can't find the staff", "labour shortage", "negative economic growth", "prolonged depression", "this was a bad idea"...
I dunno, seems that if the best answer you can come up with to wages not meeting the actual cost of labour is "labourers should chop their own cost of living so harsh they can't even breed", then maybe you're not good at this sort of thing. That's actually a million times worse than just letting the welfare state carry on paying rest of the cost of labour, and completely unimplementable anyway.
jonnugget69
Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
Yep, because you need to be some sort of genius accountant or logical mastermind to work out the costs involved with having a kid and subtracting it from your income. It's not exactly rocket science is it!
It's the lack of personal responsibility that's pretty galling, expecting the rest of society to mop it up.
It's the lack of personal responsibility that's pretty galling, expecting the rest of society to mop it up.
I think you're missing large parts of what I'm saying.
The lack of responsibility is laying at the feet of employers.
If a worker costs, say, £20k a year, and the employer only pays £10k, that's another £10k that society has to pay in stuff like housing benefits and working tax credits and stuff.
It's a subsidy for employers who don't want to pay what their employees actually cost.
And you can't blame laborers for not being cheap enough. It's like blaming the sky for not raining enough or the sun for not being bright enough. If your business can't afford the resources it needs to not go bust, it shouldn't go looking for the government to pay for it disguised as a worker's in-work dole.
And what do you reckon would happen if you took all those subsidies away, but didn't make employers pay the actual cost of the labour they need? They'd force labour to become cheaper, and I assure you that doesn't happen by everyone skint on the payroll magically gaining padlocked underpants.
The lack of responsibility is laying at the feet of employers.
If a worker costs, say, £20k a year, and the employer only pays £10k, that's another £10k that society has to pay in stuff like housing benefits and working tax credits and stuff.
It's a subsidy for employers who don't want to pay what their employees actually cost.
And you can't blame laborers for not being cheap enough. It's like blaming the sky for not raining enough or the sun for not being bright enough. If your business can't afford the resources it needs to not go bust, it shouldn't go looking for the government to pay for it disguised as a worker's in-work dole.
And what do you reckon would happen if you took all those subsidies away, but didn't make employers pay the actual cost of the labour they need? They'd force labour to become cheaper, and I assure you that doesn't happen by everyone skint on the payroll magically gaining padlocked underpants.
