So why socialism?

[snaw]

How can you believe that all people are equal when they're patently not.
If they're not all equal why should they be treated as they they were equal?

I think the real idea isn't that everyone is created equal, or that we all are equal - but that as far as possible we are all given equal opportunites to achieve our potential.

[Rebecca Loos]

full socialism is not possible
full capitalism is not possible either

As with everything, the best way is probably in between. But I think that even if we should veer towards a society that is more capitalist than socialist, a few socialist-type safeguards to curb the most damaging effects of capitalism would be welcome.

[Jabberwocky]

>But will you not concede that everyone has the chance to achieve

Absolutely not ! Just one example - take the over fifties newly made redundant through capitalist machinations - irrespective of merit there is very little chance for achievement for these people in today's society. They are told to go work in the local supermarket.

[Dundeegeorge]

Ah, so the state should be controlling the job market

I don't think so.
And why are they not able to succeed?
Is success being able to work for somebody else?
Why are you on a contractor's forum?

I do take your point that many people are thrown on the scrapheap, but no one is entitled to a job, just because they're breathing.

[Jabberwocky]

And why are they not able to succeed?
Prejudice, protectionism, lack of opportunities ...

Is success being able to work for somebody else?
Success is relative and personal

Why are you on a contractor's forum?
To challenge your ideas.

I do take your point that many people are thrown on the scrapheap, but no one is entitled to a job, just because they're breathing
Why not ? People in this country are entitled to many things just because they are breathing.

[John Galt]

And why are they not able to succeed?
Prejudice, protectionism, lack of opportunities ...

Is success being able to work for somebody else?
Success is relative and personal

Why are you on a contractor's forum?
To challenge your ideas.

I do take your point that many people are thrown on the scrapheap, but no one is entitled to a job, just because they're breathing
Why not ? People in this country are entitled to many things just because they are breathing.

Generally, the only thing that stops people being a success is themselves

[Jabberwocky]

Generally, the only thing that stops people being a success is themselves

Another trite statement - our entire hierarchical society is geared towards success for the few and failure for the many. Try to remember that in 1998 the world's 225 richest people had a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people.

Yes, 2.5 billion people whose success is determined entirely by themselves as measured by a capitalist society.

[BlasterBates]

I maybe naive here, but.....

I think that just being over fifty is not a reason to be unemployed, yes inevitably there are the odd employer that is ageist, but at the end of the day in the free market its the "Queens Head" / "the non existant bridge (for those of us on the continent" that speaks, drives us on, so if an "over fifty" can add value, make bucks or whatever, then who cares if he´s over fifty.

In fact a remember speaking to someone, an American, who was 51 at the time, went for a job interview and said he wanted to move into Software while he was still young, the MD who was about 53, I think, employed him on the spot. Great bloke is about sixty now but still gets jobs, went to a job interview at German Railways, and enthused about railways, telling the PM about his model railway in the attic; had no problem getting the job there too; they´ve been hinting for some time that he might be retired, but still no sign of the retirement package. The truth is this ageist thing is totally blown out of proportion, basically if you do a great job, you´ll get a decent job somewhere.

[Jabberwocky]

>so if an "over fifty" can add value, make bucks or whatever, then who cares >if he´s over fifty.

"Add value" - who determines who adds value ? You are naive because assume job placement in the perm sector is based on merit/skills/knowledge - on who is going to be the best for the company. Whereas perm employment is highly politicised - the key question the hiring manager asks (often subconciously) is who is the best person for me. That may be the best person for the job or it maybe whoever increases the value for the hiring manager. However the veteran is rarely a good hire for the hirer. The best person for me is someone 5-10 years younger than me, with my educational background, and with my skill set. This is the selfish gene.

I can post just as many anecdotes as you can except they reveal the ageist prejudice. I doubt your anecdotal evidence will be so compelling if you hit fifty and are made redundant. However, just look at the job adverts for clues - "recent graduate", "no more than 5 years experience", "a young team", "3 years PQE". How many jobs ads ask for 30 years experience ? Are there any ? Where are the adverts for 40-50 year old developers/teamleads/managers ? Nowhere - because that is not on the corporate timeline.

[stackpole]

Socialism does for human endeavour pretty much what incest does for the human as a creature. It's a dead end, leading to retardation.

How many useless morons have you fed today?