• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Is the UK doomed to pro-longed decline?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    To avoid living like a medieval small-holder with a similar lifespan, you can't afford not to have a competitive economy.

    To have that, you've got to allow the people who run successful bits of it to make good money, otherwise they won't bother or they'll go elsewhere.

    To do that you are no longer getting poor across the board.
    What's lifespan got to do with it?

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post

      What's lifespan got to do with it?
      You're really quite slow sometimes - A medieval smallholder, like typical Third World peasants today, had an average lifespan of about 40.
      Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
        You're really quite slow sometimes - A medieval smallholder, like typical Third World peasants today, had an average lifespan of about 40.
        ... and once the Industrial Revolution was properly underway, it had FALLEN to about 35. Is that ? I'm not so sure...
        My all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
          It may have been on QI where Stephen Fry said the happiest nations were not the richest, but societies where wealth was evenly distributed. Who cares if we get poorer, as long as we all get poor together? That may be the next challenge.
          Gini coefficient.

          Note the USA and China fare badly, middle Europe is good but Sweden looks like the place to be.
          Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
            You're really quite slow sometimes - A medieval smallholder, like typical Third World peasants today, had an average lifespan of about 40.
            Medical science has moved on since the middle ages and a fairer society needn't result in going back to the stone age any more rapidly than an unfair one. Life expectancy in the US is slightly lower than in Cuba. And of course in parts of Britain is in the 40s already.
            List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
              Medical science has moved on since the middle ages and a fairer society needn't result in going back to the stone age any more rapidly than an unfair one. Life expectancy in the US is slightly lower than in Cuba. And of course in parts of Britain is in the 40s already.
              List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
              With an uncompetitive economy, you couldn't afford an NHS.

              You couldn't afford the levels of nutrition we enjoy today (MacDonalds notwithstanding).

              And you couldn't afford the police force or army needed to keep that "fairer society" fair.

              Comment


                #17
                Spain has always been one of the poor men of Europe but one of the healthiest, teaching people to eat properly and chill out a bit might help.
                Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
                  With an uncompetitive economy, you couldn't afford an NHS.

                  You couldn't afford the levels of nutrition we enjoy today (MacDonalds notwithstanding).

                  And you couldn't afford the police force or army needed to keep that "fairer society" fair.
                  The same list of groundless and factual misrepresentations could be said of an unfair society. Look at African countries or medieval cultures, where winner takes all.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
                    Gini coefficient.

                    Note the USA and China fare badly, middle Europe is good but Sweden looks like the place to be.
                    Yeah, one of the fairest. On my quick examination the unfairest countries do seem to be the worst, and the fairest the best.

                    I thought Fry said happiness, but what he said could well have related to this index. Was it mentioned on QI?

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by alreadypacked View Post
                      There is no way to stop the trend, empires rise and fall. The West is on the way down, the East is rising. China has a long term plan, you need to work out how it is going to play out, and stay as much ahead of the curve as you can.
                      I dont share that view.
                      IMO the east is following. They're not pioneers or leading the way.
                      Everything they're doing today to 'emerge' is just an echo of what we have already achieved.
                      Where is the new stuff?,... what are they doing (other than providing cheap labour) that is better or more innovative than what we have already achieved?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X