Poor, poor strikers go shopping

[d000hg]

Amazing that an average public sector worker earning £8000 per year (and hence be entitled to a pension of £5000) could afford to go Christmas shopping.

Read "A Christmas Carol". Even the properly poor scrimp and save to get tiny gifts and so on.

[DodgyAgent]

It's not mob rule, it's progress, stupid. Some people see that the world can be made better and they strive to make it so, whether by building better houses or inventing washing machines or trying to reduce the suffering of their fellow humans. To simply accept things as they are without questioning them is both anti progress and profoundly misanthropic.

Why is it entitlement when people want a decent standard of living but "life" when companies want more profits? Why are companies automatically entitled to maximise profits and minimize what they give to workers? And why shouldn't workers be allowed to use what little bargaining power they have during asymmetric negotiations? This veneration of the body corporate as a supreme being whose needs override that of human beings is the tail wagging the dog.

If someone wants a "decent standard of living" then they either earn it or someone else has to give it to them. As I say the "profits" of these corporates funnily enough is where people pensions sit. Even if they were spent mostly on luxury goods and lavish lifestyles so what? If a worker doesnt like it then F**k off or start your own corporate.

As for all the progress you talk about then all the great inventions and achievements were created by people who were most definately not brought up in an environment of entitlement. Most great achievements were created at times of great need (war, disease) and creativity (industrial revolution). Nothing has been achieved by any society that enjoys an easy pampered life.

[DodgyAgent]

I think you are blaming the wrong people. They didn't create the monopoly.

I also think you are wrong in suggesting the workers needs are more important than those of the kids. Firstly, it's entirely possible for the needs of the workers to be important but less important than the needs of the kids, and secondly the kids needs are best served by happy, motivated educators.

They all argue that one. Do you think Chris Hoy is entitled to his position in the UK cycling team by virtue of what he has achieved and how long he has been in it? No he is not. He has to train phenomenally hard every day in order to maintain his position as the best in his sport. It is this ethic that should apply as the basis of all jobs especially where a monopoly exists. In the private sector where there is genuine competition i.e small businesses this situation is healthy in keeping service levels up and workers at their best and thus giving good returns to their customers.

It is a total nonsense that the wants of the workers should ever come ahead of the needs of the people they serve.

[doodab]

If someone wants a "decent standard of living" then they either earn it or someone else has to give it to them. As I say the "profits" of these corporates funnily enough is where people pensions sit. Even if they were spent mostly on luxury goods and lavish lifestyles so what? If a worker doesnt like it then F**k off or start your own corporate.

As for all the progress you talk about then all the great inventions and achievements were created by people who were most definately not brought up in an environment of entitlement. Most great achievements were created at times of great need (war, disease) and creativity (industrial revolution). Nothing has been achieved by any society that enjoys an easy pampered life.

Your naive and idealistic view of capitalism simply doesn't tally with reality because there is an asymmetry of opportunity to start with and asymmetry of power to be going on with. You also keep prattling on about "entitlement" while completely failing to acknowledge that there is, implicit in everything you say, an assumption that ownership of capital gives one an "entitlement" to the majority of the fruits of any human endeavour which that capital enables. You seem to think the rich are entitled to benefit more from capitalism than the poor simply because they have the capital to begin with, and I don't see why that should be the case when the distribution of capital is skewed to begin with.

[doodab]

It is a total nonsense that the wants of the workers should ever come ahead of the needs of the people they serve.

Perhaps, but it's utterly fallacious to conclude from that that we should completely neglect them.

[doodab]

As for all the progress you talk about then all the great inventions and achievements were created by people who were most definately not brought up in an environment of entitlement. Most great achievements were created at times of great need (war, disease) and creativity (industrial revolution). Nothing has been achieved by any society that enjoys an easy pampered life.

This is cobblers as well. Many great inventions and achievements were created by people raised in a position of relative privilege with access to education and frequently with sufficient wealth to devote a great deal of time and money to pursuit of their ideas.

[original PM]

This is cobblers as well. Many great inventions and achievements were created by people raised in a position of relative privilege with access to education and frequently with sufficient wealth to devote a great deal of time and money to pursuit of their ideas.

Yes but the people who made these great leaps did not do a 9.00 to 4.30 job they worked pretty much every hour god sent and the reward was the invention and not the salary or pension pot.

These people still exist but mainly in private sector because that area provides a platform in which research of the type needed can be done. The public sector no longer looks to employ innovative forward thinking people because they tend to be a threat to the status quo which is jealously guarded by the people at the top who are trying to ensure that get as much as possible for doing as little as possible.

SOrry Doodab i hear everything you are saying but the public sector is simple being run ineffiecently and ineffectively and therefore needs to be reshuffled to get rid of the chaff and get people in who genuinely want to provide quality services and make a difference.

[minestrone]

I doubt the majority of these workers have more than 10 days of strike in them.

Also the government have been very clever in splitting them early on with the "retire in 10 years and you are exempt from the changes" offer which they are saying they might pull.

Can see this going on for a while but a slow death for the strikers. Tories will win this one.

[doodab]

Yes but the people who made these great leaps did not do a 9.00 to 4.30 job they worked pretty much every hour god sent and the reward was the invention and not the salary or pension pot.

Yes, that's part of what I am saying. It requires a certain level of wealth to facilitate creativity and entrepreneurship. Most people are simply too busy struggling to survive. This is why I think the dogma of lowering taxes for the already well off to "encourage investment" is a bit of a waste of time. These people already have the opportunity to be entrepreneurial. You need to grant that opportunity to more people who don't already have it.

These people still exist but mainly in private sector because that area provides a platform in which research of the type needed can be done. The public sector no longer looks to employ innovative forward thinking people because they tend to be a threat to the status quo which is jealously guarded by the people at the top who are trying to ensure that get as much as possible for doing as little as possible.

I think it's also the case that a large chunk of inventiveness that used to be public sector has been privatised (Qinetic, BT / Post Office) so there is less government spending on basic research and R&D than there could be and the private sector can be quite short sighted when it comes to that sort of long term investment. There are plenty of tax breaks to encourage it but I think direct government funding is necessary as well. That was one of the good things in Osborne's statement. There has been some direct investment in graphene research announced as well. That's the sort of thing we need because it will take world class research and turn it into a British industry rather than seeing those inventions and ideas disappear overseas to be commercialised the way that for example OLED did.

SOrry Doodab i hear everything you are saying but the public sector is simple being run ineffiecently and ineffectively and therefore needs to be reshuffled to get rid of the chaff and get people in who genuinely want to provide quality services and make a difference.

Surely that means it's the people running it who need "shuffling"?

[DodgyAgent]

Your naive and idealistic view of capitalism simply doesn't tally with reality because there is an asymmetry of opportunity to start with and asymmetry of power to be going on with. You also keep prattling on about "entitlement" while completely failing to acknowledge that there is, implicit in everything you say, an assumption that ownership of capital gives one an "entitlement" to the majority of the fruits of any human endeavour which that capital enables. You seem to think the rich are entitled to benefit more from capitalism than the poor simply because they have the capital to begin with, and I don't see why that should be the case when the distribution of capital is skewed to begin with.

We can have a separate discussion about the ownership of capital and what is wrong about too much power and property being held in the hands of too few people. But do not try and switch the argument.
My point is that these people are striking from a position of aggregated power and monopoly. They are privileged in that they know that their customers have no choice but to go to them for services. They are further privileged that their jobs are highly protected and that they have cast iron pensions for when they retire. I have no problem with anyone striking as long as I am free to choose who I go to for services. British Airways is a case in point. Their trolly dollies went on strike and as a consumer I could use another airline so the problem was confined to BA. If BA was not looking after its staff then its profits would be hit forcing it to compromise between conditions for its employees , services to customers and its own profits. This is how it should be.

If these people in the public sector are going to enjoy such privilege then they should carry responsibility or have their monopoly taken away from them.