Poor, poor strikers go shopping

[doodab]

You have neatly managed to switch the argument from equating " entitlement" to affluence. Not everyuone who comes from a comfortable background has the sense of entitlement. Most have earnt their comfort not been given it whether they have grown up in a happy environment or not. I cant beleive you have been allowed to again shift the argument. So lets bring it back to my original point which is that "entitlement" as displayed by the striking public sector workers is an entirely destructive phenomenon. Todays economic climate should be the perfect time to purge our society of having to pay these people by getting rid of them and turning the public sector into a proper service that performs to levels that make it stand out as an economic and social necessity, rather than a symbol of class war and middle class guilt sustained by hypocrites like you.

Er, no. blaster has started cherry picking poor people who have invented stuff in response to my assertion that making it easier for poor people to be entrepreneurial and inventive would be more productive than making it easier for rich people to be entrepreneurial and inventive because the rich people already have the opportunity. His argument seems to be that being poor presents no barriers to success when in fact I suspect the proportion of poor people who do great things is significantly smaller than the proportion of rich people who achieve great things.

It's not really anything to do with the strikes, or entitlement, or any of what you are banging on about.

[BlasterBates]

You have neatly managed to switch the argument from equating " entitlement" to affluence. Not everyuone who comes from a comfortable background has the sense of entitlement. Most have earnt their comfort not been given it whether they have grown up in a happy environment or not. I cant beleive you have been allowed to again shift the argument. So lets bring it back to my original point which is that "entitlement" as displayed by the striking public sector workers is an entirely destructive phenomenon. Todays economic climate should be the perfect time to purge our society of having to pay these people by getting rid of them and turning the public sector into a proper service that performs to levels that make it stand out as an economic and social necessity, rather than a symbol of class war and middle class guilt sustained by hypocrites like you.

In fact George Stephenson wasn't privileged at all he earnt 12 shillings a week

George Stephenson : The Father Of Train

Around 1800 the average weekly labours wage was around 6-10 shillings.

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80552

So it is complete nonsense to suggest George Stephenson was privileged.

[BlasterBates]

Er, no. blaster has started cherry picking poor people who have invented stuff in response to my assertion that making it easier for poor people to be entrepreneurial and inventive would be more productive than making it easier for rich people to be entrepreneurial and inventive because the rich people already have the opportunity. His argument seems to be that being poor presents no barriers to success when in fact I suspect the proportion of poor people who do great things is significantly smaller than the proportion of rich people who achieve great things.

It's not really anything to do with the strikes, or entitlement, or any of what you are banging on about.

I don't have to cherry pick because there are so many of them.

You'll find most of them are middle class downwards. The privileged well to do didn't invent things and never have done.

I could name many others:

In Japan, Honda and Toyoda, both came from mediocre backgrounds

Thomas Edison

Henry Ford

I could go on and on and on....

Fact is you don't a lavishly public funded research project. If you did they'd just publish nonesense,why bother doing anything useful:

Lets see what we get from lavishly funded public research:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

...fantasies to justify even more funding.

[doodab]

I don't have to cherry pick because there are so many of them.

You'll find most of them are middle class downwards. The privileged well to do didn't invent things and never have done.

So when I suggest that increasing opportunity for the very poor instead of the very rich might be a good idea, am I perhaps on to something?

[BlasterBates]

So when I suggest that increasing opportunity for the very poor instead of the very rich might be a good idea, am I perhaps on to something?

Their education is funded up to PhD level, using loans that are only paid off when they become privileged. In fact aren't fees waived for the poorest students? I believe so. I don't see the need to pour money down a drain, better they follow in other inventors footsteps and develop their ideas in their jobs.

There's plenty of public funding for fundamental research.

[TheFaQQer]

I can't imagine a private school employing someone who isn't qualified.

I went to one.

[DodgyAgent]

So when I suggest that increasing opportunity for the very poor instead of the very rich might be a good idea, am I perhaps on to something?

That is the first intelligent thing you have said all day

[DodgyAgent]

Er, no. blaster has started cherry picking poor people who have invented stuff in response to my assertion that making it easier for poor people to be entrepreneurial and inventive would be more productive than making it easier for rich people to be entrepreneurial and inventive because the rich people already have the opportunity. His argument seems to be that being poor presents no barriers to success when in fact I suspect the proportion of poor people who do great things is significantly smaller than the proportion of rich people who achieve great things.

It's not really anything to do with the strikes, or entitlement, or any of what you are banging on about.

It is no coincidence that so many of the leading entrepreneurs were low achievers at school. If you achieve at UNi or school you are presented with a safe but narrow set of opportunities - you work in a profession or you work for a corporate or the civil service, you certainly dont take risks by starting your own business. having said that many accountants steal businesses or money.
If you are thick and or a school drop out there are two ways of making money either you steal it (I know byu becoming a recruitment agent ) or you start your own business.

[The Spartan]

I worked in the Civil Service (Companies House) for 7 years and we were by no means underpaid, everyone there complained so much about wages they decided to get a consultancy in to compare the salaries of jobs done there with those in the Private sector. As it turned out we were paid significantly more than our Private sectors counterparts and pensions weren't even taken into account at the time. Plus the conditions there were very good, 29 days annual leave, Flexible working hours, 37.5 hour week, a bonus each year etc

[Freamon]

That is not what the taxi drivers in Newcastle said. I asked them that very question and they said that he had never seen the city centre so busy and that they were all public sector workers. How did he know? he asked them and so did his taxi driver colleagues.

You do realise there are no private sector employees within 50 miles of Newcastle?