Poor, poor strikers go shopping

[doodab]

That is the first intelligent thing you have said all day

Well, it's at least the third, because I had to say it three times before it actually sank in.

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.

So do you not think that if we make it easier for people from poor backgrounds to become entrepreneurs or inventors surely that is going to reap dividends?

[DodgyAgent]

Well, it's at least the third, because I had to say it three times before it actually sank in.

Ok fair enough, I apologise for not picking this up. I will maintain however that this is a side issue of the original point with regards to entitlement and carrying on supporting inefficient public sector workers at the expense of the people in the private sector

[MarillionFan]

Ok fair enough, I apologise for not picking this up. I will maintain however that this is a side issue of the original point with regards to entitlement and carrying on supporting inefficient public sector workers at the expense of the people in the private sector

Who are you and what have you done with Dodgy?

[d000hg]

They can sacrifice what they like as long as we can go somewhere else to acquire the services that they are supposed to be providing. If a contractor goes on strike then the employer can simply find another contractor. If the client annoys a contractor he/she is free to go elsewhere for their work - it works because this arrangement keeps both the employer and the contractor on their toes.

Like most thinks, neither side is totally right or wrong. If you can strike and be replaced/fired, then your voice is lost because striking has no impact. The ability to give up getting paid and show your employer how seriously you're taking the situation is powerful, and an all-powerful employer needs some checks and balances.

[BlasterBates]

I recall Jeremy Clarkson slamming the banks. Not sure you would describe Jeremy Clarkson as rightwing. I haven't heard a political opinion from him.

I get the impression that leftwing thinkers are rather blinkered in not seeing irresponsibility when it suits their ideology.

[DodgyAgent]

Like most thinks, neither side is totally right or wrong. If you can strike and be replaced/fired, then your voice is lost because striking has no impact. The ability to give up getting paid and show your employer how seriously you're taking the situation is powerful, and an all-powerful employer needs some checks and balances.

I disagree. An all powerful employee also needs checks and balances i.e the trade unions. The unions have not given an inch of compromise on pensions. The aggregate power of the public sector Unions combined with the monopolistic positions they hold is an example of such disproportionate power. It is mitigated by the fact that very few workers actually went on strike and that the services are so useless anyway no one missed them. This of course begs the question why dont we just sack them?

[DodgyAgent]

I recall slamming the banks. Not sure you would describe Jeremy Clarkson as rightwing. I haven't heard a political opinion from him.

I get the impression that leftwing thinkers are rather blinkered in not seeing irresponsibility when it suits their ideology.

He is right wing but he is not a myopic tribal idiot who polarises opinions according to right wing/left wing ideology.
He probably sees something wrong and criticises it whether it is right wing, left wing, black or white.

[shaunbhoy]

Are they? It seems to me that there has been a transfer of the cost of pension provision to the individual from the rest of the taxpaying general public at large

ftfy

[doodab]

ftfy

Well no, you haven't fixed it, you've misunderstood it because as usual you are deliberately missing the point, which is that everybody, including you and me, has been forced to bear the risks of investing for a pension. The entire benefit of this transfer of risk has been passed on to those we work on behalf of and we have gained nothing from the deal. Rather than be upset with those responsible for this you're hoodwinked into denigrating those who would stand against it. A classic case of divide and conquer helping the powerful overcome the weak minded if ever I saw one

[DodgyAgent]

Well no, you haven't fixed it, you've misunderstood it because as usual you are deliberately missing the point, which is that everybody, including you and me, has been forced to bear the risks of investing for a pension. The entire benefit of this transfer of risk has been passed on to those we work on behalf of and we have gained nothing from the deal. Rather than be upset with those responsible for this you're hoodwinked into denigrating those who would stand against it. A classic case of divide and conquer helping the powerful overcome the weak minded if ever I saw one

Why should'nt we be forced to bear the risks of investing in a pension? Who's responsibility is it?