Benefit scrounging parasites from Europe

[Mich the Tester]

Please explain why?

I've explained in two words; false dichotomy. Look it up.

[shaunbhoy]

Haterz gonna hate

Yes, and thickos gonna spout!!

[Robinho]

I've explained in two words; false dichotomy. Look it up.

I know what a false dichotomy is, i need you to explain why you think this is one and what the alternative is so i can highlight the flaw in your thinking.

[Mich the Tester]

So it didn't matter when the original lot were unemployed, but it does matter when the new lot were unemployed.

What is so special with the second "class"?

Why should people with obsolete or uncompetitive skills have jobs in place of the people with competitive skills?

I agree the sudden unemployment was unfortunate for some communities, but that wasn't the fault of Maggie, it was the fault of not following the free market in the first place which would have resulted in a far more gradual decline of the coal/steel industry.

Ah, now 'class' really IS important in this. If an entire social class in some country or region feels 'left out' or somehow abused, the consequences can be horrific. Think farm and factory labourers in Russia, early 20th century, or the middle classes in Germany in the 1930s, or even the 'évolués' in the Belgian Congo in the 1950s; a large group of people identifying themselves as members of a social class and who are in a bad mood is a very very dangerous thing. If people feel that misfortune is spread around the social classes, they are less able to unite and point to one group they feel is causing the misfortune.

[Robinho]

I'm impressed, you've manage to avoid answering this question for over 2 hours now. (you know, the one which underscores how irrelevant your points are)

Michael Howard would be proud.

[sasguru]

Stupidz like me gonna be stupid

FTFY

[Robinho]

How to argue like SAS...

Violently insult someone
Say X happens in Germany so X must be good
Make an unfounded point
Run away when unfounded point is challenged

Repeat

[Mich the Tester]

I'm impressed, you've manage to avoid answering this question for over 2 hours now. (you know, the one which underscores how irrelevant your points are)

Michael Howard would be proud.

Your question is nonsense, because you are presenting jobs and the economy as a zero sum game, suggesting that if a person loses his job then someone else gains a job; it isn't like that. Both might lose their jobs, two new ones might be created, or there might be simple replacement; we don't know beforehand, but you posit that a resource that isn't used in one economic process will then used by another. All good in theory, but it doesn't seem to happen that way.

[DodgyAgent]

I'm impressed, you've manage to avoid answering this question for other 2 hours now. (you know, the one which underscores how irrelevant your points are)

Michael Howard would be proud.

And to be fair to the chap it is not an unreasonable question

Read what I said; you said 'these people'. I contest that. While net employment grew, it wasn't necessarily the people who'd lost their jobs who took on the new jobs, and some areas of industrialised countries have never recovered. New employers will tend to hire young people fresh from school or with a couple of years work experience; very few in some new, growing sector will hire middle aged people who've spent their working lives in a sector that has gone into decline.

It is all very well making these sweeping statements but there are questions that spring to mind. If employers are as you say preferring to take young people "fresh from school" then why is youth unemployment such a huge concern through Europe?

[Robinho]

Your question is nonsense, because you are presenting jobs and the economy as a zero sum game, suggesting that if a person loses his job then someone else gains a job; it isn't like that. Both might lose their jobs, two new ones might be created, or there might be simple replacement; we don't know beforehand, but you posit that a resource that isn't used in one economic process will then used by another. All good in theory, but it doesn't seem to happen that way.

Yes it does. I have given examples of the industrial age and the computer age when many many jobs were automated yet still we had mass employment. As well as an example under Thatcher where the unemployment rate returned to a similar level to when she started, after uneconomic jobs were cut.

It works in theory, it works in practise.