Reply to: Let Northerners pick fruit

[Platypus]

On a lighter note, this is hilarious

The Daily Mash - SOUTHERNERS RELUCTANT TO EAT FRUIT PICKED BY NORTHERNERS

[Old Greg]

This equilibrium needs a bit of parameter squeezing then. Bit of a tilt towards Police State might do us the world of good.

I'm sure it would do you the world of good.

[shaunbhoy]

We are in the equilibrium between police state and revolution. Enjoy it.

This equilibrium needs a bit of parameter squeezing then. Bit of a tilt towards Police State might do us the world of good.

[Old Greg]

You are making the mistake of thinking the only two solutions lie at opposite ends of the scale. I would not fancy that much either, but nor am I happy with a state that panders too easily to a high proportion of the lame and lazy. The utopia we seek is somewhere in the midst of the two extremes. About high time we started heading back towards some kind of equilibrium.

We are in the equilibrium between police state and revolution. Enjoy it.

[shaunbhoy]

Which is back to my point about a police state. It was certainly the response in Latin America for much of the post-war period, but I don't fancy living in that kind of country.

You are making the mistake of thinking the only two solutions lie at opposite ends of the scale. I would not fancy that much either, but nor am I happy with a state that panders too easily to a high proportion of the lame and lazy. The utopia we seek is somewhere in the midst of the two extremes. About high time we started heading back towards some kind of equilibrium.

[Old Greg]

We've faced it before, we'll manage again. It will give the Army something to do when we pull out of Afghanistan anyway.

Which is back to my point about a police state. It was certainly the response in Latin America for much of the post-war period, but I don't fancy living in that kind of country.

[shaunbhoy]

Then you risk Lord Hailsham's dilemma.

We've faced it before, we'll manage again. It will give the Army something to do when we pull out of Afghanistan anyway.

And do you think Gordon took over from Tony in Ireland etc. etc.?

No. But his poisonous influence drifted across the Irish Sea like a bad smell.

Yeuuuuurrghh!

[Old Greg]

Of course you can. Introduce relative hunger. Works every time.



Nonsense. See my answer above. An empty belly trumps ideological posturing everytime.



Gordon took over from Tony.

HTH

Then you risk Lord Hailsham's dilemma.

And do you think Gordon took over from Tony in Ireland etc. etc.?

[shaunbhoy]

You cannot eliminate relative unwillingness.

Of course you can. Introduce relative hunger. Works every time.

And you cannot have fewer unproductive people as they are needed to drive down wages.

Nonsense. See my answer above. An empty belly trumps ideological posturing everytime.

Why are there more unproductive people now than three years ago? Has there been an idleness pandemic?

Gordon took over from Tony.

HTH

[Old Greg]

This is the nub of things. Eliminate this issue and I can handle the rest.
Another factor in this scenario is that we have created an unfair safety net for too many people who have no moral entitlement to it. They are taking advantage of a glaring loophole that allows them to remain financially better off by NOT taking a job than they would be if they DID take it. At least the new HMG are attempting to plug this gap.
It may well be that "Full Employment" is an unfeasible target in a modern technological society. However, I would argue that we do not NEED it, as a great many people can support a very satisfactory lifestyle with only one partner working, or at least one of them working only part-time.
We need to look at ways to encourage jobsharing where possible, and spreading the wealth that way.
We also need less unproductive people than we currently have, and if we have to coerce some of them into voluntary work in return for state assistance, then so be it. I can live with that. We have an ageing population, chores like gardening and helping the elderly where possible ought to help foster a community spirit.
I have high hopes that we are, at last, moving in the right direction again.
Here's hoping.

You cannot eliminate relative unwillingness. And you cannot have fewer unproductive people as they are needed to drive down wages. Why are there more unproductive people now than three years ago? Has there been an idleness pandemic?

[shaunbhoy]

Individuals' unemployment (long-term, I mean) is usually the result of their relative incapacity, inflexibility or unwillingness, simply because the most able and willing will take those jobs that there are.

This is the nub of things. Eliminate this issue and I can handle the rest.
Another factor in this scenario is that we have created an unfair safety net for too many people who have no moral entitlement to it. They are taking advantage of a glaring loophole that allows them to remain financially better off by NOT taking a job than they would be if they DID take it. At least the new HMG are attempting to plug this gap.
It may well be that "Full Employment" is an unfeasible target in a modern technological society. However, I would argue that we do not NEED it, as a great many people can support a very satisfactory lifestyle with only one partner working, or at least one of them working only part-time.
We need to look at ways to encourage jobsharing where possible, and spreading the wealth that way.
We also need less unproductive people than we currently have, and if we have to coerce some of them into voluntary work in return for state assistance, then so be it. I can live with that. We have an ageing population, chores like gardening and helping the elderly where possible ought to help foster a community spirit.
I have high hopes that we are, at last, moving in the right direction again.
Here's hoping.

[Old Greg]

I think you will find that giving people benefits is more likely to create resentment than not giving benefits. It is amazing how resourceful people are when they have to feed themselves with no state handouts. Such resourcefulness should be nurtured by removing everyone from benefits. Paying benefits is of no use to anyone.

I completely agree. Russian women in February 1917 proved themselves extremely resourceful when they could not afford bread, going back to Lord Hailsham's point (although he may be a bit Wet for your tastes, Dodgy: Russian Revolution (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DodgyAgent]

Then why was the big growth in unemployment and transfer of people onto IB in the '80s? I would suggest that the rationale was to make industry more efficient. Having done so, it created a pool of people on benefits, who have to be kept from rioting / revolting.

I think you will find that giving people benefits is more likely to create resentment than not giving benefits. It is amazing how resourceful people are when they have to feed themselves with no state handouts. Such resourcefulness should be nurtured by removing everyone from benefits. Paying benefits is of no use to anyone.

[Old Greg]

Nice try. You are clearly bored today. The Government that created this "situation" was not one of my choosing, so I accept no part of the blame. Whilst we are on that issue though, I would say that those who ARE to blame are those foolish enough to believe that we must be, come what may, saddled with a large percentage of lazy people that have never been made to face up to their social responsibilities. That does not need to be the case, and has only come about due to the insufferably pious toleration of the champagne socialist classes, when we were foolish enough to hand them the reins of power.
The truth of the matter is that any society will always have a minority in need of help and support. The biggest issue in this country today is that those most in need of this help are being deprived of much of it due to a bloated underclass that have made it a career choice to milk a totally inept system for every penny they can.
The notion that able-bodied people of working age should be required to follow what work there is and be as flexible as possible is entirely fair, and is a concept as old as the hills. And we might succeed in achieving that veritable nirvana if a few less of the Kismet-obsessed woolyheads stopped piping up with ludicrous notions of one's lot in life being hamstrung entirely by luck. The harder you work, the luckier you get.

Well spotted, yes I am bored and being a bit naughty. But be careful of saying, 'the truth is...'. The truth is that there are lots of truths. Here is another. Free market capitalism cannot provide enough jobs to keep everyone in work, as this would change the demand / capacity relationship driving up wages and driving down competitiveness. Unemployment as a social phenomenon is not the result of individuals' incapacity or unwillingness. It is a product of our market. Individuals' unemployment (long-term, I mean) is usually the result of their relative incapacity, inflexibility or unwillingness, simply because the most able and willing will take those jobs that there are.

To test this thesis, consider whether when unemployment rises by 1,000,000, this is because employers' have shed jobs or because workers have become idle.

[DodgyAgent]

Hey Dodgy, love your signature!

I think one or two here take it a bit seriously!