Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

So sick of the demonisation of the poor, aren't we a resentful country?

Scroll to see replies

If they lived in/near London and couldn't get a job- they aren't going to get a job whatever, in their current circumstances.

Actually, an idea- they are relocated, cheaper housing benefit but the savings in housing benefit should be re-invested in those people (college courses etc) to help them "skill up".

Well a lot of my friends have moved to London to get jobs, so maybe you should have got more qualifications/done more work experience?

I think your second idea is essentially the right way of thinking, this is exactly what I mean by the government needing to do things to help these people off benefits. However how will they get out of the valleys to where jobs actually exist once they have these qualifications?

Original post by billydisco

15 years ago:

-No Eastern Europeans
-No mass muslim immigration
-No "chavs"/anti social behaviour on the scale we have now

Muslim immigration to this country began in the mid 19th century, and has been high since the 1970s.
Many muslims in this country are second and third generation.
Half of the two million muslims in the UK were born here. So essentially 1 million out of a population of over 62 million have migrated here, many before the time period you are talking about, hardly mass immigration.

Just because the term 'chav' which I really think you should read into, it is a very classist term, was only coined in the past 15 years does not mean we had no such behaviour associated with people commonly described as 'chavs' before then. The idea of an 'underclass' described in a very similar way to how these people are commonly described in the media actually dates back to Victorian times.

Reply 241

Tiger Rag

Original post by billydisco

15 years ago:

-No Eastern Europeans
-No mass muslim immigration
-No "chavs"/anti social behaviour on the scale we have now

Er, there have been Eastern Europeans here for years. My dad's family (his father's family is Maltese) have been here since at least just after the war and my friends family (Israeli) have been there since around the same time.

Eastern Europeans have been here for years.

With regards to relocating - where and how? As well as moving your children, you're going to have to find a lot of money (normally deposit plus rent up front and the costs of moving) before moving. You can't really afford to do that if you're on benefits.

Reply 242

Barksy

Original post by OU Student

What does Malta and Israel have to do with Eastern Europe? Malta is in the south and Israel isn't even in Europe...

Reply 243

AutVinceriAutMori

Original post by JBMJBM

Misconception? The creators of wealth (not resources - resources are finite) are rich. Consider Henry Ford: when he innovated and applied the moving production line to his car factory and produced cars at prices affordable to many, did he create wealth? Yes. Did it benefit all of society? Yes. Did it make him rich? Yes. Would he have done it if his reward for creating wealth was taken from him? No. People are greedy, you are and I am. If you look through history the greatest improvements in the quality of life of the poor have been as a result of private individuals seeking to maximise their own welfare, not as a result of government programmes.

I might be wrong, but I disagree that the rich are creators of wealth. If anything, it's the people employed by the top that create the wealth for the rich, unless the rich do every step of their trade single handedly, which they don't.
Using the analogy of Henry Ford- yes, he did invent something of value to society and yes, as a result, he benefited society. But I doubt he could have achieved that if he did not rely on his workforce to manufacture the cars he invented. I doubt he would have mined the ore, transformed it into car detailes, and then assembled all of his manufacture alone in his shed- he had to rely on someone else doing a part of the job for him, which is fair enough, because he owned the idea. But to say that he alone generated wealth is, to me, quite erroneous. Sure, a small percentage of the people earn more and are in a position where they represent the top echelons of particular companies, but successful operation of these companies and structures does not depend on them alone, nor are they the only ones who contribute to the economy. If anything, it seems that collectively, ordinary citizens put more into economy than certain businesses and corporations (Starbucks and Amazon, for one).
As for your second argument- that humans are selfish by nature, yes, selfishness is a part of our nature. But we, as humans, evolved to live in a society- not follow the law of the jungle, so to speak. We all rely on each other, in more way than one, and to my knowledge, greatest tragedies and significant reduction in the quality of life of the poor (not just, poor, really, any disadvantaged group of people) happened when some private individuals have put their profits over other people. But perhaps you would tell me how greatest improvements to the quality of life were generated by individuals that sought to maximise their own welfare?

Reply 244

Jetboy

In as far as the comparison of the rich being demonised more than the poor. Firstly it isn't true, people mostly have a pragmatic idea of the rich, they might carry resentment for them too but they are mostly considered a foreign problem, one which they can not affect.

Secondly, if you have obscene amounts of money, having your feelings hurt is the worst that will happen, you will not go hungry, will not lose your house, will not be walking around poorly clothed. The problems that demonising the poorest cause are profound and inhumane. The comparison is a ridiculous one, the rich have massive influence and power, they are protected at every turn, the poor do not. The rights of those at the bottom end of the ladder can only be stuck up for by the general population as a whole. In demonising them, the greedy can strip away any layer of dignity if no one will speak up against it. It's very easy throwing around terms like "chav" and "scum" when talking about the unemployed, but very few who do it have ever lived on the pittance you get or have lived a life with no prospects.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 245

myblueheaven339

Original post by destroyrofworlds

Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own situation, whatever that may be. If you're not going to sort your own life out, why do you expect everyone else to do it for you?

And if you're perpetually unemployed, WTF are you doing having kids you can't afford to have? And why should the rest of society pay for you to raise them, in conditions which are not conducive to their well-being or the overall well-being of society? Smart people who have fallen on hard times don't pop out two kids and expect the state to pay for them. Idiots do. The fact that it's possible for them to do so enables the problem of "feral youth".

Let me ask you - what sort of civilization do you foresee that we will eventually end up with, when right now intelligent, successful and educated people have few or no kids, and the morons of the world are given the resources to pop them out at will, and therefore do so?

A civilization of idiots, that's what. It's a very dangerous road.

I hate the often banded around generalisation that if you are poor you are stupid, and that consequently your children will be stupid. It's utter rubbish.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 246

JBMJBM

Removed

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 247

AutVinceriAutMori

Original post by JBMJBM

Yes, you are wrong. Anybody could have worked on Ford's production line. The work they did was paid for by their wages. Anybody could have mined the ore, smelted the steel etc. The work that those people did was paid for by Ford. Ford put together the workers, the machinery and the raw materials. This took risk. The reward for this risk was profit - if somebody else could do it better, they would. Not anybody could have innovated the way Ford did (if they could have, they would have, due to the profit incentive). This increased his own profit (his motivation) but also lowered the cost of cars and increased the number of cars, to the benefit of society; hence 'wealth creation'. The additional productive capacity (AKA wealth creation) was facilitated by Ford, not his workers.

Even if we make an assumption that any step in car manufacture is something anyone can do (so no qualified/ trained for roles), I still disagree that Fords innovation and risk taking alone is behind the wealth creation. It benefited the society, yes (and created new problems along the way).What wealth it created? Wealth for the inventor and the workers? I cant claim to know the specifics of the economy of America at the time, but I still disagree that he alone has created his wealth- he created his idea, and to make that idea into reality he needed other people. What would have happened to his startup company if his workers went on strike?
You also seem to think that profit is the main motivation behind innovation, and whilst it does play a part in the process, not everything was invented and created for profit.We still use the products based on the work of Tesla, who died penniless and alone, because he spent more money to create new experiments, rather than grow his wealth. He also strived to create electricity from air which made J. P Morgan cut off his funding and his files to be seized by government after his death. How much did the idea of personal profit aid innovation in this case?

Starbucks and Amazon provide a service which consumers want, making them very valuable (and profitable). Regarding the recent tax scandal: that was a failure of the government. You can not claim a business is behaving immorally for (legally) paying lower tax than it could. It is the responsibility of the government to eradicate loopholes etc - do not expect businesses to voluntarily pay more tax than they legally have to... do you? Regardless, this is irrelevant to the explanation of wealth creation.

Yes, they are valuable because there is a demand for their products and because consumers see them as valuable. I don't see how the active tax avoidance cant be described as immoral just because its legal. To me, its immoral to use services of the country, its workforce and its market without putting something back in the economy in which they profit. But then, morality is something that is defined differently by different people and societies. And legal does not equal moral, which is why I can claim that they acting immorally. Child labour is immoral, and whilst its legal in some countries (like Uzbekistan), it doesnt change the fact that its wrong. Granted, this is a far fetched example,but the same logic applies.
And yes, its a failure of government to act, but that only means that the general public is punished for the actions of their government.

And interestingly, their value in the eyes of consumer was quite damaged after the scandal broke out and the people were made aware of the practices.

We create laws to serve us. Collectively we do not like the idea of being attacked, hence murder/assault is illegal. Any compassionate act is done either to impress one's peers, or as a relic of our genetic history where such an action would be reciprocated (we give money to the poor because we can experience empathy with them: if we were poor, we would want money - it is a sort of comforting insurance policy). Hence, our nature is inherently selfish.

Again, you seem to suggest that there can be no true altruism behind acts of kindness- everything is done as an attempt to impress one's peers or as a relic of our genetic history. Its your opinion of course, but none of the examples you gave truly support that theory. You suggest that we made murder/assault illegal because we dislike the idea that we could be killed, but that could easily be done because we dont like the idea of someone else being killed? Why do people campaign for the rights of animals,for the rights of people from the other countries, etc? Because collectively,we don't like the idea of being bred and slaughtered for profit? Because we dislike the idea that our human rights could be abused at some point if we don't speak up?
Yes, inherently selfish traits are part of being human. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that not every act of kindness or empathy we do is inherently selfish.

The best method of cooperating, in terms of Economics, is through the invisible hand which is most strongly exemplified in a purely capitalistic society. What are you talking about? If an individual acts fraudulently they should go to prison, of course. Firstly, it is private profits which motivate entrepreneurs to take the risk and innovate and it is innovation which increases the welfare of the poor, 1000x more effectively than a government aid programme ever can. What do you think happens when an individual keeps their profits? They invest! More long run economic growth (the good kind which lowers prices and increases output to the greater benefit of society). What happens if the government taxes it away? The government decreases the incentive for the most productive people in our society to work their hardest; the government wastes resources (Does Person A spend Person B's money on Person C more efficiently than Person A could spend Person A's money on Person A?).

You seem to confuse innovation and enterpreneurship, and they are different. Not all inventors are businessmen, and not all inventions are designed to profit someone. Also, innovation alone does not increase the welfare of the poor, what makes you think that? Regarding your earlier example- how would a car benefit someone poor enough not to be able to afford its upkeep and to pay fuel? What is the point of an anti cancer therapy if you are too poor to pay for it?
Again, you seem to think that most people who accumulate personal wealth invest in long term economic growth- some do,others move their wealth into banks in tax free zones, to allow their wealth grow. What happens when the government taxes a part of it, is that government provides services that the business does not want to provide , or does not always want to provide- you know, like schools and roads and hospitals. What would be your alternative- no taxes and then all of those would be provided by businesses investing in future?

Reply 248

JBMJBM

Removed

(edited 11 years ago)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681

Reply 251

JBMJBM

Removed

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 252

Jetboy

I shouldn't have to say no I don't, are we really that far down the line of spite we are considering it?

Reply 253

JBMJBM

Removed

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 254

Jetboy

Original post by JBMJBM

Once you socialise one aspect of a market, it becomes necessary to have the government become increasingly involved in all associated markets. Socialism goes hand-in-hand with nationalism (irrelevant to the article admittedly, but true) and authoritarianism; hence the slippery slope down the road to serfdom.

Do you really think it is fair that I should be coerced to pay for somebody to get treatment which could have been avoided had the person only behaved responsibly (as I do)? Not only is it a grave waste of scarce resources, it creates a serious moral hazard: if society covers the burden of an individual's treatment, then the incentive of that person to eat more carefully is reduced as they know society will take up the slack. It also creates resentment between the fatties and normal taxpayers: in a socialist society I am paying for their mistakes so I am upset with their behaviour and might openly display my disapproval, harming social cohesion.

In a capitalist society, by contrast, I do not care if somebody is fat because it is their choice, they pay the costs and it does not affect me. However if we are going to keep the NHS then further authoritarian programmes are inevitable. It would be far less costly (in money and liberty) to make fat people pay for their own treatment than to force them to attend these fat camps and I am sure making them pay would do a good job at making them lose weight!

Rationalised spite and greed. Ayn Rand would be proud.

Reply 255

JBMJBM

Removed

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 256

Jetboy

Original post by JBMJBM

Yes, my arguments are rational; when it comes to organising our society we should consider the logical consequences of policies. If you agree my arguments are logical and sound, then you accept their conclusions, surely? If you do not, then refute them using your own arguments. It seems to me you can not and merely wish to take the moral high-ground by promoting the absurd misconception that socialists care more about fellow man than proponents of classical liberalism.

What is greed? Human nature is programmed by our genes and our genes want to survive. To survive, our genes command us to promote our own welfare, except where helping others may benefit us through reciprocation etc. We are all greedy. I would also argue that socialism is a far more greedy than capitalism. In capitalism, each factor of production receives in full its reward (or compensation) for its use in creating goods and services. Everybody keeps what they make. In socialism, you take from others that which does not belong to you, by putting a gun to their head. How is that not a more greedy and spiteful system?

If there is one Human trait that does not need nurturing it is greed, that tends to take care of itself. Your are a from the very bowels of the cult of Aynn Rand, you can not rationalise (and this is what I'm sure you knew I meant when I said rationalise) allowing people to starve for the sake of numbers and a very narrow one sided freedom. Any healthy society is based on a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism, fundamentalism never ends well.... actually it doesn't begin too healthily either.

Reply 257

JBMJBM

Removed

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 258

Jetboy

Original post by JBMJBM

I'm not sure why you keep assuming I'm a Socialist, I never said I was. What I did say was a healthy society is one which uses Capitalism (and it's greed) and Socialism.

Also, you are presuming that Socialism is the practise of wishful thinking by misguided do-gooders, rather than a very rational way to keep extreme poverty from occuring. If you want an example of anarchism and greed when the richest wield absolute power, have a look at South American systems, pure corruption and desperate poverty. Gated communities, high crime and utter misery.

Your description seems to lunge from one extreme to another, making false equivalences and coming to wild conclusions.

I appreciate your tone is one of someone who genuinely wants the discussion but you are so far to the right on this issue, it does veer into fundamentalism, that wasn't a joke, well it partly was.

Reply 259

Jetboy

Original post by JBMJBM

I do not encourage or nurture greed, merely accept that it is there and recognise that pure (or very nearly pure) capitalism is the best system of harnessing it for the common good; not doing this a grave deceit. Thank you for introducing me to Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I will research it some more but from what I have seen I do agree with her.

Do you really believe that socialism is a better system for eradicating hunger than capitalism? I can see that you are well-intentioned but the policies you support do not achieve their aims, and especially once you consider an economy/society as dynamic rather than static. This is one of the most persistent misconceptions about how economic systems are interpreted in my eyes: "socialism wants to look after the poor, so it is good" - it may more obviously want to, but in reality it looks after the poor far worse than capitalism does. As a compassionate neo-liberal (I think) I really resent this belief because I am supporting policies that will increase the welfare of everybody (including the poor), but on these forums and elsewhere proponents of the free market are seen as disinterested in the plight of the poor, when in reality it is social programmes, advocated by do-gooders and often supported by the ignorant poor, which consistently do more harm than good (e.g. minimum wage).

The statement "Fundamentalism never ends well" seems full of irony to me, do you not think?

Here's another point... merely by owning a computer with which to converse with me, you demonstrate how you prioritise your own well-being above others, surely? You could sell your computer and give the proceeds to charity (which you will not, I expect), or you could do what a capitalist would do and keep your computer, use it to further your education and associated research, then enter the labour market and provide goods and services for people, or maybe start your own business, to the obvious benefit of society. It seems you are a socialist when "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" does not include you in "the rich" - by my judgement through owning a computer you are rich (comparatively richer than a starving child, at least). My question is this: would you consider yourself a champagne socialist?

Socialism isn't sharing everything equally, that's Communism, giving away your possessions and leaving yourself short is stupidity.

Your question is a loaded one, it's a phrase from tabloid right wing journalism.

I hate the term because it basically says if you hold any morals towards equality and social justice, you are not allowed to enjoy luxury.

What you just asked is about as thought out a question as me asking you if you are a Nazi.

But just so you don't think I'm avoiding the question, I'm not a Socialist (and my views do not fit so neatly in a box, please stop having a debate with the person you invented) and I do not like Champagne.