Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Yeah, because in our uncertain world rushing in as a foreign power probably won't cause any unintended consequences. It definitely won't make the situation worse in the long run, we never do. Let's just go and topple all the autocratic regimes and replace them all with democratic leaders. What could possibly go wrong?

    :facepalm2:
    We certainly cannot see the future and so there is always a risk that the situation will end up worse in twenty years than it is now however using your example above as a comparison, the modern world is much more interconnected and things like internet access would make it much harder for a new regime to rise up and impose tyranny on the people.

    I can't say that we will get a perfect result but i believe that despite the risk (which i view as relatively small on this occasion), the ends would justify the means.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We certainly cannot see the future and so there is always a risk that the situation will end up worse in twenty years than it is now however using your example above as a comparison, the modern world is much more interconnected and things like internet access would make it much harder for a new regime to rise up and impose tyranny on the people.

    I can't say that we will get a perfect result but i believe that despite the risk (which i view as relatively small on this occasion), the ends would justify the means.
    Christ alone. The fact that we're more interconnected and the world is more complex means we have absolutely no idea what the effects of our actions would be. Zero. None. Zip. How can these completely unknown ends justify any means?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    So your approach is to remain ignorant of any counter arguments and just write them off as being from a troll and therefore invalidate them. You should probably go back to your Socialist sub forums where everybody agrees with each other, as you clearly cannot handle the big bad public room where people disagree with you. Your debating skills are non existent which explains why I have never seen or heard of you as you clearly attempt to avoid debates at all costs due to your obvious lack of ability.
    The Hon. Member of my party explains my sentiments of this. Would the Hon. Member say that it would be right to place adverts proclaiming the advantages of pornography to all, encouraging people to visit their sites? It is a fact that people of all ages use the internet, and young children are also included; it would be wrong to invite young children to watch videos of something that they don't yet understand. Although extreme, you may have seen news stories about juveniles 'addicted' to pornography. This is equally mentally harming. After the age of 18, many people leave home and become more independent. They can drive (admittedly at 17), drink alcohol, enter clubs and bars etc. This kind of freedom wouldn't be equally welcomed to young children; why would you want 10 year olds in pubs and clubs? It's the wrong environment for young children.

    You can say that I'm 'out of touch,' but read my example: there are many children that smoke and are not of the right age to legally be permitted to do so. This is well-known, yet that doesn't make it right. This is the same for the viewing of pornography by minors.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aadam10)
    Do the labour party think the minimum wage should be increased?
    I'd like to thank the Hon. Member for the question.

    You may have seen a few weeks ago a proposition put to the government about the abolition of the minimum wage. I entirely opposed this, because it would be completely counter-intuitive in trying to improve the situation of our economy. Many Britons are living in poverty, with no jobs, or with low-paid jobs. This abolition, therefore, of the minimum wage, would put many of these people under further financial pressure. In my opinion, this would lead to increased crime levels, more homelessness, and also a further cost to the government via payments to families who are unable to afford their living costs.

    I would encourage the Hon. Member to bring forward any further questions, and we will endeavour to answer them to the best of our ability.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hines)
    I'd like to thank the Hon. Member for the question.

    You may have seen a few weeks ago a proposition put to the government about the abolition of the minimum wage. I entirely opposed this, because it would be completely counter-intuitive in trying to improve the situation of our economy. Many Britons are living in poverty, with no jobs, or with low-paid jobs. This abolition, therefore, of the minimum wage, would put many of these people under further financial pressure. In my opinion, this would lead to increased crime levels, more homelessness, and also a further cost to the government via payments to families who are unable to afford their living costs.

    I would encourage the Hon. Member to bring forward any further questions, and we will endeavour to answer them to the best of our ability.
    There's a few things to say.

    Those Britons who have no jobs...how does scrapping the minimum wage in any way hurt them? After all, they don't have a job so they aren't receiving the minimum wage. Don't you think that, just maybe, perhaps, putting a minimum price on labour might price some people out of the labour market and prevent them from getting jobs?

    I also think that you should familiarise yourself with the Welfare Act. Since the government pays an amount adequate to live off to everyone, regardless of their income, then lower wages doesn't mean higher welfare payments - since everyone gets it anyway. Oh, and we've hugely reduced taxes on income and hugely reduced VAT. So the squeeze on living standards is a hell of a lot less of a problem than in RL.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    There's a few things to say.

    Those Britons who have no jobs...how does scrapping the minimum wage in any way hurt them? After all, they don't have a job so they aren't receiving the minimum wage. Don't you think that, just maybe, perhaps, putting a minimum price on labour might price some people out of the labour market and prevent them from getting jobs?

    I also think that you should familiarise yourself with the Welfare Act. Since the government pays an amount adequate to live off to everyone, regardless of their income, then lower wages doesn't mean higher welfare payments - since everyone gets it anyway. Oh, and we've hugely reduced taxes on income and hugely reduced VAT. So the squeeze on living standards is a hell of a lot less of a problem than in RL.

    Ah but you then push people like me right over the edge of unemployability. I already can't get jobs where I grew up, your plan would cement the brain drain from poorer areas and that is irresponsible to say the least.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Ah but you then push people like me right over the edge of unemployability. I already can't get jobs where I grew up, your plan would cement the brain drain from poorer areas and that is irresponsible to say the least.
    How so? I think that reducing taxes on labour, scrapping VAT and replacing it with a land value tax is a huge benefit to these poorer areas. The land value tax concentrates a tax break exactly where it is needed - it's like enterprise zones on crack in that sense. Businesses will face lower costs of land in these poorer areas that they would pay in say, London. As such - more footloose businesses (eg. internet based companies) will find things more profitable in these areas. Our plan helps to address the problem of why the brain drain exists in the first place, not just trying to tackle it at a superficial level.


    On the other hand - I think the largest impediment to private sector growth in many of the poorest areas is the fact that many public sector wages don't vary by region. It means that in order to attract workers, private sector employers must pay at least the public sector wage (or have other benefits that compensate for the difference) and in many of these poorer areas, it's simply not profitable to do so in RL.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone here support a right to healthcare?

    THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE ANSWERING. READ THE WHOLE QUESTION. ANSWER ONLY ONE OF THE FIVE QUESTIONS ASKED. IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE, WRITE ON THE BACK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    There's a few things to say.

    Those Britons who have no jobs...how does scrapping the minimum wage in any way hurt them? After all, they don't have a job so they aren't receiving the minimum wage. Don't you think that, just maybe, perhaps, putting a minimum price on labour might price some people out of the labour market and prevent them from getting jobs?

    I also think that you should familiarise yourself with the Welfare Act. Since the government pays an amount adequate to live off to everyone, regardless of their income, then lower wages doesn't mean higher welfare payments - since everyone gets it anyway. Oh, and we've hugely reduced taxes on income and hugely reduced VAT. So the squeeze on living standards is a hell of a lot less of a problem than in RL.

    Including the part about unemployed people in poverty was to strengthen my point.

    Also: irrelevant. Having a minimum wage give security within a job. Soon you'll find employers who take advantage of at-risk employees by reducing their salaries to near zero and turn their jobs to slave-like occupations. A minimum wage prevents this from occurring. Yes, it saves people financially, however it also prevents crime.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hines)
    Including the part about unemployed people in poverty was to strengthen my point.

    Also: irrelevant. Having a minimum wage give security within a job. Soon you'll find employers who take advantage of at-risk employees by reducing their salaries to near zero and turn their jobs to slave-like occupations. A minimum wage prevents this from occurring. Yes, it saves people financially, however it also prevents crime.
    Yeah, except that there's no longer the 'work or die' premise that this argument relies on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Yeah, except that there's no longer the 'work or die' premise that this argument relies on.
    Noo, there's the make do or die model instead. You're no more loving of people than the Tory advocates of malthusian workfare.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Noo, there's the make do or die model instead. You're no more loving of people than the Tory advocates of malthusian workfare.
    Quite apart! Scarcity is not a creation of Libertarianism or capitalism, it is a creation of reality. Things aren't super-abundant, so to say that we can afford to give everyone a luxury lifestyle without them working is simply not feasible, in the slightest. Bear in mind, also, that it's not just workers who are under pressure - businesses often fail, hell more than 90% of them do - some of them due to not finding the right labour. I'm not pretending that life suddenly becomes perfect, but that's not the question, it's whether it creates a situation where the minimum wage is helpful or harmful.

    Oh, and workfare forces people to work to garner any sort of benefit. This pays the amount regardless of even intention (or perceived intention) to work. It's a step away from, not towards workfare.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Quite apart! Scarcity is not a creation of Libertarianism or capitalism, it is a creation of reality. Things aren't super-abundant, so to say that we can afford to give everyone a luxury lifestyle without them working is simply not feasible, in the slightest. Bear in mind, also, that it's not just workers who are under pressure - businesses often fail, hell more than 90% of them do - some of them due to not finding the right labour. I'm not pretending that life suddenly becomes perfect, but that's not the question, it's whether it creates a situation where the minimum wage is helpful or harmful.

    Oh, and workfare forces people to work to garner any sort of benefit. This pays the amount regardless of even intention (or perceived intention) to work. It's a step away from, not towards workfare.
    Nonsense, we're meant to cherish your model as utopia. Blandly going where Victorian mill owners only dreamed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Nonsense, we're meant to cherish your model as utopia. Blandly going where Victorian mill owners only dreamed.
    Quite obviously. Giving everyone, regardless of circumstance, a payment that, in real terms, is well above the wage people take from working a minimum wage job is clearly leaving everyone in the lurch.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Quite obviously. Giving everyone, regardless of circumstance, a payment that, in real terms, is well above the wage people take from working a minimum wage job is clearly leaving everyone in the lurch.
    Oh yes, whilst flogging off libraries, schools, universities, and any other public service we can think off. Papa Liber is soo benevolent isn't he.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Nonsense, we're meant to cherish your model as utopia. Blandly going where Victorian mill owners only dreamed.
    Hardly a utopia, some of us want people to work and engage in economic and technological advancement. The RI results in a percentage of people choosing to sit on their behinds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Hardly a utopia, some of us want people to work and engage in economic and technological advancement. The RI results in a percentage of people choosing to sit on their behinds.
    Oh please.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Oh yes, whilst flogging off libraries, schools, universities, and any other public service we can think off. Papa Liber is soo benevolent isn't he.
    On the contrary we merely recognise that these services may not be best provided by the government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    On the contrary we merely recognise that these services may not be best provided by the government.
    But the government is perfect for paying everyone a few grand a year. You are more than a tad hypocritical.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    But the government is perfect for paying everyone a few grand a year. You are more than a tad hypocritical.
    Not really. The most efficient thing a government can do is to give people money. This doesn't presume that the government knows best in how to do anything - it merely gives people the means to spend it pursuing their goals and desires, and communicating to people providing these things by making use of them. The government then doesn't run anything, it's merely taking a lump sum from land rents and giving it out equally. That's both a legitimate and efficient function for government, and quite frankly the best type of redistribution there is.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.