Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

In which we try to change an aspect of the country Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I hate the numerical point style of responding. If you can't uphold the eloquence to make your point in a concise conversational form, hold your tongue.


    Well as we've currently got a situation where the voting populace have no say in how the country is run, that would be a good thing. Politicians shouldn't have the power to lie throughout the entire election and completely ignore the populace for a 4 year term.

    Our economy crashed without large trade unions, thanks very much. So you can't get away with blaming it on the selfish working classes any longer.

    Under current administration, the focus is on assimilating an under class of unemployable benefit holders into the working class, at the expense of the working class. With a trade union system, the expense would be at the upper class employers rather than the other way around. This makes perfect sense, because everyone benefits. The only reason this isn't the case is to protect top level employers from investing badly, and not seeing returns.
    1. Aren't you a respectable individual commenting on how someone responds by using numbers, rather than being more offended by the content of someone's response? I'm not suggesting that my initial response is anything to be offended by, just you're supposed to look at what someone is writing rather than how they have structured it. Also this is an online forum, not an essay, lighten up. I really can't see how it affects you if someone uses numbers to make their points, and I'm not changing it just to suit you, so in that case I'm more determined to use it. You can always leave my thread if you cannot bear the sight of digits.

    2. Our economy crashed, yes, but if you understand anything about economics you would realise that it is part of economic cycle, there are bad times as well as good.

    3. (i) Haha, I am sure Marx would absolutely love your last argument. Benefits are there as a safety net for the unemployed, disabled and sick. Unfortunately, they are not means tested, so this means it is open to abuse, thus a culture of dependency is created. The only reason why the working class (rightly) feel upset (as well as the middle and upper classes) is because all of their hard earned money is funding that.

    (ii) Why should upper class employers be targeted? If they did not invest into the business, there would be no business to begin with. Profit is human nature and I see no problem with an employer wanting to be rewarded. If employees are so upset, they can move onto a more "charitable" business, but see how long that lasts. You're acting as though they are not being paid at all, but they are. A job is a job, people go into work, then they leave for the day where the job ends there. Their self-respect and pride shouldn't be based on how much they're paid or if there is a shareholder of the company.

    4. There are obvious flaws, but in practice no economic model is perfect. Capitalism is the most workable. So the trade union fantasy you have in mind: they are likely to be a minority dictating to the majority, and they are unaccountable. If you think politicians are bad, I weep to think how a society run by appeasing trade unions would be.

    5. This brings me onto my last point, if politicians upset you so much, voice this concern to your local MP and on the ballot paper in 2015. Don't ruin private enterprise for the sake of being controversial.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Wouldn't exploitation include wages being fixed by a monopoly?
    Only if the monopoly doesn't have the incentive to be competitive and pay very low wages. But sometimes monopolies may be naturally formed.

    (Original post by dave_123)
    Sure most people go into the profession to help people and for good honest reasons. That being so surely the deserve fair pay.

    For most it's a vocation, a calling in life to care and help... these sort of people deserve better.

    Just because something is doesn't mean that how it ought to be.
    No I agree, nurses are self-less and as you say have good and honest reasons. But, isn't it a bit patronizing to say that due to this they should be paid more? A low pay doesn't always equal an impoverished life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    equal sex laws for homosexuals?
    minimum wage?
    good friday agreement!?
    I would abolish the minimum wage, yes. I believe there are better ways to ensure that workers get a fair deal, for example if we extricated ourselves from the EU we would spare are own workers the ordeal of having to compete with hundreds of thousands of economic migrants, many of whom are willing to work for extremely low pay and live in overcrowded conditions in order to save on rent. How are our own workers meant to compete with this? And more to the point if New Labour cared so much about those on the lowest wages why did they allow this to happen?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)

    No I agree, nurses are self-less and as you say have good and honest reasons. But, isn't it a bit patronizing to say that due to this they should be paid more? A low pay doesn't always equal an impoverished life.
    There's a difference between impoverished and getting what is deserved.

    It's not so much there good will and intent that deserves better pay, more the invaluable skilled work they carry out, the long hours they do.

    I'm not suggesting a silly pay raise nor am i going to pretend to know where money could come from, however for me, those men and women deserve more than just "not impoverished". They should get a reasonable wage in line with great work they do in my opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dave_123)
    There's a difference between impoverished and getting what is deserved.

    It's not so much there good will and intent that deserves better pay, more the invaluable skilled work they carry out, the long hours they do.

    I'm not suggesting a silly pay raise nor am i going to pretend to know where money could come from, however for me, those men and women deserve more than just "not impoverished". They should get a reasonable wage in line with great work they do in my opinion.
    Fair enough.

    But would you say the same should be done to teachers then as they may feel hard done by?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Fair enough.

    But would you say the same should be done to teachers then as they may feel hard done by?
    No i think teachers get a very fair wage. Education of our young is indeed an important job but i don't see it being as high stress day to day, skilled or indeed life saving as a nurses.

    The fact they feel hard done by has nothing to do with it. Anyone is free to express that they think they are being wronged and should be listened too but in my opinion a nurse and a teacher are 2 very different things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Fair enough.

    But would you say the same should be done to teachers then as they may feel hard done by?
    Ironically enough though, if taxes weren't so high - thus artificially inflating the cost of everything - nurses wages would go a lot further. The left won't accept simple logic however because it contradicts their religion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What are the social and economic influences on becoming a "leading academic"?
    Are politics, law, economics etc ideologically neutral? Or might what view someone has depend on social and economic position?
    I'm not really sure what you mean by the first question.

    On your second question, yes academic disciplines are neutral in themselves, although individuals can distort arguments in their favour of course - but that is a given with all politics, and if we took it as a reason to never allow anyone to ever make an executive decision, we would be utterly paralysed as a society. That is why it is important to keep decisions as transparent as possible so that they can fully scrutinised and adjusted in the light of new evidence and new ways of thinking. The very nature of the change I wanted to make would at least ensure that we would not end up with fewer social liberties regardless of the outcome, so that's a good thing. It wouldn't have to be revolutionary, we are already doing reasonably well when it comes to civil liberties.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Ironically enough though, if taxes weren't so high - thus artificially inflating the cost of everything - nurses wages would go a lot further. The left won't accept simple logic however because it contradicts their religion.
    Very good point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    1. Do you have any evidence about this 45 minute break? I thought Kibalchich was just exaggerating to make a point.
    2. I do not have a favourite newspaper, I occasionally read The Times newspaper, but I retrieve most news from online. Not The Daily Mail. :rolleyes:
    3. Well my idea of exploitation is people being forced to work without any pay, skilled employers should not be paid minimum wage but it depends on demand and supply and who is paying their wages.
    4. No a large trade union would be a terrible idea, they would hold the country to ransom. They may have well-meaning ideas individually and in principle, but in practice they will just push for more and more and damage the economy.
    The 45 minute break is real. It is the breaks that you get when working for Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust, working inpatient. You work 4 days a week, doing 2 x 7 hour days with a 30 minute break and 2 x 13 hour days with a 45 minute break.

    What does "holding the country to ransom" mean?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Nurses are still being trained and going into and staying in those positions. I'm focusing on why they go into those jobs, not for a high wage, but for helping people.
    Its true that I am not training to be a nurse to be rich. I do think we should be remunerated properly for the work that we do. Currently, we are not. That goes for teachers too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    3. (i) Haha, I am sure Marx would absolutely love your last argument. Benefits are there as a safety net for the unemployed, disabled and sick. Unfortunately, they are not means tested, so this means it is open to abuse, thus a culture of dependency is created. The only reason why the working class (rightly) feel upset (as well as the middle and upper classes) is because all of their hard earned money is funding that.
    I don't understand this point. Why would un-means-tested benefits create a culture of dependency? Surely it's means-tested benefits that create dependency - if benefits only go to the poor and unemployed, then that's a powerful incentive for those people to remain poor and unemployed.

    On the other hand, benefits that aren't means-tested quickly get very expensive. My favoured policy would be an expanded system of wage subsidies for low-income workers. This would improve work incentives, ensure that those on low incomes can reap the rewards of progress and help to mitigate the social problems arising from the (inevitable) increasing bifurcation of the labour market.

    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Its true that I am not training to be a nurse to be rich. I do think we should be remunerated properly for the work that we do. Currently, we are not. That goes for teachers too.
    I think a very useful reform would be expanding the role of nurses and other medical professionals so that they can take on greater responsibility (and pay) while doctors can focus only on the things that require a full ten years of training to do. This would be better for everyone - higher productivity, more pay, and lower costs for the NHS.

    There's also a pretty strong case for paying teachers more, although it's far from clear-cut that that would be the best way to direct additional education spending. I would prefer that it be spent on extending the school day and year - although a more decentralised education system that could experiment with all these different methods of improving schools might also be a good way to go.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    1. Aren't you a respectable individual commenting on how someone responds by using numbers, rather than being more offended by the content of someone's response? I'm not suggesting that my initial response is anything to be offended by, just you're supposed to look at what someone is writing rather than how they have structured it. Also this is an online forum, not an essay, lighten up. I really can't see how it affects you if someone uses numbers to make their points, and I'm not changing it just to suit you, so in that case I'm more determined to use it. You can always leave my thread if you cannot bear the sight of digits.

    2. Our economy crashed, yes, but if you understand anything about economics you would realise that it is part of economic cycle, there are bad times as well as good.

    3. (i) Haha, I am sure Marx would absolutely love your last argument. Benefits are there as a safety net for the unemployed, disabled and sick. Unfortunately, they are not means tested, so this means it is open to abuse, thus a culture of dependency is created. The only reason why the working class (rightly) feel upset (as well as the middle and upper classes) is because all of their hard earned money is funding that.

    (ii) Why should upper class employers be targeted? If they did not invest into the business, there would be no business to begin with. Profit is human nature and I see no problem with an employer wanting to be rewarded. If employees are so upset, they can move onto a more "charitable" business, but see how long that lasts. You're acting as though they are not being paid at all, but they are. A job is a job, people go into work, then they leave for the day where the job ends there. Their self-respect and pride shouldn't be based on how much they're paid or if there is a shareholder of the company.

    4. There are obvious flaws, but in practice no economic model is perfect. Capitalism is the most workable. So the trade union fantasy you have in mind: they are likely to be a minority dictating to the majority, and they are unaccountable. If you think politicians are bad, I weep to think how a society run by appeasing trade unions would be.

    5. This brings me onto my last point, if politicians upset you so much, voice this concern to your local MP and on the ballot paper in 2015. Don't ruin private enterprise for the sake of being controversial.
    You don't really understand how capitalism works do you. Trade unions are mainly there to smooth out conflicts between capital and labour and to manage and discipline labour on capital's behalf. They do win concessions for the working class, but they do not challenge capitalism (or mostly don't - I leave out the explicitly revolutionary unions such as the CNT in Spain and the IWW). One of the things currently sustaining the crisis we have now is under-consumption due to low wages. One of the reasons for this is that the balance of class power has swung heavily towards capital. This was good for a while for the capitalist class, but now means that low wages and lack of spending power means a sustained recession. Basic Marxian analysis, its a powerful interprative tool. You should read some.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)

    No I agree, nurses are self-less and as you say have good and honest reasons. But, isn't it a bit patronizing to say that due to this they should be paid more? A low pay doesn't always equal an impoverished life.
    No we're not. We're merely human. Sorry to disappoint you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    I'm not really sure what you mean by the first question.
    I mean do people from certain social and economic backgrounds have any advantages/disadvantages in gaining academic status?

    (Original post by Redolent)
    On your second question, yes academic disciplines are neutral in themselves, although individuals can distort arguments in their favour of course - but that is a given with all politics, and if we took it as a reason to never allow anyone to ever make an executive decision, we would be utterly paralysed as a society. That is why it is important to keep decisions as transparent as possible so that they can fully scrutinised and adjusted in the light of new evidence and new ways of thinking. The very nature of the change I wanted to make would at least ensure that we would not end up with fewer social liberties regardless of the outcome, so that's a good thing. It wouldn't have to be revolutionary, we are already doing reasonably well when it comes to civil liberties.
    So academic study exists in some kind of value free vacuum? That's what you're saying?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Fair enough.

    But would you say the same should be done to teachers then as they may feel hard done by?
    Teachers should have a pay rise too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dave_123)
    No i think teachers get a very fair wage. Education of our young is indeed an important job but i don't see it being as high stress day to day, skilled or indeed life saving as a nurses.

    The fact they feel hard done by has nothing to do with it. Anyone is free to express that they think they are being wronged and should be listened too but in my opinion a nurse and a teacher are 2 very different things.
    Teaching is very stressful. I've a few mates who are teachers, they do 12 hour days every day, plus work at weekends.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    I don't understand this point. Why would un-means-tested benefits create a culture of dependency? Surely it's means-tested benefits that create dependency - if benefits only go to the poor and unemployed, then that's a powerful incentive for those people to remain poor and unemployed.

    On the other hand, benefits that aren't means-tested quickly get very expensive. My favoured policy would be an expanded system of wage subsidies for low-income workers. This would improve work incentives, ensure that those on low incomes can reap the rewards of progress and help to mitigate the social problems arising from the (inevitable) increasing bifurcation of the labour market.
    What's the point of work incentives when there's no work?

    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    I think a very useful reform would be expanding the role of nurses and other medical professionals so that they can take on greater responsibility (and pay) while doctors can focus only on the things that require a full ten years of training to do. This would be better for everyone - higher productivity, more pay, and lower costs for the NHS.
    .
    This is already happening with clinical nurse specialists and nurse prescribers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I mean do people from certain social and economic backgrounds have any advantages/disadvantages in gaining academic status?
    Possibly, but that can be accounted for.



    So academic study exists in some kind of value free vacuum? That's what you're saying?
    What I'm saying is, if the whole of society got together and tried to determine which actions are harmful to people/animals/the environment and which are not, with the discussion led by leading academics in a given area (e.g. psychologists on psychological harm), we would probably end up with a pretty good idea of which actions can be considered harmful and which cannot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Possibly, but that can be accounted for.

    What do you mean "accounted for"?


    (Original post by Redolent)
    What I'm saying is, if the whole of society got together and tried to determine which actions are harmful to people/animals/the environment and which are not, with the discussion led by leading academics in a given area (e.g. psychologists on psychological harm), we would probably end up with a pretty good idea of which actions can be considered harmful and which cannot.
    You're arguing for a classless society then? Like communism?
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.