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

I would like to see those who still support social security cuts repudiate this video Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Haha, we were working offsite mainly: all the cables etc get made by a seperate company and then they're sent up North to Derby where they're installed. I went up there a couple of times to fit some CCTV cables which was fun. Didn't think about TfL though, good call. I may have a look at their site.
    What train company was that, if yo dob't mind saying?

    TfL seems like the best transport operator to work for -it pays yhe best ..52k for tube drivers from 2015!
    Also they give staff an intrest free loan for travel outside London and a discount b yhe Eurostar!


    I'm a train/tube enthusiast!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    What a charmingly unsophisticated understanding of economics you have.

    That would only be a valid assertion if government employees were paid but didn't work. As it is, what is occurring is a fair trade between the state and an individual for their labour.

    Please explain how (other than in your parrallel conservative universe) that is welfare.
    I think I should explain from the outset that I don't care for your left-wing opinions on economics. Look the the USSR, look at the EU, look at Cuba and look at Britain under New Labour: the recurring theme is that wherever leftists get in they plunder the economy and use the wealth of the nation for their own selfish ends.

    That feels better.

    What is it exactly that social workers do that makes them so valuable? Please can you explain this in a sophisticated manner.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone noticed the actual newspaper this video is from?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    What train company was that, if yo dob't mind saying?

    TfL seems like the best transport operator to work for -it pays yhe best ..52k for tube drivers from 2015!
    Also they give staff an intrest free loan for travel outside London and a discount b yhe Eurostar!


    I'm a train/tube enthusiast!
    I was working for a company named Amphenol in Kent and we were supplying Bombardier who have a factory in Derby on the site of a former BR works. Bombardier lost a couple of key contracts though to rival foreign firms (it was in the news, I believe Siemens won some of the work IIRC) so they virtually closed my department in Kent. I left shortly afterwards.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I have nothing to add, but would like to say I agree with Chefdave.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Indeed, the state can't really magic money up from thin air much longer
    Is "magic" a verb? Aside from that, how is taxation and borrowing "magic[ing]" (or however you describe your understanding of the means by which the state raises revenue)

    our debt interest bill as it is dwarfs what we spend on defence.
    Dwarfs? Would interest payments not have to be... bigger... than defence spending, to dwarf it? Yes? No? Or is that just left-wing economics where things actually have to make sense.

    Look the the USSR, look at the EU, look at Cuba and look at Britain under New Labour: the recurring theme is that wherever leftists get in they plunder the economy and use the wealth of the nation for their own selfish ends
    The USSR, the EU and Britain from 1997 to 2010 are comparable? Aside from a case of comparing apples and oranges (a federal communist state that no longer exists to a supranational body of sovereign states to a unitary, parliamentary state in a particular time period)

    That feels better.
    I'm sure throwing your toys out of the pram does.

    What is it exactly that social workers do that makes them so valuable? Please can you explain this in a sophisticated manner.
    The more relevant question is, what evidence are you going to provide that will overturn the presumption that what occurs between social workers and the state is anything other than an exchange of labour for money in the ordinary sense?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I was working for a company named Amphenol in Kent and we were supplying Bombardier who have a factory in Derby on the site of a former BR works. Bombardier lost a couple of key contracts though to rival foreign firms (it was in the news, I believe Siemens won some of the work IIRC) so they virtually closed my department in Kent. I left shortly afterwards.
    Oh I'm sorry to hear that-I thought the government was wrong to give the Thameslink programme to a foreign company in the middle of s recession. It was a shame they closed that factory in Derby

    This is why we need a UK sovereign wealth fund

    I heard about Bombardier but not the other company

    You know when you said you were a train engineer I was thinking you were working fir say network rail or first
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Is "magic" a verb? Aside from that, how is taxation and borrowing "magic[ing]" (or however you describe your understanding of the means by which the state raises revenue)
    Because the state owns all the high street banks due to the bailouts and the Bank of England thanks to the 1946 Bank of England Act it can effectively print up it's own money and then lend it to itself.

    Havn't you been paying attention?



    Dwarfs? Would interest payments not have to be... bigger... than defence spending, to dwarf it? Yes? No? Or is that just left-wing economics where things actually have to make sense.
    We spend more in debt interest than we do on defence. During the next financial year we're forecast to spend £51bn on debt interest and £40bn on defence. If you're going to be cocky you should at least get your facts right.


    The USSR, the EU and Britain from 1997 to 2010 are comparable? Aside from a case of comparing apples and oranges (a federal communist state that no longer exists to a supranational body of sovereign states to a unitary, parliamentary state in a particular time period)
    They're comparable in that they were leftist governments to a greater or lesser degree, inevitably they all trashed the economies they were supposed to be running too. That's how socialism works (or doesn't).

    I'm sure throwing your toys out of the pram does.
    Why, because I'm being questioned by you? What makes you so knowledgeable about economics?

    The more relevant question is, what evidence are you going to provide that will overturn the presumption that what occurs between social workers and the state is anything other than an exchange of labour for money in the ordinary sense?
    It's quite simple really. The taxpayer is coerced into paying for social workers whether they value them or not. Therefore it's not a free and fair exchange so the employee is getting away with something. To put it another way, how many social workers do you think the economy would employ if the public would be able to veto the arrangement? About none I'd guess. Because social workers do very little in the way of adding value.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Please don't trouble me with that type of response, if you have a point make it.
    I was puzzled as to what point you thought you were making.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I think you missed my point. I'm saying nothing about his work ethic. I'm sure he worked very hard at his job. But social workers -imo- produce little in the way of value so in effect he was getting money for nothing. The council could employ someone to stand on street corners blowing bubbles at passing cars if they wanted and the employee could work extremely hard, but ultimately no value has been produced at the end of it. Nobody wants the service and nobody needs the service, it happens because someone at the local council thought it would be a good idea.
    This is a nonsense argument. Social workers don't produce value? Well, not in a strictly Marxist sense, no. They are however part of the state apparautus that ensures a relatively stable society in which business and value production can operate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I think I should explain from the outset that I don't care for your left-wing opinions on economics. Look the the USSR, look at the EU, look at Cuba and look at Britain under New Labour: the recurring theme is that wherever leftists get in they plunder the economy and use the wealth of the nation for their own selfish ends.

    That feels better.
    You think Labour crashed the world economy?!?

    (Original post by chefdave)
    What is it exactly that social workers do that makes them so valuable? Please can you explain this in a sophisticated manner.
    They look after abused and neglected children. They look after old people. They look after disabled people. They look after mentally unwell people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I think you missed my point. I'm saying nothing about his work ethic. I'm sure he worked very hard at his job. But social workers -imo- produce little in the way of value so in effect he was getting money for nothing. The council could employ someone to stand on street corners blowing bubbles at passing cars if they wanted and the employee could work extremely hard, but ultimately no value has been produced at the end of it. Nobody wants the service and nobody needs the service, it happens because someone at the local council thought it would be a good idea.
    A social workers job is to help the most vulnerable of society from heading into a life of crime/depression/unemployment. Just one person saved from the first one would save the tax payer around £40,000 a year for each year the person was incarcerated. If he had a large enough effect to stop 20 people over his 20 years in employment from heading into a life in the drugs trade (he'd be a poor social worker if it was only 1 a year) he'd save between £200,000-450,000 per person (assuming there is 0 re admittance) , so far more than he's cost the tax payer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Because the state owns all the high street banks
    Barclays is owned by the state? HSBC is owned by the state? Santander? And how exactly is the government bailing out a bank "magic[ing]" money into existence?

    due to the bailouts and the Bank of England thanks to the 1946 Bank of England Act it can effectively print up it's own money and then lend it to itself
    Except that until the financial crisis, that never occurred. The Bank of England did not buy government bonds (and therefore inflate the money supply) until after 2008, and predominantly has done so under the current conservative government.

    What point exactly are you making? Especially considering that the government repays loans made by way of the BoE purchasing gilts (which then sees the money supply deflated as £s are returned to the central bank).

    It seems you don't really understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.

    We spend more in debt interest than we do on defence. During the next financial year we're forecast to spend £51bn on debt interest and £40bn on defence. If you're going to be cocky you should at least get your facts right.
    FY 2013, interest payments on debt were £44.8 billion against about £46 billion on all forms of defence and related spending. But, I'm curious, even if it's larger, how is £51 billion / £40 billion "dwarf[ing]"? At least, according to the normal usages of the English language.

    They're comparable in that they were leftist governments to a greater or lesser degree, inevitably they all trashed the economies they were supposed to be running too. That's how socialism works (or doesn't).
    New Labour was leftist? How?

    Why, because I'm being questioned by you? What makes you so knowledgeable about economics?
    I think the better question is, why do you feel so confident making comment on economic issues when it's clear your understanding is gravely lacking in that area?

    It's quite simple really. The taxpayer is coerced into paying for social workers whether they value them or not.
    There is no coercion; all citizens are able to express their view on high policy at he ballot box. Unless you believe anyone should be able to opt out of paying for any policy with which they disagree? Somalia is a rather fine example of what your policy would lead to.

    Therefore it's not a free and fair exchange so the employee is getting away with something
    You seem to be confused about the nature of the relationship between the government employee and a local authority, and the local authority's relationship to the taxpayer. If your first assertion is the case, then to be consistent you would also be claiming that all members of the forces are "getting away with something"?

    And how does coercion, or lack thereof, between the taxpayer and the state have any bearing on the value derived from the work done by an employee of the state? If the government were a dictatorship, that wouldn't necessarily mean that if they paid a worker to build a bridge, that work would be valueless.

    In sum, you don't really know what you're talking about.

    To put it another way, how many social workers do you think the economy would employ if the public would be able to veto the arrangement? About none I'd guess
    You seem to be confusing your own views for that of the general public. In case you've forgotten, Labour is more preferred by the UK population.

    Because social workers do very little in the way of adding value.
    Removing children from homes where they're being sexually abused has no value? What a horrid, selfish little world view you have.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I was working for a company named Amphenol in Kent and we were supplying Bombardier who have a factory in Derby on the site of a former BR works. Bombardier lost a couple of key contracts though to rival foreign firms (it was in the news, I believe Siemens won some of the work IIRC) so they virtually closed my department in Kent. I left shortly afterwards.
    I was sorry to hear that the Thameslink contract went to a foreign company and Bombardier closed
    That's why we need a UK sovereign wealth fund!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    This is a nonsense argument. Social workers don't produce value? Well, not in a strictly Marxist sense, no. They are however part of the state apparautus that ensures a relatively stable society in which business and value production can operate.
    Half of Europe is on the verge of revolution due to the EU's style of over-government and the British economy has been in perma-recession since the tail end of 2007, indeed we too suffered mass riots not that long ago due to the pent up frustration with out incompetant government.

    What do social workers -as part of the state apparatus- have up their sleeves to sort this lot out?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rainingshame)
    A social workers job is to help the most vulnerable of society from heading into a life of crime/depression/unemployment. Just one person saved from the first one would save the tax payer around £40,000 a year for each year the person was incarcerated. If he had a large enough effect to stop 20 people over his 20 years in employment from heading into a life in the drugs trade (he'd be a poor social worker if it was only 1 a year) he'd save between £200,000-450,000 per person (assuming there is 0 re admittance) , so far more than he's cost the tax payer.
    Rubbish, you've pulled this scenario out of your bum. Social workers are an unnecessary drain on resources at a time when we ned to make some serious savings in the public sphere. If one social worker prevented one person from going to prison per year theoretically we could employ 80,000 social workers and solve crime overnight thus saving the taxpayer a fortune. We could even abolish the police and the court service too! Bonus! Social workers aren;t crime fighters for goodness sake, that it not where they add their value so we still don't have an answer yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Barclays is owned by the state? HSBC is owned by the state? Santander? And how exactly is the government bailing out a bank "magic[ing]" money into existence?
    The state is over £1 trillion in debt and rising and your quibbling over semantics. Can you get your your head any deeper into the sand?


    Except that until the financial crisis, that never occurred. The Bank of England did not buy government bonds (and therefore inflate the money supply) until after 2008, and predominantly has done so under the current conservative government.

    What point exactly are you making? Especially considering that the government repays loans made by way of the BoE purchasing gilts (which then sees the money supply deflated as £s are returned to the central bank).

    It seems you don't really understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.
    The high street banks have always been able to post Gilts as collateral with the Bank of England what changed in 2008 were two things:

    1) The Treasury under Labour decided to bail out the banks with massive injectiosn of cash in return for equity
    2) The BofE widened their remit and allowed the banks to park up British sub-prime mortgages with them in return for short term liquidity.

    I don't see why we need to go into this however as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you're just being pedantic over my use of the word 'magic'.

    FY 2013, interest payments on debt were £44.8 billion against about £46 billion on all forms of defence and related spending. But, I'm curious, even if it's larger, how is £51 billion / £40 billion "dwarf[ing]"? At least, according to the normal usages of the English language.

    According the Guardian's Data Blog during the tax year 2011-2012 we spent £48bn on debt interest and £37bn on defence. I would say that spending 30% more on debt interest than defence while we have troops deployed in Afghanistan is a gross is an insult to the people who are risking their lives on the front line. Once again you're quibbling over my use of language instead of the points I'm making because your own points are extremely weak.



    New Labour was leftist? How?
    They believed the state could solve everything.

    I think the better question is, why do you feel so confident making comment on economic issues when it's clear your understanding is gravely lacking in that area?
    More insults. keep this stuff for the playground.

    There is no coercion; all citizens are able to express their view on high policy at he ballot box. Unless you believe anyone should be able to opt out of paying for any policy with which they disagree? Somalia is a rather fine example of what your policy would lead to.
    The ballot box, of course! So if there are 3 highway robbers all with distinct coloured masks and you get to pick which one takes 50% of your income in return for 'protection' that counts as a free and fair choice does it?

    You seem to be confused about the nature of the relationship between the government employee and a local authority, and the local authority's relationship to the taxpayer. If your first assertion is the case, then to be consistent you would also be claiming that all members of the forces are "getting away with something"?

    And how does coercion, or lack thereof, between the taxpayer and the state have any bearing on the value derived from the work done by an employee of the state? If the government were a dictatorship, that wouldn't necessarily mean that if they paid a worker to build a bridge, that work would be valueless.

    In sum, you don't really know what you're talking about.
    The forces aren't getting away with something because they're doing **** jobs in ****** conditions and risking their lives on a daily basis for peanuts, but I wouldn't say their activities were adding that much value to our lives. If they are adding value I can't put my finger on what it might me. I don't really need a regiment of soldiers blowing goat-herds to bits thousands of miles away, it's not a service I require at present and certainly not somethng I would be willing to pay for. Is that simple enough for you because you seem to have trouble comprehending this idea of value? The wage is what we pay someone, the value is the additional convenience they add to society. What do social workers do to deserve their pay packet?


    Removing children from homes where they're being sexually abused has no value? What a horrid, selfish little world view you have.
    Cry me a river. Where were these heros when baby P was been abused?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is harsh to see these poor people being subject to humiliation and pain by the JSA.

    As a JSA recipient myself. The lack of competence by these agencies is astounding when it comes to help in securing a job.

    And now, they seem to ensure that you FAIL in getting a job, simply to fill in a quota.

    Disgusting!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    The state is over £1 trillion in debt and rising and your quibbling over semantics
    How is that semantics? It's quite material and substantive, considering your claim that all the high street banks are owned by the government, when in fact the majority are not.

    1) The Treasury under Labour decided to bail out the banks with massive injectiosn of cash in return for equity
    And?

    2) The BofE widened their remit and allowed the banks to park up British sub-prime mortgages with them in return for short term liquidity.
    And at the end of your lovely scenic detour, what does this actually have to do with the printing of money?

    I don't see why we need to go into this however as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you're just being pedantic over my use of the word 'magic'.
    In fact, it has everything to do with your use of the word magic. You seemed to be operating under the presumption that the government was printing money in order to support expenditure, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

    According the Guardian's Data Blog during the tax year 2011-2012 we spent £48bn on debt interest and £37bn on defence.
    Even if those figures were true, which I don't accept, how is that "dwarfing", by any stretch of the English language?

    I would say that spending 30% more on debt interest than defence while we have troops deployed in Afghanistan is a gross is an insult to the people who are risking their lives on the front line.
    How is that a gross insult? How does the means of funding government expenditure speak to the manner in which troops fight in Afghanistan?

    Once again you're quibbling over my use of language instead of the points I'm making because your own points are extremely weak.
    I think a neutral observer would see that your understanding of these issues is quite limited, and sounds very much like something you heard at the pub and saw fit to repeat.

    They believed the state could solve everything.
    Are you aware of the definition of socialism?

    I don't really need a regiment of soldiers blowing goat-herds to bits thousands of miles away, it's not a service I require at present and certainly not somethng I would be willing to pay for.
    And only a few paragraphs before, you were claiming to be insulted on the troops behalf. I don't think you know what you believe.

    Cry me a river. Where were these heros when baby P was been abused?
    So to be consistent, your philosophy is, "Because the Met didn't prevent the 7/7 attacks, we shouldn't have a police force".

    What do social workers do to deserve their pay packet?
    Because saving abused children from a horrendous situation doesn't benefit you personally, it's not a worthwhile endeavour. No backbone, no bottom, no moral fibre; you're just a plump little squirming bag of appetites. You really are utterly contemptible. It's all about "me me me".
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Messed up! so sad.
 
 
 
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.