Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Shenshen wrote: » Maybe it would help if you could tell us what the root cause is, in your opinion?
Havockk wrote: » I'm not saying that doesn't happen. I'm pointing the finger and asking why we are not talking about the root cause of such an issue and how we can change it. Let us not forget that response came in opposition to the question of wealth distribution. The poster offered literally nothing other than to say 'it happens.' And given his ideological persuasions I'm not taking an insane leap of logic with the suggestion that a MORE laissez-faire approach with FEWER regulations is in any way going to help. It is my sincere hope that this clears it up for you.
Havockk wrote: » How noble, are you the Lancelot to PB's Guinevere? How about I asked first.
knipex wrote: » Lets accept 1 simple fact. Everyone is not 100% "equal". everyone is not "as good" as everyone else. My brother is far better at sports than I am. I am better at math that most people yet I have another brother who leaves me in the dust. John who sits across from me in the office is far better at forecasting then I am, Mary is far better at writing a technical brief. Paul is just a lazy f***** and will probably be unemployed by the end of the quarter.. As the ability to write a top notch technical brief is more important to the company (and more profitable) than the ability to forecast Mary gets paid more than John and John gets paid more than Paul.. Fintan is in a field with very very few peers. He spent 8 years completing his primary degree and his doctorate, has since completed another doctorate and is approached at least once a month with offers of alternative employment. He is a a hugely profitable asset to the company and his works is responsible for probably 55% of our revenue. I am not sure of exact figures but I would be confident he earns more than John and Mary combined and probably Paul as well..
Shenshen wrote: » Sure, go ahead, ask.
Havockk wrote: » People are stupid and thus deserve to be poor. Jesus. Not sure Ive seen anything that drips with this much entitlement since Milton Friedman walked and talked. If it's not obvious by now, even by your own standards there that something is very wrong with the capitalist system that would accept a statistic like you just quoted then there is no convincing you. By the way, it's an argument for a better education, free and for everyone.
Butters1979 wrote: » If someone wins the lotto and still ends up bankrupt, then yes they are stupid and deserve to lose their money. Very stupid. Blaming the education system is a cop out. Socialists won't be happy until everyone is poor.
Havockk wrote: » That's all well and good, and nothing disagreeable. However it still does nothing to answer the problem. Could a better, reformed education help? How could we change it to combat those issues? Can we create a fairer system? And it's not a case on making everyone equal and exactly the same, I have no issues with a meritocracy.
knipex wrote: » Not sure how a reformed education system would make me better at sports or more inclined to the liberal arts or transform my interest in physics..
Havockk wrote: » Butters, I'll give you this, at least your honest.
Butters1979 wrote: » Or they're the ones who have to pick up the slack of the guys on 20 year old contracts who work less and get paid more than them and are not only not with the strikers but are actually complete against them.
end of the road wrote: » no it would be that they aren't effected and don't have a mandate to strike. i'm sure they are against the striking workers because they are jealous of the fact they couldn't get what those workers have but those workers on strike worked damn hard for what they have.
VinLieger wrote: » Or have stayed exactly where they were for the last 20 years without progressing, but yeah that's the same thing
Havockk wrote: Ah mon frere you take it wrong. The root cause is of course capitalism, I mean just how clear did I have to make that? I thought you said you were really smart, and stuff?
Wanderer78 wrote: » It's a lot more complicated than that, capitalism does have some positive attributes, but there is something fundamentally wrong with neoliberalism
Arghus wrote: » You can work damn hard in the same job for decades.
VinLieger wrote: » The point is they haven't worked hard for what they have if what they have is simply due to when they started in the company.
Arghus wrote: » Why not? Length of service usually counts for something in most lines of work.
VinLieger wrote: » So again what they have is directly linked to when they started it has nothing to do with how hard they did or didnt work. Im just pointing out a fallacy in the logic "they worked hard for what they have" when what they have actually has nothing to do with how hard they worked
FTA69 wrote: » Anyone deliberately setting out to breach a picket in order to side with a multi millionaire company against the workers that they're sh*tting on is a low tramp.
Arghus wrote: » Yes, but if a job demands something of you - as most jobs do - to keep doing it for a long period implies that you've put time and effort into it i.e you have worked hard at it. Certainly more than someone who may have only been at it for a matter of months. I think to have that reflected in someones rate of pay isn't too unreasonable.
eeguy wrote: » I think it's the height of hypocrisy that people are proudly stating they'll shop in Dunnes, despite Dunnes atrocious record of staff treatment, zero hour contracts and dismissal of striking workers.
