Looney left analysis

karma_ · 09-02-2011 03:10PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Once again the penny hasn't dropped. You are not thinking about the consequences of paying people what you think they deserve. The economy would be a mess.

If there are set wages for various roles people work then you can't choose with your own money what to pay your employees.

If people stopped working as nurses the wages for them would rise and then we would have nurses. It's the best way and least wasteful way.

Why pay someone more than they are willing to do the job for, when that money could be going towards something else.

Yeah, we couldn't possibly have those at the bottom earning more and those at the top earning less. It would be a disaster for those at the top.

Pherekydes · 09-02-2011 03:13PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If people stopped working as nurses the wages for them would rise and then we would have nurses. It's the best way and least wasteful way.

How the **** would wages rise? There is no money left. A few years back when the country was wallowing in money we had the situation of Irish Ferries employing a Phillipino nurse on board boat at 1 euro per hour, working 12 hour shifts without a break.

Without a left wing the right would do what they liked, which is wholesale exploitation.

Buceph · 09-02-2011 03:15PM

I don't care how much money someone makes, but the idea that anyone should have 70% of their income taken off them, before all the indirect taxes on their living are applied, is completely looney.

thebigbiffo · 09-02-2011 03:17PM

hoorsmelt wrote: »

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Alot of builders come from rural backgrounds so many of them would know the basics about farming. In any case, it's not too difficult to learn how.

I don't know about the others, but I firmly believe that what's needed is democratic public ownership of the key levers of the economy. This doesn't translate to a desire to nationalise every deli in the country but those parts of the economy which are most important like communications, the largest producers, strategic industries etc. These need to be run with democratic input from the workers, and consumers, to find the best means of improving production and availability. It's idealistic to think that this system can be persevered with and that there will be better results from doing the same thing.

A: it is in fact very difficult run any type of communal agriculture, again, ask the russians or the chinese....better still, ask the families of the dead millions

B: show me a state run company that is profitable...presumably in your utopia money still exists.

increased public ownership of industry is exactly what this country DOES NOT need now...we need strong privately run industry, enterprenurial in nature, which is motivated to create wealth which in turn filters down to the less well off. to say otherwise makes me want to ask you to take a history lesson.

Scanlas The 2nd · 09-02-2011 03:23PM

karma_ wrote: »

Yeah, we couldn't possibly have those at the bottom earning more and those at the top earning less. It would be a disaster for those at the top.

What's your problem with people earning more than others?

A footballer deserves what they earn because someone is willing to pay them that money. A nurse deserves what they earn because that is what someone is willing to pay them.

Buceph · 09-02-2011 03:25PM

karma_ wrote: »

Yeah, we couldn't possibly have those at the bottom earning more and those at the top earning less. It would be a disaster for those at the top.

I'm sick of people using extreme's to justify positions. Yes, a lot of people are in a bad situation now, but that runs across the board. The amount of people who are on the minimum wage is low, and the amount of people earning millions is low. Yes, both those situations are bad, but it doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Scanlas The 2nd · 09-02-2011 03:26PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

How the **** would wages rise? There is no money left. A few years back when the country was wallowing in money we had the situation of Irish Ferries employing a Phillipino nurse on board boat at 1 euro per hour, working 12 hour shifts without a break.

Without a left wing the right would do what they liked, which is wholesale exploitation.

If there were no nurses money would be taken from somewhere else to pay a wage to nurses that would make them willing to do the job.

karma_ · 09-02-2011 03:27PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

hoorsmelt wrote: »

A: it is in fact very difficult run any type of communal agriculture, again, ask the russians or the chinese....better still, ask the families of the dead millions

B: show me a state run company that is profitable...presumably in your utopia money still exists.

increased public ownership of industry is exactly what this country DOES NOT need now...we need strong privately run industry, enterprenurial in nature, which is motivated to create wealth which in turn filters down to the less well off. to say otherwise makes me want to ask you to take a history lesson.

Ah yes, the trickle-down effect. Doesn't work.

Private industry, when it is solely used to generate as much profit as possible will eventually move to where labour is cheaper, meaning that we lose jobs.

Look at the US, that bastion of Capitalism, the middle class has been eroding away for a few decades now as more and more jobs are sent overseas.

karma_ · 09-02-2011 03:32PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What's your problem with people earning more than others?

A footballer deserves what they earn because someone is willing to pay them that money. A nurse deserves what they earn because that is what someone is willing to pay them.

Excuse me, a footballer deserves to be paid £200,000 per week because someone is willing to give it to them? How long until that becomes unsustainable, look at how many football clubs have gone into administration recently, this is a very poor example, and I say this as a football fan.

I have no problem with someone earning more money than others, as long as it is commensurate to the work they actually do and the performance they have in that role.

Kasabian · 09-02-2011 03:35PM

Lets keep this thread balanced.

Wibbs / Biffo / Scanlas move a little more to the left please.
Karma and Hoorsmelt, Brian pull in a small bit from the left yere are running the risk of getting frozen being that far out.

That's it now , group photo. * Smile

Scanlas The 2nd · 09-02-2011 03:37PM

karma_ wrote: »

Excuse me, a footballer deserves to be paid £200,000 per week because someone is willing to give it to them? How long until that becomes unsustainable, look at how many football clubs have gone into administration recently, this is a very poor example, and I say this as a football fan.

I have no problem with someone earning more money than others, as long as it is commensurate to the work they actually do and the performance they have in that role.

Why does it have to be commensurate. Why can't I pay someone to sit down and watch tele if I want to? It's my money so why can't I decide how much I pay people?

Footballers do deserve to be paid what they get, it's the market rate.

thebigbiffo · 09-02-2011 03:44PM

karma_ wrote: »

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Ah yes, the trickle-down effect. Doesn't work.

Private industry, when it is solely used to generate as much profit as possible will eventually move to where labour is cheaper, meaning that we lose jobs.
.

why then is anybody in this country actually working? why is all of our industry not moved to malawi?

i love this line.

economies are fluid and diverse as are their workforce. yes, businesses can reduce overheads to increase profit by moving a workforce but you just dont see the bigger picture - that business and economies DEVELOP. that means education, R&R, tech exploitation, creating new economies. when 1000 peoples jobs in ireland get moved to poland it forces those people to re-train and become indispensible/employable again - it's the way capitalism works...

bullpost · 09-02-2011 03:45PM

Very telling quote on that recent TV program about the rise of Chinese influence in the third world.

American commentator said "Lets be clear, Its not Chinese communism that worries us, its Chinese capitalism".

Earthhorse · 09-02-2011 03:50PM

Probably not the point of the thread anymore but the articlue is pretty poorly written and far too long for the point he's trying to make. I do despair when any remotely "socialist" idea is tabled that it gets dismissed as impractical without any proper analysis of its merits. On the other hand I think the left are often poorly represented by their most vocal members whose ideas tend toward the more extreme and therefore are easier to present as lunatic.

Scanlas The 2nd · 09-02-2011 04:06PM

karma_ wrote: »

Excuse me, a footballer deserves to be paid £200,000 per week because someone is willing to give it to them? How long until that becomes unsustainable, look at how many football clubs have gone into administration recently, this is a very poor example, and I say this as a football fan.

I have no problem with someone earning more money than others, as long as it is commensurate to the work they actually do and the performance they have in that role.

It's been sustainable for a lot of clubs for quite a while now, and if it's not sustainable then they'll be paid less eventually. That's how the real world works.

Phony Scott · 09-02-2011 04:33PM

I was going to read the OP with interest, but all I see is noise, it is too difficult to read the way it is and sadly life is passing all of us by, hence, OP, whatever your argument, right or wrong, you’ve shot yourself in the foot and only exposed a weakness in your argument from the word go. Just a thought.

ascanbe · 09-02-2011 04:56PM

But..but..the country is on the brink of collapse as a result of this government propping up failed businesses and turning private debt into public debt; the exact opposite of free-market capitalism.
Yet, many here, who profess to be right-leaning, seem to support this policy to such an extent that even the thought of looking at/debating an alternative course of action discomfits them greatly.
I can only guess at reasons for this:
Perhaps, they have studied this issue in great detail; they have examined what they view as apt historical precedents and the specifics of our current situation from all angles and have come to the conclusion that, even though our current route harbours great dangers and possible catastrophe, there is no other option. You would then expect they would be able to outline this without recourse to generalisations and labelling.
Perhaps, they have already benifited/are benifiting from the current course of action and are loathe to see anything change.
Perhaps, they are masochists.
Or, perhaps, they don't really know what they're on about.

Lumen · 09-02-2011 05:12PM

karma_ wrote: »

I have no problem with someone earning more money than others, as long as it is commensurate to the work they actually do and the performance they have in that role.

Who gets to say what people deserve to earn, and using what formula?

Footballers earn a lot of money because a lot of people are prepared to pay money to watch them, and that income stream is directly related to their personal performance. If you capped their salaries the money would just go elsewhere. How would that be that fairer?

karma_ · 09-02-2011 05:19PM

Lumen wrote: »

Who gets to say what people deserve to earn, and using what formula?

Footballers earn a lot of money because a lot of people are prepared to pay money to watch them, and that income stream is directly related to their personal performance. If you capped their salaries the money would just go elsewhere. How would that be that fairer?

Why do people focus on examples like footballers, or downright stupid scenarios about paying people to watch television? In the US football teams have a salary cap, and people still go and watch.

Lets be realistic for a second, we are talking about wages for the normal working man, whether they be in IT, customer service, a surgeon or indeed a banker. Which of these jobs deserves the most pay? it should be an easy choice to make.

Buceph · 09-02-2011 05:24PM

karma_ wrote: »

Lets be realistic for a second, we are talking about wages for the normal working man, whether they be in IT, customer service, a surgeon or indeed a banker. Which of these jobs deserves the most pay? it should be an easy choice to make.

A surgeon. Simples.

Although that could change to banker depending on what you mean by it, banker isn't really a good, specific description.

stovelid · 09-02-2011 05:33PM

Is mise le key wrote: »

Ahh if you read even the first few lines you would see that it is asking why that term even exists & offers a real logical answer as to why in his opinion.

Gotcha.

/geddit?

karma_ · 09-02-2011 05:40PM

Buceph wrote: »

A surgeon. Simples.

Although that could change to banker depending on what you mean by it, banker isn't really a good, specific description.

Only in an insane world could a banker deserve more reward than a surgeon.

For all this talk of a free market, bankers had that chance, a totally unregulated capitalist paradise, and they fúcked it up royally, they proved they cannot be trusted, and not only in Ireland but the world over.

squod · 09-02-2011 05:46PM

karma_ wrote: »

Only in an insane world could a banker deserve more reward than a surgeon.

For all this talk of a free market, bankers had that chance, a totally unregulated capitalist paradise, and they fúcked it up royally, they proved they cannot be trusted, and not only in Ireland but the world over.

+1 However I'd say they didn't fuck anything up (accidentally). they knew what they were doing and planned the best possible outcome with their scumbag politician mates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne2EGhyT14M

Buceph · 09-02-2011 05:52PM

karma_ wrote: »

Only in an insane world could a banker deserve more reward than a surgeon.

I disagree. The top bankers and surgeons have probably the same amount of training and experience, they deal in hugely risky areas, and if they make mistakes the repercussions are significant.

Just because a surgeon deals with more emotional issues doesn't mean he should be paid more. Emotion shouldn't really play a part in these things.

karma_ · 09-02-2011 05:56PM

Buceph wrote: »

I disagree. The top bankers and surgeons have probably the same amount of training and experience, they deal in hugely risky areas, and if they make mistakes the repercussions are significant.

Just because a surgeon deals with more emotional issues doesn't mean he should be paid more. Emotion shouldn't really play a part in these things.

And we saw what happened when bankers dealt in 'risky areas'.

Buceph · 09-02-2011 06:01PM

karma_ wrote: »

And we saw what happened when bankers dealt in 'risky areas'.

No, we saw what happened without proper regulation.

And a lot of banks internationally are in quite strong positions because they were properly managed.

Scanlas The 2nd · 09-02-2011 06:01PM

karma_ wrote: »

Only in an insane world could a banker deserve more reward than a surgeon.

For all this talk of a free market, bankers had that chance, a totally unregulated capitalist paradise, and they fúcked it up royally, they proved they cannot be trusted, and not only in Ireland but the world over.

People are paid what they are paid, that's it. Forget about this illusion of deservedness and entitlement.

Like I said before, according to your logic I can't pay someone to sit and watch TV. Why not? What would be the laws/parameters/forumlae that you introduce that determines how much particular labour is worth. Under your system I couldn't pay a man to sit and watch TV because you wouldn't deem it worthy, that's just insane. Who made you King of the world?

Surgeons are paid well. I paid 600 euro to surgeon to perform a simple 15 minute procedure on my toenail.

If the free market was left alone the banks would have been allowed to fail.

What is a banker by the way? My cousin works in a bank and she earns about 20k

Lumen · 09-02-2011 06:23PM

karma_ wrote: »

Only in an insane world could a banker deserve more reward than a surgeon.

For all this talk of a free market, bankers had that chance, a totally unregulated capitalist paradise, and they fúcked it up royally, they proved they cannot be trusted, and not only in Ireland but the world over.

The biggest problem with the bank failures was the blanket guarantee, which is derived from the accepted (but deeply flawed) principal of "lender of last resort", and this (from a free-market perspective) is completely wrong.

whadyasay · 09-02-2011 07:32PM

Footballers are communist bankers.

Eric Cartman · 09-02-2011 08:23PM

the reason its the looney left is nobody could survive in their ideals of society , right wing capitalism may be cruel but it keeps us alive, left wing communism/ socialism like joe higgins wants would end up with us all jobless and dead

Looney left analysis

Comments