If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
What a load of bunkum.
Not everyone can be successful. But a "lack of effort" is one of the lowest reasons why someone isn't poor.
Unless you're trying to say the single mother doing 50 hour weeks isn't trying hard enough.
The real crux is whether you can channel your energy into your own pocket, or someone else's. The poor can't afford to work for themselves, so all their energy goes into somebody else's bank balance, not their own. The shareholders of this world, on the other hand, were given the money to work for themselves, and so they now sit back and count the cash rolling in straight off the labour of me and you.
I've just done a day's work for Accenture. I've tried, I've been able, but who's made the money? It isn't me.
As for the ramblings about a "victim culture", I don't agree. I've come from a low background, but I've been higher than most. I've done it right- good schoolwork, good degree, working to get experience in the field I want- but will I ever be a CEO? Of course not.
Interesting you mention these "rags to riches" stories. You mean like that pauper Richard Branson? You mean that beggar Alan Sugar? You mean someone like Jacqui Gold, who was evidently born into abject poverty.
There is a line in the sand- if you are beneath it, it don't matter how hard you work, you will never ever ever have money or power.
Agree.
Oh, and there are no special powers associated with buying shares, you just need to save up a bit. I bought loads of shares in the company i used to work for, and now my old bosses work for me.
You worked for free did you?
But who did make the money?
Do you actually think the contract I was working on was worth what I was paid? Even remotely?
If you literally have nothing to start with, then you are pretty much guaranteed to finish with nothing. Yeah, its easy to save- if you aren't earning £5 an hour, and spending £6 just to feed, heat and clothe your kids.
If you haven't had the benefits of a good education because of poverty- poor kids can be literally years behind richer ones, and will never catch up- then it don't matter how hard you work, you won't be able to read and write well enough to get a high-paying job. And without good reading and writing skills you can't get apprenticed anymore, which is how people of my dad's generation made their dough.
what i'm sying is ...it will alays be like that.
Because I'm not as scarce as a CEO, I got what the market value was.
You could argue all day about worth though. Few workers do get what they are worth to the company- those at the bottom don't get enough, those at the top get too much.
I don't think it will always be like that. I don't think it should always be like that. But if everyone says it will be then it will be. IF women had said "no point fighting" they wouldn't have a vote (for what a vote is worth).
i believe the only way to any kind of reasonable comfort for all /
,. ,...is through taxation.
Nah, course not.
If every employee was an equal shareholder in the company though.......ooh now we are talking. I have seen this system, and theres nothing like it for getting the lazy out of bed at 6 a.m. on a monday morning.
This isn't the case at all. Those at the bottom get too little, true, but those at the top get more or less what they are actually worth. It might shock you to realise that a part time counter assistant is worth about £50k a year to a company, so why would a manger be worth less than that?
The profits come from those at the bottom, but some of it is earned from those at the top too.
The thing is, in order to get equal shares you'd have to accept equal risk, that is potentially losing everything (home, car etc) at the end of most months of your working life if you didn't meet the commitments you had agreed to.
More than likely.. "All" don't fucking deserve it though.
What's to explain?
"All" don't fucking deserve it though.
Who does not deserve comfort, or whatever you're implying and why?
Oh right. Nah, my point is, as usual, that there is no "all" to make happy, comfortable etc etc. Just individuals, and each individual is different so trying to make catch all solutions like taxation fix "all" won't work. For a start, you've just made sure that I can't achieve your goal, because I don't feel comfortable having someone arround with the power to rob me as much as they want and whenever they like.
It also raises the not insignificant problem of what do you do with a section of people who have monopolised violence and have vast wealth (beyond what they are capapble of earning for themselves) to fuck about with.
I exist. You exist "we" doesn't exist.
There really is no such thing as soceity. Shame the mad old bat didn't really believe it.
No there aren't.
You can observe that working. Gravity is a verb, not a noun.
You can observe that working. Magnetism is a verb, not a noun.
You can observe that working. The wind is a verb, not a noun.
They do not have a seperate existence from the individuals concerned. they are purely and simply a phenomenon created by individuals interacting. To try and change or define behaviour using that interaction as though it's a real static entity/thing is to make a massive category error.
It's like trying to change or define the sea by only looking at the foam on the waves.
At the moment I am sat in a room, all alone. >sniff< In a while I am going out to do a bit of work. During that I will be interacting with others, and you could call this interaction by another name if you like. The second I stop interacting with those others then poof, that interaction stops existing.
Soceity is a verb which you are using as a noun.
Just as well there is no morality and that it's factually accurate then, isn't it.
:rolleyes:
In the real world those things only exist as verbs. Fooled by sloppy language you are treating as static things which really aren't, and which don't exist save in their repetitive actions.
It;s pretty normal. Man goes swimming once, he;s just been swimming, man goes swimming everyday and competes and he magically becomes a swimmer. Even when he's in the library or walking down the street. It's just association and sloppy thinking.
No one is moral. Again, same halfwit error, you act morally, but it's not a property of a person, it isn't a hole in the road you fall into, it's only a name you can apply to their actions. Adverb!
At what point did you stop thinking, the Mrs. T reference?
Excellent. Well done. Swimmers = someone who sometimes swims. When your not swimming, you have no connection with swimming. Pretty damn obvious I would have thought. It's our ability to imagine the person swimming when they aren't and define him/her by what she does most often that helps us generalise and be creative and all that other wonderful stuff we do as humans.
It's a great mistake to think that it's an accurate reflection of what's really going on though. To build a model from it, especially one where you are going to try and "fix people" is doing them a great disservice.
Men and women are both defined by things that are actually there in physical reality. A vagina is not a verb, it's very definitely a noun, neh?
Individual - beyond which you cannot divide. Individuals very definitely really exist, they have an actual physical presence. You could say they are a verb, as they are a temporary combination of atoms that is changing all the time but he change is quite slow, as is the case with other things in real, physical reality - tables and so on don't change much unless something acts upon them.
No, in real physical reality it's an adverb.
And you are completely incorrect in doing so.
Nah, don't talk shite. I can do all the things you can do with thought and language and more besides. You take your abstractions for reality. I take reality for reality and abstractions as abstractions. Can I talk about society? Of course I can. I just know it's meaningless to do so.
If that's you, man are you ugly.......