Y-QUERK Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 If they don't like it they starve. Simple. No they nick your stuff instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 No they nick your stuff instead. They do it anyway. At least if they were starving they will find it more effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vin rouge Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Portillo's the Tories' Ernst Rohm.Seems were back to the good old days of overfed private school career politicians attacking the poor from a pointless meejah sinecure. Portillo did not go to private school, it was a grammar school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 The question is whether it is morally affordable. Is a society not corrupted when a large part of it is happy to live off the efforts of others? Yeah thats the problem, but the idle young didn't force the banks to collapse, encourage MPs to engage in dubious property related activity or boost the costs of housing into the stratosphere. He's stuck in the past, we need a bit of fresh thinking on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 The young are only making the best of the Ponzi schemes available to them. Rather like their parents did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 He's stuck in the past, we need a bit of fresh thinking on this issue. Is common sense too boring and old fashioned then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 In Jockland you get paid to go to school if your household income is below a certain level. It is insane. The reliance on the state is being bred younger and younger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deflation Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 There arent so many motorways here (and certainly no "private" ones)They arent needed since the public transport system is so efficient. How about picking up litter? There's always plenty of it round here, especially in the town centre in the mornings, pizza boxes and bits of burger everywhere. The 'chavs' dropping it may well end up being the same ones picking it up under such a scheme. Poetic justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Pizarro Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Haven't read other peoples posts (yet) but seriously (1) Why should the "idle young" be singled out? What about the "idle middle aged"? and (2) If the "idle" should be entitled to nothing then why aren't the industrious amongst us not "entitled" to an affordable home? I've been thinking that there I am achieving very little by following the "rules" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cityfool Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I would have you put down. Is there a shortage of parks needing cleaned up ? Of raod verges needing trimmed back ? Of course not. There is work that needs to be done. Minimum wage. Job done. If they don't like it they starve. Simple. BUT Minimum wage is (considerably) above benefit levels. Who is going to pay them the minimum wage? Answer = us! And we, as you may or may not have noticed don't have the cash. Minimum wage is £200 a week. Now we could, I suppose, print a pile more cash to pay the wages and there may be a case for it from a Keynesian perspective if you believe the deflation story but personally I don't and the last thing we need is any more government debt. If you only pay them what they would have got on benefits then you get back to the crowding out problems I talked about earlier and also take up so much of their time that they are less likely to get into a "real" job as they will have less time to apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) "Moral degeneracy" eh. He really needs to stop taking cheap shots at John Major. I agree with him though, idle young people who have never known a proper day's work in their lives (such as George Osborne) are a huge social problem. But the crime isn't being idle is it, as per usual its being idle and not being the son of a rich man that is the crime. City boys need vast bonus packages to "motivate" them to sit in an office pressing buttons and talking on the phone, why does he expect boys from cities to require lesser "incentivisation" to do work that is probably harder and less pleasant? And don't give me any bleating about your taxes, that isn't what Portillo's argument is about. He is saying any society that permits slobbery, idleness, atheism is immoral and corrupting. Surely we should not discriminate in our compassion or indulge in inverse snobbery; the gap year toff "chilling out, yah" before "uni" is as idle as his compatriot sat with a can of lager in front an oversized plasma screen on a council estate. Both are clearly desperate for our help to take away the props of other people's money that permit them to rot like this. If Portillo's argument has any merit it should surely apply to them both? In that sense I couldn't agree more, we should not permit people to be idle by accident of birth and circumstance. Equal liability for labour must be the way forward. Edited August 30, 2009 by Cogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Is common sense too boring and old fashioned then? Its not common sense, Portillo is ideological. And his ideology has been tried tested and ultimately failed under Thatchers administration. You obviously want to repeat the mistakes of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 BUT Minimum wage is (considerably) above benefit levels. Who is going to pay them the minimum wage? Answer = us!And we, as you may or may not have noticed don't have the cash. Minimum wage is £200 a week. Now we could, I suppose, print a pile more cash to pay the wages and there may be a case for it from a Keynesian perspective if you believe the deflation story but personally I don't and the last thing we need is any more government debt. If you only pay them what they would have got on benefits then you get back to the crowding out problems I talked about earlier and also take up so much of their time that they are less likely to get into a "real" job as they will have less time to apply. Does employing people to clean up motorway verges crowd out the private setor from performing this vital role? Perhaps we can 'ask' some diversity co-ordinators to relocate into this area and reduce their wages accordingly, at least they'd be doing something useful with their time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Nationalise the entire banking system, don't pay out bonuses, use the money to produce productive agricultural and manufacturing infrastructure in Britain, and reduce the GINI index. The squatting of Britain's housing stock by 'owners' of unpayable debt obligations hardly provides incentive to the young to work. I know at least two people, who without significant nominal wage inflation will never be able to pay off the principal on their mortgages, and probably won't be able pay off the interest if rates rise. They are allowed to play dog in a manger with the housing opportunities of others for 20 years before forced bankruptcy though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minos Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 The young are only making the best of the Ponzi schemes available to them.Rather like their parents did. Indeed. Destroy the Ponzi scheme that is the welfare state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Indeed. Destroy the Ponzi scheme that is the welfare state. Ok if we devalue the currency sufficiently to compete directly with the Chinese and remove anticompetitive legislature too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minos Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Ok if we devalue the currency sufficiently to compete directly with the Chinese and remove anticompetitive legislature too? Suits me. Breathe life back into this country and let the chips fall where they may. At least it would be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 The young are only making the best of the Ponzi schemes available to them.Rather like their parents did. +1 This thread is mental, considering the knowledge base of the posters. You all know how rigged the game is and you are moaning that the young aren't playing fair! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Its not common sense, Portillo is ideological. And his ideology has been tried tested and ultimately failed under Thatchers administration. You obviously want to repeat the mistakes of the past. No, I don't. I'm not keen on Portillo either. I just can't agree with fresh thinking for the sake of it. Governments aren't good at fresh thinking any more than a hammer is good at pulling out a splinter. We could make use of old ideas which did work.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) Suits me. Breathe life back into this country and let the chips fall where they may. At least it would be fair. We'd have to allow the British to do things like this though, rather than expecting them to rent shop premises requiring a profit of at least £10-12k/year to cover rent and taxes. As it is, I could only work privately and legally from a premises which is deemed to be fit for purpose by a government body which does not allow me to plan costs in advance, as this government body insists on ad hoc health and safety implementations which it will not even divulge a year or two in advance. Despite the fact that I am allowed to render medical assistance to someone in the street or in their grubby homes without question on a day to day basis. If we are going to play the game of reducing living standards to the global lowest common denominator, at least allow people sell live chickens in home-made baskets on the street without tax burden. Alternatively, try to put in place a global minimal welfare structure for every country and fund it without interest bearing debt. Edited August 30, 2009 by DissipatedYouthIsValuable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girly girl Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 +1 This thread is mental, considering the knowledge base of the posters. You all know how rigged the game is and you are moaning that the young aren't playing fair! It's hilarious and so bloody predictable, the moment the tide turns the single mum/yoof of today/immigrants ****** starts being spouted by the politicians and you all fall for it time and time again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minos Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 We'd have to allow the British to do things like this though, rather than expecting them to rent shop premises requiring a profit of at least £10-12k/year to cover rent and taxes. A billion Indians can't be wrong. Of course, you'd have to forgo your cushy welfare state funded lifestyle too doc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 No, I don't.I'm not keen on Portillo either. I just can't agree with fresh thinking for the sake of it. Governments aren't good at fresh thinking any more than a hammer is good at pulling out a splinter. We could make use of old ideas which did work.... Which ones were those then? We've been lurching from one economic crisis to the next from the late sixties, unless you believe that these problems are inherent in nature there's a man made element that is consistently getting overlooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Which ones were those then? Encouraging hard work and saving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) Encouraging hard work and saving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestan...t_of_Capitalism He was also talking about religion, those things are not unrelated and while he downplays it so as not to scare the horses, he does actually allude to it twice. You have to see that there should be a reason for feeling shame. That is an emotion that is hard to evoke in a secular, post-modern society. The Conservative party is not the party of atheism you know. I've been to church this morning. I have to tell you, it wasn't especially busy. I didn't see too many thrusting young capitalists in the congregation. Mostly old ladies. Edited August 30, 2009 by Cogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.