One income families

by Charlatan Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:35 pm

Would it be possible to have preference given to families where there is no income in job interviews? I think families with two incomes account for more than ten percent of all jobs, so, seeing as how the market would see one family with three or four jobs, why not put it into law to prefer families without an income? All families can survive on one income, maybe not nicely, but minimum wage is there to help people make it through the month.

If we could get all families one income at least, there should be more appeasement with this occupy thing.

by Charlatan Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:47 pm

The occupy protestors want a fair spread of wealth. How does the world give them this? Before any comments about communism come up, I would like to put forward other ideas, and would like others to put their ideas forward too.

If the world was to give land away to natives from that country, then they could develop it. Getting a loan to develop land that is yours will be quite easy, as the land is insurance on it's own. If the land is developed, there will be an asset there that can be sold back to the bank, or cover any problems of repayment. This will lead to people living in ther country all getting to be the boss of their own land venture, be it a factory or shopping mall or whatever. That is the way out of this economic mess - not even giving away a sizable amount of land I might add.

What do you gys think of this? It is the countries land, not the king's, therefore belonging to the people too, and 'taxing this land' would lead to more income for the state.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:43 pm

Isn't it up to the State to provide sweeteners for employers to take on the less privileged? A businessman has to employ the best candidate who will enhance his firm's profitability. Charity plays little part in that decision.

by astra Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:44 pm

Sir, You have just about stated the raison detre for the Hallal Bank, a worldwide organisation who dishes out it's moneys to the imams who dish it out to their 'parishioners'(?) The Halal Bank like all in Islam see the WORLD as God's therefore they are doing exactly what you suggest.

Join Islam!!!
I am standing on the edge of Marsden Cliff, South Shieds, facing inland, please Queue up behind me! Twisted Evil

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:46 pm

If such a proposal is not Communism, then what is it? " Fair shares for all / Property is theft" sounds good until you realise that it is YOUR property they are proposing to distribute among the Poor.

by Shirina Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:29 pm

Before anything else can be done, the first thing that we need to do is invent a better human. I'm only being quasi-facetious here because there is some truth to this. Our psychology, it would seem, demands that we receive some sort of reciprocity for everything that we do, and without it, we have little motivation. Altruism is usually only shown toward people who are closest to us, and altruism toward strangers is only done on a small scale. Humans also are never content even when one is living in opulence - if someone has a billion dollars, they immediately start wishing they had 2 billion. This behavior is a blessing for those at the lower end of the economic food chain, but it is naked avarice and greed at the upper end. As such, many in the US especially see any proposal to "spread the wealth" as communism despite the US having the third highest wealth disparity in the First and Second Worlds.

I won't address the following points in detail as that would make for a long post, so for now, I'm simply going to list a few things that I think could be done to at least ease the burden on the lower and middle classes.

Eliminate the current system of usury. I'm not going to suggest something radical like eliminate it altogether, but the problem is how interest rates are applied continuously. This leaves people in debt for years, and the less fortunate can literally be in debt for half their lives even for relatively small loans. When 80% to 90% of their payment goes toward interest rates and ubiquitous "finance charges," they end up being sucked dry. Instead, the profit on a loan should be fixed. If a bank wants to charge 30% interest on a $1000 loan, then the borrower pays back $1300. That's it! Not a penny more. No one should end up paying back $5000 for $1000 simply because they have little money.

Scrap the credit score. If anything comes close to the Number of the Beast referenced in the Bible, the credit score is it. Not only are the rules governing the score arbitrary and impossible to figure out (probably deliberately so that people cannot manipulate their own score), it actually forces people into debt. These days, everyone talks about how people should borrow money so that they can establish a good line of credit. What's worse is that if you pay the debt back too quickly, it counts against you! The only way to maintain good credit is to borrow money and then LET yourself be sucked dry by interest rates. That needs to stop.

Discontinue the policy of adding fines and fees to people who can't afford to make payments. I mean, seriously, this has to be the most harebrained idea in small-time finance. If a person can't afford to pay $100 per month, what makes the bankers think that person can afford $50 more in charges and fees for being late? It just adds to the financial burden and stress of being in debt. I find it mildly ironic that US conservatives whine and moan about gay marriage destroying the family, but I can assure you with the utmost certainty that financial stress ruins more families in one month than gays have ruined since the dawning of creation.

Something needs to be done about the skyrocketing cost of health care AND health care needs to be nationalized (applicable to the US, of course). The administrative side of health care is like a bloated cyst that desperately needs stuck with a lancet. Hospitals and doctors need to stop padding their profits by charging $50 for a bag of ice and $120 for a 10 oz. glass of orange juice and a box of band-aids.

Corporations should be content with making a profit instead of always trying to maximize them. Oh, I know THAT will never happen, not until we invent a better human (i.e. my first paragraph). When a large soda at McDonald's costs the company 10 cents to produce but sells it for $1.50, that is excessive. Companies also need to stop charging for convenience. When a 20 oz. bottle of soda costs $1.20 at a convenience store but a 2 liter bottle of the same soda costs $1.40 at the grocery store, there is too much profiteering going on. This is especially true as "convenience" stores grow in size and offer more services. The lines in convenience stores have grown almost as long as those in a conventional grocery store!

If the executives and CEO receive a raise, EVERYONE should receive one - and everyone should receive the same percentage. It's ridiculous for a CEO already making tens of millions per year to receive a 15% raise while the workers struggling to make ends meet receive nothing aside from the paltry 2% or 3% "cost of living adjustment," assuming they get even that.

All employees should receive stock options regardless of their position, pay, or full-time status. Profit sharing is good for the wallet and good for morale, and any profit sharing should not be tiered to favor the upper-end employees. If profit is shared, it should be shared equally. Stop giving the most money to people who least need it.

Companies should take an interest in training their employees by paying tuition for trade schools, college degrees, and certificate courses. The utter nonsense that is taking place now places the entire burden of this cost onto the individual, and employers expect all job applicants to knock on their door already fully stocked with degrees and years of experience. This blocks many people from ever getting a job at all much less one that pays a living wage.

Colleges and universities need to work more closely with employers to facilitate job placement after graduation instead of simply tossing new grads out into the jungle to fend for themselves. Employers should be doing more to search for perspective employees on college campuses instead of simply waiting for recent grads to come to them.

College tuition needs to become more affordable. At present, college tuition is rising more quickly than any other commodity in America, even faster than health care costs. There needs to be more debt-forgiveness programs offered by both the government and employers. College debt is so high now that many adult children end up living at home well into their late 20's.

I could go on and on with a list like this, but hopefully the ideas have merit. What I'm proposing isn't "wealth redistribution" in the classic sense but rather it is allowing more people to actually become more successful. While companies might not be able to make record profits year after year and while it might be more difficult for the rich to keep on getting richer, our society would be far better off, and we might actually SAVE money in taxes because there would be far fewer people on welfare; companies might see an increase in sales and profits because more Americans would have increased disposable income - instead of the majority of their earnings going toward paying off large debts like student loans, mortgages, car payments, and insurance premiums. My ideas actually run parallel with the doctrines outlined by the great financiers of yesteryear such as Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller - doctrines outlined in the famous book The Gospel of Wealth. They believed that the wealthy have a moral obligation to give back to the communities and to the people who made their wealth possible instead of today's doctrine which is all about "profit at any price" and wealth hoarding.

by Shirina Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:41 pm

Isn't it up to the State to provide sweeteners for employers to take on the less privileged?

Nope. At least not that I know of. The only thing that comes close to this is that a company can get a tax incentive to hire people who are disabled. Veterans often receive preferential treatment, as well, but I think that is the company's choice and not by law.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:28 pm

Before anything else can be done, the first thing that we need to do is invent a better human.

Eliminating the current version first? Or afterwards?

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:34 pm

Let's hear it for altruism!!

Yay!

by True Blue Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:00 am

Shirina wrote:Before anything else can be done, the first thing that we need to do is invent a better human.

The Japanese during WW2 thought to create better humans. Took a lot of human guinea pigs, but the advances to medical science are still with us today.

Eliminate the current system of usury. I'm not going to suggest something radical like eliminate it altogether, but the problem is how interest rates are applied continuously. This leaves people in debt for years, and the less fortunate can literally be in debt for half their lives even for relatively small loans. When 80% to 90% of their payment goes toward interest rates and ubiquitous "finance charges," they end up being sucked dry. Instead, the profit on a loan should be fixed. If a bank wants to charge 30% interest on a $1000 loan, then the borrower pays back $1300. That's it! Not a penny more. No one should end up paying back $5000 for $1000 simply because they have little money.

What an extraordinary idea... do away with usury by implementing pawn broker accounting practices!

30% of a £300,000 mortgage would increase that mortgage to £330,000 and unlike the pawn broker, the mortgagee has 25 to 30 years to pay that off. Even if the mortgagee took only 10 years, the ravages of inflation would make that interest payment not worth the effort to loan in the first place.

Scrap the credit score. If anything comes close to the Number of the Beast referenced in the Bible, the credit score is it. Not only are the rules governing the score arbitrary and impossible to figure out (probably deliberately so that people cannot manipulate their own score), it actually forces people into debt. These days, everyone talks about how people should borrow money so that they can establish a good line of credit. What's worse is that if you pay the debt back too quickly, it counts against you! The only way to maintain good credit is to borrow money and then LET yourself be sucked dry by interest rates. That needs to stop.

But something needs to fill the place of the credit score. We can't go back to yea olde days of the Renaissance where the word of or letter from another of higher peerage determines your credit worthiness.

Discontinue the policy of adding fines and fees to people who can't afford to make payments. I mean, seriously, this has to be the most harebrained idea in small-time finance. If a person can't afford to pay $100 per month, what makes the bankers think that person can afford $50 more in charges and fees for being late? It just adds to the financial burden and stress of being in debt. I find it mildly ironic that US conservatives whine and moan about gay marriage destroying the family, but I can assure you with the utmost certainty that financial stress ruins more families in one month than gays have ruined since the dawning of creation.

In Australia, we have a current class action against certain of our banks questioning the validity of the overdrawn fees customers can attract if their account is insufficient when regular debits are due. The argument is that these amounts are touted as fees and not a means of acquiring profit so the banks will need to show what costs are entailed to justify the fee in the first place or accept that their motive is punitive which is illegal. Since this class action began, all banks have removed punitive fees from their accounting practices.

Something needs to be done about the skyrocketing cost of health care AND health care needs to be nationalized (applicable to the US, of course). The administrative side of health care is like a bloated cyst that desperately needs stuck with a lancet. Hospitals and doctors need to stop padding their profits by charging $50 for a bag of ice and $120 for a 10 oz. glass of orange juice and a box of band-aids.

To whom are these US hospitals accountable that their democracy should allow this absurd abuse of funding?

Corporations should be content with making a profit instead of always trying to maximize them. Oh, I know THAT will never happen, not until we invent a better human (i.e. my first paragraph). When a large soda at McDonald's costs the company 10 cents to produce but sells it for $1.50, that is excessive. Companies also need to stop charging for convenience. When a 20 oz. bottle of soda costs $1.20 at a convenience store but a 2 liter bottle of the same soda costs $1.40 at the grocery store, there is too much profiteering going on. This is especially true as "convenience" stores grow in size and offer more services. The lines in convenience stores have grown almost as long as those in a conventional grocery store!

How are you going to do that?

If the executives and CEO receive a raise, EVERYONE should receive one - and everyone should receive the same percentage. It's ridiculous for a CEO already making tens of millions per year to receive a 15% raise while the workers struggling to make ends meet receive nothing aside from the paltry 2% or 3% "cost of living adjustment," assuming they get even that.

What would the shareholders say?

All employees should receive stock options regardless of their position, pay, or full-time status. Profit sharing is good for the wallet and good for morale, and any profit sharing should not be tiered to favor the upper-end employees. If profit is shared, it should be shared equally. Stop giving the most money to people who least need it.

And if the business is private owned such as Facebook is, with no shares to allocate or trade... what then? We also have to be mindful of the small entrepreneur who owns their business... there would be a great drive to abandon such jobs in preference for the corporate shares employment market, yet small business do more to employ people than do large corporate because of 'economies of scale' applications which are unfavourable to the former but not to the latter.

Companies should take an interest in training their employees by paying tuition for trade schools, college degrees, and certificate courses. The utter nonsense that is taking place now places the entire burden of this cost onto the individual, and employers expect all job applicants to knock on their door already fully stocked with degrees and years of experience. This blocks many people from ever getting a job at all much less one that pays a living wage.

If the private sector is going to be responsible for an individuals education, then equally they should be allowed the right to choose that individual which they will fund if we are to embrace our right to freedom. Then again, this is a brilliant argument for justifying trainee wages. Hire them, train them at below the award income then fire them so that you can take on another underpaid trainee (not uncommon in the Chef trade here in Australia by the way.)

Once upon a time, the humble cook didn't need various certificates in hygiene, kitchen equipment and basic cooking which can take up to two years on the job for certification... If they claimed they could cook, they were put to the test.

Colleges and universities need to work more closely with employers to facilitate job placement after graduation instead of simply tossing new grads out into the jungle to fend for themselves. Employers should be doing more to search for perspective employees on college campuses instead of simply waiting for recent grads to come to them.

Are highly educated 20 somethings unable to fend for themselves. Do they not have the capacity to sign on with an employment agency to get some work experience whilst they are looking for their dream job. Are they unable to maintain networks with academia so as to keep abreast of their particular employment market?

College tuition needs to become more affordable. At present, college tuition is rising more quickly than any other commodity in America, even faster than health care costs. There needs to be more debt-forgiveness programs offered by both the government and employers. College debt is so high now that many adult children end up living at home well into their late 20's.

I support free education paid for by the tax payer.

by Shirina Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:19 am

The Japanese during WW2 thought to create better humans. Took a lot of human guinea pigs, but the advances to medical science are still with us today.

I think that your, and OW's, veiled references to genocide and medical torture are a bit far fetched within the context of this discussion. I was merely pointing out the flaws in the human psyche, and unfortunately, most every species has a built-in weakness. With us, it is the inability to stop our momentum of want. As the old saying goes, the more you have the more you want. That's ever so true. This constant push to have more often, almost invariably, results in people of power taking things away from people without it.

30% of a £300,000 mortgage would increase that mortgage to £330,000 and unlike the pawn broker, the mortgagee has 25 to 30 years to pay that off.

No, it wouldn't. If 90 cents of every dollar went toward the principle instead of interest, there would be no need to take out a 30 year mortgage. But with the system of high interest rates, it is often better to declare bankruptcy than to be saddled with debt that one cannot get on top of.

But something needs to fill the place of the credit score.

The credit score needs to be used for its intended purpose: establishing credit worthiness. Now, however, it seems everyone wants to know what your score is. Your eligibility to rent an apartment, how much you pay for insurance, your marketability as a job-seeker ... on and on. This dragon has sprouted many heads and they need lopped off. If credit scores were used ONLY for credit worthiness, then fine, I can live with that. But now bad credit can even keep you from getting a job - a job that would enable you to pay off the debts causing your bad credit! Oh, now that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it! "Don't hire that person - he needs the money!"

To whom are these US hospitals accountable that their democracy should allow this absurd abuse of funding?

Financially, they're not accountable to anyone as far as I know. They can charge what they like - and often do. Since medical needs are often just that - needs - the bean counters figure no price is too high to pay for your health. Heh, my father, who has prostate cancer, was charged $400 just for the doctor to come in and ask him how he was feeling. The doctor never touched him or examined him in any way, but apparently this doctor thinks 5 minutes of his time is worth $400. These outrageous prices are, in my opinion, a result of the insurance industry. For most Americans, the cost of health care is covered by insurance companies, so hospitals can charge ridiculous sums of money knowing that insurance companies are wealthy enough to pay up. In other words, it artificially increases the market value of the service.

How are you going to do that?

You can't and you won't. As for the cause, see my first paragraph. Time-Warner, our television cable company just announced yet another rate hike. The reason is because they lost several hundred thousand subscribers. Now, losing those subscribers does not endanger the company, but the loyal customers are expected to take up the slack to keep stock dividends rolling in for the shareholders. What a load of garbage. I say that Time-Warner can simply eat the loss. Tough luck. And raising rates will only ensure even more people will switch to satellite or simply go without.

What would the shareholders say?

I don't really care. A large portion of the economic problem in this country involves companies pandering to their shareholders at the expense of the consumer.

And if the business is private owned such as Facebook is, with no shares to allocate or trade...

One company I worked for briefly paid out a cash bonus at the end of each financial quarter, the size of which depended on the company's profits. The more profit the company made, the bigger your bonus. You can bet that most employees worked doubly hard and actually cared about the company's overall performance. That's more than I can say for the average wage slave who gets paid the same whether the company does well or does abysmally. In that case, the worker feels that there is no reason to work any harder than he has to since the rewards of success do not trickle down that far.

Then again, this is a brilliant argument for justifying trainee wages. Hire them, train them at below the award income then fire them so that you can take on another underpaid trainee (not uncommon in the Chef trade here in Australia by the way.)

This is already happening through the use of temp agencies.

Are highly educated 20 somethings unable to fend for themselves.

Nope. They can't. In a bad economy like this one, employers want both an education AND experience. A lot of college grads are forced into low-income crap jobs because they don't have the experience to get a better one. More on this below ...

Do they not have the capacity to sign on with an employment agency to get some work experience whilst they are looking for their dream job.

Employment and temp agencies usually don't place people in professional level, salaried jobs. If you're male, you'll likely end up working in some small factory acting as a human robot on an assembly line for slightly above minimum wage. If you're female, you'll likely end up in someone's office acting as a receptionist or front desk person again for low wages. And through it all, the only experience these college grads are getting is experience working an assembly line or manning the front desk. The skills and experience earned are not transferable to a higher level job so most movement is lateral not upward. Someone with a teaching degree doing assembly work in a factory is not gaining any teaching experience, and no matter how long he works there, he will never accumulate the 2+ years of experience teaching that most employers want.

Are they unable to maintain networks with academia so as to keep abreast of their particular employment market?

Sure they can. I still get emails from former professors alerting me to potential job openings in my field - BUT - without that coveted experience, the chances of getting one of those jobs is pretty small. Professors might be able to pull strings for some folks, but they can't do it for everyone.

by True Blue Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:04 am

Shirina wrote:
The Japanese during WW2 thought to create better humans. Took a lot of human guinea pigs, but the advances to medical science are still with us today.

I think that your, and OW's, veiled references to genocide and medical torture are a bit far fetched within the context of this discussion. I was merely pointing out the flaws in the human psyche, and unfortunately, most every species has a built-in weakness.

You are right... I should have mentioned the forced Lobotomy program that was run throughout many mental health institutions in the USA. No torture entailed. The patients were sedated and then anaesthetised whilst their psyche under went its surgical transformation.

Then again, surgery is more expensive than pharmaceutics. Should we drug society into a fitting psyche?

30% of a £300,000 mortgage would increase that mortgage to £330,000 and unlike the pawn broker, the mortgagee has 25 to 30 years to pay that off.
No, it wouldn't. If 90 cents of every dollar went toward the principle instead of interest, there would be no need to take out a 30 year mortgage.

Even if the mortgagee took only 10 years, the ravages of inflation would make that interest payment not worth the effort to loan in the first place.

But with the system of high interest rates, it is often better to declare bankruptcy than to be saddled with debt that one cannot get on top of.

In Australia, bankruptcy leaves the bankrupt with a poor credit rating and an inability to get a loan for the duration of the bankruptcy term... and prevents employment in certain sectors. Much better in Australia to renegotiate the loan.

To whom are these US hospitals accountable that their democracy should allow this absurd abuse of funding?
Financially, they're not accountable to anyone as far as I know.

I was asking about the way in which the funding was spent and who is accountable for that.... and not how the funding was raised.

How are you going to do that?
You can't and you won't. As for the cause, see my first paragraph. Time-Warner, our television cable company just announced yet another rate hike. The reason is because they lost several hundred thousand subscribers. Now, losing those subscribers does not endanger the company, but the loyal customers are expected to take up the slack to keep stock dividends rolling in for the shareholders. What a load of garbage. I say that Time-Warner can simply eat the loss. Tough luck. And raising rates will only ensure even more people will switch to satellite or simply go without.

Well, I've got no time or sympathy for cable companies and the suckers who pay to watch the dribble issue forth... technicolor vomit is all it is. It is not a bad thing that subscribers are turning away from cable.

What would the shareholders say?
I don't really care. A large portion of the economic problem in this country involves companies pandering to their shareholders at the expense of the consumer.

Caveat emptor... failing that... sue the pants of 'em.

And if the business is private owned such as Facebook is, with no shares to allocate or trade...
One company I worked for briefly paid out a cash bonus at the end of each financial quarter, the size of which depended on the company's profits. The more profit the company made, the bigger your bonus. You can bet that most employees worked doubly hard and actually cared about the company's overall performance. That's more than I can say for the average wage slave who gets paid the same whether the company does well or does abysmally. In that case, the worker feels that there is no reason to work any harder than he has to since the rewards of success do not trickle down that far.

Private business doesn't have to publicly disclose their yearly earnings. So the chances of people actually getting a bonus commiserate with the net profit is impossible to know. Moreover, I think the tipping industry has a lot to teach us about this idea of yours. When a persons labour becomes linked to business profits, hourly rates become a point of conjecture that justifies lower rates or quite simply non-existent rates. All is paid in tips... that is... pure net profit.

Then again, this is a brilliant argument for justifying trainee wages. Hire them, train them at below the award income then fire them so that you can take on another underpaid trainee (not uncommon in the Chef trade here in Australia by the way.)
This is already happening through the use of temp agencies.

Likewise it is happening in Australia... doesn't mean that we should create arguments that can seek to justify behaviour which lacks the will to afford a young person a liveable wage.

Are highly educated 20 somethings unable to fend for themselves.
Nope. They can't.

Has it always been this way, or is this merely a product of a 'bad economy' and so affecting more than the highly educated 20 somethings?

In a bad economy like this one, employers want both an education AND experience. A lot of college grads are forced into low-income crap jobs because they don't have the experience to get a better one. More on this below ...

Low income crap jobs eh? So... where are the people who would normally be doing these low income crap jobs for the bulk of their lives? Have they been pushed out of the crap job market because of the highly educated 20 somethings?

Do they not have the capacity to sign on with an employment agency to get some work experience whilst they are looking for their dream job.

Employment and temp agencies usually don't place people in professional level, salaried jobs.

Oh ok... in Australia we have private and public employment agencies who deal with the full spectrum of employment offers.

If you're male, you'll likely end up working in some small factory acting as a human robot on an assembly line for slightly above minimum wage. If you're female, you'll likely end up in someone's office acting as a receptionist or front desk person again for low wages. And through it all, the only experience these college grads are getting is experience working an assembly line or manning the front desk.

Wow... who gets all the administration jobs then? And who is doing the tax reconciliation paperwork if not the newbie's to Accounting? And who is doing the bed baths if not the fresh faces of nursing? And who is doing the menial process work entailed to Lab research if not the new kid on the scientific block?

Why are factories even hiring college grads who are so completely unsuited and inexperienced?

The skills and experience earned are not transferable to a higher level job so most movement is lateral not upward. Someone with a teaching degree doing assembly work in a factory is not gaining any teaching experience...

Maybe they are not gaining teaching experience but they are gaining work experience...

and no matter how long he works there, he will never accumulate the 2+ years of experience teaching that most employers want.

So the school goes without a teacher if the candidates lack that 2+ years, or is their a surplus of teachers for the employer to pick from?

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:29 pm

What seems to be lacking as a stimulus, is an alternative to the profit motive.

by Charlatan Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:32 pm

Ok, well, the human psyche demands something for something, but they cannot have that. It is the mass demonstrations by the poor onto the megre demonstrations of the rich that see that off - the greater good.

If we were to adopt something more social, as has happened in france, there is room to maneouver. If there was to be a policy that serves the poor, then it would be welcomed by the masses, guaranteed. We do not need to make better people, we just need to serve the majority.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:03 pm

If there was to be a policy that serves the poor, then it would be welcomed by the masses

Regrettably, Marie Antoinette's proposal to "Let them eat cake" was not well-received.

by Shirina Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:45 pm

Truth be told, Marie Antionette never actually said those words. This would assume she was even aware of the poor, which she was not. However, this little bit of folklore is a great way to encapsulate the disdain that the Louis XVI monarchy held for the starving masses.

by **Ivan** Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:33 pm

Truth be told, Marie Antionette never actually said those words.

That's true, and she didn't even say "qu'ils mangent du gateau". James Callaghan never said "crisis, what crisis?", and Mary Todd Lincoln never said "apart from that, I enjoyed the play".

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:43 pm

Shirina wrote:Truth be told, Marie Antionette never actually said those words.

"Cake" is the closest English word to "Brioche" for which there is no better translation.

by Shirina Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:37 am

and Mary Todd Lincoln never said "apart from that, I enjoyed the play

LOL! I remember that one.

by **Ivan** Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:12 pm

30% of a £300,000 mortgage would increase that mortgage to £330,000

No it wouldn't. It would increase it to £390,000.

by astra Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:26 pm

Kwor!! what you on Ivan?

now my head hurts!! Very Happy

by Guest Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:31 pm

Ivan wrote:

Truth be told, Marie Antionette never actually said those words.
That's true, and she didn't even say "qu'ils mangent du gateau". James Callaghan never said "crisis, what crisis?", and Mary Todd Lincoln never said "apart from that, I enjoyed the play".

On 8 December 1941, aboard USS Enterprise in Pearl Harbor, Vice Admiral William Halsey did say, “When we’re through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.”

by Guest Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:35 pm

30% (0.30) X £300,000 = £90,000

£300,000 + £90,000 = £390,000

by Shirina Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:18 pm

Hmm, these are old unanswered questions, but I'll revisit this topic and answer them to stimulate the furtherance of this discussion. My apologies for not having answered them previously:

Has it always been this way, or is this merely a product of a 'bad economy' and so affecting more than the highly educated 20 somethings?

It used to be that a college degree of just about any variety guaranteed you a job. Having that all-powerful degree set you up for life. Then two things happened. First, the number of jobs shrank while the population increased. A lot of jobs were outsourced or eliminated due to corporate restructuring, new technology, or company mergers. When the common workers begin losing their jobs, the managers of those workers also lose their jobs (who is left to manage?), and the manager of the managers lose theirs. Perhaps three or four steps up from the bottom, the effects of the job losses diffuse so that the manager of the manager of the manager does NOT lose his job, namely because he oversees such a broad chunk of the company that there is always someone to manage.

The problem is that those manager jobs that were lost - immediate supervisors, office managers, retail managers, etc. are the ones college grads normally stepped into after graduation. Without those jobs, recent grads without experience are not qualified to take existing upper-management jobs thus forcing them to take on common labor jobs. Those lower to middle management jobs that are created and need filling are usually filled with the experienced managers who lost their jobs somewhere else and not a "wet behind the ears" college grad.

The second problem occurred when companies began demanding college degrees for even relatively menial jobs - such as working in a call center. This often happens when the economy goes sour. When college grads apply for a low-end job, they'll receive preference over someone with just a high school diploma. This raises the bar considerably and forces many high school grads to move on to college when ordinarily they wouldn't. When a college degree becomes necessary in a de facto sense to get even a low-end job, having a degree becomes more common. When half the applicants have a degree, employers have to resort to other methods to weed out candidates - like trolling Facebook to see if you wore a sexy costume to the Halloween party or checking your credit score since giving a job to a person who needs money is a bad financial risk, apparently.

So... where are the people who would normally be doing these low income crap jobs for the bulk of their lives? Have they been pushed out of the crap job market because of the highly educated 20 somethings?

Many of those jobs no longer exist, have been taken over by immigrant (often illegal) workers, or have been taken by the displaced 20-somethings with college degrees.

Wow... who gets all the administration jobs then? And who is doing the tax reconciliation paperwork if not the newbie's to Accounting? And who is doing the bed baths if not the fresh faces of nursing? And who is doing the menial process work entailed to Lab research if not the new kid on the scientific block?

Experienced accountants, administrators, lab technicians, and nurses who lost their jobs elsewhere. When you're desperate for work, people will happily take a new position several notches below where they were just so long as they have a steady paycheck. If the choice is scrubbing bed pans or losing your home, well ...

Why are factories even hiring college grads who are so completely unsuited and inexperienced?

Because a lot of these factory jobs could be performed by trained monkeys. Training takes all of five minutes, and two of those minutes involve being shown where the bathroom and punch clock are. Anyone could work these jobs - the experienced people get the better jobs. The inexperienced college grads get the crap jobs, and the inexperienced people without a degree get pretty much nothing.

Maybe they are not gaining teaching experience but they are gaining work experience...

Which means nothing. It is assumed that if you qualify for a $30k per year (or more) job, you already know how to come to work on time and not call in sick every other week. They want teaching experience, not assembly line experience. What's worse, the longer a college grad works one of those crappy jobs, the more irrelevant their education becomes. Someone who graduated last summer is more likely to get the job they want than someone who graduated 5 years ago. The rationale behind this is that the more recent grad will have retained more of his knowledge. Someone working in a factory for the last 5 years has had half a decade to forget what he was taught.

So the school goes without a teacher if the candidates lack that 2+ years, or is their a surplus of teachers for the employer to pick from?

Well, teaching is not the best example since, with teacher retirement expected to reach dangerous levels, an entire crop of new teachers will be needed for another 10 years. However, sometimes schools close and other schools merge as populations shift. Teachers lose their jobs that way, and those experienced teachers will usually get the pick of the litter before any recent college grad. It also depends on location - it's probably easier for an inexperienced teacher to get a job teaching in a gangland school in LA than it is to get a job teaching in some posh, high-paying school in suburban Connecticut.

by Scarecrow Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:36 pm

After reading all the posts regarding spreading wealth , the word that comes to mind is UTOPIA , and the elite calling the shots have no intention of derailing the capitalistic mechanisms that have the little people trapped in daily servitude , with all the goodwill in the world , we are trapped into financial bondage , UNTIL there is revolution on a world scale , nothing changes.

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:47 pm

In the entirety of recorded human history, there is nowhere any mention of equality within a Society having been achieved.

If you want to feel better about that, no animals have achieved it either.

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:32 pm

oftenwrong wrote:In the entirety of recorded human history, there is nowhere any mention of equality within a Society having been achieved.

If you want to feel better about that, no animals have achieved it either.

I take issue with you there.

There was peace and equality in the garden of Eden. The God spoiled it all by making a woman. Ooooooops. Shocked

Now I'm banned:oops:

by astra Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:04 pm

Then God spoiled it all by making a woman

Which one Trevor??

Lilith or Eve?

Seems he had it in STEREO stereo as well!!!! Very Happy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succubus

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:40 pm

by astra Today at 10:04 pm

Then God spoiled it all by making a woman

Which one Trevor??

Lilith or Eve?

Seems he had it in STEREO stereo as well!!!! Very Happy

Lilith is in later Jewish 'literature'. You obviously know about her so no more said.
Eve was ...............er... um... Surprised

Now what was she? Embarassed

Pandora,Ti, Shakti, Ninhursag? or many other names. Depending whether you are Greek, Sumerian, Egyptian, Indian etc.

They say that Eve wouldn't let Adam out of her sight in case he lost another rib:lol:

by Shirina Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:00 am

There was peace and equality in the garden of Eden. The God spoiled it all by making a woman. Ooooooops. Now I'm banned:oops:

That's it, you're outta here! lol!

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:15 am

Shirina wrote:
There was peace and equality in the garden of Eden. The God spoiled it all by making a woman. Ooooooops. Now I'm banned:oops:

That's it, you're outta here!

Wail, sob, sob... Sad

grovel grovel. flower

Here's a bunch of flowers. Am I forgiven? Smile

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:00 pm

The global price of Oil is now less than half what it was just a year ago. Motorists can't believe their luck, and consumer goods are now costing less to deliver.

What happened? As usual, many factors combined (like the weather) but the trigger was probably America's drive to become self-sufficient through the exploitation of tar-sands and deposits of oil previously unreachable, through the development of fracking. With such a large market no longer importing oil, world prices softened of course. On previous such occasions, major Oil Producers simply turned off the tap until demand forced prices back up again. For various reasons that won't work now, as demand has lessened. So producers like Saudi Arabia are playing the long game, by continuing to pump oil as always, so depressing the global price lower and lower. They hope to reach the stage where America finds it cheaper to resume Importation, thus rendering the frackers unprofitable.

Watch that space!

by Sponsored content

Ideas for spreading the wealth

One income families

Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth

Will cheaper Oil make us wealthier?

Re: Ideas for spreading the wealth