Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

Yea, I also appreciate that by providing these people with disposable income it has the effect of keeping others in work in the shops/companies where they spend this cash... cash that I pay in tax and would otherwise just sit in some bank account being wasted by some financial asshole. My rant isnt so much against the state of affairs in this case, but the attitudes of those performing the aforementioned acts, blaming the outcomes of thier acts as the cause.

[GlyphGryph]

Also, I was under the impression the UKs system is... poorly implemented. Like the US system its built in such a way that it keeps people down quite effectively. Maybe not quite as bad, but its more of a "we'll keep your basic needs met but gives you nothing in the way of opportunity to better yourself"

Like in the US where my parents had to quit there jobs in order to be able to afford the medicine to keep my brother alive (because if your making over a certain amount, all your benefits get cut off! Joy!)

I'm also under the impression Britains problems are largely a combination of cultural issues, disenfranchisement, and a lack of available jobs.

[Phmcw]

Let's say that OWS concern are generalised (we have our indigés that are basically the same thing) : we have been able to force our politician to establish welfare, but they still don't really work for us, and are happy to screw us in any way they can when the occasion arise.
We must not let them said occasion, and should retaliate with extreme prejudice when such even occur (we managed to send some of them in prison, and I hope we'll get some more jailed soon).

[MonkeyHead]

Also, I was under the impression the UKs system is... poorly implemented. Like the US system its built in such a way that it keeps people down quite effectively. Maybe not quite as bad, but its more of a "we'll keep your basic needs met but gives you nothing in the way of opportunity to better yourself"

Like in the US where my parents had to quit there jobs in order to be able to afford the medicine to keep my brother alive (because if your making over a certain amount, all your benefits get cut off! Joy!)

I'm also under the impression Britains problems are largely a combination of cultural issues, disenfranchisement, and a lack of available jobs.

Poorly implemented in as much as there isnt just one over-arching system that covers all beneifits - each is applied for in a stand alone manner, which is why it becomes easy to exploit.

Also, not so much "keeps people down" in the boot-on-the-neck sense, but more of a "better off where I am" sort of way. If you have a local authority house, lets say 3 bedroom, they would charge you at most £200 to £300 a month, and take care of ALL its maintenance, and throw in the odd home imporvement (like new uPVC or kitchen) once in a while for free. The typical 3 bed semi when owner occupied costs between £500 and £1000 a month - no incentive to buy your own there is there, even if it is an investment.

Most of our social problems come from a modern spin on the old class system: those that made the most of thier opportunities resent the apparent burden those on the bottom rung represent. Those on the bottom rung feel the system does nothing for them. The secondary education system is a good example of this: in the days of the 11-plus system (grammar schools for the academic, secondary-moderns for vocational trades) the needs of pupils were better met. Our current system tries a catch all approach which fails those at the top and the bottom. Fast forward 5 to 10 years from leaving school and you have young adults which do not have the skills to take on a skilled trade, disenfranchised and resentful of those above them. You also have the higer achievers, who are working thier assess off to get by, resentful of those at the bottom of the pile which thier tax cash goes to support. Geographical density doesnt help here - areas of affluence and poverty in some areas are literally on top of one another.

Elements of the old class sytem are still in play as well, as represented by the big political divide between Labour and the Tories - identifying with either links people to an image of the past of either blue blooded poshness of terraced housing working class graft.

The lack of jobs problem is more at the top end of the scale then the bottom - Blair era "everyone can go to uni" thinking has churned out lots of graduates with often pointless degrees looking for a wage that doesnt exist. This isnt to say that there are loads of hod carrier jobs out there either mind you.

[Andir]

So, Andir - about Sweden.  It was mentioned to you as a specific example by two people (after you asked for a specific example), but you completely ignored it.

I did not completely ignore it.  I specifically mentioned it, twice.  If that's not enough coverage for you, I'm sorry.  I already stated I'm done with this conversation.

[SalmonGod]

If the populace had all it's needs met, don't you think the population would raise due to... well... affordability of children?  You'd need to feed them and their kids if you could continue that equilibrium or establish some sort of China-esque birthing limits.

Successful, developed countries have lower population growth rates than broken, impoverished ones.  It's also generally tied to education level, which is a good incentive to fund everyone's education no matter the cost if this is something you're worried about.

If this were a thing at all, people in Africa wouldn't be having children.

Except that in countries like Africa, there is an economic incentive to get children; they'll be there to fend for you when you get old. On the other hand, in western countries, there's a disincentive; you're being taken care of when you're old anyway and you've got to invest a lot in children, both in time, money and strain on your career.

And how does that conflict with my point?  Andir claimed that incentive to have children is proportional to the ease of providing for those children, or conversely that there is no disincentive to having children if everyone's needs are provided for.  I made the observation that the opposite appears to be true, and you just reinforced it.

[ChairmanPoo]

Is the "Africans are incentivated to have children" statement based on anthropological fact, or is it just "It seems logical that..."?

[SalmonGod]

There's lots of information out there stating that the least developed countries have the highest population growth rates.  Do a quick google search and pick whatever looks most reputable to you.  I also never said anything about their incentive to have children.  I only pointed out the fact that they do.

[ChairmanPoo]

That's not the same as saying "Africans are incentivated to have lots of children because that way they will take care of them in their old age".

[Duke 2.0]

 I think the keyword Africans is tripping you up a bit. It's a pretty well-documented mechanic of population growth, where developing countries have very large families and advanced countries have very small families. The reasons for these things are numerous, one of which is the ability of the young to help take care of the elderly.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, I only ever said Africa to make my wording appear less abstract and more tangible.  It's a very consistent thing globally.  Population growth is strongly related to poverty and education levels (and progressive culture, as pointed out by Vector, but that's not as easy to factually quantify).

[RedKing]

Yeah, it has nothing to do with Africa and everything to do with agrarian/rural living in general. Large families were the norm in most of America up until the mid-20th century. Higher infant and child mortality rates, the need for additional unpaid labor, etc.

In the 19th century and early 20th century, even middle-class urban families averaged anywhere from 3-6 children. Rural families were considerably larger. My four grandparents had 40 brothers and sisters between them (families of 15, 12, 10 and 7 children, all around the 1920s-1930s). There's a reason I have over 1100 people in my family tree. It's called umpteen generations of farmers. All those months in the winter when you can't plow your fields, you find something else to plow. 

[SalmonGod]

Well... it has plenty to do with Africa, since it's the continent with the highest concentration of these issues in the modern world.  After all, what country do parents point to when they want to (unsuccessfully) guilt their children into eating their vegetables?

[kaijyuu]

[pedantic]

Except that in countries like Africa...

After all, what country do parents point to when they want to (unsuccessfully) guilt their children into eating their vegetables?

Africa is a continent, not a country.

[/pedantic]

[SalmonGod]

Wow I didn't even catch that slip by Virex

And the country I'm referring to in my quote is Ethiopia, which happens to be in Africa.  "There are kids in Ethiopia who are starving to death, and you're throwing a fit about the opportunity to eat vegetables?!  Shame, child!!"