Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted October 18, 2011 Moderators Share Posted October 18, 2011 It's a bit different because the energy companies are reporting huge profits. Â There are two groups of people as far as David is concerned with little granularity between - this is bigwigs getting fat cheques and big bonuses. Tube drivers are hard working workers fighting the good fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 David your attitudes to these things really confuse me. In recent discussions about obscene rises in underground and train fares due to high salary increases on already high salaries you pretty much were all for it and the average man being paid a wedge. Surely your attitude should be the same here on price increases or is this different because it affects you? Â The difference is that one benefits executives and share holders, while the other benefits workers. It's not really that contradictory, it's just a socialist rather than right wing attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 It's no different to me, the same group of people are being ripped off regardless of who it is that profits from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 The difference is that one benefits executives and share holders, while the other benefits workers. It's not really that contradictory, it's just a socialist rather than right wing attitude. Exactly. Surely my opinion on such matters should surprise & confuse you as much as your opinion does me, Van Dammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 The difference is that one benefits executives and share holders, while the other benefits workers. It's not really that contradictory, it's just a socialist rather than right wing attitude. Exactly. Surely my opinion on such matters should surprise & confuse you as much as your opinion does me, Van Dammer. Â Its the same people that end up paying the exorbitant rises though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 I know that a blue collar worker getting paid anywhere near a decent wage is horrifying to you and others of your ilk, Van Dammer, but the truth is the rest of us lower-class grunts are reasonably happy to see at least some of our fellow workers get paid a decent wage. We also hope it's a harbinger of things to come, regardless of how dull that light of hope flickers at present. Â I find it disturbing that you'll not have much to say when another executive gets a pay rise, or another shareholder takes home a nice big chunk of cash, but the minute some working class employees have the cheek to demand a decent wage you're up in arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted October 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 I know that a blue collar worker getting paid anywhere near a decent wage is horrifying to you and others of your ilk, Van Dammer, but the truth is the rest of us lower-class grunts are reasonably happy to see at least some of our fellow workers get paid a decent wage. We also hope it's a harbinger of things to come, regardless of how dull that light of hope flickers at present. I find it disturbing that you'll not have much to say when another executive gets a pay rise, or another shareholder takes home a nice big chunk of cash, but the minute some working class employees have the cheek to demand a decent wage you're up in arms. How do you reconcile that condemnation with the fact that you bought a second house to let to people?  Buy-to-letters contributed to pushing up house prices, such that the poorest of the "lower-class grunts" were kept further away from the possibility of purchasing their own homes.  The whole notion of buying a house that you're not going to live in but will instead use for investment is capitalist in itself. The purchase of the house is no different to buying a large amount of shares; you hope to make money further down the line by selling it on for more than it cost you and, meanwhile, regular payments are made to you in the form of rent, just as a regular share-holder receives his dividends.  So you not only helped to price out the poorest, but you presumably didn't redistribute the nice periodical pay-outs to some workers along the way either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 How do you reconcile that condemnation with the fact that you bought a second house to let to people? Buy-to-letters contributed to pushing up house prices, such that the poorest of the "lower-class grunts" were kept further away from the possibility of purchasing their own homes.  The whole notion of buying a house that you're not going to live in but will instead use for investment is capitalist in itself. The purchase of the house is no different to buying a large amount of shares; you hope to make money further down the line by selling it on for more than it cost you and, meanwhile, regular payments are made to you in the form of rent, just as a regular share-holder receives his dividends.  So you not only helped to price out the poorest, but you presumably didn't redistribute the nice periodical pay-outs to some workers along the way either. The working class housing problem lies with the lack of available quality social housing in my opinion. This need to buy a house is part of the problem, as many families sign up to mortgages they can ill afford and eventually stand to lose their home if things don't go as planned later down the line.  As for my second home, yes, I bought another home in my area, which will make a nice little home for my parents when they get old as it's right next to me. In the meantime I rent it out at a reasonable rate (to someone who also grew up in my area, funnily enough).  I suppose you could say that I'm making a profit from it at present, but I'm basically making enough from it to cover the mortgage and other associated costs. I'm not getting rich off it by any means. The main purpose of it was to house my parents in later years.  There'll be no selling on down the line, nor will I be purchasing any other properties in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 It's somewhat difficult to live in a capitalist society without being part of a capitalist society. As soon as you earn over the minium wage and don't give the difference back to those poorer than yourselves you immediately open yourself up to accusations of hypocricy. Having money in the bank, being invested in markets to give you your pittance of interest, having money tied up in a pension, everything in this society is part of being in this society. That doesn't mean you can't believe society shouldn't be run in a different way, it just means you're part of society as it's currently run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted October 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 Presumably that was you answering on David's behalf he posted his message. At any rate, I'll answer as though it were. Â That doesn't mean you can't believe society shouldn't be run in a different way, it just means you're part of society as it's currently run. But you can determine to what extent you allow your actions to endorse a society that you disagree with. I, for example, could choose to purchase shares with any surplus money, but make a decision that I will only do so ethically; no arms, no tobacco, irrespective of whether those particular industries offer the greatest returns. Â The same would be true for anyone fundamentally opposed to the capitalist system and who abhors the difficulties faced by those at the bottom. A little bit of spare money could be invested in, say, a co-operative or some firm that provides a service to those who need it, but there's no call to buy a house and further contribute to pricing out the poor. That's where someone who believes in what he says and only participates out of necessity in the capitalist system could draw a line. Â Anyway, that's neither here nor there in David's case. I asked him how he reconciled his approach and his action and he explained it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I know that a blue collar worker getting paid anywhere near a decent wage is horrifying to you and others of your ilk, Van Dammer, but the truth is the rest of us lower-class grunts are reasonably happy to see at least some of our fellow workers get paid a decent wage. We also hope it's a harbinger of things to come, regardless of how dull that light of hope flickers at present. I find it disturbing that you'll not have much to say when another executive gets a pay rise, or another shareholder takes home a nice big chunk of cash, but the minute some working class employees have the cheek to demand a decent wage you're up in arms.  Epic post David, its very clever on a number of fronts, firstly using the term 'blue collar worker' to paint the image of an employee working his fingers to the bone for hours on end for little financial reward, this isn't what id use to describe underground drivers but that argument has been and gone. Secondly, describing me of being or having an 'ilk', nice and derogatory and a nice simple word that's only intention is to talk down an argument, vintage David. I dont have an ilk whatsoever, I have a view and an opinion. Thirdly, describing yourself as a 'lower-class grunt' trying to station yourself in the over worked, under valued majority working for the good of everyone else and then saying you're happy to see others get a decent wage and are happy for them, what a gent. And fourthly speaking of the little light of flickering hope, now you may work in the mines still or in an Indonesian sweat shop and if so I apologise, but I get the feeling things are actually that bad for you.  And if youve taken in anything from our chats on union power and salary increases it would be that I believe in 'fair' wages and pay, that everyone should get what their true value is and what they generate and truly deserve, thats all ive ever argued. Im not all for 'fat cats' or 'another executive' (im beginning to think you dont know what executives do in companies and you believe they are employed purely to get paid lots of money) getting a nice big bonus or pension but quite the opposite. Whats the point of some people earning more than others such as underground staff getting more than coppers? Its creates an unbalanced economy and unbalanced inflation (as we are seeing now and is a main contributor to increasing energy prices). Hence me arguing your point about unfair rises in energy prices, if there weren't some earning far more than they are worth than others in similar levels of work then inflation wouldn't be so unpredictable, there would be a more stable economy and we wouldnt have energy companies in a position to profiteer in such a manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Inflation is the expansion of the supply of money. Rising prices are a consequence thereof, not the phenomenon itself. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted October 19, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 19, 2011 Not uniquely. It is a consequence of an increase in the money supply but not uniquely thereof and ought to be stymied by an increase in interest rates but, of course, can't be because the BoE has determined that rising interest rates would be incipient of another recession. Â Inflation is driven by several other factors too, including petrol and energy prices, interest rates (which are historically low, meaning folk have little incentive to save and so have more money available to spend immediately), wages (which admittedly are a non-factor in these static times), house prices and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Dale Farm is being cleared as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Nice to see the police breaking out the "Moat Killers" in order to do so, eh? Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts