Drone Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Do NOT vote Conservatives if you want freedom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I wouldn't worry about Britain going under It won't happen, just buy British and we will survive "WE all live in a yellow submarine,yellow submarine, yellow submarine" Who do you think should do the paying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Because in a capitalist economy the manufacturer makes things that people want to buy. If the people have no money because they have no work they cannot buy and therefore the circle is broken. Of course by that time the manufacturer will have grabbed his money and retired to his ivory tower, money will no longer circulate, leaving the majority to starve. Think this is alarmist? Think it can't / won't happen? Look around, it's happening all over the world as we speak. I'm sorry but none of what you wrote (despite possibly being correct) even remotely answers the question I asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 "WE all live in a yellow submarine,yellow submarine, yellow submarine" Who do you think should do the paying? What do you mean, who should do the paying? Sorry rupert, im lost on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotmale 1954 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 Why on earth should the company profits end up in the hands of the workforce? What is this left wing obsession with demanding this all the time? Did the workforce put up the capital? No. Did it invent the process? No. Did they put their houses on the line as colatteral? No. Did they risk their savings proving a theory? No. They contracted their labour for a wage and were presumably paid for that. They enjoy some of the better employment conditions in the world, with good employment protection. So why on earth do they think they have any rights whatsoever to demand what is manifestly and patentely not theirs? There's a legal minimum wage, and a suggested living wage ..... ie, a wage that someone can comfortably pay bills with, and eat quite healthily etc. The living wage is voluntary, so how many employers want their workers to have half a decent life? ................. less than 1%. Plenty of employers will not now advertise for workers as they don't want to pay the minimum wage, never mind the living wage. And don't blame the workers, or the Unions for this situation. Our present mess is down to the greed of those who already had plenty more than enough. We can now see Cameron (and no doubt Miliband if he got in) chomping at the bit to return to the same greedy policies that put us where we are at the moment. All to be paid for by people losing their jobs of course. Putting money and profits before people is utter madness. It's how we got in to this 'them and us' situation, and it is how it will always be whilever individuals are allowed to amass so much wealth and power over the Government. Governments frightened of individuals? Tell me that's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The living wage is voluntary, so how many employers want their workers to have half a decent life? ................. less than 1%. Plenty of employers will not now advertise for workers as they don't want to pay the minimum wage, never mind the living wage. Can you back those figures up? If,as you suggest,companies are all about making more and more money then why wouldn't they employ more people on the minimum wage if they have work for them to do? In fact why do companies not pay everyone just the minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotmale 1954 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 I see (or recently heard a rumour) that we're about to lose another Fire Station in Sheffield. When they closed the last one, people were alarmed, but we were told that the effectivness of the cover would not be affected. We heard this when they closed the one before that, and the one before that. I stated that we could easily end up with only one Fire Station in Sheffield within my lifetime (which of course won't make the service any worse) and one member on here, I can't remember their name, said that we wouldn't end up under covered. Another pin looks like going in his balloon. It's all utter madness. Save money, and the Politicians and Bankers skins, and lose lives. Good game, good game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I see (or recently heard a rumour) that we're about to lose another Fire Station in Sheffield. When they closed the last one, people were alarmed, but we were told that the effectivness of the cover would not be affected. We heard this when they closed the one before that, and the one before that. . Is the cover effective? Have lives been lost because of the reshuffle? Genuine questions.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotmale 1954 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 Can you back those figures up? If,as you suggest,companies are all about making more and more money then why wouldn't they employ more people on the minimum wage if they have work for them to do? In fact why do companies not pay everyone just the minimum wage? Why do I have to back the figures up? When an employer goes on the radio during debates talking about the state of their company, or suppliers etc, I can't record it and put it on SF. Maybe you could come up with an invention that does it, pay people £3 an hour, make millions, and move to Monaco? Believe me, if employers could pay just the minimum wage (or even less) then they would. They'd do it even if they could afford twice as much, because that's what been instilled into peoples' brains by Thatcher & Co. This festive season, watch 'A Christmas Carol' that'll give you some idea. The only reason they don't just pay the minimum is because, 5 years ago, people would look for companies who paid more. To get people in then, companies had to entice people in. Now, there are so many people out of work, or under threat of losing their jobs, that they'll work for less than the minimum wage. Some companies, no doubt, will be paying less than the minimum wage (and getting away with it), and even more are so quiet that they can't even afford to advertise for workers at all. Companies will continue to be quiet because the money that should be going around and around is going in Camerons pot, is being paid in unemployment benefits, and bailing out the Banks. Create jobs, get people paying taxes (even Starbucks ) and get people spending in the Supermarkets, buying cars, furniture, holidays, houses, gardening stuff, etc, etc, etc. THAT'S how to make this country better. At the moment, we're too busy looking after the incompetent Banks, and the top 2& in the country, and sadly, the top 2% in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotmale 1954 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 Is the cover effective? Have lives been lost because of the reshuffle? Genuine questions.. Who knows, and who cares? I care, but I don't count. Ask the Government your question, and wait for the lies. Of course no lives have been lost, or people injured because of the cuts. The Council told us that things would be ok, so they'll be ok. Whether they are, or not. We've saved the money, and that's what counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.