What classes of human will we apply lower values to?

[sgtkate]

I've never met anyone who would consider themselves to be a success with a low net worth. It makes no sense. Billions of people are capable, doesn't make them successful or of high value unless they've harnessed their talents into actual value.

 

You are a capitalists wet dream aren't you?

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2015 at 16:43 ----------

 

May I ask what you do for a living?.

 

Yep, come on SOHO, spill the beans. How much are you worth?

[Chelle-82]

So how much did you tip them for this value considering you tip at restaurants when you eat out.

 

Are you winding me up???

[SOHO]

You are a capitalists wet dream aren't you?

 

Yep, come on SOHO, spill the beans. How much are you worth?

 

Without capitalism you have nothing and certainly no value because nobody would aspire to anything so no value would be created. The world would be anarchy. How do you think your doctors and nurses get paid.

 

What I do for a living is irrelevant, I could say anything and it would make no difference to my point.

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2015 at 16:49 ----------

 

Are you winding me up???

 

No I'm not winding you up, it's a question, surely you tipped them if you valued them so much. We tip taxi drivers, waitresses, all manner of low paid people get tipped. It's a fair question.

[Chelle-82]

Without capitalism you have nothing and certainly no value because nobody would aspire to anything so no value would be created. The world would be anarchy. How do you think your doctors and nurses get paid.

 

What I do for a living is irrelevant, I could say anything and it would make no difference to my point.

 

I know what you do for a ''living''

 

You join internet forums under may guises and wind people up!

 

I have yet to use this word as I find it more amusing than an insult but I believe you sir are a troll

[altus]

I've never met anyone who would consider themselves to be a success with a low net worth. It makes no sense. Billions of people are capable, doesn't make them successful or of high value unless they've harnessed their talents into actual value.

 

So who's more successful?

1. Someone who sets up their own business from scratch. Builds it up into a successful company employing many people. Then, when they get to 50, sells it and enjoys a happy and very comfortable retirement travelling the world spending the money they've made.
   
2. Someone who does exactly the same thing and has a similarly profitable company by the time they reach 50 but, instead of selling up and retiring, keeps running the company to make more money - continuing to run the company until ill health prevents them from working any more.
   

[sgtkate]

Without capitalism you have nothing and certainly no value because nobody would aspire to anything so no value would be created. The world would be anarchy. How do you think your doctors and nurses get paid.

 

What I do for a living is irrelevant, I could say anything and it would make no difference to my point.

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2015 at 16:49 ----------

 

 

No I'm not winding you up, it's a question, surely you tipped them if you valued them so much. We tip taxi drivers, waitresses, all manner of low paid people get tipped. It's a fair question.

 

Capitalism simply gives monetary values to wealth creators. That is all. You are extrapolating that monetary value equals all value and you are wrong. If you have kids then they have a negative value to you because they cost you more than they will ever give back? If you look at life through such a narrow lens then I pity you.

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2015 at 16:53 ----------

 

So who's more successful?

1. Someone who sets up their own business from scratch. Builds it up into a successful company employing many people. Then, when they get to 50, sells it and enjoys a happy and very comfortable retirement travelling the world spending the money they've made.
   
2. Someone who does exactly the same thing and has a similarly profitable company by the time they reach 50 but, instead of selling up and retiring, keeps running the company to make more money - continuing to run the company until ill health prevents them from working any more.
   

 

Or more simply put, who's more successful? The guy who dies happy but poor or the guy who dies miserable but rich? I know who I'd rather be. If money buys you happiness then I question the 'value' of your life.

[Mister M]

I've never met anyone who would consider themselves to be a success with a low net worth. It makes no sense. Billions of people are capable, doesn't make them successful or of high value unless they've harnessed their talents into actual value.

 

Then you've met few people and understood even fewer others.

[ubermaus]

In the UK discrimination is rife.

 

Young people are worth but 42% of an adult.

 

For a young person on an apprenticeship, the NMW can be just 42% of the Real NMW for an adult, it is 78.9% of the Real NMW for 18-20 year olds. 58.3% for under 18s, and it is just 42% for YTS slaves (apprentices), in 2015.

 

Yet these figures were 83.0%, 61.4 and 42.2% in 2010. showing that the relative value of young people compared to 'adults' fell over the last parliament. Not to mention the fact that it fell dramatically in 2010, as the new lower apprentice NMW was brought in, in the first place.

 

Other forms of discrimination exist, but the discrimination facing the young is the most visible and common.

 

Perhaps we as a society will also apply 'lower value' to others.

 

E.g. People of specific race, religion, class, recent immigrants for a period of X months, etc.

 

What do you think?

 

Apprenticships are different to NMW jobs. the low wage offsets the training companies can give to young workers - that means resources and time spent on them, and of course they get an education and experience thrown in to the bargain which sets them on their way.

 

What I dont agree with is big companies taking advantage of this and other schemes for cheap labour.

[SOHO]

So who's more successful?

1. Someone who sets up their own business from scratch. Builds it up into a successful company employing many people. Then, when they get to 50, sells it and enjoys a happy and very comfortable retirement travelling the world spending the money they've made.
   
2. Someone who does exactly the same thing and has a similarly profitable company by the time they reach 50 but, instead of selling up and retiring, keeps running the company to make more money - continuing to run the company until ill health prevents them from working any more.
   

 

At the end of both of those scenarios the most successful would be the one with the highest net worth overall. The numbers never lie. You can't mix emotion with measurable value. It's just a number.

[sgtkate]

Apprenticships are different to NMW jobs. the low wage offsets the training companies can give to young workers - that means resources and time spent on them, and of course they get an education and experience thrown in to the bargain which sets them on their way.

 

What I dont agree with is big companies taking advantage of this and other schemes for cheap labour.

 

If we carry on like this someone is going to start saying we are like Mecky/Boomer or Smithy/Loraward...