The absurdity of the modern world...
Discussion
Anyone else struggling to get to grips with just how absurd the world seems to be?
Just a select few to get us started:
The US president is a dangerous imbecile who reportedly has to have his briefings sketched out to him like a 5 year old to retain his attention.
1 in 3 of the UK workforce is currently not performing any work.
We went through 10 years of austerity to reportedly save £30bn on government spending. At the current rate, we will have spent that in two weeks supporting employees and businesses through the lockdown.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of human beings have as much wealth as the poorest 50%.
The list goes on and on...
Honestly, where do you even start to make sense of it all?
Just a select few to get us started:
The US president is a dangerous imbecile who reportedly has to have his briefings sketched out to him like a 5 year old to retain his attention.
1 in 3 of the UK workforce is currently not performing any work.
We went through 10 years of austerity to reportedly save £30bn on government spending. At the current rate, we will have spent that in two weeks supporting employees and businesses through the lockdown.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of human beings have as much wealth as the poorest 50%.
The list goes on and on...
Honestly, where do you even start to make sense of it all?
Should we yearn for the days of the Cold War, East Vs. West and overhanging threat of MAD? Or go back a bit further with dictatorships and global wars....
We live in a time of great prosperity, health and freedoms. Getting misty eyed because of a misplaced nostalgia seems odd, if you consider recent history.
Inequality of wealth is the biggest challenge we face, globally. It requires a global response. Unfortunately the global population has been dumbing down at an alarming rate with the help of social media, virtue signalling and scapegoating. Minor problems are blown out of proportion and facts distorted to fit an agenda. Unfortunately the global economy has certain rules baked into it - almost like science, gravity etc. Too many people think they can reinvent, ignore or have ignorance of them. Whining about how unfair the situation is without workable or a realistic plan to implement change is a probably a bigger issue. We are creating a society of discontent.
We live in a time of great prosperity, health and freedoms. Getting misty eyed because of a misplaced nostalgia seems odd, if you consider recent history.
Inequality of wealth is the biggest challenge we face, globally. It requires a global response. Unfortunately the global population has been dumbing down at an alarming rate with the help of social media, virtue signalling and scapegoating. Minor problems are blown out of proportion and facts distorted to fit an agenda. Unfortunately the global economy has certain rules baked into it - almost like science, gravity etc. Too many people think they can reinvent, ignore or have ignorance of them. Whining about how unfair the situation is without workable or a realistic plan to implement change is a probably a bigger issue. We are creating a society of discontent.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
stongle did.
I didn't say it should be equal, I said wealth inequality was an issue. Ability to access credit is by far the single largest issue creating a wealth gap in current society. Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
Edited by stongle on Friday 22 May 05:01
stongle said:
I didn't say it should be equal, I said wealth inequality was an issue. Ability to access credit is by far the single largest issue creating a wealth gap in current society.
Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
What level of inequality is acceptable?Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
It really hasn't always been like this.
I agree.Every generation reaches an age where they like to proclaim that the world has gone to s
t, but it really has now.Even without the CV induced hysterics and lunacy we're currently going through, the capitalist system was already corrupted far beyond the true definition and ethos of how true free market capitalism is supposed to operate.
I'm still convinced that 'capitalism' and the fiat money system that supports it died in 2008 and most people just don't realise it, everything that has gone on since then is just can kicking and plate spinning to create the illusion that it's business as normal.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
stongle said:
I didn't say it should be equal, I said wealth inequality was an issue. Ability to access credit is by far the single largest issue creating a wealth gap in current society.
Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
What level of inequality is acceptable?Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
Thinking like this is a side effect of this virus business. A displacement activity.
Don't worry. When it's passed, you'll be back to the rat race, with your head down. Crack on and sometime in the future, there will be a brighter day.
It's what chapels were for in the old days. The brighter day was beyond the grave, that way the lords could get the maximum out of every living breath.
Don't worry. When it's passed, you'll be back to the rat race, with your head down. Crack on and sometime in the future, there will be a brighter day.
It's what chapels were for in the old days. The brighter day was beyond the grave, that way the lords could get the maximum out of every living breath.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
stongle said:
I didn't say it should be equal, I said wealth inequality was an issue. Ability to access credit is by far the single largest issue creating a wealth gap in current society.
Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
What level of inequality is acceptable?Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
I'm no commie, that's for sure, but you've got to be able to question how far we'd allow inequality to slide. There'll be a breaking point where sufficient people feel that they are powerless and unable to make their finances balance to live a reasonable, happy life. We're back to feudalism at that point.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 22 May 07:49
PRTVR said:
Stay in Bed Instead said:
stongle said:
I didn't say it should be equal, I said wealth inequality was an issue. Ability to access credit is by far the single largest issue creating a wealth gap in current society.
Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
What level of inequality is acceptable?Equal is not the same. Wealth inequality is mpre usually defined or "measured" (if you can) as earning potential. Try harder.
On my first promotion the extra take-home pay was minimal. Didn't stop me having to compete with a number of others clamoring for the promotion.
When I worked in a factory, I paid for two evening classes a week for a year, then another year of one evening a week, before qualifying for a different role. Looking at the costs, I could have spent those hours travelling to, at, and coming from the school at work. Then there was the cost of the courses themselves - not cheap. There was no way I could regard that as an investment.
In the police, there used to be a queue of PCs applying for CID. If anything, they took a drop in wages as there was lots of overtime for uniformed officers. (For those officers in the job now, overtime is doing the same job, at slightly higher pay, after one's normal duty shift.) In many ways it was harder work, and one had to pass a course to get in. Perhaps it was having to pay for your own uniform - the grey mohair suit - or the assumed higher status.
I went for the job of permanently armed response officer. No increase in pay, harder work in some ways, and you put yourself at tremendous risk by taking on armed criminals or, if you actually shot one, taking on the much more dangerous senior officers.
Gaining a more responsible, higher status, more rewarding role is common in workers.
Also, at one time my father was unemployed and for technical reasons was not allowed back into his old skilled role for seven weeks. He took a job at a local large distribution base, at least large before Amazon came along. He worked slightly longer hours, but in better conditions. The work was easy once he got the hang of where everything was. He got a bit more money, but his mood shot up once he was back in his old type of job.
I write. I've turned down lucrative contracts because I didn't like the subject matter. It would have been boring. I would much rather do more words for lower pay and be interested.
Money is a motivator, and paying a small percentage for more skills is not wealth inequality.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's true that no one needs to be a billionaire, and how difficult a job is or how hard you work doesn't link to how well you get paid. But following that train of thought, no one needs to earn six figures, no one needs a new car, no one needs a 50 inch tv, and so on until we all end up in the gulag, with the elite still the elite and the workers only equal in how poor they are. My experience with people who do call for wealth redistribution is that they always want it to start at just over what they're earning. Rick1.8t said:
I often find the people that strongly oppose any discussion regarding wealth inequality harbour some strange belief that they are either wealthy themselves (only in their own bubble maybe) or someday they will be, therefore want to protect their current / fictitious position, that or they confuse the argument as being the £100kpa c £20kpa wage comparison.
The argument given here about inequality that people have jumped on with the usual ‘well what’s acceptable then, how do we reward skill then’ nonsense is comparing low wages to other people with low wages (£500k a year is still low for this argument) when compared to the billionaire - remember if you are earning a million a year it would take a thousand years to become the billionaire, anyone here earn a million a year just for starters?
Inequality? That has to exist, it just does, I am no ‘commie’ or leftist and want to have the opportunity to reap reward for my efforts in life but within 10 years the richest 1% will own 2/3rds of global wealth - democracy over.
The argument given here about inequality that people have jumped on with the usual ‘well what’s acceptable then, how do we reward skill then’ nonsense is comparing low wages to other people with low wages (£500k a year is still low for this argument) when compared to the billionaire - remember if you are earning a million a year it would take a thousand years to become the billionaire, anyone here earn a million a year just for starters?
Inequality? That has to exist, it just does, I am no ‘commie’ or leftist and want to have the opportunity to reap reward for my efforts in life but within 10 years the richest 1% will own 2/3rds of global wealth - democracy over.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff