Poverty research needs you!

[ionnsaigh]

Bobbie, your very being is fully dependent on others from the moment of conception. As far as carrying an equal load is concerned, the current economic conditions will not allow for this- for example. The principal objective of business is to make profit. In order to achieve this they must increase productivity - or pay less in costs - or both.
This leaves the worker in a vulnerable condition - open to the exploitation of their labour. Employers have ruthlessly applied this unequal measure to increase profit margin. So your contention that some will not carry an equal load is correct - at least in terms of reward. I would argue that it is in the best interest of the worker to apply the same said method. In other words reduce production and increase costs. Here lies one of the many antagonistic contradictions that blight humanities progress to a civilised society. Why should the workers carry this unfair load - that profits only those who own - the means of production.

The vast majority of people will have learned the principle - of fair share on the breasts of their Mothers.
A babies stomach will tell it that it has had enough milk. You have three children with equal needs, and you have six bananas - you wouldn't give one four - and the others one. Yet you accept unquestionably - this unequal distribution of wealth- as being in some way normal in today's world - that proclaims the virtue of freedom and liberty. Their is nothing democratic about theft - as who in their right state of mind- would willing accept such.

People often confuse equality - for example I worked as a middle manger in local government - their was two grades below - and two above - all with different levels of income. On occasion it was deemed practise to contribute something to others - particularly at Christmas. Staff would be asked to contribute an equal amount .
As it turned out the people below my grade - paid in percentage terms more - the people above paid considerably less. This inequality was wrongly accepted as being equal - when in reality it was it's antithesis.
The lowest paid worker paid more - the highest less. Apply this principle to say fuel - or anything for that matter- why should the poor pay more - and the rich pay less. Why should it cost a poor person more for a loaf of bread. News- speak distorts meaning - contributing to one of the great lies told by the few - and taken as truth by the many.

[Sweltered]

Businesses do not exist for the benefit of the workers, and are not charities. Workers are not entitled to a job, they do not have the "right to work". As usual, we have blanket statements covering ALL businesses. Not all businesses exploit their workers. You want to exploit the business owners, who had the get up and go , to start a business, by make them give all their profits to the workers. Last time I looked, communism failed, even the chineses have abandoned it

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone should be paid the same, regardless of the work they do, or the quality of the work?

Can you not accept, that no one owes you a damn thing in this world. It's up to the individual to make the most of his or her existence, rather than bleat on about being exploited, they could take steps to change their situation.

And as for the xmas kitty, higher wages do not necessarily mean higher disposible income, yet another sweeping assumption that the upper management had any more spare money than the lower levels.

[ionnsaigh]

Sweltered, As far as business practice is concerned - and here lies the sweeping generalisation - all business - has at it's core - the drive for success. It would also be fair to say that the workforce largely - outnumber the owners .
Owners who include shareholders - who contribute nothing to the value of the wealth extracted from the coal face.
By value I include the following aspects - the labour required - the scarcity or abundance of the particular product or service. If I may be allowed to borrow a Christian faith moral - you reap what you sow - then the current economic system- clearly negates this principle. You state workers are not entitled to a job - and that they do not have the right to work - Philosophically they do - however in order to obtain some clarity - we shall keep the worker at the coal face - for now. I would imagine if the right to work was incorporated - within the limited number of token rights we have - then unemployment would be a thing of the past. Wages - for a successful business to thrive - must always be lower than the true value of the labour - the spoils of this graft are shared by people who never contributed to there manufacture. This represents an obvious anomaly in the distribution of this wealth.
If you happen to own your own means of production - You catch five fish- how many fish are you entitled to?.
I would say five - would you ?. However the ownership of the means of production - have been stolen from the individual skilled worker - to the point - when that worker is reduced to selling - their labour for a Fifth of the catch.

As far as the peoples republic of China is concerned - The state in the name of the people - have taken this profit for the benefit of that society as a whole. I will not be drawn into a protracted debate - that primarily concerns the people of China - although I wish them well - on saying that - the Chinese economy seems to be doing remarkably well.

As to everyone being paid the same - ideally yes - however practically - what I suggest is that workers -
are given a greater share of the wealth - that they themselves produce. This would certainly reduce levels of moral concern - and more importantly wipe out the scourge of poverty - that currently blights every aspect of our culture and identity.
Poverty is a man made phenomenon - Modern technology can overcome natural disaster such as famine and drought. Poverty and Wealth are two ends of the same spectrum - each has bearing and impact on the other.
Each are totally polar opposites - each create antagonistic contradictions - acting as barriers - to a proper functioning civilised society.

The Christmas kitty- notice how I refrained from using the popular - abbreviated term Xmas - out of respect for our Christian readers. . However if you wish to include disposable income as an indicator- then we must include standards of living. ( agree disagree ?).

[Sweltered]

Your argument only stands up IF the worker is also an owner. Why do you assume it is a persons right to work? Ok I 'll rephrase this, a right to a job? The iron age man didn't wait around for his giro

Standard of living is not an indicator of disposible income. This higher standard of living isn't cheap you know

And I deliberately used xmas

[hugh]

Ionnsaigh.

A political system which stifles individual initiatives will, almost inevitably, stifle the economy as a whole
ultimately benefitting no-one but the instigators and rulers of the system. I think it's safe to say that we all
despise the abusers of systems but surely you must recognise that these abusers exist at both ends of the
economic spectrum?

The wholesale implementation of clause 4 would surely put the brakes on our economy and thereby seriously
affect the benefits (no pun intended) we all derive from that economy; welfare, education, security.

We surely shouldn't be trying to pull apart a system that genuinely helps people in no position to help
themselves but rather concentrate on rooting out those abusers who give the rest a bad name?

You said in an earlier posting that we are "fully dependent on others from the moment of conception"...well,
sorry mate...but it just isn't true is it? Dependent to a degree, yes, but never "fully". I like to think I have a
say in my own life. Political systems are all very well and good fodder for forums and public house preaching
but there's a real world out there that will carry on regardless. I'll say it again - the only world you can be
sure of changing is your own.

They'll have had that meeting by now? I wonder what drastic conclusions and world changing plans will
emerge?

[ionnsaigh]

hugh,

As far as abusers at both ends of the spectrum are concerned. People at the poverty end of the spectrum - are in my opinion - the abused. The spectrum itself retains a position ( under the current system ) of prominence.
It is not a case of abusers at both ends - rather the spectrum itself. A concrete indicator of the unequal distribution of wealth. A political system that stifles the collective initiatives- will almost certainly encourage individual entrepreneurship - a Pandora's box - that actively encourages - one pitied against the rest of society - more importantly - giving moral blessing and justification to crass greed- at the expense of the general needs and welfare of that society.
Politics and politicians are an extremely boring lot. At this juncture - I can honestly say that - I have no political allegiance to any political party or persons.
Meetings between the political elite - are usually filled with egotistic self inflated careerists- regardless Clause 4.

The point that we all derive benefits from the system is truly misleading - you quote - Welfare - Education - Security. The level of Welfare benefit fails to lift people from the poverty trap. Education favours the middle classes and the rich - more so than it serves the poor - take a look at the performance tables of poor area schools.
Security in deprived areas is non existent - when one considers the appalling crime rate in areas of deprivation -
Oh aye you can call the police - after the damage is done - this does little to provide a sense of security.

Maslov's hierarchy of needs - stresses this need as being fundamental - a prerequisite to the fulfilment of other basic needs.
You may like to think - that you as an individual - have some degree of control over your life. You have no genetic control - other than passing on your genes - you have no control as to there origin. You have no control as to the social class of your parents. If they happen to be poor- then you are born into a poor family.
Generally speaking - born poor - die poor- born middle class - die middle class - so on and so on.

Remove the abundance of wealth from the wealthy - turn them into middle class citizens - Remove poverty from the poor - turn them into middle class citizens- after al their is ample wealth to share- with only one short life. If we have the opportunity - to banish these twin aspects of unfairness - that hinder or own development - and infringe on the relative happiness of our dear people- then we as a people should willingly take up the mantle - and surgically remove the cancer of poverty - inflicted on the innocent - by a system that keeps the rich - rich - and the poor - poor.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

Owners who include shareholders - who contribute nothing to the value of the wealth extracted from the coal face

Haven't laughed so much in ages

If I can be allowed to continue the coal analogy a wee bit longer. How do you get to the coal face? These will be the only workers in the world who built their own pit head, installed their own lifts, installed their own transport systems, installed their own safety systems, took their own ventillation systems with them, provided their own tools, purchased their own explosives, brought their own conveyor belts, built their own showers, etc. Don't think so somehow

There's a helluva lot of investment goes in upfront before any wealth is extracted from the coalface. And that's the role of the shareholder/owner. That's how they contribute to the wealth extacted from the coal face.

Anyway I won't hold my breath, as I've noticed you've stopped responding to all the points made in my posts. I'm beginning to feel you don't love me anymore. You've found someone else, haven't you.

Anyway if you do get round to responding I await the ubiquitous 10,000,000 words about - the system, the rich, the poor, wealth distribution, etc. Do you just take the same post, and ask a clever little software program to rearrange the words into a different order, and then resubmit. If you do it's very clever, certainly beats working for a living

[bill]

- Remove poverty from the poor - turn them into middle class citizens- .

Why not turn them into WORKING CLASS like the rest of us.

Work or starve is always a good incentive to get off your backside and contribute to your own welfare, instead of relying on the rest of us.

God I would have made a great mine owner.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

God I would have made a great mine owner.

Away you, ya big elitist yi!

[hugh]

Ionnsaigh.

If your only definition of poverty is having less money than someone else then we all live in poverty and Bill
Gates is responsible for all the world's woes. This relative poverty thing is just an empty myth, isn't it?

I personally.... no, sod it, I give up.

You obviously have a good heart and a more "Christian" attitude than most self-professed christians, so that's
good enough for me; I'll disagree with you but wish you well.

[Beachcomber]

The level of Welfare benefit fails to lift people from the poverty trap.

The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net, not an enrichment plan. You want anything more than the bare minimum? Get off your ar$e and work for it.

Owners who include shareholders - who contribute nothing to the value of the wealth extracted from the coal face.

You're wrong. Shareholders contribute valuable funding (in exchange for a share of the profits) and enable the business to operate, expand, modernise, re-tool, or whatever other purpose that funding is put to.

Just because a shareholder doesn't get their hands dirty by being involved in the manufacturing process that doesn't make them worthless to the business. Quite the opposite, in fact.

There is nothing to stop an ordinary worker buying shares in the company they work for, assuming the company is public and that the employee is careful not to fall foul of anti-insider-trading laws, and a lot of companies have schemes in place to help their employees to legally buy shares. In this way they not only contribute to the success of the company through their labour but also via their investment, and as such are entitled to benefit financially from it.

[ionnsaigh]

Hello Sheik,

No I haven't found someone else darling - I falsely assumed that given your name - that you belonged to some sort of religious sect devoted to Mohamed - this being Ramadan. -
Back to the black lung miners at the coal face - As a boy I remember reading the daily scrag- re; a pit disaster -
60 souls lost - 18 mineworkers - the rest where shareholders earning their crust. So its fine to sit on yir erse Sheik
do absolutely hee haw - other than contribute some pounds shilling and pence - for who's benefit - the mineworkers? - aye that brought more than a smile.
So it was the shareholders who built the pit head - installed the lifts - conveyor belts etc.. The design - manufacture and installation was carried out by highly skilled workers - your posts discredits these workers.
Fishing boats crew are made up in hands - not shareholders. Oh I recognise that this is not mutually exclusive in the strictest terms - as a worker can own shares - however the ownership of the said shares - inevitably reverts back to the womb from where it first sprang - the venture capitalist.

I recognise the vulnerability of your position - defending the morally corrupt is no easy task - I feel a certain degree of sympathy - as I watch you dig your own grave.

[ionnsaigh]

hugh,
Thank you for your very kind words - as an Atheist - I'm flattered - however was that - You or Hugh Chew or Sue-not forgetting that auld Corby queen Bill.

[ionnsaigh]

Beachcomber, Your definition of worker shareholder - belongs on the endangered species list. Save some of your meagre wage - and exploit the fruits of your own and workmates labour. popular guy

[gizmo]

Go Wee C... attacking on 4 fronts I am impressed...