So, it's Sunday and I'm sitting here thinking...where did it all go wrong?
It's clear the our democratically run societies are broken and fragmented. It's clear our systems are dysfunctional and incapable of governing us effectively and efficiently, given the ideological divides in our communities. Governments in western democracies do not have the capacity to unite, when they themselves are fractured along ideological fault lines...left or right.
Yet it wasn't so long ago that we lived in more harmonious times, when debates could be civil, agreements to disagree were common, and differing views were respected.
So, where did it all began to fracture?
My belief is it was the global warming/climate change issue that exposed and exploited the inherent weaknesses of our systems of governance and set us on the path of division and disunity.
From that divide, all others followed. Hatred, fury and anger replaced respect, moderation and calm.
That is not to say that alarmists were right or wrong...although I remain skeptical. It is just an opinion that it became the major fault line that compelled people to become more militant and strident, opening the door for radical elements to rise and exacerbate the disassembly of community cohesion.
It wasn't always like this.
ac_dunno
You called it right, Brick
Society has gone downhill steadily for a while now .. in all the areas you mention.
At this point, I'm very unsure that we will ever go back. " radical elements" have control now and are using it to stop efforts to return to where we were. Possibly an uprising (I'm referring to people seeing the light and voting smart) will happen .. maybe. If it doesn't we are literally doomed to a very not nice future.
It "may" be too late for a reset.
This has been going on for over a century...the long slow game.
Agree it's not a sudden thing. Been slowly at work over decades.
What is sudden is that it's exploded from a 5 over many years to a 10 in past year alone
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427126 time=1636863859 user_id=1676
This has been going on for over a century...the long slow game.
I agree, but it was a slow burn until recent times. Some social cataclysm accelerated the decline considerably.
I remember shit happening in the 80's and 90's... but it was mostly in late high school and university texts and lecturers. Though you can read about the introduction of socialist programs and infrastructure many decades before that.... everything from the New Deal to Social Security and Medicare....national ID.... all with promises of better times if we all just trusted the governments to look after us.... now, they're pushing UBI, eviction moratoriums, student loan forgiveness, Disability pension schemes, 60% plus tax rates, et cetera.... the last decade and a half they've just been mopping up the loose ends and indoctrinating are youngest children, barring suburban food production, demonising meat and combustion engines, and intentionally imploding the once free market...
So, it was a snowball effect....but the rocks they started with at the centre are what makes everything pack the punch.
One big densely packed communist snowball from neo feudalist cocksuckers...
I believe factors like social media discourage smart people from being politicians, no matter how good and skilled they are, there'll always be unsatisfied people.
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427137 time=1636900644 user_id=61
I believe factors like social media discourage smart people from being politicians, no matter how good and skilled they are, there'll always be unsatisfied people.
Or.... they made the mistake of posting as a youth... and it will blow up in their faces...
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427119 time=1636849018 user_id=1560
So, it's Sunday and I'm sitting here thinking...where did it all go wrong?
It's clear the our democratically run societies are broken and fragmented. It's clear our systems are dysfunctional and incapable of governing us effectively and efficiently, given the ideological divides in our communities. Governments in western democracies do not have the capacity to unite, when they themselves are fractured along ideological fault lines...left or right.
Yet it wasn't so long ago that we lived in more harmonious times, when debates could be civil, agreements to disagree were common, and differing views were respected.
So, where did it all began to fracture?
My belief is it was the global warming/climate change issue that exposed and exploited the inherent weaknesses of our systems of governance and set us on the path of division and disunity.
From that divide, all others followed. Hatred, fury and anger replaced respect, moderation and calm.
That is not to say that alarmists were right or wrong...although I remain skeptical. It is just an opinion that it became the major fault line that compelled people to become more militant and strident, opening the door for radical elements to rise and exacerbate the disassembly of community cohesion.
It wasn't always like this.
ac_dunno
It was definitely climate change. Every issue now becomes all or nothing.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427119 time=1636849018 user_id=1560
So, it's Sunday and I'm sitting here thinking...where did it all go wrong?
It's clear the our democratically run societies are broken and fragmented. It's clear our systems are dysfunctional and incapable of governing us effectively and efficiently, given the ideological divides in our communities. Governments in western democracies do not have the capacity to unite, when they themselves are fractured along ideological fault lines...left or right.
Yet it wasn't so long ago that we lived in more harmonious times, when debates could be civil, agreements to disagree were common, and differing views were respected.
So, where did it all began to fracture?
My belief is it was the global warming/climate change issue that exposed and exploited the inherent weaknesses of our systems of governance and set us on the path of division and disunity.
From that divide, all others followed. Hatred, fury and anger replaced respect, moderation and calm.
That is not to say that alarmists were right or wrong...although I remain skeptical. It is just an opinion that it became the major fault line that compelled people to become more militant and strident, opening the door for radical elements to rise and exacerbate the disassembly of community cohesion.
It wasn't always like this.
ac_dunno
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427119 time=1636849018 user_id=1560
So, it's Sunday and I'm sitting here thinking...where did it all go wrong?
It's clear the our democratically run societies are broken and fragmented. It's clear our systems are dysfunctional and incapable of governing us effectively and efficiently, given the ideological divides in our communities. Governments in western democracies do not have the capacity to unite, when they themselves are fractured along ideological fault lines...left or right.
Yet it wasn't so long ago that we lived in more harmonious times, when debates could be civil, agreements to disagree were common, and differing views were respected.
So, where did it all began to fracture?
My belief is it was the global warming/climate change issue that exposed and exploited the inherent weaknesses of our systems of governance and set us on the path of division and disunity.
From that divide, all others followed. Hatred, fury and anger replaced respect, moderation and calm.
That is not to say that alarmists were right or wrong...although I remain skeptical. It is just an opinion that it became the major fault line that compelled people to become more militant and strident, opening the door for radical elements to rise and exacerbate the disassembly of community cohesion.
It wasn't always like this.
ac_dunno
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Solution you say. Cyanide the entire white population. That will eliminate Marxim once and for all.
Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=427172 time=1636922309 user_id=56
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427119 time=1636849018 user_id=1560
So, it's Sunday and I'm sitting here thinking...where did it all go wrong?
It's clear the our democratically run societies are broken and fragmented. It's clear our systems are dysfunctional and incapable of governing us effectively and efficiently, given the ideological divides in our communities. Governments in western democracies do not have the capacity to unite, when they themselves are fractured along ideological fault lines...left or right.
Yet it wasn't so long ago that we lived in more harmonious times, when debates could be civil, agreements to disagree were common, and differing views were respected.
So, where did it all began to fracture?
My belief is it was the global warming/climate change issue that exposed and exploited the inherent weaknesses of our systems of governance and set us on the path of division and disunity.
From that divide, all others followed. Hatred, fury and anger replaced respect, moderation and calm.
That is not to say that alarmists were right or wrong...although I remain skeptical. It is just an opinion that it became the major fault line that compelled people to become more militant and strident, opening the door for radical elements to rise and exacerbate the disassembly of community cohesion.
It wasn't always like this.
ac_dunno
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Solution you say. Cyanide the entire white population. That will eliminate Marxim once and for all.
Careful please.
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427119 time=1636849018 user_id=1560
So, it's Sunday and I'm sitting here thinking...where did it all go wrong?
It's clear the our democratically run societies are broken and fragmented. It's clear our systems are dysfunctional and incapable of governing us effectively and efficiently, given the ideological divides in our communities. Governments in western democracies do not have the capacity to unite, when they themselves are fractured along ideological fault lines...left or right.
Yet it wasn't so long ago that we lived in more harmonious times, when debates could be civil, agreements to disagree were common, and differing views were respected.
So, where did it all began to fracture?
My belief is it was the global warming/climate change issue that exposed and exploited the inherent weaknesses of our systems of governance and set us on the path of division and disunity.
From that divide, all others followed. Hatred, fury and anger replaced respect, moderation and calm.
That is not to say that alarmists were right or wrong...although I remain skeptical. It is just an opinion that it became the major fault line that compelled people to become more militant and strident, opening the door for radical elements to rise and exacerbate the disassembly of community cohesion.
It wasn't always like this.
ac_dunno
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
But you gotta admit Bricktop has mention a lot of good rational points or constructive criticism unlike some left wing snowflakes.
Sox is awesome. He's hawt too.
Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=427178 time=1636926066 user_id=56
Sox is awesome. He's hawt too.
No doubt for a former police officer, no whining and just get the job done is their trait.
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427181 time=1636926350 user_id=61
Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=427178 time=1636926066 user_id=56
Sox is awesome. He's hawt too.
No doubt for a former police officer, no whining and just get the job done is their trait.
He was a cop when the job was not a libtard chess piece.
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.
First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.
Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.
Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.
Finally, Capitalism is a major problem, but communism is not the solution. We need a new economic social model that ensures wealth is dispersed fairly, entreprenuerism is rewarded but within reasonable bounds, ambition is encouraged and poverty is eliminated. That may sound somewhat Marxist, but I do not advocate for centralised economic planning which is the cornerstone of socialism. Innovation and invention must be left to private individuals who must be rewarded appropriately. I am no Marxist, but some Marxist principles are worthy of consideration.
There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427196 time=1636930055 user_id=1560
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.
First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.
Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.
Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.
Finally, Capitalism is a major problem, but communism is not the solution. We need a new economic social model that ensures wealth is dispersed fairly, entreprenuerism is rewarded
There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.
I do agree and strongly support individuals that contribute among the most deserve a greater reward than just commissions and/or bonuses. The leading sales employees in my dad's company earns over $120,000 USD annually but even with that income my brother admits they deserve more if compared proportionally with the other average sales staff's salary.
In regards to running a business with reasonable bounds that's something I can't really agree on, I do admit I loathe like the idea of a big business just buying out a competitor, but without big business or capitalism, we'd really wouldn't have smart phones, computers, video games, etc. I really believe if the US didn't burn their money in wars, their cities would look a lot more prosperous. The thing is business looks really rewarding from a non-businessman's perspective, but in the end it's really similar to gambling, just that we don't notice the fact that average business goes bankrupt in 5 years.
Meanwhile when it comes to welfare, handing out money at the cost of tax payers should be the last resort, since it never solves anything but only making individuals and business more sluggish, hence why American and even English car manufacturers have so much QC issues is they lack the drive to improve, since if they're on the verge of going out of business the government always funds them to stay alive. What people need is not money, but motivation and the desire to succeed.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427196 time=1636930055 user_id=1560
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.
First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.
Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.
Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.
There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.
It's been said on this forum before that we no longer have a true free enterprise model..
It's kind of like China where companies are extensions of the government..
That is certainly true of big tech.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427140 time=1636909077 user_id=114
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427119 time=1636849018 user_id=1560
So, it's Sunday and I'm sitting here thinking...where did it all go wrong?
It's clear the our democratically run societies are broken and fragmented. It's clear our systems are dysfunctional and incapable of governing us effectively and efficiently, given the ideological divides in our communities. Governments in western democracies do not have the capacity to unite, when they themselves are fractured along ideological fault lines...left or right.
Yet it wasn't so long ago that we lived in more harmonious times, when debates could be civil, agreements to disagree were common, and differing views were respected.
So, where did it all began to fracture?
My belief is it was the global warming/climate change issue that exposed and exploited the inherent weaknesses of our systems of governance and set us on the path of division and disunity.
From that divide, all others followed. Hatred, fury and anger replaced respect, moderation and calm.
That is not to say that alarmists were right or wrong...although I remain skeptical. It is just an opinion that it became the major fault line that compelled people to become more militant and strident, opening the door for radical elements to rise and exacerbate the disassembly of community cohesion.
It wasn't always like this.
ac_dunno
It was definitely climate change. Every issue now becomes all or nothing.
It is the biggest issue according to the federal government.
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427223 time=1636994756 user_id=3254
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427196 time=1636930055 user_id=1560
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.
First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.
Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.
Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.
There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.
It's been said on this forum before that we no longer have a true free enterprise model..
It's kind of like China where companies are extensions of the government..
That is certainly true of big tech.
We don't have a free market anymore. What we have now is what nazi Germany-monopolized crony capitlism. The government picks and chooses winners and losers. The winners get taxpayer subsidies. The losers get onerous regulations or a big fat no.
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427220 time=1636969634 user_id=61
In regards to running a business with reasonable bounds that's something I can't really agree on, I do admit I loathe like the idea of a big business just buying out a competitor, but without big business or capitalism, we'd really wouldn't have smart phones, computers, video games, etc. I really believe if the US didn't burn their money in wars, their cities would look a lot more prosperous. The thing is business looks really rewarding from a non-businessman's perspective, but in the end it's really similar to gambling, just that we don't notice the fact that average business goes bankrupt in 5 years.
Great point.
I fully agree that a future society must be economically flexible enough in order to achieve the things you've described above.
We must have a society that thrives on and rewards invention and innovation. But we cannot persist with unhindered and unbridled accumulation of wealth whilst people struggle with their daily lives. It is the opposite end of the spectrum with the welfare you mention at the other.
Welfare does not improve society, but neither do multi-billionaires.We should not have ultra rich people flying in space and wallowing on private islands while the people that create the wealth live in hovels and holiday in caravan parks. At the moment we allow Bezos, Musk, Gates, Branson and their ilk to use humans as profit points, either as workers or customers. They manipulate politicians and the populace far too much.
Communism collapsed because it is a flawed system. As will capitalism. We can learn from China's strategy of merging the two forms into a single model, although we must avoid using dictatorship as the control mechanism. China modelled and developed its new socialist/capitalist path from Singapore, and so should we.
Our governments are failing because they have been diverted by splinter groups, minorities and social pressure groups. They have forgotten who drives the economy and pays the taxes. This has encouraged even more dissenters to bleat for "justice" and thus drive governments further into dead end alleys of ineffective social management.
Trying to govern whilst accommodating diametrically opposed social enclaves is a fool's errand. We have been forced to create an "inclusive" society in which the previously excluded now control government policy. This, in my view, was the tipping point.
We can be compassionate, caring, inclusive and supportive of all people...but only those who accept that generosity with good grace and respect, and share our community values. Those that don't may need to find other societies more fitting to their extremism.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427244 time=1637006900 user_id=114
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427223 time=1636994756 user_id=3254
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427196 time=1636930055 user_id=1560
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.
First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.
Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.
Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.
There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.
It's been said on this forum before that we no longer have a true free enterprise model..
It's kind of like China where companies are extensions of the government..
That is certainly true of big tech.
We don't have a free market anymore. What we have now is what nazi Germany-monopolized crony capitlism. The government picks and chooses winners and losers. The winners get taxpayer subsidies. The losers get onerous regulations or a big fat no.
Exactly.
People have been conditioned to erroneously conflate capitalism with the free market when there is no sound money and heavy regulation slanted in favour of large multinational companies and their overlords.
A free market wouldn't seek to shut down a lemonade stand because "safety" so that Coca Cola can flog frozen concentrate and shelf stable chemical brews at very favourable corporate tax rates while forcing citrus farmers to sell their crops for pennies on the dollar.... as government programs seek to both subsidise certain farming operations and shut down others with tax payer funds.
There's too much regulation and manipulation on the middle and lesser players.
Climate insanity in the West is dooming us.
https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1460281450633121795?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
Amen.
Our arrogant, racist, tone deaf politicians utterly fail to see the criminal hypocrisy in their actions versus their words.
"We got rich through fuelling our wealth with fossil fuels, but you can't so here's some money from my taxpaying morons. Fuck off. My private jet is waiting to take me home to my 3 story mansion with pool and air-conditioning, 8 cylinder Mercedes and a flat panel TV in every room. I can't be late getting home because I have to tell my citizens they must ride bicycles and use fans to keep cool as a result of this wonderful gabfest in Glasgow where they had dinosaurs and everything!!!"
Assholes.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427244 time=1637006900 user_id=114
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427223 time=1636994756 user_id=3254
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427196 time=1636930055 user_id=1560
Quote from: Herman post_id=427157 time=1636914984 user_id=1689
No offense Brick, but you do a lot of pissing and moaning, but I don't see you offering any alternatives. I don't know what to either.
Fair comment, but in the distant past I have advocated what I believe might be worthwhile changes.
First and foremost, the idea of "representative" democracy must be dismantled. Democracy has been usurped by political parties who's DNA comes from political ideology. Politicians do not represent their constituents, but their preferred ideology.
Secondly, the notion that "one size fits all" is the basis for governing our society has to be abandoned. Humans are diverse in all manner or ways with different ideas on how they wish to be governed and the rules and conventions they live under. The idea that "democracy" provides a level playing for everyone is fatally flawed. Under western democratic processes it is entirely possible for a government to take power with less than 50% of the population voting for them. In fact, governments can be formed with only 20% of the popular vote. Any election leads to a large proportion of the community "losing". Losing should not be a basis of governance.
Thirdly, all ministers, judges, senior bureacrats and others with lawful authority over society must be appointed by a tribunal appointment in much the same was as juries. Those same tribunals will have the power to remove any person of authority if their conduct is contrary to good government.
There you go. I've suggested alternatives. Discuss and debate.
It's been said on this forum before that we no longer have a true free enterprise model..
It's kind of like China where companies are extensions of the government..
That is certainly true of big tech.
We don't have a free market anymore. What we have now is what nazi Germany-monopolized crony capitlism. The government picks and chooses winners and losers. The winners get taxpayer subsidies. The losers get onerous regulations or a big fat no.
I read that something like eighty percent of corporate welfare in Canada is goes to companies to fight climate change. I am getting tired of this wealth transfer from working people to corporations and billionaires.
Climate change is good for SOME businesses.
This video encapsulates most of why I consider modern democracy to be utterly broken and corrupt. Although many issues raised are specifically related to the US, the general principles and failings certainly apply to Australian and British governments. While the speaker focusses the corruption of American politics purely on how campaigns are funded, Australian politics are equally corrupt through more subtle interactions between interest groups, donors and governments. The end result is identical, in my view.
Political funding must be either heavily regulated or outlawed altogether. If we are to have funding, it can only be directed to a holding fund that distributes to candidates equally across the board. This, in itself, will probably cease the notion of funding altogether anyway.
Although the speaker doesn't address the issue of political parties, they are in my view the core of the corruption. The politicians themselves play to a system created and supported by major parties. A system that ensures that either one of 2 parties will govern, and smaller parties are merely short lived irritants. This is the exact opposite of "democracy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427300 time=1637025318 user_id=1560
Climate change is good for SOME businesses.
This video encapsulates most of why I consider modern democracy to be utterly broken and corrupt. Although many issues raised are specifically related to the US, the general principles and failings certainly apply to Australian and British governments. While the speaker focusses the corruption of American politics purely on how campaigns are funded, Australian politics are equally corrupt through more subtle interactions between interest groups, donors and governments. The end result is identical, in my view.
Political funding must be either heavily regulated or outlawed altogether. If we are to have funding, it can only be directed to a holding fund that distributes to candidates equally across the board. This, in itself, will probably cease the notion of funding altogether anyway.
Although the speaker doesn't address the issue of political parties, they are in my view the core of the corruption. The politicians themselves play to a system created and supported by major parties. A system that ensures that either one of 2 parties will govern, and smaller parties are merely short lived irritants. This is the exact opposite of "democracy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
It it a bit long. Ah, what the hell, I will watch it.
Yeah, I know...first 10 minutes are the most relevant.
I wish I could edit these things.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been terrible for small businesses..
Lockdowns, reduced capactity in businesses, extra expense of hand sanitizer, and plastic barriers.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427258 time=1637015657 user_id=1560
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427220 time=1636969634 user_id=61
In regards to running a business with reasonable bounds that's something I can't really agree on, I do admit I loathe like the idea of a big business just buying out a competitor, but without big business or capitalism, we'd really wouldn't have smart phones, computers, video games, etc. I really believe if the US didn't burn their money in wars, their cities would look a lot more prosperous. The thing is business looks really rewarding from a non-businessman's perspective, but in the end it's really similar to gambling, just that we don't notice the fact that average business goes bankrupt in 5 years.
Great point.
I fully agree that a future society must be economically flexible enough in order to achieve the things you've described above.
We must have a society that thrives on and rewards invention and innovation. But we cannot persist with unhindered and unbridled accumulation of wealth whilst people struggle with their daily lives. It is the opposite end of the spectrum with the welfare you mention at the other.
Communism collapsed because it is a flawed system. As will capitalism. We can learn from China's strategy of merging the two forms into a single model, although we must avoid using dictatorship as the control mechanism. China modelled and developed its new socialist/capitalist path from Singapore, and so should we.
Our governments are failing because they have been diverted by splinter groups, minorities and social pressure groups. They have forgotten who drives the economy and pays the taxes. This has encouraged even more dissenters to bleat for "justice" and thus drive governments further into dead end alleys of ineffective social management.
Trying to govern whilst accommodating diametrically opposed social enclaves is a fool's errand. We have been forced to create an "inclusive" society in which the previously excluded now control government policy. This, in my view, was the tipping point.
We can be compassionate, caring, inclusive and supportive of all people...but only those who accept that generosity with good grace and respect, and share our community values. Those that don't may need to find other societies more fitting to their extremism.
I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money. But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war. In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead. The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home. And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.
True. If business people could not and did not make good return then other people don't work at all
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427339 time=1637084760 user_id=61
I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money. But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war. In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead. The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home. And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.
We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).
And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.
But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.
As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.
Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).
But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.
(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427343 time=1637095389 user_id=1560
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427339 time=1637084760 user_id=61
I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money. But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war. In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead. The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home. And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.
We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).
And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.
But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.
As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.
Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).
But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.
(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)
I don't know how much net profit does the average board members make when it comes to big brands, but what if I tell you that my dad's business, he only makes an average of only 10% net profit, while the other 90% all goes to overhead, and there are over 1200 employees at his company and factory. It might be hard to believe but most western companies are decaying internally with a lot of financial struggles, the 10% NP my dad makes is already above average for a manufacturer, while supermarkets only make about 1% NP.
The harsh truth is that with advance machineries these days, hard work alone is not enough, if you ask all the investors around the world what is the most valuable machine in the universe, they'll say it's the human brain, simply being a problem solver, by solving issues in less than half a day that no one else in the business can fix.
If the employees want a piece of the pie, it's not impossible but they'll have to do what every other share holder has been doing the whole time, which is to invest and take liability, or start up their business from the ground and upwards. There's absolutely no way a investor will let a group of individuals gaining part of their shares by doing basic labour.
In regards to using money to help people just temporary due to they're on the verge of killing themselves or other people or some life and death situation, that's something I fully agree with you Bricktop and wouldn't mind putting more of my money into. In fact I'm one of those people, they offered me welfare since they considered me as severely disabled, while I told them it's really unnecessary, it's been the 6th time they ask me to take welfare support.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427343 time=1637095389 user_id=1560
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427339 time=1637084760 user_id=61
I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money. But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war. In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead. The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home. And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.
We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).
And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.
But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.
As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.
Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).
But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.
(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)
Inequality seems to be getting worse with climate capitalism..
It's all about massive subsidies to a select few..
The rest of us get higher energy and fuel costs.
[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]
Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.
I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.
I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427346 time=1637101410 user_id=61
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427343 time=1637095389 user_id=1560
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427339 time=1637084760 user_id=61
I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money. But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war. In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead. The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home. And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.
We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).
And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.
But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.
As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.
Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).
But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.
(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)
I don't know how much net profit does the average board members make when it comes to big brands, but what if I tell you that my dad's business, he only makes an average of only 10% net profit, while the other 90% all goes to overhead, and there are over 1200 employees at his company and factory. It might be hard to believe but most western companies are decaying internally with a lot of financial struggles, the 10% NP my dad makes is already above average for a manufacturer, while supermarkets only make about 1% NP.
The harsh truth is that with advance machineries these days, hard work alone is not enough, if you ask all the investors around the world what is the most valuable machine in the universe, they'll say it's the human brain, simply being a problem solver, by solving issues in less than half a day that no one else in the business can fix.
If the employees want a piece of the pie, it's not impossible but they'll have to do what every other share holder has been doing the whole time, which is to invest and take liability, or start up their business from the ground and upwards. There's absolutely no way a investor will let a group of individuals gaining part of their shares by doing basic labour.
In regards to using money to help people just temporary due to they're on the verge of killing themselves or other people or some life and death situation, that's something I fully agree with you Bricktop and wouldn't mind putting more of my money into. In fact I'm one of those people, they offered me welfare since they considered me as severely disabled, while I told them it's really unnecessary, it's been the 6th time they ask me to take welfare support.
Your old man sounds like an old school business owner. A true hard working entrepreneur. Guys like your dad are the salt of the earth. My problem is with the fake entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Al Gore and Jack Dorsey. They are protected oligarchs.
Quote from: Herman post_id=427366 time=1637107437 user_id=1689
[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]
Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.
I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.
I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.
My husband is the shop manager where he works..
He can earn bonuses in good years.....though they are taxed about fifty per cent.
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427377 time=1637108916 user_id=3254
Quote from: Herman post_id=427366 time=1637107437 user_id=1689
[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]
Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.
I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.
I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.
My husband is the shop manager where he works..
He can earn bonuses in good years.....though they are taxed about fifty per cent.
If you manage people typically part of your pay is incentive based. The more people a person manages, the more their pay is bonuses and incentives.
Quote from: Herman post_id=427366 time=1637107437 user_id=1689
[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]
Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.
I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.
I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.
And that should never change. You were good at your job and produced results. Reward must follow.
Can you lend me a few bucks...??? ac_unsure
Quote from: Herman post_id=427368 time=1637107916 user_id=1689
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427346 time=1637101410 user_id=61
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427343 time=1637095389 user_id=1560
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427339 time=1637084760 user_id=61
I do understand your concern in regards to using other people to help the rich make money. But what if I tell you that welfare only drains tax payers money and weakens people's will to self-improve, while the rich can revolutionize and/or help change the life of almost everyone with their amazing goods and service, not only that but they can provide an extremely stable paying job for many people, and provide a bargaining chip against China in case of a trade war. In fact if I wasn't disabled I'd rather work at McDonalds instead of running my own business since we only earn enough everyday just to pay off the overhead. The truth is it seems unethical to build an organization of people to make money, but as long as everyone is doing it and pay people for their work, like for eg paying people to build their home or assemble their PC at a shop, while business organizations are only doing the exact same thing, in the end they just pay people for their work based upon market prices, workers don't own the shares of the business, just like once we paid a company of workers to build a house for me, the workers don't also own our home. And tb fair if the rich can't buy their private island, jet plane, boat, etc, no on will ever invest, hence making the modern world develop like 5x slower, etc.
We agree on the issue of welfare as a regular source of income and a lifestyle choice (not as an immediate assistance for people thrown into difficult circumstances...there are genuine cases that demand support).
And we agree that business investors deserve a return on their investment.
But I still maintain that the current inequitable situation where massive profits are generated from the efforts of workers who do not get to share in those profits is unsustainable, and unjust.
As it stands in our current economic structures, not only do business owners in SOME (not all, I agree) reap huge rewards, but people who take no active part in the business, that is the shareholders, also share in those profits whilst the workforce that generate that wealth are excluded.
Marx was wrong in so many ways, but his core principle had merit. The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. This is the equation that needs to be revised. Of course, there are problems that need to be overcome (should employees also share in the losses, should they have input in business strategy development, how can a business owner draw investment from external shareholders and so on).
But the relationship between the workforce and profit must change. Already we are seeing employees in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, just walking away from their jobs. They have had enough of making other people wealthy. That system has had its day, and its better to plan for change now than wait for change to be forcibly applied.
(Great discussion, Zetsu!!!)
I don't know how much net profit does the average board members make when it comes to big brands, but what if I tell you that my dad's business, he only makes an average of only 10% net profit, while the other 90% all goes to overhead, and there are over 1200 employees at his company and factory. It might be hard to believe but most western companies are decaying internally with a lot of financial struggles, the 10% NP my dad makes is already above average for a manufacturer, while supermarkets only make about 1% NP.
The harsh truth is that with advance machineries these days, hard work alone is not enough, if you ask all the investors around the world what is the most valuable machine in the universe, they'll say it's the human brain, simply being a problem solver, by solving issues in less than half a day that no one else in the business can fix.
If the employees want a piece of the pie, it's not impossible but they'll have to do what every other share holder has been doing the whole time, which is to invest and take liability, or start up their business from the ground and upwards. There's absolutely no way a investor will let a group of individuals gaining part of their shares by doing basic labour.
In regards to using money to help people just temporary due to they're on the verge of killing themselves or other people or some life and death situation, that's something I fully agree with you Bricktop and wouldn't mind putting more of my money into. In fact I'm one of those people, they offered me welfare since they considered me as severely disabled, while I told them it's really unnecessary, it's been the 6th time they ask me to take welfare support.
Your old man sounds like an old school business owner. A true hard working entrepreneur. Guys like your dad are the salt of the earth. My problem is with the fake entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Al Gore and Jack Dorsey. They are protected oligarchs.
Thanks Herman ac_cool , unlike that evs, experience and professional folks like you understand him and makes me feel grateful for having such an awesome dad. You've pretty much nailed it since this year would be his company's 53th anniversary, and he is no doubt one of those old fashion workaholics, but one thing I really learn to admire him is that he spent millions and millions of dollars to help out poor and unfortunate people, donated money to build roads, temples, schools etc and never told anyone or the family about it, until I heard from people that witness his good deeds.
Another funny thing is today I bought my Mazda to the dealership to replace the tires only to find out afterwards they scratch 3 out of 4 of my rims, which made my OCD flag popped, lol. The mechanic kept on saying it's not his fault nor caused by him, but I clean the wheels every week and I know that the scratches weren't there before the tire installation. Long story short I didn't wanted to make a big deal out of it but they didn't offer me any solutions, so I ask the dealership manager to call me back. Funny thing is when the manager called it turned out to be one of my dad's friends, simply to say I feel pretty lucky to be the boss's son, ac_cool and there are a other similar cases, lol.
Quote from: Herman post_id=427366 time=1637107437 user_id=1689
[media]The workforce is excluded from the profits of the employer. [/media]
Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.
I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.
I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.
My thoughts exactly too, I know little to nothing about how the oil industry or other corporations run, but all I can be quite sure is there are lots of job posts out there that are more rewarding than being a boss if we take input and reward into perspective. But one thing I agree with you brother is the government shouldn't interfere with the economy or as little as possible, I'm just so glad I went back to buying a diesel instead of going for an EV.
Quote from: Herman post_id=427366 time=1637107437 user_id=1689
Quote
Are they. As a wellsite consultant I made three hundred grand US a year. I was flown anywhere in the world I wanted. I had every perk there is. I never put up any capital. I never had to spend my own money on upfront environmental costs. I never had to buy a lease or secure any capital.
I believe I shared in the profits of my employer. That is if there were any. When I was a national country manager for oilfield service companies abroad, I got incentive pay which is typically how senior middle and higher management is paid.
I was part owner of an oilfield service company. I made more money as an employee than I did as an owner.
My understanding is the reason oil and gas can offer such salaries is that workers are so productive. I've heard that entry level labourers can earn over one hundred grand a year Canadian.
I've had this argument about wages and productivitity with ignorant leftists. Employers are not opposed to higher wages. But, higher wages must accompany more productivity. This is why in provinces that have raised their minimum wages a lot quxikly small business owners respond by adding more responsibility to employees.
Part of the problem is that progressives keep running good paying industries to other countries. If we don't produce oil, gas and coal for steel, other countries will.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427415 time=1637146046 user_id=114
Employers are not opposed to higher wages.
I do not agree.
Employers do everything they can to keep their employees wages as low as possible to maximise profit. This is the essence of running a business.
Keep costs down.
Employees are treated exactly the same way as plant and equipment. Invest as little as possible for maximum output.
Employees trade off a certain degree of security in their job for the LOWEST possible wage.
In Australia, some companies are making record profits, but staff wages have not risen. The whole contract of employment in capital systems is based on the worker subordinated to the corporation. The playing field is uneven. Some claim that employees have the right to move their labour to a higher paying business, but in practice this is nowhere near as easy as it's made out to be.
The recent situation in the US which has 4 million workers just walking away from their job is being mirrored elsewhere. People are become weary of high demand for little reward.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427438 time=1637184741 user_id=1560
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427415 time=1637146046 user_id=114
Employers are not opposed to higher wages.
I do not agree.
Employers do everything they can to keep their employees wages as low as possible to maximise profit. This is the essence of running a business.
Keep costs down.
Employees are treated exactly the same way as plant and equipment. Invest as little as possible for maximum output.
Employees trade off a certain degree of security in their job for the LOWEST possible wage.
In Australia, some companies are making record profits, but staff wages have not risen. The whole contract of employment in capital systems is based on the worker subordinated to the corporation. The playing field is uneven. Some claim that employees have the right to move their labour to a higher paying business, but in practice this is nowhere near as easy as it's made out to be.
The recent situation in the US which has 4 million workers just walking away from their job is being mirrored elsewhere. People are become weary of high demand for little reward.
No offense, but what you posted could not be any further from the truth.
The lifeblood of any enterprise is a repeat customer. The future of any enterprise is a new customer. Customers don't care about maximizing profit. They care about the product, the service, the price, and availability. Company employees who want the same thing for the business's customers will be the best paid in their industry. They will be more productive as their employer will trust them with more responsibility.
Companies with low responsibility levels for employees are like the state owned enterprises in the former Soviet Union-the employees preternd to work and the state pretends to pay them.
Productivity has been declining for years in Canada, even as large companies record record profits. But, those profits all too often were not earned by their employees in Canada. Or even affected by their sales in this country.
Here in Canada too the Great Resignation is happening. It's primarily in low wage sectors with people to people contact like retail and food service. This is going on even as wages are rising(still lower than inflation). I cannot explain it. I would need to know more about the demographics of the people leaving work. I would be surprised if it was workers over the age of forty.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427438 time=1637184741 user_id=1560
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427415 time=1637146046 user_id=114
Employers are not opposed to higher wages.
I do not agree.
Employers do everything they can to keep their employees wages as low as possible to maximise profit. This is the essence of running a business.
Keep costs down.
Employees are treated exactly the same way as plant and equipment. Invest as little as possible for maximum output.
Employees trade off a certain degree of security in their job for the LOWEST possible wage.
In Australia, some companies are making record profits, but staff wages have not risen. The whole contract of employment in capital systems is based on the worker subordinated to the corporation. The playing field is uneven. Some claim that employees have the right to move their labour to a higher paying business, but in practice this is nowhere near as easy as it's made out to be.
The recent situation in the US which has 4 million workers just walking away from their job is being mirrored elsewhere. People are become weary of high demand for little reward.
What you say has some truth to it, but this only applies to unskilled labour or entry level jobs since I believe minimum wage jobs play the biggest role to inflation due to the lack of productivity per individual. China minimum wage increased over the last 12 years and we've seen a very noticeable drop in QC but increase in price of products sold to the West. Since the jump from $10.50 to $14 per hour here in Toronto fast food price has increased by at around 30% in less than a year.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427457 time=1637194459 user_id=114
No offense
None would ever be taken!!! Discussions are best when people disagree. However, a large part of the population equate disagreement with being offended. There are none like those in this forum!!
With respect, may I opine that whilst you dispute what I said, you didn't actually address my main point which is that employers have a vested interest in keeping wages low. As I claimed, many businesses (not all, it's true) are making record profits but staff wages are stagnant.
Anecdotally, but I agree with some of the other views expressed here in that corporations in cahoots with governments are deliberately maintaining this status quo. Corporations make more money, and governments claim they are creating jobs (one of western capitalism's greatest lies).
There is a disparity that is clearly visible, and cannot be condoned or maintained.
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427474 time=1637202486 user_id=61
What you say has some truth to it, but this only applies to unskilled labour or entry level jobs
Agreed.
Employees with a clear connection to actual profit are generally better rewarded.
But is this right? Because a person is less skilled, or is lower on the company pyramid, should they be excluded from benefitting from higher profits?
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427474 time=1637202486 user_id=61
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427438 time=1637184741 user_id=1560
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427415 time=1637146046 user_id=114
Employers are not opposed to higher wages.
I do not agree.
Employers do everything they can to keep their employees wages as low as possible to maximise profit. This is the essence of running a business.
Keep costs down.
Employees are treated exactly the same way as plant and equipment. Invest as little as possible for maximum output.
Employees trade off a certain degree of security in their job for the LOWEST possible wage.
In Australia, some companies are making record profits, but staff wages have not risen. The whole contract of employment in capital systems is based on the worker subordinated to the corporation. The playing field is uneven. Some claim that employees have the right to move their labour to a higher paying business, but in practice this is nowhere near as easy as it's made out to be.
The recent situation in the US which has 4 million workers just walking away from their job is being mirrored elsewhere. People are become weary of high demand for little reward.
What you say has some truth to it, but this only applies to unskilled labour or entry level jobs since I believe minimum wage jobs play the biggest role to inflation due to the lack of productivity per individual. China minimum wage increased over the last 12 years and we've seen a very noticeable drop in QC but increase in price of products sold to the West. Since the jump from $10.50 to $14 per hour here in Toronto fast food price has increased by at around 30% in less than a year.
The key to businesses for owners and employees alike is productivity. It affects the bottom line for both those who write cheques and those that cash them.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427476 time=1637202679 user_id=1560
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427457 time=1637194459 user_id=114
No offense
With respect, may I opine that whilst you dispute what I said, you didn't actually address my main point which is that employers have a vested interest in keeping wages low.
I addressed it twice in two different posts. Employers have no issue with higher wages. It's low productivity that they take issue with. This is a problem in Canada that has only gotten worse under the Trudeau regime.
Many businesses operating in Canada are recording record profits. Banks in particular. However, just as many businesses profits are not tied to anything in Canada. Should employees in Canada receive higher compensation for profits they did not create? I'm sure their overseas colleagues would say no.
This is a good discussion going on between Brick and the Seoul brother and Zetsu. Myself, I have no problem with fast food workers making a low wage. They are entry level jobs for kids and part timers.
As a teenager, I had a very physical job in a sawmill stripping bark off logs with a draw knife.
It was piecework and paid a fair average total per hour with an average level of exertion.
So I'd pack a Thermos of coffee, a loaf of peanut butter and jam sandwiches (with cake sprinkles), 6 bananas, 10 litres of water, then make x5 the rate.... at least for the first 3-4 hours, then x3 -x4 for the following 3 hours, and finally....when my body was giving out.... x1-x2 for as long as I could endure it.
The incentive was clearly there. Work hard; be rewarded. It wasn't a union workplace.
Unfortunately, unionised workplaces these days despise such set ups and sabotage hard work.
If little tiny Tim and Bobo the window licking Circus chimp can't receive x3-x5 rates, NOBODY can.
And due to the artificially inflated costs to do business in the private sector (initiated by big governments protecting their big business associates), there aren't many options for non unionised workplaces to financially reward performers except in small token gestures.
I can drive here in regional Victoria, stop at a Cafe/bakery and expect to pay upwards of 6-9 bucks for a coffee.... but if I stop at a small town's only 7/11, it's 2 bucks.
That sums it up.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427477 time=1637202829 user_id=1560
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427474 time=1637202486 user_id=61
What you say has some truth to it, but this only applies to unskilled labour or entry level jobs
Agreed.
Employees with a clear connection to actual profit are generally better rewarded.
But is this right? Because a person is less skilled, or is lower on the company pyramid, should they be excluded from benefitting from higher profits?
I don't deny when it comes to unskilled labour, we do hire people at market level prices, which is basically just slightly above minimum wage with bonus based on their performance.
Quote
It might be hard to believe, but unskilled labour are quite overpaid for their work due to minimum wages, but at the same time they're good candidates for low tech industries, but now it's slowly being replaced by robotics.
Truth to be told no one in the company is excluded from profits, low skilled worker's are guaranteed a fixed wage even if they are underproductive, or when the economy is going through a recession or get 2 month of pay after being fired in China. If a bunch of unskilled labour live together by themselves, they'll be living in wooden shacks, but b/c of the white collar and blue collar professions, unskilled labour can live in modern house with electricity, plumbing, TV, etc, which is equivalent to having over 200 servants dating a few hundred years ago. With so many options offered by the society these days, education, scholarship or student loans, job training, internet access that has access to the world's latest information of online or self education, food banks, welfare incase if people are going through a crisis in life, etc, there's really no excuse for the unskill to complain.
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427488 time=1637204670 user_id=1676
As a teenager, I had a very physical job in a sawmill stripping bark off logs with a draw knife.
It was piecework and paid a fair average total per hour with an average level of exertion.
So I'd pack a Thermos of coffee, a loaf of peanut butter and jam sandwiches (with cake sprinkles), 6 bananas, 10 litres of water, then make x5 the rate.... at least for the first 3-4 hours, then x3 -x4 for the following 3 hours, and finally....when my body was giving out.... x1-x2 for as long as I could endure it.
The incentive was clearly there. Work hard; be rewarded. It wasn't a union workplace.
Unfortunately, unionised workplaces these days despise such set ups and sabotage hard work.
If little tiny Tim and Bobo the window licking Circus chimp can't receive x3-x5 rates, NOBODY can.
And due to the artificially inflated costs to do business in the private sector (initiated by big governments protecting their big business associates), there aren't many options for non unionised workplaces to financially reward performers except in small token gestures.
I can drive here in regional Victoria, stop at a Cafe/bakery and expect to pay upwards of 6-9 bucks for a coffee.... but if I stop at a small town's only 7/11, it's 2 bucks.
That sums it up.
How you were paid is how I would pay employees if I was the owner and I was allowed.
The entire fast food industry model is being put to the test in North America because of rising wages. More automation will be used to fill productivity gaps.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427492 time=1637204890 user_id=114
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427488 time=1637204670 user_id=1676
As a teenager, I had a very physical job in a sawmill stripping bark off logs with a draw knife.
It was piecework and paid a fair average total per hour with an average level of exertion.
So I'd pack a Thermos of coffee, a loaf of peanut butter and jam sandwiches (with cake sprinkles), 6 bananas, 10 litres of water, then make x5 the rate.... at least for the first 3-4 hours, then x3 -x4 for the following 3 hours, and finally....when my body was giving out.... x1-x2 for as long as I could endure it.
The incentive was clearly there. Work hard; be rewarded. It wasn't a union workplace.
Unfortunately, unionised workplaces these days despise such set ups and sabotage hard work.
If little tiny Tim and Bobo the window licking Circus chimp can't receive x3-x5 rates, NOBODY can.
And due to the artificially inflated costs to do business in the private sector (initiated by big governments protecting their big business associates), there aren't many options for non unionised workplaces to financially reward performers except in small token gestures.
I can drive here in regional Victoria, stop at a Cafe/bakery and expect to pay upwards of 6-9 bucks for a coffee.... but if I stop at a small town's only 7/11, it's 2 bucks.
That sums it up.
How you were paid is how I would pay employees if I was the owner and I was allowed.
Me too...
The owners placed a lot of trust in my figures reporting as it was a work when you need or want to scenario and depending on bad weather, I was the only one there in blizzards and torrential rains...
So, I still think about those guys fondly 30 years later with the utmost respect.
One was a Southern Baptist homesteader and the other Amish.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427493 time=1637205018 user_id=114
The entire fast food industry model is being put to the test in North America because of rising wages. More automation will be used to fill productivity gaps.
With even more inferior Franken-ingredients...
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427492 time=1637204890 user_id=114
How you were paid is how I would pay employees if I was the owner and I was allowed.
In the early stages of the industrial revolution, piecework was the most common form of salary. The advantages, as Freud describes, are obvious.
However, as automation began to overtake physical labour, piecework salaries were no longer viable in many workplaces.
This is particularly so in service industries and bureaucracies, where productivity is very much more difficult to prescribe and identify. Not impossible, but difficult. And of course, unionism reviles piecework.
This is one reason why I favour dismantling bureaucracies in favour of outsourcing to private enterprise. Not all, but most.
I'd like to see public schools defunded along with state subsidised broadcasters, medical services revert to a patient/doctor private arrangement, income taxes abolished or reduced to a fraction of what they are now, health bodies stripped of their ability to vet pharmaceutical products and procedures, property taxes and council rates abolished or reduced to a fraction, councils prevented from mandating most new building and landscaping codes...mandatory licences to fish, prospect, hunt, be armed, drive, climb ladders, check batteries in smoke detectors, et cetera be dissolved.
Award/Minimum Wage laws repealed... vice taxes dropped.
Most zoning rulings by manipulative greedy local and state governments removed.
To start with...
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427501 time=1637209496 user_id=1560
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427492 time=1637204890 user_id=114
How you were paid is how I would pay employees if I was the owner and I was allowed.
In the early stages of the industrial revolution, piecework was the most common form of salary. The advantages, as Freud describes, are obvious.
However, as automation began to overtake physical labour, piecework salaries were no longer viable in many workplaces.
This is particularly so in service industries and bureaucracies, where productivity is very much more difficult to prescribe and identify. Not impossible, but difficult. And of course, unionism reviles piecework.
This is one reason why I favour dismantling bureaucracies in favour of outsourcing to private enterprise. Not all, but most.
When I was a waitress, the provincial minimum wage for servers was very low..
But, on weekends I usually made as much and often more than the owners..
This was because of my tips which were a form of incentive pay..
Since the minimum wage gpt so high so fast, good servers are earning less, but the government is earning through taxes..
Raising the minimum wage lowered wages for people who provided good service and raised it for lazy servers.
My pay is incentive based. I do not receive a wage. I get paid by the mile with bonuses for pick ups and drops. Yes, we use miles instead of kilometres on Canadian railways. It's because we are interconnected with American railways.
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427505 time=1637214641 user_id=1676
I'd like to see public schools defunded along with state subsidised broadcasters, medical services revert to a patient/doctor private arrangement, income taxes abolished or reduced to a fraction of what they are now, health bodies stripped of their ability to vet pharmaceutical products and procedures, property taxes and council rates abolished or reduced to a fraction, councils prevented from mandating most new building and landscaping codes...mandatory licences to fish, prospect, hunt, be armed, drive, climb ladders, check batteries in smoke detectors, et cetera be dissolved.
Award/Minimum Wage laws repealed... vice taxes dropped.
Most zoning rulings by manipulative greedy local and state governments removed.
To start with...
This is the real essence of the troubles we endure. Decomplicating our lives and diminishing the power of the overlords is truly the essence of the views of many people. They want society simplified and fewer interveners in their daily life.
But the problem now and always is how do we manage the big picture if we follow the path you describe.
How do major highways get built? How do we protect ourselves from those who wish us harm or cannot function in an orderly society free of oversights?
This is the hole we've dug. We are dependent on a ruling class in every aspect of our lives. Reducing that dependency means we must adapt a self governing model...but when in human history has such a social framework succeeded?
Our problem is that humans are largely unmanageable.
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427509 time=1637234177 user_id=3254
Raising the minimum wage lowered wages for people who provided good service and raised it for lazy servers.
I think this issue is only relevant to societies where tipping is or was an established and recognised means of remunerating staff in lower paid vocations.
The US, Canada and France come to mind.
In other nations, tipping is rare. It sure is here in Australia because we have a minimum wage.
But the actual presence of a minimum wage does not exclude tipping. People can tip if they want to. But the sentiment is there is simply no need to do so because we pay more for the service received due to the addition of salary in the cost of doing business.
Also, your unions are the primary force behind minimum wage structures.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427551 time=1637272390 user_id=1560
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427509 time=1637234177 user_id=3254
Raising the minimum wage lowered wages for people who provided good service and raised it for lazy servers.
I think this issue is only relevant to societies where tipping is or was an established and recognised means of remunerating staff in lower paid vocations.
The US, Canada and France come to mind.
In other nations, tipping is rare. It sure is here in Australia because we have a minimum wage.
But the actual presence of a minimum wage does not exclude tipping. People can tip if they want to. But the sentiment is there is simply no need to do so because we pay more for the service received due to the addition of salary in the cost of doing business.
Also, your unions are the primary force behind minimum wage structures.
Many servers are upset about provincial governments raising the minimum wage and destroying the tipping culture..
Servers had their incomes cut, but the provincial and federal governments get more tax revenue, so they like it.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427549 time=1637272109 user_id=1560
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427505 time=1637214641 user_id=1676
I'd like to see public schools defunded along with state subsidised broadcasters, medical services revert to a patient/doctor private arrangement, income taxes abolished or reduced to a fraction of what they are now, health bodies stripped of their ability to vet pharmaceutical products and procedures, property taxes and council rates abolished or reduced to a fraction, councils prevented from mandating most new building and landscaping codes...mandatory licences to fish, prospect, hunt, be armed, drive, climb ladders, check batteries in smoke detectors, et cetera be dissolved.
Award/Minimum Wage laws repealed... vice taxes dropped.
Most zoning rulings by manipulative greedy local and state governments removed.
To start with...
This is the real essence of the troubles we endure. Decomplicating our lives and diminishing the power of the overlords is truly the essence of the views of many people. They want society simplified and fewer interveners in their daily life.
But the problem now and always is how do we manage the big picture if we follow the path you describe.
How do major highways get built? How do we protect ourselves from those who wish us harm or cannot function in an orderly society free of oversights?
This is the hole we've dug. We are dependent on a ruling class in every aspect of our lives. Reducing that dependency means we must adapt a self governing model...but when in human history has such a social framework succeeded?
Our problem is that humans are largely unmanageable.
Road tolls can fund road projects.... (less and less roads will be required in the future anyway)
We and private security services can protect us....
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427561 time=1637278595 user_id=3254
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427551 time=1637272390 user_id=1560
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427509 time=1637234177 user_id=3254
Raising the minimum wage lowered wages for people who provided good service and raised it for lazy servers.
I think this issue is only relevant to societies where tipping is or was an established and recognised means of remunerating staff in lower paid vocations.
The US, Canada and France come to mind.
In other nations, tipping is rare. It sure is here in Australia because we have a minimum wage.
But the actual presence of a minimum wage does not exclude tipping. People can tip if they want to. But the sentiment is there is simply no need to do so because we pay more for the service received due to the addition of salary in the cost of doing business.
Also, your unions are the primary force behind minimum wage structures.
Many servers are upset about provincial governments raising the minimum wage and destroying the tipping culture..
Servers had their incomes cut, but the provincial and federal governments get more tax revenue, so they like it.
Saskatchewan has avoided the steep rapid increases in minimum wage that most provinces have forced on small businesses.
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427564 time=1637283086 user_id=1676
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427549 time=1637272109 user_id=1560
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427505 time=1637214641 user_id=1676
I'd like to see public schools defunded along with state subsidised broadcasters, medical services revert to a patient/doctor private arrangement, income taxes abolished or reduced to a fraction of what they are now, health bodies stripped of their ability to vet pharmaceutical products and procedures, property taxes and council rates abolished or reduced to a fraction, councils prevented from mandating most new building and landscaping codes...mandatory licences to fish, prospect, hunt, be armed, drive, climb ladders, check batteries in smoke detectors, et cetera be dissolved.
Award/Minimum Wage laws repealed... vice taxes dropped.
Most zoning rulings by manipulative greedy local and state governments removed.
To start with...
This is the real essence of the troubles we endure. Decomplicating our lives and diminishing the power of the overlords is truly the essence of the views of many people. They want society simplified and fewer interveners in their daily life.
But the problem now and always is how do we manage the big picture if we follow the path you describe.
How do major highways get built? How do we protect ourselves from those who wish us harm or cannot function in an orderly society free of oversights?
This is the hole we've dug. We are dependent on a ruling class in every aspect of our lives. Reducing that dependency means we must adapt a self governing model...but when in human history has such a social framework succeeded?
Our problem is that humans are largely unmanageable.
Road tolls can fund road projects.... (less and less roads will be required in the future anyway)
We and private security services can protect us....
That is not even close to being a considered response. :negative:
Please try harder.
Seoul, has a lot to say about the role of government..
I can't remember specifically, but he has argued the more that government takes over roles the private sector is capable of filling, the result is less prosperity, not more..
Maybe, he'll see this and explain.
I'd add to that that the term "prosperity" needs to be clarified.
Individuals are less prosperous, or the nation and its communities?
Prosperity does not equal improved living standards for the general public. Increasing the size of the national economy does not necessarily increase the standard of living for most citizens.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427596 time=1637289730 user_id=1560
I'd add to that that the term "prosperity" needs to be clarified.
Individuals are less prosperous, or the nation and its communities?
Prosperity does not equal improved living standards for the general public. Increasing the size of the national economy does not necessarily increase the standard of living for most citizens.
Someone posted an article how Japan despite a stagnant national GDP because of demofraphic challenges has maintained and grown living standards.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427588 time=1637288340 user_id=1560
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427564 time=1637283086 user_id=1676
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427549 time=1637272109 user_id=1560
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427505 time=1637214641 user_id=1676
I'd like to see public schools defunded along with state subsidised broadcasters, medical services revert to a patient/doctor private arrangement, income taxes abolished or reduced to a fraction of what they are now, health bodies stripped of their ability to vet pharmaceutical products and procedures, property taxes and council rates abolished or reduced to a fraction, councils prevented from mandating most new building and landscaping codes...mandatory licences to fish, prospect, hunt, be armed, drive, climb ladders, check batteries in smoke detectors, et cetera be dissolved.
Award/Minimum Wage laws repealed... vice taxes dropped.
Most zoning rulings by manipulative greedy local and state governments removed.
To start with...
This is the real essence of the troubles we endure. Decomplicating our lives and diminishing the power of the overlords is truly the essence of the views of many people. They want society simplified and fewer interveners in their daily life.
But the problem now and always is how do we manage the big picture if we follow the path you describe.
How do major highways get built? How do we protect ourselves from those who wish us harm or cannot function in an orderly society free of oversights?
This is the hole we've dug. We are dependent on a ruling class in every aspect of our lives. Reducing that dependency means we must adapt a self governing model...but when in human history has such a social framework succeeded?
Our problem is that humans are largely unmanageable.
Road tolls can fund road projects.... (less and less roads will be required in the future anyway)
We and private security services can protect us....
That is not even close to being a considered response. :negative:
Please try harder.
Mine or yours?
The "but who will build the roads?!" rebuttal has been a go-to by the personal autonomy averse since governments took over pre-existing roads and laid bitumen over them.
I live on a dirt road. It gets graded a couple of times per year. There's a stress point near my front entrance which needs filling a few times more per year. I do that.
It's easier to spend half an hour with a shovel filling in the fault line.
A perfectly functional road used by all classes of cars, motorcycles, and trucks with the exception of the rare lowered sports car...and though they might bitch and complain that we need more tax dollars to protect their investment because they chose to buy an unsuitable vehicle to park on their dirt road adjacent home, polling and council pressure to pave it and jack our council rates up is hugely unpopular with the vast majority of residents....
....same as the mandating of city sewer via the banning of septic systems. Nobody wants it.... but the bureaucracy keeps weaseling for it.
There was a house fire here at 2 in morning last week. Just around the corner... the Country Fire Authority were out of their beds and on scene in 6 minutes to put it out. Those are volunteers... the MFB (paid) would be lucky to put the coals out....
Same goes with policing.... a 24 minute response time....if they even bother. Callers are regularly told to hide, appease, take a beating, until they can get somebody out here....and when they respond or are present, they're belligerent and they bully people.
So, forgive me if I don't have much respect for bureaucracies, social planners, or large organised street gangs with the monopoly on force.
I am a man, not a mouse.
Here's a piece of cheese.
Eat it and shut up
That is not even close to being a considered response. :negative:
Please try harder.
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427598 time=1637290645 user_id=1676
The "but who will build the roads?!" rebuttal has been a go-to by the personal autonomy averse since governments took over pre-existing roads
I'm not rebutting. I am asking for more detail.
And quit plagiarising my shit! :rules:
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427607 time=1637305218 user_id=1560
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427598 time=1637290645 user_id=1676
The "but who will build the roads?!" rebuttal has been a go-to by the personal autonomy averse since governments took over pre-existing roads
I'm not rebutting. I am asking for more detail.
And quit plagiarising my shit! :rules:
:laugh:
I just re-employed it towards a more deserving character.
Who pays for the roads in a libertarian society? This is one of those questions that pretends to be the undoing of libertarian philosophy, arguing by implication that in a stateless society (without government) roads would not get built, or that they would only be accessible to the privileged few. What this point of view ignores is the fact that many people of wealth and substance take it upon themselves to create and/or sponsor public resources, the most notable being the modern public library system, which would not exist but for the voluntary philanthropy of people like Andrew Carnegie. Indeed, the undoing of most philanthropic efforts is that they seek to lobby the government for their fair share of government largess rather than just doing what needs to be done.
In early America, the first paved roads were generally developed by private companies. The first long distance paved road in America was Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, which effectively still operates to this day, but which more specifically operated as a toll road from 1795 to 1917, when it was purchased by the state.
It's also worth noting that, whatever negatives private toll roads may have, they tended to stay in excellent states of repair. Economically, a private road in disrepair reflects a loss of revenue, while the opposite is true of public roads. A fiscally responsible government would defer the repair of a public road as long as they possibly could.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427612 time=1637321541 user_id=114
Who pays for the roads in a libertarian society?
This is the thin edge of the "road" debate.
If all that was required is who pays, then private investors would build toll roads and all would be well.
But life is no longer that simple.
Who decides where the road will be built, and on who's property?
Who decides the physical layout of the road?
Who decides and enforces how the road will be used and the rules to be applied?
If the private investor goes out of business, what happens to the road?
Now, each question probably has a reasonable answer...but the problem of our modern world is the journey to that answer is problematic, complex, confrontational, political and divisive, such is the madness we've built for ourselves.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427638 time=1637359029 user_id=1560
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=427612 time=1637321541 user_id=114
Who pays for the roads in a libertarian society?
This is the thin edge of the "road" debate.
If all that was required is who pays, then private investors would build toll roads and all would be well.
But life is no longer that simple.
Who decides where the road will be built, and on who's property?
Who decides the physical layout of the road?
Who decides and enforces how the road will be used and the rules to be applied?
Now, each question probably has a reasonable answer...but the problem of our modern world is the journey to that answer is problematic, complex, confrontational, political and divisive, such is the madness we've built for ourselves.
If a company is bought by another company they take responsibility for it's assets.
Nope. They can exclude assets in the purchase contract.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427672 time=1637372335 user_id=1560
Nope. They can exclude assets in the purchase contract.
I find it hard to believe a road with traffic would not be part of the package or the main part that another company would want to acquire..
I'll defer to Seoul though.
Governments need to find new sources of revenue besides picking the pockets of the people. Better yet, shrink the size of government.
As I have said repeatedly and is relevant to your country, abolishing State governments is a good start.
Never....
The worst thing a society can do is centralize power.
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427740 time=1637448202 user_id=1676
Never....
The worst thing a society can do is centralize power.
That idea is even worst than a company without a boss
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427740 time=1637448202 user_id=1676
Never....
The worst thing a society can do is centralize power.
I get your point...but which is the lesser of the evils...one government with one set of laws and policies, or multiple governments with multiple laws (which we have in Australia) pulling in opposite directions. And, of course, double the cost of governance with duplicated bureaucracies all over the country. I don't know about Victoria, but 17% of the workforce in SA is employed directly by the Government. That's a LOT of money when you multiply it by a factor of 9.
It's a question, not a rebuttal of your statement.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427746 time=1637449529 user_id=1560
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=427740 time=1637448202 user_id=1676
Never....
The worst thing a society can do is centralize power.
I get your point...but which is the lesser of the evils...one government with one set of laws and policies, or multiple governments with multiple laws (which we have in Australia) pulling in opposite directions. And, of course, double the cost of governance with duplicated bureaucracies all over the country. I don't know about Victoria, but 17% of the workforce in SA is employed directly by the Government. That's a LOT of money when you multiply it by a factor of 9.
It's a question, not a rebuttal of your statement.
...and I get your point, but powers are meant to be delegated to respective groups or government levels limited by overarching basic guidelines.
Mission creep and broad interpretations of power should be stymied and reversed. It is not an excuse to remove separations.
I would like to gut Ottawa of nearly all powers and put it in the hands of our provincial government legislature in Regina.
I think a government is critically needed, but instead of a wealth/capital drain every country should model their system after Hong Kong.
What is that system?
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427927 time=1637588445 user_id=61
I think a government is critically needed, but instead of a wealth/capital drain every country should model their system after Hong Kong.
The one country/two systems model is completely unacceptable to Taiwanese..
They will not voluntarily give up their national sovereignty to any country, but especially one as oppressive as China.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427935 time=1637613303 user_id=1560
What is that system?
Hong Kong has one of the lowest tax rates in the world where the average tax rate for the middle income class pays about 8%, while tax caps for businesses at 16%, yet it's by far one of the wealthiest governments in the world, while having one of the most efficient medical health care system in the world thanks to allow both private and public to coexist. One of the best thing the Brits has invented for Hong Kong is theICAC (Indepedent Committee Against Corruption), it's probably the most powerful legal organization where they make sure tax payers money goes into proper use rather than politicians pockets.
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=427961 time=1637683240 user_id=3254
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=427927 time=1637588445 user_id=61
I think a government is critically needed, but instead of a wealth/capital drain every country should model their system after Hong Kong.
The one country/two systems model is completely unacceptable to Taiwanese..
They will not voluntarily give up their national sovereignty to any country, but especially one as oppressive as China.
I agree too, Hkers were kinda gullible to believe in CCP and expecting them to keep their promise, but I guess we can say there's nothing they could do at that time. I just hope Taiwan will realize PRC can never be trusted no matter what they say.
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=428016 time=1637721229 user_id=61
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427935 time=1637613303 user_id=1560
What is that system?
Hong Kong has one of the lowest tax rates in the world where the average tax rate for the middle income class pays about 8%, while tax caps for businesses at 16%, yet it's by far one of the wealthiest governments in the world, while having one of the most efficient medical health care system in the world thanks to allow both private and public to coexist.
Migration from China is destroying the middle class in Hong Kong. Singpaore is the new Hong Kong.
Singapore is a global economic powerhouse. And it's smaller than Herman's farm.
Quote from: Herman post_id=428019 time=1637721512 user_id=1689
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=428016 time=1637721229 user_id=61
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427935 time=1637613303 user_id=1560
What is that system?
Hong Kong has one of the lowest tax rates in the world where the average tax rate for the middle income class pays about 8%, while tax caps for businesses at 16%, yet it's by far one of the wealthiest governments in the world, while having one of the most efficient medical health care system in the world thanks to allow both private and public to coexist.
Migration from China is destroying the middle class in Hong Kong. Singpaore is the new Hong Kong.
A lot them tend to exploit welfare and take up all the government subsidize housing while middle class HKers have to forfeit their lives to pay off their mortgage. While their loyalty and gratitude is practically non-existent.
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=428024 time=1637721972 user_id=61
Quote from: Herman post_id=428019 time=1637721512 user_id=1689
Quote from: Zetsu post_id=428016 time=1637721229 user_id=61
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=427935 time=1637613303 user_id=1560
What is that system?
Hong Kong has one of the lowest tax rates in the world where the average tax rate for the middle income class pays about 8%, while tax caps for businesses at 16%, yet it's by far one of the wealthiest governments in the world, while having one of the most efficient medical health care system in the world thanks to allow both private and public to coexist.
Migration from China is destroying the middle class in Hong Kong. Singpaore is the new Hong Kong.
A lot them tend to exploit welfare and take up all the government subsidize housing while middle class HKers have to forfeit their lives to pay off their mortgage. While their loyalty and gratitude is practically non-existent.
Singapore doesn't allow non residents to price locals out of the housing market like Hong Kong does.
Hell no. Simgapore is a highly regulated country and foreign ownership and investment is very rare. Especially in the property market.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=428110 time=1637796671 user_id=1560
Hell no. Simgapore is a highly regulated country and foreign ownership and investment is very rare. Especially in the property market.
A hell of a lot of foreign companies have their regional headquarters in Singapore. Especially in the industry I was employed in for over thirty years.
Good for employment. And the Singaporeans are extremely efficient and conscientious workers.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=428132 time=1637801196 user_id=1560
Good for employment. And the Singaporeans are extremely efficient and conscientious workers.
It is an easy place to be headquartered in.
Singapore is like a combination of Hong Kong and Sweden.
Because of the Chinese and snow storms?
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=428179 time=1637808407 user_id=1560
Because of the Chinese and snow storms?
A simplified low tax system like HK and the economic freedom and transparency of Sweden.
I suspect many people living in Sweden may be less than happy at the moment.
There PM was sworn in, and had to quit a few hours later because their political system continues to fracture along ideological lines.
As many predicted, the Utopian vision of Sweden is crumbling and its dirty laundry is beginning to show.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=428203 time=1637813480 user_id=1560
I suspect many people living in Sweden may be less than happy at the moment.
There PM was sworn in, and had to quit a few hours later because their political system continues to fracture along ideological lines.
As many predicted, the Utopian vision of Sweden is crumbling and its dirty laundry is beginning to show.
I wish our federal government would fracture.