The Strike

A

ArleneR

Member
I agree with what you're saying fundamentally, I've just got a bit bored of hearing jump on "bankers bonus this" "banker bonus that." bandwagon when they themselves understand even less than I do about economics.

Not saying that's what you're doing mate, just explaining myself a little bit

I don't want to derail the thread too much but, while I agree corporate tax would be higher, doesn't it make sense that the government would take funds from the public sector when they're trying to save money? They don't pay for private businesses so they don't need to do anything to them to decrease government spending.
 
O

osufan00047

New member
Absolutely, man. Anyway, I have broken one of my cardinal rules, getting involved in political discussion, and on the internet no less. So I'm going to bow out.

Cheers for the chat.
 
S

stlcardinalsfan721

New member
Private corporations should be allowed to remunerate staff in any way they see fit, but when those corporations are saved from bankruptcy with public money, then it is reasonable for the public to have a say in things, just as a normal shareholder would. Unfortunately, we didn't get those kind of terms with the banks that got bailed out.

That said, the unaffordability of public sector pensions has absolutely nothing to do with banks or bankers and everything to do with successive governments kicking the can down the road because it is a lose lose issue. It is only being dealt with now because the nation's finances are at tipping point. If nothing is done, the countries credit rating is going to start being downgraded and that could lead to a very serious financial crisis that will hurt people far worse than this pension overhaul will.

People are right to be upset that their pensions are being changed, but unless we start culling former public sector workers at the age of 75, how are we going to afford pensions that were set up when people were expected to die 10 years earlier? Asking people to work a few years longer is not an unreasonable burden in my view.
 
O

oPionioNsMatters

New member
I always find it odd that we have an attitude that says, "Hey, those guys are protesting about being stiffed? Well I'm getting stiffed so why should I have any sympathy?"

Surely this is just the worst form jealous reductionism?

Anyway, the future's bright, the future's green. Soylent green for the over 80s.

Mitch
 
P

ProdigalSon

Member
Ah but I have no problem admitting I'm a self centered twit. In mine and my friends situation its a case of us being effected by it that's put our backs up, but for the general public I don't even think its a case of "we're being screwed too, so screw you" its just a case of "ain't my problem." Ah politics. It always restores your faith in mankind don't it
 
M

mysterious

Member
But you did, just like here in the US when we pay trillions to bail out our banks we had a say in it. WE elected the officials who voted to give our all of our tax money to banks and get nothing in return. Therefore when the politicians that YOU or WE voted for do something, we have given our tacit approval for their actions. Vote the politicians out and you'll have your say. A general strike doesn't accomplish anything except disrupt business for a day or two. Or block the entrance of parliament with 20,000 people, that'll shut things down...
 
B

BeatleSoul

New member
We did vote out the government that bailed them out. The problem is when people get angry because they bailed them out instead of thinking long and hard about what would've happened if they didn't. In my opinion anyway.
 
L

Lesliett2008t

New member
Sorry SP, wasn't aimed at you, hence I didn't quote you.

Plus tha durnt kna thas born youth!

Plus plus if your educational advancement is being effected by the strike you and your friends need to thank your teachers. If it is being adversely affected then maybe not.

Mitch
 
A

adidasfutbol53

New member
I know but its lonely here so I wanted to reply


Don't hate on me for being young grandpa


Is that the rule for it then? Positive is "effect" negative is "affect?"
 
R

ravenna_wing1

Member
Yes well I keep thinking about what would've happened and it's hard to say what that out come would have been. Nothing from nothing is nothing, and something from nothing is always a negative. I believe the solvency of governments far outweigh the solvency of individuals, the design of private commerce is based on success and failure when government interferes then the balance is interrupted and the shuffling of money is detrimental to the economy.

When government tries to prop up the economy with the same money that's suppose to feed the economy then there is less money for government and commerce. The revolving door policy doesn't create opportunities for growth it reduces the amount of available money for investment.

AFA public sector workers, there is going to have to be a huge correction in the size of the public work force and the amount of benefits that are distributed to them. It's not pretty but unfortunately the money is just plain a simply running out. You could never raise enough money from taking money from the rich even if you confiscated their entire assets it would be like pissing in the ocean trying to raise it's level.

This sucks!
 
G

gemmi

New member
Arguably free trade policy is what allowed the crisis to happen in the first place. Governments not controlling their spending is also to blame but as far as the banking crisis goes I can't help but feel tighter controls and regulation might've changed things. Of course this is just the price we pay for having an economic system based on debt using imaginary numbers on a computer rather than actual stuff.


This is when I admit I know nothing about economics Jsut focusing on politics for the moment though what if you elected a government in and they just said they weren't going to do a thing about the economy and let it sort itself out? They'd get chewed out the moment people started losing their jobs or having less free cash.


Pretty much agree. Monies gotta come from somewhere but no one wants to pay up. Lot easier to shift the responsibility onto someone else.
 
L

LivK

New member
The fact that even the generaly well informed posters think that public sector pensions are unaffordable is really depressing. Goes to show just how good a job of mudslinging the govt. Has done on this issue. Fact check had a look at the numbers on this back in June and pointed out that the Tories are in fact saying almost the opposite of what the report they cite to justify their argument l(the Hutton report) says.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-are-public-sector-pensions-unaffordable/7138
 
P

porkbuns

Member
No. And just for the grandpa jibe I'm on strike, go look it up :P

Mitch

Oh OK, but this is not part of a lesson plan so doesn't make me a scab or anything, right? Effect, when used as a verb means "to bring about." "I have effected a change."

Affect used as a verb means "to influence." "His nerves affected his performance"

You can also use them both as nouns. Effect as a noun means a result or end product. Special effects, sound effects, etc.

Affect as a noun is an outward appearance, hence affectation.

Now, Power to the People!
 
N

Nickthegreek

New member
It's not so much that it's unaffordable. It would be affordable by cutting spending elsewhere, for example, but the issue is that it's a disproportionate amount of money paid to maintain schemes that would largely be considered to have already gone bankrupt if they were managed in the same way that private schemes have to be. 20% extra salary to employ a workforce paid largely the same or more as in the private sector just seems ludicrous during a time when the country itself is having to adopt austerity measures to even service the sovereign debt.
 
S

shopping

New member
Yes and no, the Hutton report does argue that the Pension age should be increased, because the longevity projections used in 2007 are already out of date and longevity projections have always underestimated the actual trend and so the chart that fact check used is already obsolete.
 
S

song

Member
My wife's a teacher so I'm somewhat biased. But here goes...
One thing that struck me as wrong is trying to raise the retirement age of teachers to 68.
Personally I don't think that's reasonable or best for the teachers or the pupils. Most people at 68 are at a stage where they just couldn't control a class-room of unruly kids. Hell most people at 58 wouldn't be able to separate a couple of fighting teenagers. I think there comes a time when a lot of people stop being as effective at teaching as they should be. And that age is before 68 IMHO.
Also...they would be holding up a teaching position for a NQT. Getting younger and fresher teachers in is very important I think.
There's absolutely no doubt the pupils respond better to my (36 year old) wife that they do to her 50+ colleagues because she's better at relating to them on their terms.
There's also new teaching methods, schemes and such that need taking on board. Another thing that younger teachers are often better able to do.
And...teachers teach YOUR children because you can't. Most people wouldn't last 10 minutes in a class-room. What they have to put up with on a day to day basis is often unbelievable. It's a thankless task and I don't think it's too much to give them a couple years earlier retirement compared to your avergae joe that works in an office.
They give something to society above and beyond a person in a "normal" job.
Also...teachers are leaving the profession. There's too much paper work, too much grief from scratty kids and scratty parents, too much of working as a jailer rather than a teacher, too many requirements to teach kids that can barely write in the same class as kids that are way beyond the material.
If people want to make getting into teaching even more unattractive than it already is then go ahead. Make it just the same as working in an office. Same pension, same retirement age etc.
Don't then be surprised when people decide to work in an office rather than a class-room and in 20+ years we have a teacher shortage.
Then we'll have to offer better pensions, earlier retirement, better pay etc and the whole cycle will start again.
 
V

VerityWatson

New member
So what do we do with the teachers who retire early (ealier than the rest of the population)? Teaching's a tough job, but it's not the only tough job out there and many are harder still - do those people also deserve to be able to retire early? If someone's in an easy job, should they then have to retire later in order to fund early retirement for others?



And...techies fix your network because you can't. Most people wouldn't last 10 minutes in a server room. Accountants do your company taxes because you can't. Most people wouldn't last 10 minutes during a tax audit. Interchangeable with any other specialised job - it's a thankless task and I don't think it's too much to give them a couple years earlier retirement compared to your average joe that works in an office.

Teachers, as I said, have a tough job - but not dramatically tougher than other people's.



Really now? How so? You can say the same about anyone who provides an essential service.



Yep, our education system is flawed. You won't get any argument from me about that.

However I know several people from private industry who have gone into teaching, and so far they've all been rather happy with the lack of paperwork they have to do (I don't know if you've ever worked under PRINCE2 project management, alongside several ISO processes for auditing, but trust me there's a lot of paperwork involved) and the amount of free time they have.



Sounds fair to me. Teacher's salaries are actually pretty good in comparison with private sector graduate jobs.



Well, I'd hope that in 20+ years we might actually have made some progress towards fixing the education system, which'd then reduce all the complaints about how 'tough' it is and make it even more attractive as a career.
 
Top