Seemed like fairly simple questions to me.

I'll put it even more simply.
Do you really believe that people on, say, minimum wage have enough spare cash at the end of the month during their working years to be able to create a large-enough pension-pot to see them through their retirement without dying of hypothermia or malnutrition?

Course they have. It's not as if there's a massive shortage of affordable housing and every essential commodity is increasing in price quicker than wages are able to keep up, is it?

But now they don’t/now they’re not needed, right?

Now, for instance, when an employer wants to slash the pay of people, they should bend over backwards to allow it to happen? After all, if they can’t pay the bills, then it’s their own fault, eh?

And before you comment, this is happening right now, in various places across the UK, and is not just about high-paid workers, but those on low wages too.



You mentioned a strike. You didn’t mention which one or what it was about. Were you referring to 30 November?



Because jobs are 10 a penny …



What ‘wrong’? In the case of 30- November, fighting for the retention of sustainable pension schemes, instead of agreeing to pay more money out of one’s own wages to pay off the bankers’ gambling debts?



You’re the lucky one. Many can’t. But who cares about them, eh?



Protect children – a worthless role, I admit.



Any job should be paid decently. Or are you really going to suggest that someone who goes out to work should not be paid decently?



On 30 November, nobody was striking over wages. It was all about pensions. – Not: ‘we want bigger pensions’, but simply ‘ we want the pensions we signed up to and pay into and don’t want top have to more to pay off the deficit’.

Other actions are taking place because councils and charities are slashing wages. But at least you wouldn’t have to worry about such things, so why worry about anyone else?



Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. For many people, they accepted working for lower pay in the public sector rather than the private because they wanted to do a job that benefited society, as you mention. One of the compensations was a decent – not ‘gold-plated’ – but decent pension.

This has been understood for a very, very long time. And just because someone does something that they feel a vocation for doesn’t mean you screw them into poverty in retirement.



There aren’t many step-down jobs, no. Just as there aren’t if you’re a nurse.



I bet you’d believe that people who go to court shouldn’t be allowed representation either – if you’ve decided already that they’re guilty.



As opposed to: “The majority of public sector workers are overpaid and are simply not value for money...”

How do you work out the value of social care, eh? In financial terms? Or of saving a child from abuse? Let’s get down to brass tacks – what is the financial value of teaching children? Y’know – not the human value, just the financial value.?

I’m afraid this utterly illustrates what’s wrong with this country – the cult of the individual, the cult of greed and the cult of nothing matters except money.



How long does it take to train to be a paid snitch?

There's plenty of evidence, yes.



I may have missed it, but I don't recall you responding to my last answer to you in that debate, about the huge rise in the cost of essentials over the last 30 years, from housing to prescriptions, to education to opthalmic and dental care to fuel and transport costs.

Of course, perhaps you can show that all wages have risen concomitantly ...

How much of your pension can you afford to lose?

I did should actually be i am, i'm still training.

Paid snitch or not, it's a job and i do it because people want to be paid yet not do their job, if these people wanted to actually knuckle down and do an honest days work my job would be redundant, it's not all i do either, it's a lot nore complex than that.



And you think there are people out there how are completely altruistic and don't have any self interest whatsoever? William Hesketh Lever for instance on the outside looks like a spledid person (he probably was a very moral man) but if you don't believe that the reason he looked after his employees was anything more than a happy workforce is a more productive work force then you're naive. In otherwords it was in HIS best interest so technically SELFISH dressed up with a frilly pink bow, in a dog eat dog world people will always look after number one, people will always look after number one, you think you're a moral guardian BUT everyone has a different point in which self preservation kicks in, would you be so moral and selfless as to take a bullet instead of a random child in a war situation or would you want to live (extreme yes, but i'm exploring limits so take it to the extreme edge), the cult of the individual has always been present.
Unions dress up solidarity but even that is self preservation, if i walk out on strike in support of a worker and protect his job then he'll do that for me, basically self preservation or cult of the individual dressed up in another frilly pink bow.

There are very few if any people out there who are 100% selfless, some people do good deeds just so THEY can feel good, it's a way of making YOURSELF feel better, it just so happens that a by product is someone else is happy, liberals seem to think they are beyond natural animal instincts like self preservation, selfishness and natural unbalance, we are not all equal and yes that's the way i prefer it.

Are you still here posting rubbish? Ah, but of course: no employer would ever mistreat decent staff, would they?

I'm surprised you didn't comment about "thew real world" or scream that you 'thought' someone was telling you not to eat bananas.



Not in my experience.



Not in my experience.



Who cares if people can barely afford to live. Or, in this wonderful consumer culture of ours, can't afford to contribute to the wider economy, eh?

Sainthood beckons.



Nice way of dodging the point. I think that the way in which we have moved to a 'greed is good' mentality is corrosive. I think that we can't whinge about 'communities' not looking after each other or taking responsibility when we have promoted the individual over everything else. And in the olden days, it wasn't a matter of never thinking of one's self – but of thinking a tad more about everyone else too. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There are very few if any people out there who are 100% selfless, some people do good deeds just so THEY can feel good, it's a way of making YOURSELF feel better, it just so happens that a by product is someone else is happy, liberals seem to think they are beyond natural animal instincts like self preservation, selfishness and natural unbalance, we are not all equal and yes that's the way i prefer it.[/quote]

When did the good people of Swindon start speaking geordie?

Really. So it's not deferred pay, then?