Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
wrencat1873 wrote:In reply to the op, there is no doubt that there is a huge imbalance in wealth, accross the globe and in an ideal world something should be done to make things a little more level. Unfortunately, this will never happen. Those that have the wealth, with one or two notable exceptions will never shar nor relinquish their "lofty status". Although money cant directly buy happiness, it can sure help and it also give huge influence.
Personally, I believe that the planets finite resources will be the great "leveller" at some point in the next century. With environmental "events" likely to occur with more regularity and being more "violent", there could be a shift in how people view wealth.
The consumer society is on a collison course with nature and this will be the biggest test and threat to future inhabitents of the world.
Even with current targets for CO2, many of the western nations have been happy to "pass on" their CO2 to China and India and then try to point the finger back in their direction.
We all need to consume a hell of a lot less and move accross to renewable energy but, this simply cant happen in a world where success is measured by the volume of goods consumed.
At the risk of going all "David Ike", we could all be heading for meltdown.
Very good and challenging post especially the second to last point - we all need to consumme less
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
We do. But we're also in the throws of late stage capitalism, which relies on us all consuming more and more crap to keep the dream alive, and also produces the grotesque inequality we see today.
Governments and a complicit media cheerlead the 'wealth creators'. "Don't upset the billionaires", they tell us, "otherwise they'll leave the country". We're being conned.
World leaders are obsessed with trade and growth at all costs, but infinite growth is completely at odds with the finite world we live in. Try telling that to the queues of people forming for the next shiny iPhone on release day, though.
"Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him."
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
Sal Paradise wrote:We see now on Northern Rail what happens - every Saturday is a strike day - when the unions get a bee in their bonnet.
You say a bee in their bonnet, I say a principled stand. I get the (Northern) train every day, I have not met a passenger who doesn't side with the unions on this. How is safety, security & disabled access going to work. Have you caught the last train home on a Saturday night? The striking guards have lost thousands in wages for something they believe in. It's a pity the rest of society is not so principled.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
wrencat1873 wrote:In reply to the op, there is no doubt that there is a huge imbalance in wealth, accross the globe and in an ideal world something should be done to make things a little more level. Unfortunately, this will never happen. Those that have the wealth, with one or two notable exceptions will never shar nor relinquish their "lofty status". Although money cant directly buy happiness, it can sure help and it also give huge influence.
Personally, I believe that the planets finite resources will be the great "leveller" at some point in the next century. With environmental "events" likely to occur with more regularity and being more "violent", there could be a shift in how people view wealth.
The consumer society is on a collison course with nature and this will be the biggest test and threat to future inhabitents of the world.
Even with current targets for CO2, many of the western nations have been happy to "pass on" their CO2 to China and India and then try to point the finger back in their direction.
We all need to consume a hell of a lot less and move accross to renewable energy but, this simply cant happen in a world where success is measured by the volume of goods consumed.
At the risk of going all "David Ike", we could all be heading for meltdown.
I'm not sure why you have to conclude your post by suggesting the pending environmental catastrophe is reserved for weirdos. It has been accurately predicted by respected groups and scientists for plenty of years. With regards to the main gist of your post, the reduction in resources, without strong world wide agreement, will not be a leveler; quite the opposite. The normal rules of economics are that price will go up as resources become scarce. The rich, greedy & corrupt will be circling like vultures. Do you trust the party of austerity, or Trump, to manage that situation equitably? More desperate reactions by those without resources will result. The flow of migrants will make the current situation look like a primary school dinner queue.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
tigertot wrote:You say a bee in their bonnet, I say a principled stand. I get the (Northern) train every day, I have not met a passenger who doesn't side with the unions on this. How is safety, security & disabled access going to work. Have you caught the last train home on a Saturday night? The striking guards have lost thousands in wages for something they believe in. It's a pity the rest of society is not so principled.
how many accidents have they been that to justify an extra guard, disabled passengers can be helped on to the train and off again at their station. On busy trains you never see the guard. There is simply no realistic justification for them given we now have automatic barrier at virtually every station. Loss of money more fool them I bet those who work directly for the union and are encouraging/agitating this dispute for their own selfish ends are no lossing any pay.
I catch the train to Manchester 3 times a week I would rather they spend the money shortening a 30 mile journey to respectible time frames
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 31939 Location: The Corridor of Uncertainty
Sal Paradise wrote:how many accidents have they been that to justify an extra guard, disabled passengers can be helped on to the train and off again at their station. On busy trains you never see the guard. There is simply no realistic justification for them given we now have automatic barrier at virtually every station. Loss of money more fool them I bet those who work directly for the union and are encouraging/agitating this dispute for their own selfish ends are no lossing any pay.
I catch the train to Manchester 3 times a week I would rather they spend the money shortening a 30 mile journey to respectible time frames
You're in the minority holding that view of those I've read on social media. Personally I feel much safer knowing there's a guard on board, especially on the last train out of Leeds or anywhere on the network on a Saturday.
"If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them," - Wayne Bennett.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Bullseye wrote:You're in the minority holding that view of those I've read on social media. Personally I feel much safer knowing there's a guard on board, especially on the last train out of Leeds or anywhere on the network on a Saturday.
Perhaps if the choice was reduced ticket costs and no guard or 15 minute time saving and no guard you might get a different answer.
Are you seriously saying a guard is going to prevent a serious case of violence caused by a fueled up thug - really?
Unions are in the business of halting progress e.g. Barbara Dean, Arthur Scargill, Len McCulskey they are are all the same. Fortunately Aitken handed McCluskey his backside.
How is that Unite still have a final salary scheme for its officials - funded by by its members who seldom have access to such a scheme - say everything you need to know about the higher up union bosses
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
tigertot wrote:I'm not sure why you have to conclude your post by suggesting the pending environmental catastrophe is reserved for weirdos. It has been accurately predicted by respected groups and scientists for plenty of years. With regards to the main gist of your post, the reduction in resources, without strong world wide agreement, will not be a leveler; quite the opposite. The normal rules of economics are that price will go up as resources become scarce. The rich, greedy & corrupt will be circling like vultures. Do you trust the party of austerity, or Trump, to manage that situation equitably? More desperate reactions by those without resources will result. The flow of migrants will make the current situation look like a primary school dinner queue.
I think that you are missing the point. IF we are heading for some kind of environmental disaster or, far more frequent droughts/floods, caused by climate change, the one sure fire way to help would be for EVERONE to consume less (and protect the planets resources). Unfortunately, in a consumer driven society (especially with the throw away culture that now seems to exist) there would have to be a monumental shift in just ow society is set up. For everyone to consume less, travel less frequently etc, there would have to be a cataclysmic change in how EVERYONE leads their lives.
We would all have to accept earning far less etc but, how could the wings be clipped at the top of the food chain. People who have revelled in ove consumption and who take pride in showing off their wealthy excesses.
I dont actually think it can be done and real change will only begin when it's too late.
The West will blame over population in the Far East and Asia and they, rightly will point out that while there is an issue with population numbers, they aren't to blame.
Sal Paradise wrote:Unions are in the business of halting progress
The irony of course, is that the 'progress' you speak of, is the exact same progress which has led to the grotesque wealth inequality you've challenged in the thread you started.
"Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him."
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 58 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
