[Closed] Tory Scum

Unfortunately that graph shows social motion, not social mobility

your use of it means you make the assumption that people will always try to better themselves rather than give up

I'm happy packing boxes". If you think these people dont exist, and don't exist in droves, you're living in lala land.

lala land may be better than wherever you are dwelling....cloud cuckoo land perhaps?
1 k more is not social mobility now is it.

But that's just your anecdotal evidence and your perception of other's experience - it's statistically meaningless in the overall picture. Repeating your opinions over and over again doesn't make them universal facts.

No, but I can't see any evidence showing it's wrong, only people mis-interpreting statistics. There's no reason to assume my experience and the experience of the people around me is wrong, I came from the background that is being discussed but apparently my experience is not right because it doesn't fit with your view of what my experience should be?

I rather suspected it wasn't similar at all

So you specifically work with people from deprived backgrounds who want to set up businesses or are at the early stages?

the fact that people can and DO move up from council estate to nice 4 bed houses in the 'shires through hard work and making opportunities.

Could every poor person end up in a 4 bedroom house and we could eradicate all poor people?

No, but I can't see any evidence showing it's wrong, only people mis-interpreting statistics.

People like the chief economist of the OECD you mean? But I'm sure you know better of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

I came from the background that is being discussed but apparently my experience is not right because it doesn't fit with your view of what my experience should be?

'Jesus, do I have to repeat myself again?' No, because one person's experience is statistically meaningless. Yes people from poor backgrounds can make something of themselves - but it happens much less often and is much harder than for people from better off backgrounds. This isn't a desirable thing and it would be better if society was fairer.

Which bit of this is so hard for you to grasp?

All sorts, if anyone wants help to set up, I'll help them, it could be someone who's well set up and wants to sound off ideas, same as I do from time to time. I don't generally ask about family background.

So it has nothing to do with people from deprived backgrounds then (as you originally suggested).

If the business idea is good, it doesn't matter to me. Do you have to be affluent to set up a business?

It certainly helps a lot. I know from my own experience. 😉

.

I can't see any evidence showing it's wrong, only people mis-interpreting statistics.

try Google 🙄

It certainly helps a lot. I know from my own experience.

Quite the little genius on the quiet, aren't you? (Again not really sure what is meant though).

Well it was apparent to me from your previous comments that your idea of helping the disadvantaged was somewhat different to the other posters. Was it not, and is it not obvious to you?

I have no idea what your point is here [We can move but not be mobile?]

Really? Are you that daft? Can you not see that you can have the ability to move but not take the opportunity?

wow 1 k more than the minimum wage ...I never knew such riches could wait me where do I sign up to the mobility motion

It was an example, again I'm starting to wonder about your ability to think and whether you're actually just over-excited and blabbering nonsense because you disagree in principle. Since the quantity I quoted didn't come with a description of the increased responsibility you'd struggle to make judgement as to whether that was a reasonable increase anyway. Your attitude is pretty much in line with the people who said no too - not willing to take small steps for small increases in responsibilty, felt the world owed them more or they'd do nothing. The guys that progressed took the little increase for a bit more responsibility, then took the next and whaddaya know, social motion!

lala land may be better than wherever you are dwelling....cloud cuckoo land perhaps?
1 k more is not social mobility now is it.

Dear god it seems I'm aruging with an idiot. Just to remind you, it was an example and yes small steps do equate to motion. Or do you just expect to be offered a management job for 10K more despite no extra effort? Within my work place the promotional scale increases by about £800 per step, it increases with time served and responsibility. The large step increases of 3-5K only only occur if you've done spectacularly well and done more than requested. Is that not fair? It was the same when I worked in the council on minimum wage cleaning toilets and picking up litter. I don't see the problem? Back then I did the extra work and got the extra pay, I do the same now. That's how I progress.

Well it was apparent to me from your previous comments that your idea of helping the disadvantaged was somewhat different to the other posters. Was it not, and isit not obvious to you?

People like the chief economist of the OECD you mean? But I'm sure you know better of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

Actually that's the interpretation of the guardian writer, not the words of the economist. And yes I would argue with the economist if they suggested what the guardian and yourself were claiming but I don't think they are. The graph includes people's choices and attitudes, it's being interpretted as showing the opportunities are poor. It's not, it's showing the uptake of opportunities is poor and yes the world would be better if it changed. But there's a difference, proved by the fact that people do move. While social motion may be poor, social mobility is good. If you wanted you COULD get a top flight job earning 100K if you put the effort in in the right places.

but it happens much less often and is much harder than for people from better off backgrounds. This isn't a desirable thing and it would be better if society was fairer.

I agree it's not a good thing but I don't think it's society's fault. Kids ARE told, by society and education, that they can do anything. You ask any teacher and they'll point out that they tell the kids they can do anything they like if they put the effort in, and in general teachers will help with that. Yes parents are often the hindrance but blaming that on society is daft, because even in the worst depths of poverty parents can be (hell, SHOULD BE) supportive and recognise their kids potential to be great. If they don't then that's their fault, not that of society. Society provides opportunities, people must find them and use them. Kids need help finding them, society provides that help in general, parents are the only broken link.

Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day etc... Keep giving a man a fish each day and he's unlikely to want to learn how to fish.

If you wanted you COULD get a top flight job earning 100K if you put the effort in in the right places.

😀 Drug dealing ?

Are you that daft? Can you not see that you can have the ability to move but not take the opportunity?

Dear god it seems I'm aruging with an idiot.

yes small steps do equate to motion.

That graph shows social motion, not social mobility

it's showing the uptake of opportunities is poor

Drug dealing ?

Well, there is that option I guess! 😆

I cant see how it answers my question but i can see how it patronised me.You said we can have social motion but not mobility I still need it explaining how we have motion without mobility...that is not an answer

Are you deliberately mis-quoting me? I said you can have mobility but not motion, there's a distinct difference. I'm not going to explain it again.

stop the puerile insults would you

There were no insults, it was a genuine question followed by an honest assessment.

ah No then
I mean if that does not prove the veracity of your argument then who knows what will?

My argument is perfectly good, you are just mis-reading it.

so we have the motion - are they mobile yet or simply in motion but not mobile?

And now you're showing your maturity.

I am none the wiser to your distinction between motion and mobility.

Your inability to interpret a basic sentence is not my problem.

surely it would have to have the uptake of opportunities as one of the scales to actually show that,you are interpreting what it means- the reason for why it shows it rather than what it shows.

You cannot see that a graph of income scaled by parental income shows ONLY that social [b]motion[/b] is not occuring and shows nothing to do with available opportunity? Really? The data is useless unless combined with significantly more information. In that graph, included in the "lack of mobility" as you claim, the folk who always were rich and always will be are also counted as socially immobile, just the same as those who started off life with a reasonable family and did well and got a reasonable wage themselves. It doesn't give an overall picture of the opportunities available, it just shows the folk don't move about much. To give you a hint, I'd fit into that and count as a negative towards our stats as I'm on less than my parents were despite being perfectly comfortable and have chosen to do a job that pays less well so I can enjoy a better quality of life even if it means not being "well off". So as you see, that data means nothing and quoting it ad nauseum won't improve [i]your[/i] argument.

EDITED.
Thanks mods.

Well, there is that option I guess!

And for a lot of people the only realistic chance of having a £100k job.

I wasn't sure if this :

[i]"If you wanted you COULD get a top flight job earning 100K if you put the effort in in the right places."[/i]

was a joke or not.

I'm still not sure.

What do you do in an effort to help people?

I gave up a very lucrative career in the private sector to work for a local large FE college. My role is all about health, safety, security and safeguarding of disadvantaged and vulnerable young adults.

So you couldn't hack it in the real world and became a teacher in a crappy school at the poor end of town. 😉
(May I draw your attention to the smiley, my tongue is firmly in my cheek and I'm not being at all serious...).

TOO UNNNERD!

Please could we have an epigrammatic somethingion from the main protagonists on this thread - something that's pithy which puts your POV across but is no longer than a sentence?

twoundred

EDIT Ahhh, balls - beaten to it.

Of course social mobility exists and anyone can become anything.

However anyone who thinks its as easy for a kid from a broken home of drug addict parents who are in their third generation of worklessness as it is for a child of rich parents who can send their kid to private schools is sadly deluded.

For the former it will allways be a really tough struggle just to get a decent education and a decent job, for the former it will be much much easier.

Please could we have an epigrammatic somethingion from the main protagonists on this thread - something that's pithy which puts your POV across but is no longer than a sentence.

Tories are scum.

😆

I'm definitely NOT a teacher!

Please could we have an epigrammatic somethingion from the main protagonists on this thread - something that's pithy which puts your POV across but is no longer than a sentence.

The conservative party and their supporters place profit and achievement above social justice and fairness amd perhaps unsuprisingly they are defensive when probed on this and revert to the thoroughly discredited position that anyone can do well regardless of their social status and background.

Are you deliberately mis-quoting me? I said you can have mobility but not motion, there's a distinct difference. I'm not going to explain it again.

Just to clarify I meant you can have mobility while not having motion is possible. mobility - ability, motion - movement.

Of course social mobility exists and anyone can become anything.

However anyone who thinks its as easy for a kid from a broken home of drug addict parents who are in their third generation of worklessness as it is for a child of rich parents who can send their kid to private schools is sadly deluded.

For the former it will allways be a really tough struggle just to get a decent education and a decent job, for the former it will be much much easier.

I agree.

Coffeeking: "Dear God ([i]sic[/i]), I'm arguing with an idiot."

Why?

The conservative party and their supporters place profit and achievement above social justice and fairness amd perhaps unsuprisingly they are defensive when probed on this and revert to the thoroughly discredited position that anyone can do well regardless of their social status and background.

Just to play devil's advocate here...

Or you could look at it that they place personal responsibility above state responsibility and wish to encourage people to take charge of their own life and make something of it rather than finance people's laziness. At no point, as far as I can interpret their policy, do they attempt to be unfair towards those genuinely in need but who try. They do tend to discourage people who don't want to make something of their life and encourage those who do. The only way to do that for a government is financially through incentives and the opposite, and through education. The general assumption here is that people should want to better themselves and go out and find or make their own opportunities. It does risk some folk being left out, and needs careful attention. The current lot may or may not be meeting that need but the left will always suggest they're not. It makes the assumption that if you're in the mire you're try to make your way out of it, this is not always true (maybe because you can't see a way out of it) and those who don't will always shout that it's not fair.

The contrary is the lefty view where we throw cash at folk in the hopes that they'll appreciate it and try to do more for themselves, and we expect those at the top to give away more having made their way there. The general assumption of the left is that people have been born into cash and could never have made it themselves as the world is a horrible bitter place that people need helping out of. The problem I see with this is that people don't want to do that job paying 100K if it's taxed to the point where they're taking home little more than those earning 40K and so on. If the taxation percentage increases there's a discentive to aspiring to better things and self improvement (unless of course you can go WAY over the top and then the numbers get a bit pointless). This is SHOWN by the folk who are willing to sit at home on benefits rather than work for fractionally more, or willing to work the menial basic rate jobs for life because a slight increase in effort will only net them 1K and that's 'not social motion', it's slave labour...

There's two possible descriptions to every ideology, each side will claim the other is evil. Sadly this is the stupid state we have in politics, where everyone is arguing to win votes instead of solving problems.

As a genuine thought, I wonder what would happen if society collapsed, the state didn't exist and all traces of wealth, property and land record vanished, who would come out on top? I suspect the top X% and the bottom X% of our current society would collapse and die off and the remaining 100-2X% would start from scratch and get on just fine finding and making their own opportunities. For a few generations after that social mobility graph would look freaking awesome too despite everyone being up a creek 😆

Yossarian lost his job as a banker and is now a securitee guard, then?

😉

The contrary is the lefty view where we throw cash at folk in the hopes that they'll appreciate it and try to do more for themselves, and we expect those at the top to give away more having made their way there. The general assumption of the left is that people have been born into cash and could never have made it themselves as the world is a horrible bitter place that people need helping out of.

Some massive straw men in there. However 'The general assumption of the left is that people have been born into cash and could never have made it themselves' is largely born out by the statistics (with some obvious exceptions - because amazingly, general trends don't apply in every single case) that you keep claiming have no relevance.

the world is a horrible bitter place that people need helping out of.

The Tory world of dog eat dog and everyone out for themselves is quite a horrible place. Luckily we don't all choose to see things that way.

As a genuine thought, I wonder what would happen if society collapsed, the state didn't exist and all traces of wealth, property and land record vanished,

Well the people at the top now would still be at the top because they have all earned it through hard work, right?

Oh, and what would you say the reason is for the fact that the gap between rich and poor is increasing at an ever-greater rate (much faster under this government strangely). Is it just that rich people are getting rapidly cleverer and cleverer and working harder and harder? Or that once you've got money it's much easier to make more of it?

is largely born out by the statistics (with some obvious exceptions - because amazingly, general trends don't apply in every single case) that you keep claiming have no relevance.

Not really sure I follow, unless you're quoting other stats I don't know of here. All the stats show is that people stay on similar wages as their family, it doesn't mean that they're handed the positions or cash, only that they end up in positions that pay the same. It's a large leap to assume they're given everything. The stats do show that movement up from the bottom is poor, which isn't good.

The Tory world of dog eat dog and everyone out for themselves is quite a horrible place. Luckily we don't all choose to see things that way.

I don't know, I quite like the idea of everyone out to make the most of themselves and do the best they can. I dislike the idea of purposefully trampling on those who are struggling and not at least helping them to make the most of themselves (prosperity for all is beneficial for all), but that negativity is not part of the conservative ideology that I can really see unless I think of the world as a bitter twisted place and interpret things negatively.

Well the people at the top now would still be at the top because they have all earned it through hard work, right?

No, as I said I reckon the top X would be knackered. Apparently you didn't read far enough to see that bit.

Oh, and what would you say the reason is for the fact that the gap between rich and poor is increasing at an ever-greater rate (much faster under this government strangely). Is it just that rich people are getting rapidly cleverer and cleverer and working harder and harder? Or that once you've got money it's much easier to make more of it?

I'd say it's easier to make money when you have it. But I also wouldn't discount the negative attitude of folk at the bottom losing the will to try (because I've experienced it). I just find it odd that people seem to assume these processes are mutually exclusive, as the far left and far right seem to, and it's why I generally fall somewhere in the middle. I also don't assume that taking money from the top and giving it to the bottom is helpful, there's far better ways of structuring it (hence the fish/fishing comment above).

Coffeeking how do you account for the poor social mobility in yank land?

Coffeeking: "Dear God (sic), I'm arguing with an idiot."

Why?

Why don't we just print enough money for everybody to have two billion pounds each and then everybody will be O.K., no?

Oh, hang on... er...

I don't normally approve of posts like this, but aren't we kind of going around in circles now? 😕

I dislike the idea of purposefully trampling on those who are struggling

Does it matter to you that those who are struggling are trampled on, simply out of indifference rather than purposefully?

I quite like the idea of everyone out to make the most of themselves and do the best they can.

So do I - I don't see that as incompatible with having a social conscience and wanting to help people though. It's certainly not exclusive to the Tory party as you seem to think.

I also don't think people should be demonised and punished when they don't always manage to make the most of themselves in difficult circumstances.

that's not part of the conservative ideology that I can really see unless I think of the world as a bitter twisted place and interpret things negatively.

You claim not to have a political allegiance but you seem to 'interpret things negatively' where any kind of vaguely 'left wing' agenda is involved. I don't see the world as a bitter and twisted place - but I see selfishness and lack of social conscience as negative things that this government is making worse.

But yeah darcy is right - just admit you are wrong and we can all get on with watching England get knocked out. 🙂

Tory scum....

OP ulterior motive cough Police 😉

Wonder where this thread would have gone if the headline was "teachers/council workers/nurses sacked days before pension date"

Actually, don't answer that - I can guess 😉

Wonder where this thread would have gone if Jimmy Carr was a Tory 😉

hora - Member

😉

Scamper - Member

😉

Zulu-Eleven - Member

😉

.

😉

😆

[quote=Zulu-Eleven said]Wonder where this thread would have gone if Jimmy Carr was a Tory

Apparently the poor lads salary is below the minimum wage.

Now wondering where this thread would have gone if Julian Assange was a Tory rather than darling of the lefties 😉