Dont talk such nonsense. Even you know that basing anything around a single data point just after a world war will give you absolutely nothing as a comparator.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
The facts are that wages as a total of wealth share have been declining all over the western world since the 70's! It just so happens that this aligns to when western governments gulped the neo-liberal trickle down Kool- Aid
Who cares about fractions of total wealth other than academics and rabid lefties?
Wages have been going up in that time. Life, for almost all of the world including those at the very bottom, has become unrecognisably better in that time.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Declining ratio of wages as total of nations wealth are an indicator that workers are worse off. Wages have gone up for workers, but not real wages. In the US workers have been going backwards since the 70's.
It's a sign of nothing of the sort. It could show that lower wage earners have multiplied their income by 10 and the top have multiplied theirs by 100, for example.
At worst they've stayed still, although that's despite the influx of women and foreign labour into the market - that's an impressive achievement alone.
Even if real wages are level, the quality of what you get is so much higher. Don't know if you remember food in the 70's but it was horrific. And cars - you were lucky if a car lasted 20k, now you'd be tinkled off if it didn't do 200. Look at an iPod vs an 8 track, or a modern tv compared to the brick you had then. Clothes were as bad as the food, if not worse. Life expectancy wasn't up to much either.
Inflation may have kept real wages level at a cursory glance, but that's because you get so much more for your money now. Nobody lives life as badly as in the 70's now, because a life that brick just doesn't exist in developed countries.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Some are saying he could get the gig as Vice President on the Clinton ticket.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
Honestly mate, your a smart guy, but you seriously need to brush up on your basic economics. Innovation is a basic, and fundamental, principle of capitalism and a competitive market so to cite that as an indicator of higher quality of living is extremely naive. The quality and volume of utility you can achieve per unit of spend is a good measure, but not "the food is better now than in the 70s" - that's the point of innovation, globalisation and capitalism, to improve products and services for people to purchase, thus attracting new custom and taking custom from competitors.
My understanding of economics is plenty good enough thanks, your use of real money is just too simplistic.
I was replying to a value judgement that people are "worse off" now than in the 70's - that's just simply not true. With a few exceptions, the whole world is better off now than then.
As an example. If inflation doubles the price of fuel, my pay stays the same but my car triples its mpg over the same period, am I better or worse off? You have to include the benefits of technology in the calculation because it's theoretically possible to pay someone a static amount (or even less), be in an inflationary environment and still have them be better off.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
Apologies - the opening tone of my post was a bit dantchev. One of those weeks.
No probs. I'm as bad as (worse than) anyone for that
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
so London has a mayor who hates jews. Does not nice well.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
If you believe the Tory spin. Goldsmith's campaign didn't have anything nice to say about Muslims...so what is the point being made?
Those identifying as Muslim are associating with a religion, it is therefore a choice and needs no protection from hatred.
Since the creation of Israel, Jewish means more than a religion. It's now more like a race or ethnicity. As this is not a choice, it needs protecting from hatred, just like sexual preference or skin colour.
It's OK to hate Muslims and Christians because they made a personal choice to be a halfwit. You can't hate Jews or gays because they were born that way.
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Hmm, maybe the EU should go back to calling it The Holy Roman Empire or perhaps 'The Holy Christian Kingdom of Europe' so that being Christian can be 'more than a religion' too.
Maybe Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Syria etc should band together to call themselves the Holy Muslim Kingdom of Islam to follow suite..
And they'd get away with it too if it wasn't for all that pesky democracy.
If it would stop everyone blowing each other up for 5 minutes then it might be a worthwhile aim.
Did they? Seeing as London tends to vote left most of the time (except in the nice bits) I'd say it's just a return to norm.
In order for the Conservatives to get a London mayor past the postal vote they'd have had to run a massive personality again.
It probably shows how little the parties care about the role now that the best they could find was Goldsmith.
Yes.