Discussion:
BoJo’s Commons performance last night
Add Reply
Rod Speed
2019-09-30 09:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The opposition have to crash his "Brexit do or die" boast into
the wall
before they force a general election. Perhaps not even then. I'm
not
convinced that Corbyn is capable of biting this particular
bullet.
So, he's prepared to leave the country without a functioning
government
rather than act in the national interest to solve it?
We haven't had a functional government for ages. NI, rather longer.
Why do we bother with having a Parliament at all then?
Parliament makes laws, represents citizens and scrutinises
government.
That's why we have it.
But it's non-functional. If we need the things you list, we need to
have a new one.
It is non-functional because of previous dodgy legislation created to
help keep the Tory-Liberal pact in power (it served that purpose OK).
Maybe so, but I think it's an improper use of it for purposes that were
never foreseen when it was passed. It was never thought that an
opposition would turn down the chance of being elected.
Tough! They should have thought about that but at the time
Maybe, but the fact is *no-one* thought of that possibility at the time.
It was beyond comprehension that an opposition would turn down a
legitimate opportunity to get themselves elected.
That’s bullshit when its obvious from the polls that Labour would
lose lots of its current seats in a general election held now and
could well even see Corbyn flushed where he belongs as a result.
At least the Tories were aware that it was a flawed piece of legislation
by the time of the 2017 general election, when they included its repeal in
their manifesto.
Have fun explaining why they didn’t actually repeal it.
but they were too concerned with saving their own skins. Libdems suffered
for it too.
The Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto pledged to repeal it. I suspect
that will be a priority when it gets re-relected and has an adequate
majority to get it through.
I don't think we will see a government with an adequate majority for a
*very* long time.
Pity they got it so wrong in the last 3 general elections.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/30/voting-intention-con-33-lab-22-lib-dem-21-brex-12-
If it's going to be decided mainly on Brexit issues,
That’s only going to happen if the UK hasn’t left the EU
on the 31-Oct or by the time an extension expires if Boris
is forced to ask for one and the EU does agree to that.
as looks likely, the Remain vote is terminally, and rather equally split,
Don’t buy that either given that few Labour voters would
be seen dead voting for the LimpDims. They are in fact
MUCH more likely to not actually vote at all.

None of the other partys matter, not even the SNP because
they have such a hold on the seats in scotland now and
have no chance of any seats outside scotland.
which only benefits the Tories.
That’s bullshit too.
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an election, the Tories
will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's current share, meaning
they'll be on course for just the sort of majority you think can't happen.
Yes, but it remains to be seen if Boris can actually achieve
a brexit in any form before the general election.
.
Boris the Loser may be popular with the senile delinquents that frequent
Conservative Clubs but he is out of his depth and showing it with every
successive disaster that he causes.
He clearly managed to keep the voters happy when mayor, TWICE.

Bet that’s why the Torys chose to have him as PM.
So you say.
But I think the opposition have a national responsibility, not just
their own self-interest. They are perpetuating what is an obviously
very unsatisfactory situation, by pathetically running scared of the
only thing that could possibly get them into the power they crave, ie a
general election.
They are acting in the national interest by preventing the lunatic fringe
of the Tory party from crashing us out of the EU without a deal. That at
least is their intention.
That's certainly the peg they choose to hang their 'Oh God, we're going to
lose any election' hat on at the moment.
And we'll see if it works...
abelard
2019-09-30 10:03:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:18:00 +0100, Martin Brown
It is non-functional because of previous dodgy legislation created to
help keep the Tory-Liberal pact in power (it served that purpose OK).
It wasn't so much that it was dodgy, but that it had constitutional
implications that no one thought through (as we are now seeing). It
should have contained a sunset clause.
Lack of a sunset clause *MADE* it dodgy. They should have thought it
through but lots of *OUR* UK government's legislation is badly done.
The "Dangerous dogs act" springs
with bare fangs
to mind as a concrete example.
Interestingly they always blame the EU for any UK government mistakes.
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2019-09-30 10:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Parliament is completely deadlocked as it is.
Bullshit it is. It is only deadlocked on the brexit issue.
Supply is still fine and other legislation still goes thru.
No it doesn't. Even with the supply and confidence agreement with the
DUP, Boris does not have a majority he can count on.
If a no confidence motion were to be tabled now, he would certainly lose
it.
If he were to engineer a new session of Parliament and a Queen's speech,
as he tried recently, he'd lose the vote on that too. And he'd lose a
vote on any budgetary measures, ie spending plans, as well.
He is hamstrung. He can do nothing of any significance. Parliament is
deadlocked and is being held to ransom by an opposition more interested
in playing childish games than legitimately getting themselves into
power.
And it clearly wasn’t deadlocked when they tried to
force Boris to ask for an extension and it remains to
be seen if that will work to get an extension too.
He says not, and with such certainty that I assume he has some cunning
plan up his sleeve to avoid it.
It won't be any more deadlocked whatever the result of any election.
That’s bullshit too if no coalition is possible.
Eh?
It could even end up as hopeless as Belgium
or Stormont.
That's always a risk with any election. Nothing new there.
But it may not be at all.
Corse it will unless it happens after some form of
brexit given that half the country wants to remain.
But the Remain vote is hopelessly divided between Labour, the LibDems,
the Greens, the SNP and various other odds and sods.
That doesn't help them; it only helps Boris.
Recent French obituaries point out Jacques Chirac worked with no majority
for many years.

As part of Boris's dictatorial purge to remove dissenting voices from the
party, he created his own situation. Boris knew what he was doing. Since
then he has been asked to reverse the purge but refused. So let him get
on with it.

It's not anyone else's job to clean up Boris's mess.
abelard
2019-09-30 10:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
But the Remain vote is hopelessly divided between Labour, the LibDems,
the Greens, the SNP and various other odds and sods.
That doesn't help them; it only helps Boris.
Recent French obituaries point out Jacques Chirac worked with no majority
for many years.
As part of Boris's dictatorial purge to remove dissenting voices from the
party, he created his own situation. Boris knew what he was doing. Since
then he has been asked to reverse the purge but refused. So let him get
on with it.
It's not anyone else's job to clean up Boris's mess.
your helpful advice on how boris should run the tory
party is much valued

in view of your advice we have decided to allow 170
anti-democratic socialists to take their places as tory
candidates in all the most likely tory win seats
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2019-09-30 10:20:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The opposition have to crash his "Brexit do or die" boast into
the wall before they force a general election. Perhaps not even
then. I'm not convinced that Corbyn is capable of biting this
particular bullet.
So, he's prepared to leave the country without a functioning
government rather than act in the national interest to solve it?
We haven't had a functional government for ages. NI, rather
longer.
Why do we bother with having a Parliament at all then?
Parliament makes laws, represents citizens and scrutinises
government. That's why we have it.
But it's non-functional.  If we need the things you list, we need to
have a new one.
It is non-functional because of previous dodgy legislation created to
help keep the Tory-Liberal pact in power (it served that purpose OK).
Maybe so, but I think it's an improper use of it for purposes that were
never foreseen when it was passed.  It was never thought that an
opposition would turn down the chance of being elected.
Tough! They should have thought about that but at the time but they were
too concerned with saving their own skins. Libdems suffered for it too.
The Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto pledged to repeal it.  I
suspect that will be a priority when it gets re-relected and has an
adequate majority to get it through.
I don't think we will see a government with an adequate majority for a
*very* long time. Boris the Loser may be popular with the senile
delinquents that frequent Conservative Clubs but he is out of his depth
and showing it with every successive disaster that he causes.
But I think the opposition have a national responsibility, not just
their own self-interest.  They are perpetuating what is an obviously
very unsatisfactory situation, by pathetically running scared of the
only thing that could possibly get them into the power they crave, ie a
general election.
They are acting in the national interest by preventing the lunatic
fringe of the Tory party from crashing us out of the EU without a deal.
That at least is their intention. I don't trust Boris *OR* Corbyn.
All true. Isn't it strange how supporters of rule-breaking Boris now
invent some imaginary obligation about not allowing a minority government.
Boris should have thought about that.

Essentially Boris is trying to do what Trump did to Congresional
representatives from his own party by quashing every last vestige of
opposition. Sadly for Boris, our lawmakers are made of sterner stuff.
Peeler
2019-09-30 10:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 19:57:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
And we'll see if it works...
All we'll see is YOU lonely senile pest trolling here like there was no
tomorrow! And now fuck off to your Australian ng!
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Terry Casey
2019-09-30 13:00:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.

If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
--
Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The Natural Philosopher
2019-09-30 13:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Bless!

He swallowed it all. Hook line and sinker
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell
n***@moo.uklinux.net
2019-09-30 21:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Bless!
Well, isn't it nice that his Holiness has put yet in another appearance!

#Paul
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-09-30 13:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?

At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
--
*I don't suffer from insanity -- I'm a carrier

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Keema's Nan
2019-09-30 14:23:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?
We had a referendum? Who won and who lost?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
Define decent living standards....

Does it include a >45 inch TV screen?

Mobile phone yearly upgrade, perhaps?

Car?

Dishwasher?

Tumble Dryer?

If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
Incubus
2019-09-30 14:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?
We had a referendum? Who won and who lost?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
Define decent living standards....
Does it include a >45 inch TV screen?
Mobile phone yearly upgrade, perhaps?
Car?
Dishwasher?
Tumble Dryer?
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job stolen
because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen because of
freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area stolen because of
freedom of movement etc.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-09-30 23:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job
stolen because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen
because of freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area
stolen because of freedom of movement etc.
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what you
will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't afford to
live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
--
*IF A TURTLE DOESN'T HAVE A SHELL, IS HE HOMELESS OR NAKED?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
2019-10-01 02:53:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:34:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job
stolen because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen
because of freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area
stolen because of freedom of movement etc.
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what you
will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't afford to
live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
You forgot the speculators, blowing their roubles on UK property
because no UK national can buy, despite the trashed pound.

Even if UK born individuals never make the rental charges, tory
policy will provide open borders to those with cash.

AB
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-10-01 06:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Even if UK born individuals never make the rental charges, tory policy
will provide open borders to those with cash.
Free movement of capital is one of the basic tenets of the EU Treaty. It
would be illegal to try to prevent a national of another EU member state
buying a property in the UK.

Sorry you don't agree with the very position you have been advocating.
Perhaps you're not so very much cleverer than us after all.
--
Evremonde
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
2019-10-01 20:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 07:37:22 +0100, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Even if UK born individuals never make the rental charges, tory policy
will provide open borders to those with cash.
Free movement of capital is one of the basic tenets of the EU Treaty. It
would be illegal to try to prevent a national of another EU member state
buying a property in the UK.
Sorry you don't agree with the very position you have been advocating.
Perhaps you're not so very much cleverer than us after all.
Hint, Roubles are not euro.


AB
Incubus
2019-10-01 10:12:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job
stolen because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen
because of freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area
stolen because of freedom of movement etc.
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what you
will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't afford to
live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-01 12:46:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Incubus
2019-10-01 13:08:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-01 16:17:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
You think immigrant workers put more load on the NHS than the retired?
More Brexiteer false news.
--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Incubus
2019-10-01 16:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
You think immigrant workers put more load on the NHS than the retired?
More Brexiteer false news.
More Remainer false news, assuming that all immigrants are workers.
Steve Walker
2019-10-01 21:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
You think immigrant workers put more load on the NHS than the retired?
More Brexiteer false news.
More Remainer false news, assuming that all immigrants are workers.
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.

SteveW
Fredxx
2019-10-02 00:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
You think immigrant workers put more load on the NHS than the retired?
More Brexiteer false news.
More Remainer false news, assuming that all immigrants are workers.
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-02 10:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in full
time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the employer.
What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those in training,
etc.
--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-10-02 11:37:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in full
time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the employer.
What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those in training,
etc.
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of them
on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy of
significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
--
Evremonde
Joe
2019-10-02 13:08:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:37:47 +0100
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there
are far to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage
and claiming tax credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in
full time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the
employer. What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those
in training, etc.
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of
them on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy
of significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
I think there was a certain element of the subsidising of exports in a
way that the EU wouldn't notice.

But there's been a lot of 'higher minimum wage' stuff in the US
recently. Long enough ago that some of the results of a government
deciding how productive people are can be seen.
--
Joe
AlexK
2019-10-02 15:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:37:47 +0100
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there
are far to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage
and claiming tax credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in
full time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the
employer. What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those
in training, etc.
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of
them on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy
of significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
I think there was a certain element of the subsidising of exports in a
way that the EU wouldn't notice.
Hardly any of those who benefit from the tax credit system
work in areas of the economy involved in exports.
Post by Joe
But there's been a lot of 'higher minimum
wage' stuff in the US recently.
Because their minimum wage is by far
the lowest in the first and second world.
Post by Joe
Long enough ago that some of the results of a government
deciding how productive people are can be seen.
Peeler
2019-10-02 16:02:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 01:37:07 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

REALLY???? 01:37 am in Australia? AGAIN? And you are up and trolling,
already, you clinically insane trolling senile asshole? LOL
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Grik-barstardo®™
2019-10-02 16:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 18:02:03 +0200, Foreskin Peeler
<***@valid.invalid> wrote:

<fluhs Grik skata>

Hypocritical much, anus?
Peeler
2019-10-02 19:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 09:37:02 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-barstardo®™", farted
Post by Grik-barstardo®™
<fluhs Grik skata>
Hypocritical much, anus?
Clinically insane much, pedophilic dreckserb Razovic?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
alan_m
2019-10-09 07:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
But there's been a lot of 'higher minimum wage' stuff in the US
recently. Long enough ago that some of the results of a government
deciding how productive people are can be seen.
You have to be careful when comparing the minimum wage policies US and
UK. I believe that workers in the US that normally rely on "tips" for
part of their income are excluded from the minimum wage legislation.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-02 13:45:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of them
on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy of
significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax doesn't help those
already below it, ie the poorly paid.

The UK personal allowance is £12500 or about £6 an hour for a 40 hour
week. The minimum wage is £8.21. You could make the personal allowance
£100000 without making any difference at all to the poorest paid.


But then I'd guess you already knew this.
--
*Real women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-02 16:56:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of them
on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy of
significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
The UK personal allowance is £12500 or about £6 an
hour for a 40 hour week. The minimum wage is £8.21.
It was much worse than that under Brown.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
You could make the personal allowance £100000 without
making any difference at all to the poorest paid.
But it would make a big difference to the number who pay any income tax.
Peeler
2019-10-02 19:14:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:56:49 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH senile asshole's latest trollshit>

02:56 in Australia??? And you've been up and trolling for OVER AN HOUR,
AGAIN? Did you ask your psychiatrists to upgrade your medication as I told
you to do, you totally fucked up senile troll?
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Grik-barstardo®™
2019-10-02 19:21:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 21:14:45 +0200, Peeler <***@valid.invalid>
wrote:

<fluhs Grik skata>

Hypocritical much, anus?
Peeler
2019-10-02 20:14:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 12:21:12 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-barstardo®™", farted
Post by Grik-barstardo®™
<fluhs Grik skata>
Hypocritical much, anus?
Suffering much here, clinically insane frustrated pedophilic dreckserb
Razovic? Of COURSE you are!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-03 10:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent wage so they
contribute towards running the country?
--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Pamela
2019-10-03 14:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent wage so they
contribute towards running the country?
Isn't AlexK a Rod Speed sock?
dennis@home
2019-10-03 21:07:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent wage so they
contribute towards running the country?
Isn't AlexK a Rod Speed sock?
yes
AlexK
2019-10-03 16:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent
wage so they contribute towards running the country?
Yes, but its far from clear that the economy as a whole
would work better that way with those much higher
costs. Most of the lower cost manufacturing is already
long gone because wages are much lower in China
and Bangladesh etc and that is also true of agriculture.

And paying everyone a decent wage so they can
pay income tax would see a lot more low level
work automated instead, particularly with agriculture
and the sort of building work that has to be done
in the country and other stuff like in your old
industry and with stuff like driving trains etc.
Peeler
2019-10-03 18:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 02:38:19 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH senile asshole's trollshit>

02:38???? And you've been up and trolling for over an hour, AGAIN! LMAO

Don't you want to post for us that long list of your medication, you
clinically insane senile troll?
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-04 10:21:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent
wage so they contribute towards running the country?
Yes, but its far from clear that the economy as a whole
would work better that way with those much higher
costs. Most of the lower cost manufacturing is already
long gone because wages are much lower in China
and Bangladesh etc and that is also true of agriculture.
And not much we can do about that.

My point is why do we subsidise an employer indirectly, by making up wages
via benefits? Seems a very inefficient way of doing things. And leads to
the gig economy with lots of very low paid service jobs that contribute
very little to the economy. I'm not talking about essential services like
health and care, but the vast increase in delivery services where once
we'd have collected such things ourselves. And the high street being full
of coffee shops.
Post by AlexK
And paying everyone a decent wage so they can
pay income tax would see a lot more low level
work automated instead, particularly with agriculture
and the sort of building work that has to be done
in the country and other stuff like in your old
industry and with stuff like driving trains etc.
Isn't that a rather Luddite view?
--
*By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-04 17:12:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer indirectly, by making up wages
via benefits?
That, with respect, is a nonsensical question which is based on a
misunderstanding of fact.

We DON'T do that.

The real situation is that some workers are not capable of commanding
enough in wages to maintain and house their families, though that is not
necessarily their fault and certainly neither is it the fault of their
employers. There are jobs which do not pay much because that is the
market clearing rate for that work and the price levels for the
industries' outputs are market-critical and highly market-sensitive.

Unskilled work in retail, catering, hospitality, etc, are good examples.
Just how much can anyone be paid for hoovering a hotel room and making
the bed before margins become unprofitable and/or guests conclude that
the venue is too expensive, for instance? Such jobs work as a system
because those taking them are predominantly single people whose needs
are simple. But if a worker with a family and housing costs to meet
takes such a job, the wages won't be enough. That's NOT the employer's
fault.

Your idea (to be fair, you're not the only one to have it) seems to be
underpinned by a belief that every job - no matter how unskilled and
undemanding - should be well-paid, where that phrase means "paid enough
to maintain a large family and pay a mortgage".

This sort of situation (high "needs", low skills, low labour market
value) was partially addressed by the introduction of Family Allowance
in the late 1940s by the Atlee government and then by the introduction
of Family Income Supplement (FIS) and Housing Benefit under the Heath
government in the early 1970s. Family Allowance has become Child Benefit
and FIS has progressed through Family Credit and one or two other titles
to today's Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. The payment of
either of those - or Housing Benefit - does not point to a failure in
the labour market. It points to a failure in education and training. In
the 21st century, anyone wanting six children and a house big enough
for them needs skills which are highly valuable to an employer. If they
can't offer that, that's a problem which government has decided to address.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 10:29:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer indirectly, by making up
wages via benefits?
That, with respect, is a nonsensical question which is based on a
misunderstanding of fact.
We DON'T do that.
The real situation is that some workers are not capable of commanding
enough in wages to maintain and house their families, though that is not
necessarily their fault and certainly neither is it the fault of their
employers. There are jobs which do not pay much because that is the
market clearing rate for that work and the price levels for the
industries' outputs are market-critical and highly market-sensitive.
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.

Or if you prefer we subsidise the so called free market.
--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-05 16:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer indirectly, by making up
wages via benefits?
That, with respect, is a nonsensical question which is based on a
misunderstanding of fact.
We DON'T do that.
The real situation is that some workers are not capable of commanding
enough in wages to maintain and house their families, though that is not
necessarily their fault and certainly neither is it the fault of their
employers. There are jobs which do not pay much because that is the
market clearing rate for that work and the price levels for the
industries' outputs are market-critical and highly market-sensitive.
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.

You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
including bringing unusually large numbers of children into the world
and the purchase or renting of unfeasibly expensive housing. Only if you
start from that untenable position can you say that the employer *has*
to pay such wages even where the employee's marginal value to the
employer isn't enough to warrant it. And only after that could you even
begin to think that the employer, paying the normal rate for the job, is
somehow being subsidised.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Or if you prefer we subsidise the so called free market.
You don't appear to have grasped the nature of free markets. Nothing to
be ashamed of in that - it's a common failing, often caused by working
backwards from an unrealistic aspiration rather than forwards from reality.
Joe
2019-10-05 17:10:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 17:02:34 +0100
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Or if you prefer we subsidise the so called free market.
You don't appear to have grasped the nature of free markets. Nothing
to be ashamed of in that - it's a common failing, often caused by
working backwards from an unrealistic aspiration rather than forwards
from reality.
Most people have only ever been employees, and can't imagine even being
self-employed, let alone employing others. It's not like paying a
window-cleaner a tenner every week or so.
--
Joe
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-06 09:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't. Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up with the
government.
--
*No radio - Already stolen.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Steve Walker
2019-10-06 19:00:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
But if there were no in-work benefits, the employee could not afford to
live on the wage alone, so the employer would have to decide if the job
was necessary (probably, or it wouldn't exist in the first place) and if
so, increase the wage to one that people could live on. You could argue
that in-work benefits are skewing the market making the going rate lower
than it otherwise would be.

There may be reasons for thus subsidising employers, but it would likely
be better targetted only at jobs where the actual value is too low on a
case-by-case basis and not at ones where the market rate is depressed.

SteveW
JNugent
2019-10-06 20:08:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
But if there were no in-work benefits, the employee could not afford to
live on the wage alone, so the employer would have to decide if the job
was necessary (probably, or it wouldn't exist in the first place) and if
so, increase the wage to one that people could live on.
Hmmm... wage levels are set by the market - IOW, by whether there are
applicants for the job at whatever rate of pay is offered. The going
rate is the lowest rate at which the employer can find reliable suitable
applicants.
Post by Steve Walker
You could argue
that in-work benefits are skewing the market making the going rate lower
than it otherwise would be.
There is some truth in that. But there is still no way that a local fast
food delivery job is going to ever pay the average where that average
takes in fully employed and skilled wages.
Post by Steve Walker
There may be reasons for thus subsidising employers, but it would likely
be better targetted only at jobs where the actual value is too low on a
case-by-case basis and not at ones where the market rate is depressed.
That would be difficult to administer. And being part of the social
security system (even if run by HMRC), there would have to be a right of
appeal against which category a particular job was in.
AlexK
2019-10-06 22:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
But if there were no in-work benefits, the employee could not afford to
live on the wage alone, so the employer would have to decide if the job
was necessary (probably, or it wouldn't exist in the first place) and if
so, increase the wage to one that people could live on.
Hmmm... wage levels are set by the market - IOW, by whether there are
applicants for the job at whatever rate of pay is offered. The going rate
is the lowest rate at which the employer can find reliable suitable
applicants.
Its much more complicated than that with
minimum wage rates that everyone has now.

And with the self employed too.
Post by JNugent
Post by Steve Walker
You could argue that in-work benefits are skewing the market making the
going rate lower than it otherwise would be.
There is some truth in that. But there is still no way that a local fast
food delivery job is going to ever pay the average where that average
takes in fully employed and skilled wages.
Post by Steve Walker
There may be reasons for thus subsidising employers, but it would likely
be better targetted only at jobs where the actual value is too low on a
case-by-case basis and not at ones where the market rate is depressed.
That would be difficult to administer. And being part of the social
security system (even if run by HMRC), there would have to be a right of
appeal against which category a particular job was in.
Peeler
2019-10-06 23:00:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:58:54 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
Its much more complicated than that
Oh, shut it finally and jump back into your roo's pouch you escaped from,
you trolling senile asshole from Oz!
--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total bollocks most of it."
MID: <pj2b07$1rvs$***@gioia.aioe.org>
AlexK
2019-10-06 22:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
But if there were no in-work benefits, the employee could not afford to
live on the wage alone, so the employer would have to decide if the job
was necessary (probably, or it wouldn't exist in the first place) and if
so, increase the wage to one that people could live on. You could argue
that in-work benefits are skewing the market making the going rate lower
than it otherwise would be.
There will be disadvantages/downsides with any approach.
Post by Steve Walker
There may be reasons for thus subsidising employers,
It isnt subsidising employers, it is a much better approach
of getting those who can't find a full time job that will pay
what they need to provide an adequate income to work
instead of veging out on benefits in front of daytime TV
or down the pub at a much higher cost to the taxpayers.
That approach sees them much more employable and
contributing usefully to society as well.
Post by Steve Walker
but it would likely be better targetted only at jobs where the actual
value is too low on a case-by-case basis
At an immense and impractical bureaucratic cost.
Post by Steve Walker
and not at ones where the market rate is depressed.
Impossible to work that out in practice.
Peeler
2019-10-06 22:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:26:42 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
There will be disadvantages/downsides with any approach.
<FLUSH trollshit>

Is there no way to make this endlessly blathering senile Asstralian asshole
shut up?
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Pamela
2019-10-09 13:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay
as is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might
make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
But if there were no in-work benefits, the employee could not afford to
live on the wage alone, so the employer would have to decide if the job
was necessary (probably, or it wouldn't exist in the first place) and if
so, increase the wage to one that people could live on. You could argue
that in-work benefits are skewing the market making the going rate lower
than it otherwise would be.
There may be reasons for thus subsidising employers, but it would likely
be better targetted only at jobs where the actual value is too low on a
case-by-case basis and not at ones where the market rate is depressed.
SteveW
In some cases it may well be cheaper all round to subsidise a worker in
the way you describe -- but of itself that doesn't justify paying higher
wages simply on the grounds that the worker can not afford the material
things he or she expects to have.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 10:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up with the
government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that anyone
should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on "low" incomes
(certainly too low to support a large family and the associated housing
costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
--
*Re-elect nobody

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-07 10:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up with the
government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that anyone
should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on "low" incomes
(certainly too low to support a large family and the associated housing
costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.

The only point you have tried to make is a justification for workers to
receive more than the value of the work they do.
Ian Jackson
2019-10-07 11:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up with the
government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that anyone
should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on "low" incomes
(certainly too low to support a large family and the associated housing
costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
The only point you have tried to make is a justification for workers to
receive more than the value of the work they do.
Why pay them more? Let's go back to the Brexiteers' Good Old Days:
"See Saw Margery Daw,
Jacky shall have a new master;
He shall earn but a penny a day,
Because he can't work any faster."
--
Ian
JNugent
2019-10-07 14:35:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start
from the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much
pay as is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they
might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
 To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up
with the government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that anyone
should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on "low"
incomes (certainly too low to support a large family and the associated
housing costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
The only point you have tried to make is a justification for workers
to receive more than the value of the work they do.
"See Saw Margery Daw,
Jacky shall have a new master;
He shall earn but a penny a day,
Because he can't work any faster."
I am not the one arguing against the payment of in-work benefits.

That was the PP. And that only because he doesn't understand - and
doesn't want to understand, even though several posters have explained
them to him - the principles involved.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 16:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up with the
government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that anyone
should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on "low" incomes
(certainly too low to support a large family and the associated housing
costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English.
My point is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an employer. Who
rather obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
Post by JNugent
The only point you have tried to make is a justification for workers to
receive more than the value of the work they do.
But you think it just fine to give them a hand out of some sort?
--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-07 23:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up with the
government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that anyone
should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on "low" incomes
(certainly too low to support a large family and the associated housing
costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English.
My point is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an employer. Who
rather obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.

It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate, to
acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by the
neediness of the seller.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
The only point you have tried to make is a justification for workers to
receive more than the value of the work they do.
But you think it just fine to give them a hand out of some sort?
It would be better not to have to do so.

But if the only options for them are to:

(a) take low-value work and receive an in-work benefit because their
family needs are more than their work-value will support, or

(b) sit at home watching daytime TV...

...then it is (a) every time.
Steve Walker
2019-10-08 20:24:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up with the
government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that anyone
should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on "low" incomes
(certainly too low to support a large family and the associated housing
costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English.
My point is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an employer. Who
rather obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate, to
acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by the
neediness of the seller.
They can be. If you are short of money and need to sell something, you
may well have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you can
wait for a better offer to come along.

SteveW
JNugent
2019-10-09 00:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not.
You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if you start from
the premise that everyone, in every job, is entitled to as much pay as
is necessary to fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what you
have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is somehow
entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a
low wage by benefits allows that too. In which case take that up with the
government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that anyone
should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on "low" incomes
(certainly too low to support a large family and the associated housing
costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English.
My point is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an
employer. Who
rather obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate, to
acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by the
neediness of the seller.
They can be. If you are short of money and need to sell something, you
may well have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you can
wait for a better offer to come along.
"Neediness" here was a description of the seller's general
circumstances, not of an emergency situation, better known as a distress
sale.
Pamela
2019-10-09 12:43:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Steve Walker
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not. You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion
if you start from the premise that everyone, in every job, is
entitled to as much pay as is necessary to fund each and every
lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what
you have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is
somehow entitled to an income which is higher than the value of
his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a low wage by benefits allows that
too. In which case take that up with the government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that
anyone should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on
"low" incomes (certainly too low to support a large family and the
associated housing costs), I don't suffer from that sort of
liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make
it again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English. My point
is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an employer. Who
rather obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate, to
acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by the
neediness of the seller.
They can be. If you are short of money and need to sell something, you
may well have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you can
wait for a better offer to come along.
"Neediness" here was a description of the seller's general
circumstances, not of an emergency situation, better known as a distress
sale.
That's not how I read it when you wrote it.
JNugent
2019-10-09 13:22:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Steve Walker
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through
benefits.
We do not. You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion
if you start from the premise that everyone, in every job, is
entitled to as much pay as is necessary to fund each and every
lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what
you have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is
somehow entitled to an income which is higher than the value of
his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a low wage by benefits allows that
too. In which case take that up with the government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that
anyone should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on
"low" incomes (certainly too low to support a large family and the
associated housing costs), I don't suffer from that sort of
liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make
it again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English. My point
is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an employer. Who
rather obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate, to
acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by the
neediness of the seller.
They can be. If you are short of money and need to sell something, you
may well have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you can
wait for a better offer to come along.
"Neediness" here was a description of the seller's general
circumstances, not of an emergency situation, better known as a distress
sale.
That's not how I read it when you wrote it.
The discussion is about in-work benefits and wages. In that context, it
was clear that it was a reference to the things which influence wages
and entitlement to in-work benefits, that is, number of dependent
children, whether one of a couple, amount of housing costs, etc. Being
skint one month more than any other doesn't really come into that.

But I can't stop some posters pretending that they hadn't read the thread.
JNugent
2019-10-10 01:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Steve Walker
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers -
through benefits.
We do not. You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion
if you start from the premise that everyone, in every job, is
entitled to as much pay as is necessary to fund each and every
lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within
what you have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid
job is somehow entitled to an income which is higher than the
value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a low wage by benefits allows that
too. In which case take that up with the government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that
anyone should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime
on "low" incomes (certainly too low to support a large family
and the associated housing costs), I don't suffer from that sort
of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to
make it again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English. My point
is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an employer. Who
rather obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate,
to acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by
the neediness of the seller.
They can be. If you are short of money and need to sell something,
you may well have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you
can wait for a better offer to come along.
"Neediness" here was a description of the seller's general
circumstances, not of an emergency situation, better known as a
distress sale.
That's not how I read it when you wrote it.
The discussion is about in-work benefits and wages. In that context, it
was clear that it was a reference to the things which influence wages
and entitlement to in-work benefits, that is, number of dependent
children, whether one of a couple, amount of housing costs, etc. Being
skint one month more than any other doesn't really come into that.
But I can't stop some posters pretending that they hadn't read the thread.
You wrote the following implying the need was immediate not as a
description of the long term situation. Steve read it differently and so
did I. If you meant otherwise then maybe you should have made it clearer.
"If you are short of money and need to sell something, you may well
have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you can wait for a
better offer to come along.
I certainly did not write that.

Do you wish to amend your comment as a result??
Pamela
2019-10-10 20:18:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Steve Walker
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
     JNugent
      JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers -
through benefits.
We do not. You can only arrive at such a ridiculous
conclusion if you start from the premise that everyone, in
every job, is entitled to as much pay as is necessary to
fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within
what you have said is a belief that the citizen with a
low-paid job is somehow entitled to an income which is higher
than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Unless you think making up a low wage by benefits allows that
too. In which case take that up with the government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit
that anyone should be on a low income. Having spent half a
lifetime on "low" incomes (certainly too low to support a
large family and the associated housing costs), I don't suffer
from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to
make it again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English. My
point is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an
employer. Who rather obviously makes a profit out of employing
others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any
rate, to acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not
determined by the neediness of the seller.
They can be. If you are short of money and need to sell something,
you may well have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy,
you can wait for a better offer to come along.
"Neediness" here was a description of the seller's general
circumstances, not of an emergency situation, better known as a
distress sale.
That's not how I read it when you wrote it.
The discussion is about in-work benefits and wages. In that context,
it was clear that it was a reference to the things which influence
wages and entitlement to in-work benefits, that is, number of
dependent children, whether one of a couple, amount of housing costs,
etc. Being skint one month more than any other doesn't really come
into that.
But I can't stop some posters pretending that they hadn't read the thread.
You wrote the following implying the need was immediate not as a
description of the long term situation. Steve read it differently and
so did I. If you meant otherwise then maybe you should have made it
clearer.
"If you are short of money and need to sell something, you may well
have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you can wait
for a better offer to come along.
I certainly did not write that.
Do you wish to amend your comment as a result??
My apologies. It was Steve W not you.
JNugent
2019-10-10 20:22:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Steve Walker
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
     JNugent
      JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers -
through benefits.
We do not. You can only arrive at such a ridiculous
conclusion if you start from the premise that everyone, in
every job, is entitled to as much pay as is necessary to
fund each and every lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within
what you have said is a belief that the citizen with a
low-paid job is somehow entitled to an income which is higher
than the value of his job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Unless you think making up a low wage by benefits allows that
too. In which case take that up with the government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit
that anyone should be on a low income. Having spent half a
lifetime on "low" incomes (certainly too low to support a
large family and the associated housing costs), I don't suffer
from that sort of liberal guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to
make it again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English. My
point is I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an
employer. Who rather obviously makes a profit out of employing
others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any
rate, to acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not
determined by the neediness of the seller.
They can be. If you are short of money and need to sell something,
you may well have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy,
you can wait for a better offer to come along.
"Neediness" here was a description of the seller's general
circumstances, not of an emergency situation, better known as a
distress sale.
That's not how I read it when you wrote it.
The discussion is about in-work benefits and wages. In that context,
it was clear that it was a reference to the things which influence
wages and entitlement to in-work benefits, that is, number of
dependent children, whether one of a couple, amount of housing costs,
etc. Being skint one month more than any other doesn't really come
into that.
But I can't stop some posters pretending that they hadn't read the thread.
You wrote the following implying the need was immediate not as a
description of the long term situation. Steve read it differently and
so did I. If you meant otherwise then maybe you should have made it
clearer.
"If you are short of money and need to sell something, you may well
have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you can wait
for a better offer to come along.
I certainly did not write that.
Do you wish to amend your comment as a result??
My apologies. It was Steve W not you.
Accepted.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-09 09:35:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by JNugent
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate, to
acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by the
neediness of the seller.
They can be. If you are short of money and need to sell something, you
may well have to accept a low offer. If you are not so needy, you can
wait for a better offer to come along.
Perhaps the government should make up that shortfall to the needy?
Which would be the same sort of thing?
--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Pamela
2019-10-09 12:53:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not. You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if
you start from the premise that everyone, in every job, is
entitled to as much pay as is necessary to fund each and every
lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what
you have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is
somehow entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his
job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a low wage by benefits allows that too.
In which case take that up with the government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that
anyone should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on
"low" incomes (certainly too low to support a large family and the
associated housing costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal
guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English. My point is
I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an employer. Who rather
obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate, to
acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by the
neediness of the seller.
Post by JNugent
The only point you have tried to make is a justification for workers
to receive more than the value of the work they do.
But you think it just fine to give them a hand out of some sort?
It would be better not to have to do so.
(a) take low-value work and receive an in-work benefit because their
family needs are more than their work-value will support, or
(b) sit at home watching daytime TV...
...then it is (a) every time.
You're drifting from your main point, which I agree with, that a low
income job is not intended to and should not be expected to financially
support an individual.

Same goes for the weepy-eyed sentimental nonsense seen in vox pop tv
interviews where a nurse or social worker in central London complains that
they can't afford to buy their own home on their wages. I was in my 30s
in a relatively good job before I could afford a modest property in London
-- and I had studied and trained for many years and also been a homeowner
elsewhere yet didn't never felt the need to tell some sob story to an
interviewer.
JNugent
2019-10-09 13:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.
We do not. You can only arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion if
you start from the premise that everyone, in every job, is
entitled to as much pay as is necessary to fund each and every
lifestyle choice they might make -
You might arrive at that premise. I don't.
With respect, you *must* be doing so, because implicit within what
you have said is a belief that the citizen with a low-paid job is
somehow entitled to an income which is higher than the value of his
job.
To fund their lifestyle choice?
To "fund" (ie, "pay for" in normal English) *anything*.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Unless you think making up a low wage by benefits allows that too.
In which case take that up with the government.
You are half-right. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that
anyone should be on a low income. Having spent half a lifetime on
"low" incomes (certainly too low to support a large family and the
associated housing costs), I don't suffer from that sort of liberal
guilt.
You, as usual, have totally missed my point. I'm not going to make it
again. Try reading my previous posts carefully.
You say you won't make your "point" again.
Thanks for confirming you can't understand simple English. My point is
I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise an employer. Who rather
obviously makes a profit out of employing others.
I have - patiently - explained to you that what you claim happens,
doesn't happen.
It seems clear that you do not wish to understand - or at any rate, to
acknowledge - how a market works. Prices are not determined by the
neediness of the seller.
Post by JNugent
The only point you have tried to make is a justification for workers
to receive more than the value of the work they do.
But you think it just fine to give them a hand out of some sort?
It would be better not to have to do so.
(a) take low-value work and receive an in-work benefit because their
family needs are more than their work-value will support, or
(b) sit at home watching daytime TV...
...then it is (a) every time.
You're drifting from your main point, which I agree with, that a low
income job is not intended to and should not be expected to financially
support an individual.
There has been a certain amount of thread-drift. But that's fairly
normal in here.
Post by Pamela
Same goes for the weepy-eyed sentimental nonsense seen in vox pop tv
interviews where a nurse or social worker in central London complains that
they can't afford to buy their own home on their wages. I was in my 30s
in a relatively good job before I could afford a modest property in London
-- and I had studied and trained for many years and also been a homeowner
elsewhere yet didn't never felt the need to tell some sob story to an
interviewer.
Well, quite so.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-09 13:28:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Same goes for the weepy-eyed sentimental nonsense seen in vox pop tv
interviews where a nurse or social worker in central London complains that
they can't afford to buy their own home on their wages. I was in my 30s
in a relatively good job before I could afford a modest property in London
-- and I had studied and trained for many years and also been a homeowner
elsewhere yet didn't never felt the need to tell some sob story to an
interviewer.
Wouldn't like to ask how old you are.

But before I bought, I had no trouble finding reasonably priced rental
accommodation in London at a reasonable distance from work. And that
reasonable rent allowed me to save the deposit needed to buy.

Things are very different today. If I look at the salary paid now for the
same job I did then, I'd never be able to buy anything at all locally.
--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Fredxx
2019-10-09 19:29:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Pamela
Same goes for the weepy-eyed sentimental nonsense seen in vox pop tv
interviews where a nurse or social worker in central London complains that
they can't afford to buy their own home on their wages. I was in my 30s
in a relatively good job before I could afford a modest property in London
-- and I had studied and trained for many years and also been a homeowner
elsewhere yet didn't never felt the need to tell some sob story to an
interviewer.
Wouldn't like to ask how old you are.
But before I bought, I had no trouble finding reasonably priced rental
accommodation in London at a reasonable distance from work. And that
reasonable rent allowed me to save the deposit needed to buy.
Things are very different today. If I look at the salary paid now for the
same job I did then, I'd never be able to buy anything at all locally.
A direct consequence of increased housing demand through increased
population.
Pamela
2019-10-09 20:42:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Pamela
Same goes for the weepy-eyed sentimental nonsense seen in vox pop tv
interviews where a nurse or social worker in central London complains that
they can't afford to buy their own home on their wages. I was in my 30s
in a relatively good job before I could afford a modest property in London
-- and I had studied and trained for many years and also been a homeowner
elsewhere yet didn't never felt the need to tell some sob story to an
interviewer.
Wouldn't like to ask how old you are.
But before I bought, I had no trouble finding reasonably priced rental
accommodation in London at a reasonable distance from work. And that
reasonable rent allowed me to save the deposit needed to buy.
Things are very different today. If I look at the salary paid now for the
same job I did then, I'd never be able to buy anything at all locally.
That must have been in a different period. For as lomg as I can remember
London rents are so expensive that affording them is hard enough for many
people, never mind having spare money for a deposit.
AlexK
2019-10-04 17:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent
wage so they contribute towards running the country?
Yes, but its far from clear that the economy as a whole
would work better that way with those much higher
costs. Most of the lower cost manufacturing is already
long gone because wages are much lower in China
and Bangladesh etc and that is also true of agriculture.
And not much we can do about that.
No point in making that much worse by say jacking up the
minimum wage to a level where those receiving it are earning
enough so that they can make their own contribution to income
tax. They already do with the VAT and fuel excise and the other
excise taxes like on cigarettes and alcohol etc and the council
tax even if that’s indirectly with the rent they are paying.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer
indirectly, by making up wages via benefits?
Like I said, essentially because you get a better
result with the low paid person if they do work
and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Seems a very inefficient way of doing things.
Yes, but its always about a lot more than just
efficiency. And its arguably more efficient to
provide the handouts to the low paid via tax
credits than having them show up at the dole
queue every few weeks to prove that they are
actively looking for work so they keep getting
their benefits when they are physically capable
of working. And society does get some real
work out of them rather than none at all if
they were not working at all receiving benefits.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And leads tothe gig economy
That happens anyway as can be seem with the
countries that don’t have a tax credit system.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
with lots of very low paid service jobs
that contribute very little to the economy.
They actually contribute a lot with much lower
costs of using the equivalent of taxis and getting
a very convenient way of getting food delivered
etc and encouraging others to do stuff like AirBnB.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
I'm not talking about essential services like health
and care, but the vast increase in delivery services
where once we'd have collected such things ourselves.
Yes, but that is better for those who use those services.
The tax credit system does encourage those who would
otherwise just veg out in front of the daytime TV or down
the pub etc to do more than just that for their income.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And the high street being full of coffee shops.
Clearly those use use those benefit from those who would
otherwise be veg out in front of the daytime TV or down
the pub etc to do more than just that for their income
and does make those individuals more employable too.

It's essentially a variation on the work for the dole system
and works much better than that can ever do when they
normally just have those picking up rubbish and doing
some very minor stuff like painting public property etc
and doing those who do that commercially out of a job.
Peeler
2019-10-04 18:38:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 03:50:46 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

03:56 in Australia? And you've been up and trolling for almost an hour,
AGAIN!!! LOL So why can't you sleep in? Is it because of the "important"
things that go on on Usenet? Or is it your senile hormones? Or is it because
of your unbearable loneliness? Or is it because you are simply a sick
asshole? Or maybe because of all that together? <BG>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Grik-busster®™
2019-10-04 19:21:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:38:54 +0200, Foreskin Peeler
<***@valid.invalid> wrote:

<fluhs Grik skata>

Take, a bottle of VALIUM, anus!

And/or have, a good FART!

LOLOK
Peeler
2019-10-04 19:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 12:21:26 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-busster®™
Take, a bottle of VALIUM, anus!
And/or have, a good FART!
LOLOK
BRUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Poor psychotic idiot!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 10:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer
indirectly, by making up wages via benefits?
Like I said, essentially because you get a better
result with the low paid person if they do work
and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable. To the
benefit of the employer who presumably isn't running a charity.

But not when it comes to major industries.
--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-05 11:05:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer
indirectly, by making up wages via benefits?
Like I said, essentially because you get a better
result with the low paid person if they do work
and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.

Even traditional work for the dole systems
subsidise jobs that arent economically viable
and have the real downside that quite a few
of them take work away from those who
would otherwise be paid to do that work
like picking up rubbish and doing the more
simple work like painting public property etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
To the benefit of the employer who
presumably isn't running a charity.
There are downsides with any benefit system.

It costs employers to have to sign the paperwork
of those who have to prove that they are actively
seeking work and it costs to have shiny bums
checking that those on benefits are actively
seeking work or are unable to work etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But not when it comes to major industries.
Depends on how you define major industries.

The gig economy is clearly that in spades.

So is ubeer,, airbnb,, ubereats etc etc etc.
Peeler
2019-10-05 11:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:05:42 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
Because, like I said
NO intelligent person cares what you say or don't say, senile asshole!
--
***@aol.com addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bullshitter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-10-05 12:46:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer
indirectly, by making up wages via benefits?
Like I said, essentially because you get a better
result with the low paid person if they do work
and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Even traditional work for the dole systems
subsidise jobs that arent economically viable
By economically viable, presumably you mean jobs that are a necessity but
private companies cannot maximise their profits by paying higher wages to the
lowly workers?
Post by AlexK
and have the real downside that quite a few
of them take work away from those who
would otherwise be paid to do that work
like picking up rubbish and doing the more
simple work like painting public property etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
To the benefit of the employer who
presumably isn't running a charity.
There are downsides with any benefit system.
It costs employers to have to sign the paperwork
of those who have to prove that they are actively
seeking work and it costs to have shiny bums
checking that those on benefits are actively
seeking work or are unable to work etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But not when it comes to major industries.
Depends on how you define major industries.
The gig economy is clearly that in spades.
So is ubeer,, airbnb,, ubereats etc etc etc.
Joe
2019-10-05 17:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:46:22 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
By economically viable, presumably you mean jobs that are a necessity
but private companies cannot maximise their profits by paying higher
wages to the lowly workers?
Yes, and jobs that local councils just aren't willing to pay for that
used to be considered essential, like street sweepers and full-time
park-keepers. And don't pretend that treating minions badly is a
monopoly of the private sector: I've known a few public sector
employees.
--
Joe
AlexK
2019-10-05 18:38:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer
indirectly, by making up wages via benefits?
Like I said, essentially because you get a better
result with the low paid person if they do work
and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Even traditional work for the dole systems
subsidise jobs that arent economically viable
By economically viable, presumably you mean jobs that are a necessity
No, work that is desirable like picking up rubbish
discarded in public places instead of in public
rubbish bins and stuff like painting public property
like now disused railway stations and stuff like that.
Post by Keema's Nan
but private companies cannot maximise their profits
by paying higher wages to the lowly workers?
No, work that public authorities have decided
isnt worth doing if they have to pay the full
cost of getting a private company to do that
work, or worth the cost of employing someone
on the current legal minimum wage to do.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by AlexK
and have the real downside that quite a few
of them take work away from those who
would otherwise be paid to do that work
like picking up rubbish and doing the more
simple work like painting public property etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
To the benefit of the employer who
presumably isn't running a charity.
There are downsides with any benefit system.
It costs employers to have to sign the paperwork
of those who have to prove that they are actively
seeking work and it costs to have shiny bums
checking that those on benefits are actively
seeking work or are unable to work etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But not when it comes to major industries.
Depends on how you define major industries.
The gig economy is clearly that in spades.
So is uber,, airbnb,, ubereats etc etc etc.
Peeler
2019-10-05 19:06:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 05:38:28 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
No
Did you just climax again, you senile auto-contradicting asshole from Oz?
Post by Keema's Nan
but private companies cannot maximise their profits
by paying higher wages to the lowly workers?
No
Did you just climax again, you senile auto-contradicting asshole from Oz?
--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <***@85.214.115.223>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 13:17:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Please explain how that is any different from simply making the pay the
same as the original plus benefits, as regards the person wanting to work
or not?

The one who is getting the subsidy is the employer, at the end of the day.
It is merely creating jobs for the sake of jobs if they aren't
commercially viable.
--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-05 18:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Please explain how that is any different from simply making the pay the
same as the original plus benefits, as regards the person wanting to work
or not?
The one who is getting the subsidy is the employer, at the end of the day.
It is merely creating jobs for the sake of jobs if they aren't
commercially viable.
Jobs are commercially viable if the market clearing rate is paid.
It isn't a viable proposition for a man with a wife and five children,
plus a £150,000 mortgage, to finance that with a job delivering pizza on
a moped. There is a limit to what such jobs can pay and remain
commercially viable.
Then he shouldn't have a £150,000 mortgage
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy
Keema's Nan
2019-10-05 19:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Please explain how that is any different from simply making the pay the
same as the original plus benefits, as regards the person wanting to work
or not?
The one who is getting the subsidy is the employer, at the end of the day.
It is merely creating jobs for the sake of jobs if they aren't
commercially viable.
Jobs are commercially viable if the market clearing rate is paid.
It isn't a viable proposition for a man with a wife and five children,
plus a £150,000 mortgage, to finance that with a job delivering pizza on
a moped. There is a limit to what such jobs can pay and remain
commercially viable.
Then he shouldn't have a £150,000 mortgage
He wouldn’t have a £150,000 mortgage; because the banks wouldn’t lend
him that kind of money on his wages.
JNugent
2019-10-05 23:20:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Please explain how that is any different from simply making the pay the
same as the original plus benefits, as regards the person wanting to work
or not?
The one who is getting the subsidy is the employer, at the end of the day.
It is merely creating jobs for the sake of jobs if they aren't
commercially viable.
Jobs are commercially viable if the market clearing rate is paid.
It isn't a viable proposition for a man with a wife and five children,
plus a £150,000 mortgage, to finance that with a job delivering pizza on
a moped. There is a limit to what such jobs can pay and remain
commercially viable.
Then he shouldn't have a £150,000 mortgage
He wouldn’t have a £150,000 mortgage; because the banks wouldn’t lend
him that kind of money on his wages.
Not now, at least.
JNugent
2019-10-05 23:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Please explain how that is any different from simply making the pay the
same as the original plus benefits, as regards the person wanting to work
or not?
The one who is getting the subsidy is the employer, at the end of the day.
It is merely creating jobs for the sake of jobs if they aren't
commercially viable.
Jobs are commercially viable if the market clearing rate is paid.
It isn't a viable proposition for a man with a wife and five children,
plus a £150,000 mortgage, to finance that with a job delivering pizza
on a moped. There is a limit to what such jobs can pay and remain
commercially viable.
Then he shouldn't have a £150,000 mortgage
In practice, he won't have one; I was using it as a way of making the
point. It's the dependent children who really count when it comes to
in-work benefits.

Delivery of pizzas on a bike will never pay for the upkeep of a large
family (plus whatever the housings costs happen to be), because that
sort of wage level would make delivery unviable.

But some still insist on seeing it as the state subsidising the employer
- just as though there was the slightest chance that the job would ever
pay £30,000 if only tax credits weren't available. All that would happen
would be that large family breadwinners couldn't (afford to) work in
low-paid jobs.
Joe
2019-10-06 08:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 00:20:11 +0100
Post by JNugent
Delivery of pizzas on a bike will never pay for the upkeep of a large
family (plus whatever the housings costs happen to be), because that
sort of wage level would make delivery unviable.
Which is simply another way of saying that most pizza-eaters don't want
home delivery badly enough to pay for it. That's the free market in
action. Choice. The only form of democracy we have.

If the pizza maker wants badly enough to make home deliveries, he can
pay the market rate for the service out of his profits. That's also the
free market in action.

There is no reason at all why the taxpayer should pay for a service for
which the beneficiaries won't pay, any more than the taxpayer should
pay people to make cars at a loss, when they are either unable or
unwilling to make them at a profit. That's *not* the free market in
action, that's extortion followed by the receiving of stolen goods. The
government claims the right to punish anyone but itself who does that.
--
Joe
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-06 09:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 00:20:11 +0100
Post by JNugent
Delivery of pizzas on a bike will never pay for the upkeep of a large
family (plus whatever the housings costs happen to be), because that
sort of wage level would make delivery unviable.
Which is simply another way of saying that most pizza-eaters don't want
home delivery badly enough to pay for it. That's the free market in
action. Choice. The only form of democracy we have.
If the pizza maker wants badly enough to make home deliveries, he can
pay the market rate for the service out of his profits. That's also the
free market in action.
Quite. It also accounts for sucking in all those immigrants. Creating what
are non essential service jobs. While putting pressure on other essential
ones.
Post by Joe
There is no reason at all why the taxpayer should pay for a service for
which the beneficiaries won't pay, any more than the taxpayer should
pay people to make cars at a loss, when they are either unable or
unwilling to make them at a profit. That's *not* the free market in
action, that's extortion followed by the receiving of stolen goods. The
government claims the right to punish anyone but itself who does that.
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures, we've
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of service
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-06 12:25:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Joe
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 00:20:11 +0100
Post by JNugent
Delivery of pizzas on a bike will never pay for the upkeep of a large
family (plus whatever the housings costs happen to be), because that
sort of wage level would make delivery unviable.
Which is simply another way of saying that most pizza-eaters don't want
home delivery badly enough to pay for it. That's the free market in
action. Choice. The only form of democracy we have.
If the pizza maker wants badly enough to make home deliveries, he can
pay the market rate for the service out of his profits. That's also the
free market in action.
Quite. It also accounts for sucking in all those immigrants. Creating what
are non essential service jobs. While putting pressure on other essential
ones.
Post by Joe
There is no reason at all why the taxpayer should pay for a service for
which the beneficiaries won't pay, any more than the taxpayer should
pay people to make cars at a loss, when they are either unable or
unwilling to make them at a profit. That's *not* the free market in
action, that's extortion followed by the receiving of stolen goods. The
government claims the right to punish anyone but itself who does that.
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures, we've
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of service
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
As someone else remarked, it's better than having another million
workers watching daytime television. And there is a demonstration effect
on their children: it is natural to earn one's income.
AlexK
2019-10-06 17:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Joe
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 00:20:11 +0100
Post by JNugent
Delivery of pizzas on a bike will never pay for the upkeep of a large
family (plus whatever the housings costs happen to be), because that
sort of wage level would make delivery unviable.
Which is simply another way of saying that most pizza-eaters don't want
home delivery badly enough to pay for it. That's the free market in
action. Choice. The only form of democracy we have.
If the pizza maker wants badly enough to make home deliveries, he can
pay the market rate for the service out of his profits. That's also the
free market in action.
Quite. It also accounts for sucking in all those immigrants. Creating what
are non essential service jobs. While putting pressure on other essential
ones.
Post by Joe
There is no reason at all why the taxpayer should pay for a service for
which the beneficiaries won't pay, any more than the taxpayer should
pay people to make cars at a loss, when they are either unable or
unwilling to make them at a profit. That's *not* the free market in
action, that's extortion followed by the receiving of stolen goods. The
government claims the right to punish anyone but itself who does that.
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures, we've
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of service
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers
who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get the food etc
and
uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does airbnb with traditional
B&Bs

And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Peeler
2019-10-06 17:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 04:09:22 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH trollshit>

04:09 in Australia? Did you "sleep in" today, or what? Or are you sick,
senile idiot? LOL
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 10:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures, we've
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of service
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get
the food etc and uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does
airbnb with traditional B&Bs
And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration? That is the
main way we get all those low paid workers.

Don't brexiteers say restricting immigration will push up wages?

Or do you want your cake and eat it?
--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-07 18:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures, we've
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of service
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get
the food etc and uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does
airbnb with traditional B&Bs
And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration?
No, that has too many other downsides like the pressure on housing
and driving down unskilled wages to the minimum wage.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That is the main way we get all those low paid workers.
Its actually the tax credit system that does that. And those
who happen to be where there isnt enough of that unskilled
work for even those getting tax credits to make up the lack
of enough hours of that unskilled work should be encouraged
to move to where the work is, instead of unlimited immigration.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Don't brexiteers say restricting immigration will push up wages?
Some certainly say that but it isnt clear how true that is.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Or do you want your cake and eat it?
Nope, I realise that the tax credit system works a lot better
than just handing benefits to those who vet out in front of
daytime TV or down the pub, even tho like with anything
else, there is the real downside of subsidising employers.

All schemes have downsides. In this case the downside
of those who can work veging out is much more important
for society than the downside of subsidising employers
because it produces generational benefit bludging given
that so many would prefer not to do unskilled work at all.
Peeler
2019-10-07 18:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 05:33:57 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration?
No, that has too many other downsides like the pressure on housing
and driving down unskilled wages to the minimum wage.
Who but a senile idiot would care what you are "in favour of", eh, senile
Rodent? Aren't you surprised, too?
--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <***@85.214.115.223>
Steve Walker
2019-10-07 20:55:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures,
we've
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of >
service
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get
the food etc and uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does
airbnb with traditional B&Bs
And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration?
No, that has too many other downsides like the pressure on housing
and driving down unskilled wages to the minimum wage.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That is the main way we get all those low paid workers.
Its actually the tax credit system that does that. And those
who happen to be where there isnt enough of that unskilled
work for even those getting tax credits to make up the lack
of enough hours of that unskilled work should be encouraged
to move to where the work is, instead of unlimited immigration.
Many people rely on family for help or as parents age they need to help
them, so moving away is often not an option.

We have not been in the low pay situation, as we are both professionals,
but we have relied on my parents getting the children to and from school
when we couldn't due to work or due to health problems.

We are now at a stage where my parents (although pretty well
independent) need help with some things and that will only increase.

SteveW
Peeler
2019-10-07 21:26:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Many people rely on family for help or as parents age they need to help
them, so moving away is often not an option.
The senile troll from Oz has NO family or friends! His "girlfriend" Alexa
(the one from Amazon) talks to him, but she can't do anything for him. The
anomalous trolling idiot has Nembutal ready! Let's hope he'll use it, soon!
LOL
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
AlexK
2019-10-07 21:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures,
we've
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of >
service
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get
the food etc and uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does
airbnb with traditional B&Bs
And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration?
No, that has too many other downsides like the pressure on housing
and driving down unskilled wages to the minimum wage.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That is the main way we get all those low paid workers.
Its actually the tax credit system that does that. And those
who happen to be where there isnt enough of that unskilled
work for even those getting tax credits to make up the lack
of enough hours of that unskilled work should be encouraged
to move to where the work is, instead of unlimited immigration.
Many people rely on family for help or as parents age they need to help
them, so moving away is often not an option.
There arent that many in that situation when leaving
school or for the first decade or so after leaving school..
Post by Steve Walker
We have not been in the low pay situation, as we are both professionals,
but we have relied on my parents getting the children to and from school
when we couldn't due to work or due to health problems.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be the parents. Mate of mine uses his
sister because while he is the only one who works, they currently
only have the one car and he needs that to get to and from work.
Post by Steve Walker
We are now at a stage where my parents (although pretty well independent)
need help with some things and that will only increase.
Sire, but that’s well after most start working.

And in my case my parents moved away for work and then I moved
myself, again for work. I did have just the one situation where my
dad had had a fall, stormed out of the hospital and rang me to
come and stay with him while he wasn’t very mobile. And when
he later got much worse, we moved him halfway across the country
to where my sister was living, again well away from where the
parents had moved away from for work almost half a century earlier.
Peeler
2019-10-07 21:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:58:24 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH senile Ozzietard's latest trollshit>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Steve Walker
2019-10-07 23:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures,
we've
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of >
service
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get
the food etc and uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does
airbnb with traditional B&Bs
And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration?
No, that has too many other downsides like the pressure on housing
and driving down unskilled wages to the minimum wage.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That is the main way we get all those low paid workers.
Its actually the tax credit system that does that. And those
who happen to be where there isnt enough of that unskilled
work for even those getting tax credits to make up the lack
of enough hours of that unskilled work should be encouraged
to move to where the work is, instead of unlimited immigration.
Many people rely on family for help or as parents age they need to
help them, so moving away is often not an option.
There arent that many in that situation when leaving
school or for the first decade or so after leaving school..
Post by Steve Walker
We have not been in the low pay situation, as we are both
professionals, but we have relied on my parents getting the children
to and from school when we couldn't due to work or due to health
problems.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be the parents. Mate of mine uses his
sister because while he is the only one who works, they currently
only have the one car and he needs that to get to and from work.
Post by Steve Walker
We are now at a stage where my parents (although pretty well
independent) need help with some things and that will only increase.
Sire, but that’s well after most start working.
And if you move then, then you are already away from family when you do
have children and/or your parents start needing your help. Far better to
stay with support networks from the start rather than have to uproot
your own family, move children away from school and friends, etc. at a
later stage.
Post by AlexK
And in my case my parents moved away for work and then I moved
myself, again for work. I did have just the one situation where my
dad had had a fall, stormed out of the hospital and rang me to
come and stay with him while he wasn’t very mobile. And when
he later got much worse, we moved him halfway across the country
to where my sister was living, again well away from where the
parents had moved away from for work almost half a century earlier.
Moving him to be closer to family was definitely the right thing to do,
but how much better would it have been if family had not moved around
and so he could have remained in the home that he'd been used to for
some time, near friends and neighbours that he associated with?

SteveW
AlexK
2019-10-08 03:34:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures,
we've
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of >
service
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get
the food etc and uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does
airbnb with traditional B&Bs
And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration?
No, that has too many other downsides like the pressure on housing
and driving down unskilled wages to the minimum wage.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That is the main way we get all those low paid workers.
Its actually the tax credit system that does that. And those
who happen to be where there isnt enough of that unskilled
work for even those getting tax credits to make up the lack
of enough hours of that unskilled work should be encouraged
to move to where the work is, instead of unlimited immigration.
Many people rely on family for help or as parents age they need to help
them, so moving away is often not an option.
There arent that many in that situation when leaving
school or for the first decade or so after leaving school..
Post by Steve Walker
We have not been in the low pay situation, as we are both professionals,
but we have relied on my parents getting the children to and from school
when we couldn't due to work or due to health problems.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be the parents. Mate of mine uses his
sister because while he is the only one who works, they currently
only have the one car and he needs that to get to and from work.
Post by Steve Walker
We are now at a stage where my parents (although pretty well
independent) need help with some things and that will only increase.
Sire, but that’s well after most start working.
And if you move then, then you are already away from family when you do
have children and/or your parents start needing your help. Far better to
stay with support networks from the start rather than have to uproot your
own family, move children away from school and friends, etc. at a later
stage.
IMO its morally unacceptable to put your hand out to the state for
benefits instead of moving to where the work is for those reasons.
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
And in my case my parents moved away for work and then I moved
myself, again for work. I did have just the one situation where my
dad had had a fall, stormed out of the hospital and rang me to
come and stay with him while he wasn’t very mobile. And when
he later got much worse, we moved him halfway across the country
to where my sister was living, again well away from where the
parents had moved away from for work almost half a century earlier.
Moving him to be closer to family was definitely the right thing to do,
Particularly when they had chosen to move their for work,
Post by Steve Walker
but how much better would it have been if family had not moved around and
so he could have remained in the home that he'd been used to for some
time, near friends and neighbours that he associated with?
They had in fact chosen to move to 3 different houses in
that town after moving there and he had chosen to move
to a retirement village from the last one, still in that town,

The last much longer distance move was really no different
to what they had chosen to do themselves multiple times.

And like I said, its not morally acceptable to put your hand
out to the state instead of moving to where the work is.
Peeler
2019-10-08 07:18:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:34:45 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH senile asshole's latest trollshit>

What has all this BULLSHIT got ANYTHING to do with the three ngs you keep
crossposting it too, senile asshole troll from Oz?
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Steve Walker
2019-10-08 20:27:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures,
we've
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of >
service
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get
the food etc and uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does
airbnb with traditional B&Bs
And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration?
No, that has too many other downsides like the pressure on housing
and driving down unskilled wages to the minimum wage.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That is the main way we get all those low paid workers.
Its actually the tax credit system that does that. And those
who happen to be where there isnt enough of that unskilled
work for even those getting tax credits to make up the lack
of enough hours of that unskilled work should be encouraged
to move to where the work is, instead of unlimited immigration.
Many people rely on family for help or as parents age they need to
help them, so moving away is often not an option.
There arent that many in that situation when leaving
school or for the first decade or so after leaving school..
Post by Steve Walker
We have not been in the low pay situation, as we are both
professionals, but we have relied on my parents getting the children
to and from school when we couldn't due to work or due to health
problems.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be the parents. Mate of mine uses his
sister because while he is the only one who works, they currently
only have the one car and he needs that to get to and from work.
Post by Steve Walker
We are now at a stage where my parents (although pretty well
independent) need help with some things and that will only increase.
Sire, but that’s well after most start working.
And if you move then, then you are already away from family when you
do have children and/or your parents start needing your help. Far
better to stay with support networks from the start rather than have
to uproot your own family, move children away from school and friends,
etc. at a later stage.
IMO its morally unacceptable to put your hand out to the state for
benefits instead of moving to where the work is for those reasons.
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
And in my case my parents moved away for work and then I moved
myself, again for work. I did have just the one situation where my
dad had had a fall, stormed out of the hospital and rang me to
come and stay with him while he wasn’t very mobile. And when
he later got much worse, we moved him halfway across the country
to where my sister was living, again well away from where the
parents had moved away from for work almost half a century earlier.
Moving him to be closer to family was definitely the right thing to do,
Particularly when they had chosen to move their for work,
Post by Steve Walker
but how much better would it have been if family had not moved around
and so he could have remained in the home that he'd been used to for
some time, near friends and neighbours that he associated with?
They had in fact chosen to move to 3 different houses in
that town after moving there and he had chosen to move
to a retirement village from the last one, still in that town,
The last much longer distance move was really no different
to what they had chosen to do themselves multiple times.
And like I said, its not morally acceptable to put your hand
out to the state instead of moving to where the work is.
It is more morally acceptable than, as happens for many, they are too
far away to look after or gain help from a relative and so the far
larger responsibility falls on the state.

SteveW
AlexK
2019-10-08 22:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My whole point, really. In the quest for high employment figures,
we've
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
ended up paying the private sector to provide vast quantities of
service
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
jobs which are of little benefit to the economy.
That last is complete bullshit. It produces a much better economy for
consumers who can have stuff delivered instead of having to go and get
the food etc and uber leaves traditional taxis for dead and so does
airbnb with traditional B&Bs
And even casual work makes the economy work much better
when retail operations like supermarkets can have the number
of staff they need at peak times without having to pay them all
to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and gossip in quiet times.
Does that mean you're all in favour of unlimited immigration?
No, that has too many other downsides like the pressure on housing
and driving down unskilled wages to the minimum wage.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That is the main way we get all those low paid workers.
Its actually the tax credit system that does that. And those
who happen to be where there isnt enough of that unskilled
work for even those getting tax credits to make up the lack
of enough hours of that unskilled work should be encouraged
to move to where the work is, instead of unlimited immigration.
Many people rely on family for help or as parents age they need to
help them, so moving away is often not an option.
There arent that many in that situation when leaving
school or for the first decade or so after leaving school..
Post by Steve Walker
We have not been in the low pay situation, as we are both
professionals, but we have relied on my parents getting the children
to and from school when we couldn't due to work or due to health
problems.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be the parents. Mate of mine uses his
sister because while he is the only one who works, they currently
only have the one car and he needs that to get to and from work.
Post by Steve Walker
We are now at a stage where my parents (although pretty well
independent) need help with some things and that will only increase.
Sire, but that’s well after most start working.
And if you move then, then you are already away from family when you do
have children and/or your parents start needing your help. Far better to
stay with support networks from the start rather than have to uproot
your own family, move children away from school and friends, etc. at a
later stage.
IMO its morally unacceptable to put your hand out to the state for
benefits instead of moving to where the work is for those reasons.
Post by Steve Walker
Post by AlexK
And in my case my parents moved away for work and then I moved
myself, again for work. I did have just the one situation where my
dad had had a fall, stormed out of the hospital and rang me to
come and stay with him while he wasn’t very mobile. And when
he later got much worse, we moved him halfway across the country
to where my sister was living, again well away from where the
parents had moved away from for work almost half a century earlier.
Moving him to be closer to family was definitely the right thing to do,
Particularly when they had chosen to move their for work,
Post by Steve Walker
but how much better would it have been if family had not moved around
and so he could have remained in the home that he'd been used to for
some time, near friends and neighbours that he associated with?
They had in fact chosen to move to 3 different houses in
that town after moving there and he had chosen to move
to a retirement village from the last one, still in that town,
The last much longer distance move was really no different
to what they had chosen to do themselves multiple times.
And like I said, its not morally acceptable to put your hand
out to the state instead of moving to where the work is.
It is more morally acceptable than, as happens for many, they are too far
away to look after or gain help from a relative and so the far larger
responsibility falls on the state.
Not when you put your hand out to the state for decades
instead of moving to where the work is, and only help a
relo for a year or two in their very old and infirm age.
Peeler
2019-10-08 22:41:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:32:48 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH more of the inane senile blather>

Jump back into your roo's pouch you escaped from, you obnoxious senile Ozzie
cretin!
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
JNugent
2019-10-06 12:21:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 00:20:11 +0100
Post by JNugent
Delivery of pizzas on a bike will never pay for the upkeep of a large
family (plus whatever the housings costs happen to be), because that
sort of wage level would make delivery unviable.
Which is simply another way of saying that most pizza-eaters don't want
home delivery badly enough to pay for it. That's the free market in
action. Choice. The only form of democracy we have.
If the pizza maker wants badly enough to make home deliveries, he can
pay the market rate for the service out of his profits. That's also the
free market in action.
There is no reason at all why the taxpayer should pay for a service for
which the beneficiaries won't pay, any more than the taxpayer should
pay people to make cars at a loss, when they are either unable or
unwilling to make them at a profit. That's *not* the free market in
action, that's extortion followed by the receiving of stolen goods. The
government claims the right to punish anyone but itself who does that.
The taxpayer is not paying for the delivery of pizza when tax credits
are paid to a citizen with high "needs" who is in a low-skilled,
low-paid, job. It is something else which is being paid for.
AlexK
2019-10-05 19:06:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Please explain how that is any different from simply
making the pay the same as the original plus benefits,
as regards the person wanting to work or not?
That approach has the undesirable side effect of making
quite a bit of work no longer viable. We've seen that
already with local councils no longer being able to have
people picking up rubbish chucked on the ground by
those to lazy to put in the bins provided because they
cant afford to pay those individuals enough to allow
them to be able to pay for even a basic lifestyle, let
alone buy a house in a place like London.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
The one who is getting the subsidy is the employer,
Yes, but like with any benefits system,
there will always be downsides, like I said.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
at the end of the day.It is merely creating jobs for
the sake of jobs if they aren't commercially viable.
But even those jobs are better than the unemployed
not working at all and veging out in front of daytime
TV or down the pub etc. And plenty of them do provide
some useful benefits like with rubbish being collected
and the gig economy work etc.

Even workhouses had read downsides. No one has
ever been able to come up with any benefits/welfare
system that doesn’t have real downsides.

Tax credits are much cheaper to implement than say
the traditional work for the dole systems which need
the unemployed to be supervised while working for the
dole. The tax credit system has the employers do that
at no cost to the taxpayer and the work done by those
who get tax credits is more useful than the work done
by those on work for the dole schemes, most obviously
with the gig economy work. Yes, that pisses off taxi
drivers and taxi license owners and hotels and b&bs
but that’s life, there are downsides with any system.
Peeler
2019-10-05 19:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 06:06:46 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's endless senile blather unread>
--
***@aol.com addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bullshitter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-06 09:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Please explain how that is any different from simply
making the pay the same as the original plus benefits,
as regards the person wanting to work or not?
That approach has the undesirable side effect of making
quite a bit of work no longer viable. We've seen that
already with local councils no longer being able to have
people picking up rubbish chucked on the ground by
those to lazy to put in the bins provided because they
cant afford to pay those individuals enough to allow
them to be able to pay for even a basic lifestyle, let
alone buy a house in a place like London.
Them wouldn't it be simpler to fund councils in such a way as to allow
them to pay what the government considers a basic (by making it up with
benefits) rather than the current tortuous way?

Public service employees may be different since that benefit subsidy comes
from the public purse. And doesn't in effect subsidise a private employer.
--
*We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Peeler
2019-10-06 17:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 04:03:17 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH senile asshole's usual trollshit>

04:03 in Australia? Are you sick today? Your "normal" time to get up is
between 1 and 4 am, you anomalous, senile freak! LOL
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 10:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Them wouldn't it be simpler to fund councils in such a way as
to allow them to pay what the government considers a basic
Problem is that there is no money tree. It costs a lot less for
tax credits that make up the amount their employer pays in
wages to an adequate income for the unskilled who can
only deliver pizzas and do other gig economy work and
have the employer crack the whip with those instead of
having to pay even more for supervisors of that work
by the councils etc.
Say someone works for the government.

Please explain how you need to have a magic money tree to pay them say £10
an hour, rather than £8 and hour and £2 an hour in benefits?
--
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-07 18:24:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Them wouldn't it be simpler to fund councils in such a way as
to allow them to pay what the government considers a basic
Problem is that there is no money tree. It costs a lot less for
tax credits that make up the amount their employer pays in
wages to an adequate income for the unskilled who can
only deliver pizzas and do other gig economy work and
have the employer crack the whip with those instead of
having to pay even more for supervisors of that work
by the councils etc.
Say someone works for the government.
Please explain how you need to have a magic money tree to pay them
say £10 an hour, rather than £8 and hour and £2 an hour in benefits?
Your numbers are bogus. Council employees don't get tax
credits to make up what they get paid by the council to enough
of a wage to be able to afford to buy a house in London.

Pizza delivery people do get tax credits to make up what
they get paid instead of the state handing them the same
total amount of cash as benefits and have them veg out
in front of daytime TV or down the pub and having them
do useful work for the total income costs the state a lot
less and works much better with that individual working.
Peeler
2019-10-07 18:50:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 05:24:38 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
Your numbers are bogus.
Your entire existence and life as an 85-year-old trolling senile idiot is
bogus, senile Rodent!
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
Fredxx
2019-10-03 23:43:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent wage so they
contribute towards running the country?
Quite, less immigrant labour could have the effect of pushing up wages
through increased demand on a limited labour-force.

You'll find numerous employers agreeing; from their whingeing about
increased labour costs.
Fredxx
2019-10-03 23:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in full
time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the employer.
What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those in training,
etc.
I agree, there should be no need to subsidise anyone, including those in
work.

When it comes to pay, simple supply and demand are a healthy way to push
up wages. The UK saw little need for a minimum wage until Bliar opened
the floodgates to cheap Eastern European labour.

There should be no need for a minimum wage, but shamefully now there is.
Steve Walker
2019-10-05 00:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in full
time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the employer.
What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those in training,
etc.
I agree, there should be no need to subsidise anyone, including those in
work.
When it comes to pay, simple supply and demand are a healthy way to push
up wages. The UK saw little need for a minimum wage until Bliar opened
the floodgates to cheap Eastern European labour.
There should be no need for a minimum wage, but shamefully now there is.
I think that there always was a need. On one site I visited a number of
times just before the minimum wage came in, I ended up chatting to the
security guard each time. He was working a 60 hour week for £1.50 per hour.

Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.

SteveW
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-05 05:54:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
I think that there always was a need. On one site I visited a number of
times just before the minimum wage came in, I ended up chatting to the
security guard each time. He was working a 60 hour week for £1.50 per hour.
His choice.
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 10:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
Is that how you ran your business? Create an unnecessary job just because
it was cheap? If not cheap, you could do without?

Very efficient way of running things.

Only time it might apply is with a domestic cleaner or gardener etc. Where
the householder may decide it better to DIY if the costs go up.
--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Fredxx
2019-10-09 19:26:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
Is that how you ran your business? Create an unnecessary job just because
it was cheap? If not cheap, you could do without?
Very efficient way of running things.
Only time it might apply is with a domestic cleaner or gardener etc. Where
the householder may decide it better to DIY if the costs go up.
It is an extremely efficient way to do things. Much manufacturing has
gone abroad as a result of escalating labour costs. There is nothing
wrong with that, and certainly not inefficient.
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-10 06:47:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
Is that how you ran your business? Create an unnecessary job just because
it was cheap? If not cheap, you could do without?
Very efficient way of running things.
Only time it might apply is with a domestic cleaner or gardener etc. Where
the householder may decide it better to DIY if the costs go up.
It is an extremely efficient way to do things. Much manufacturing has
gone abroad as a result of escalating labour costs. There is nothing
wrong with that, and certainly not inefficient.
Indeed. Cost benefit rules businesses that are not state funded and have
to compete in the market.

For example take modern manufacturing. A cheap smart phone may cost more
than a new one to have its glued-on screen replaced. 10 secs of
unskilled to put on - 40 minutes of special kit to remove...add in a
percentage of issues with replaced screens and it's not worth fixing one.

In cash terms. It does however reduce the number of jobs and incease use
of raw materials

When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled technicians
soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and valve holders. they
were easily repaired and lasted years. They were also very expebsive

Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
ZakJames
2019-10-10 08:18:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Fredxx
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
Is that how you ran your business? Create an unnecessary job just because
it was cheap? If not cheap, you could do without?
Very efficient way of running things.
Only time it might apply is with a domestic cleaner or gardener etc. Where
the householder may decide it better to DIY if the costs go up.
It is an extremely efficient way to do things. Much manufacturing has
gone abroad as a result of escalating labour costs. There is nothing
wrong with that, and certainly not inefficient.
Indeed. Cost benefit rules businesses that are not state funded and have
to compete in the market.
For example take modern manufacturing. A cheap smart phone may cost more
than a new one to have its glued-on screen replaced. 10 secs of unskilled
to put on - 40 minutes of special kit to remove...add in a percentage of
issues with replaced screens and it's not worth fixing one.
In cash terms. It does however reduce the number of jobs and incease use
of raw materials
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled technicians
soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and valve holders. they
were easily repaired and lasted years. They were also very expebsive
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always simpler
to buy a new one.
Its more complicated than that. Its dramatically cheaper
to pay Apple to replace the battery than to buy a new
one, even if you are considering buying a brand new
discounted same model phone, say with the 6S currently.
Peeler
2019-10-10 09:29:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:18:45 +1100, ZakJames, better known as cantankerous
Post by ZakJames
Its more complicated than that.
Of COURSE it is, you all-knowing senile pest from Oz! LOL
--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <***@85.214.115.223>
Joe
2019-10-10 09:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:47:28 +0100
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Quite a few chips are ball-grid-array types, which literally cannot be
replaced, at any cost.
--
Joe
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-10 13:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:47:28 +0100
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Quite a few chips are ball-grid-array types, which literally cannot be
replaced, at any cost.
But the entire PCB likely could be? Plenty places supply good used ones at
a sensible price, if you're willing to search.
--
*I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Incubus
2019-10-10 13:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Joe
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:47:28 +0100
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Quite a few chips are ball-grid-array types, which literally cannot be
replaced, at any cost.
But the entire PCB likely could be? Plenty places supply good used ones at
a sensible price, if you're willing to search.
The entire PCB is a major part of the product.
Incubus
2019-10-10 16:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But the entire PCB likely could be? Plenty places supply good used ones at
a sensible price, if you're willing to search.
The entire PCB is a major part of the product.
In say a boiler? To get back to DIY.
Makers may well charge an arm and a leg for a new one - even if available.
Because they'd make even more profit from a new boiler. This doesn't mean
the PCB can't be repaired.
You brought up replacing the PCB as a solution for when repairs are impossible.
Limiting the discussion to boilers doesn't invalidate the original point nor my
point that the PCB is (often, not necessarily always) a major part of a device.
Fredxx
2019-10-10 17:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:47:28 +0100
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Quite a few chips are ball-grid-array types, which literally cannot be
replaced, at any cost.
They can be removed, re-balled and refitted if necessary.

There are workstations specifically designed for this type of work.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-10 13:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled technicians
soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and valve holders. they
were easily repaired and lasted years. They were also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Doesn't mean it can't be repaired. I had a laptop repaired where the fault
was a dry solder joint between one of the processors and the PCB. It was
removed, cleaned and re-soldered. For a lot less than even a used similar
laptop would cost.

It's the same argument you hear so often with cars. They are so complex
they can't be fixed at home. As if everyone was born understanding carbs
and points ignition. Simply new skills that need to be learned.
--
*If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of payments *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Incubus
2019-10-10 13:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled technicians
soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and valve holders. they
were easily repaired and lasted years. They were also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
This isn't true. In those days, they were wired "point to point" by hand.
They weren't fabricated using integrated circuit boards. This is inherently
more reliable and people still pay extra for such products to-day where
available. When they did break down, they were easy to fix.

A good amount of soldering these days is performed by "heat baths", which can
be very unreliable. The first generation Playstation 3 was well known to
suffer from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free solder into the mix, the
problem is more likely to occur over time.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Doesn't mean it can't be repaired. I had a laptop repaired where the fault
was a dry solder joint between one of the processors and the PCB. It was
removed, cleaned and re-soldered. For a lot less than even a used similar
laptop would cost.
They probably just ran it under a heath bath and told you they soldered it...
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex
they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs
and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was certainly a lot more
commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as fitting a new
clutch and often requires specialised tools. Companies often just replace bad
components, which is an economic decision, but it demonstrates that the time
and effort involved is more expensive than original fabrication.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-10 15:10:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled
technicians soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and
valve holders. they were easily repaired and lasted years. They were
also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
This isn't true. In those days, they were wired "point to point" by
hand. They weren't fabricated using integrated circuit boards. This is
inherently more reliable and people still pay extra for such products
to-day where available. When they did break down, they were easy to fix.
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I assume
all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use that old
way?
Post by Incubus
A good amount of soldering these days is performed by "heat baths",
which can be very unreliable. The first generation Playstation 3 was
well known to suffer from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free
solder into the mix, the problem is more likely to occur over time.
And you think there were never soldering faults with point to point
wiring? Have you ever worked on it? I have. The heat associated with valve
equipment and thermal stress meant joints very often failed. Components
too.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Doesn't mean it can't be repaired. I had a laptop repaired where the
fault was a dry solder joint between one of the processors and the
PCB. It was removed, cleaned and re-soldered. For a lot less than even
a used similar laptop would cost.
They probably just ran it under a heath bath and told you they soldered it...
No they didn't. They had a video of the repair process.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
Really? Wish I'd known that before fixing lots and lots of it.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was certainly a lot more
commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Because it was much needed to keep a car running. Modern cars can run many
times the distance without anything more than oil and filter changes.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as fitting
a new clutch and often requires specialised tools.
Repairing an IC? Did you repair valves, back in the day? Transistors?
Post by Incubus
Companies often just
replace bad components, which is an economic decision, but it
demonstrates that the time and effort involved is more expensive than
original fabrication.
Any repair may need a new technique. Many simply can't be bothered to
learn how, or invest in the tools/equipment needed.
--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Incubus
2019-10-10 16:29:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled
technicians soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and
valve holders. they were easily repaired and lasted years. They were
also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
This isn't true. In those days, they were wired "point to point" by
hand. They weren't fabricated using integrated circuit boards. This is
inherently more reliable and people still pay extra for such products
to-day where available. When they did break down, they were easy to fix.
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I assume
all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use that old
way?
They are manufactured to an entirely different set of standards compared to
consumer electronics with much tighter tolerances and far stricter testing.
It's not an equal comparison.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
A good amount of soldering these days is performed by "heat baths",
which can be very unreliable. The first generation Playstation 3 was
well known to suffer from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free
solder into the mix, the problem is more likely to occur over time.
And you think there were never soldering faults with point to point
wiring?
I didn't say that. However, it is a better process than using a heath bath.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Have you ever worked on it? I have. The heat associated with valve
equipment and thermal stress meant joints very often failed. Components
too.
That still happens to-day (the first gen Playstation 3 is a good example
again). With heat stress, we could also be talking about a design problem (the
Marshall JTM-30 springs to mind). However, the problem is with heat, not with
PtP boards.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Doesn't mean it can't be repaired. I had a laptop repaired where the
fault was a dry solder joint between one of the processors and the
PCB. It was removed, cleaned and re-soldered. For a lot less than even
a used similar laptop would cost.
They probably just ran it under a heath bath and told you they soldered it...
No they didn't. They had a video of the repair process.
Start to finish?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
Really? Wish I'd known that before fixing lots and lots of it.
What electronics have you fixed on modern cars?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was certainly a lot more
commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Because it was much needed to keep a car running. Modern cars can run many
times the distance without anything more than oil and filter changes.
I think it depends on the manufacturer and service history. Ford engines in
the '80s had a bad reputation because people didn't bother to get them
serviced. On the other hand, I'd rather have a Mercedes 190E with low mileage
than anything built to-day.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as fitting
a new clutch and often requires specialised tools.
Repairing an IC? Did you repair valves, back in the day? Transistors?
You don't need to repair valves. You replace them. Likewise, transistors are
easily replaced.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Companies often just
replace bad components, which is an economic decision, but it
demonstrates that the time and effort involved is more expensive than
original fabrication.
Any repair may need a new technique. Many simply can't be bothered to
learn how, or invest in the tools/equipment needed.
Some repairs are simply beyond specialist skills. How many television repair
shops do you see these days? It's not because people have grown lazy or not
bothered to invest in tools or equipment.
charles
2019-10-10 17:25:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled
technicians soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and
valve holders. they were easily repaired and lasted years. They
were also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
This isn't true. In those days, they were wired "point to point" by
hand. They weren't fabricated using integrated circuit boards. This
is inherently more reliable and people still pay extra for such
products to-day where available. When they did break down, they were
easy to fix.
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I
assume all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use
that old way?
They are manufactured to an entirely different set of standards compared
to consumer electronics with much tighter tolerances and far stricter
testing.
and they are allowed to use leaded solder.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Incubus
2019-10-11 12:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled
technicians soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and
valve holders. they were easily repaired and lasted years. They
were also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
This isn't true. In those days, they were wired "point to point" by
hand. They weren't fabricated using integrated circuit boards. This
is inherently more reliable and people still pay extra for such
products to-day where available. When they did break down, they were
easy to fix.
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I
assume all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use
that old way?
They are manufactured to an entirely different set of standards compared
to consumer electronics with much tighter tolerances and far stricter
testing.
and they are allowed to use leaded solder.
Indeed, I think it was NASA who published a report on the longevity of
lead-free solder.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-10 18:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I
assume all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use
that old way?
They are manufactured to an entirely different set of standards compared
to consumer electronics with much tighter tolerances and far stricter
testing. It's not an equal comparison.
I'd be very surprised if much of a machine made PCB has different
tolerances. It may well use a more robust PCB. And testing doesn't help if
something is basically poorly designed.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
A good amount of soldering these days is performed by "heat baths",
which can be very unreliable. The first generation Playstation 3 was
well known to suffer from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free
solder into the mix, the problem is more likely to occur over time.
And you think there were never soldering faults with point to point
wiring?
I didn't say that. However, it is a better process than using a heath bath.
Is there any other way to assemble a PCB these days? Do you think military
computers etc are hand soldered?
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Have you ever worked on it? I have. The heat associated with valve
equipment and thermal stress meant joints very often failed. Components
too.
That still happens to-day (the first gen Playstation 3 is a good example
again). With heat stress, we could also be talking about a design
problem (the Marshall JTM-30 springs to mind). However, the problem is
with heat, not with PtP boards.
I'll give you an early 90s Acorn RPC which I'm typing this on against your
Playstation. Never had a motherboard repair of any sort - apart from a
replacement battery. And machine made. You simply can't quote some single
bit of cheap consumer electronics as being representative of them all.
And you surely weren't around in the days of valve TVs if you think them
more reliable than today - despite being crude and simple devices in
comparison.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is
HIGHLY skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is
always simpler to buy a new one.
Doesn't mean it can't be repaired. I had a laptop repaired where
the fault was a dry solder joint between one of the processors and
the PCB. It was removed, cleaned and re-soldered. For a lot less
than even a used similar laptop would cost.
They probably just ran it under a heath bath and told you they soldered it...
No they didn't. They had a video of the repair process.
Start to finish?
Yes. It was a common fault on that particular laptop, so they did a fixed
price repair. Which has lasted longer than the original.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
Really? Wish I'd known that before fixing lots and lots of it.
What electronics have you fixed on modern cars?
You get the same failure point on car electronics as any thing else. Power
supplies and output devices.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was certainly a
lot more commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Because it was much needed to keep a car running. Modern cars can run
many times the distance without anything more than oil and filter
changes.
I think it depends on the manufacturer and service history. Ford
engines in the '80s had a bad reputation because people didn't bother to
get them serviced.
And you think any engine can run well for ever without servicing?
Post by Incubus
On the other hand, I'd rather have a Mercedes 190E
with low mileage than anything built to-day.
Are you really saying a Merc 190E has a better engine than the modern
equivalent?
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as
fitting a new clutch and often requires specialised tools.
Repairing an IC? Did you repair valves, back in the day? Transistors?
You don't need to repair valves. You replace them. Likewise,
transistors are easily replaced.
As are plenty of ICs.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Companies often just
replace bad components, which is an economic decision, but it
demonstrates that the time and effort involved is more expensive than
original fabrication.
Any repair may need a new technique. Many simply can't be bothered to
learn how, or invest in the tools/equipment needed.
Some repairs are simply beyond specialist skills. How many television
repair shops do you see these days? It's not because people have grown
lazy or not bothered to invest in tools or equipment.
The very fact that TVs are so much more reliable means there's not the
demand for repair shops.
--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Incubus
2019-10-11 12:58:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I
assume all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use
that old way?
They are manufactured to an entirely different set of standards compared
to consumer electronics with much tighter tolerances and far stricter
testing. It's not an equal comparison.
I'd be very surprised if much of a machine made PCB has different
tolerances.
The individual components have be manufactured with stricter tolerances.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It may well use a more robust PCB. And testing doesn't help if
something is basically poorly designed.
Proper testing confirms whether circuits have been wired reliably.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
A good amount of soldering these days is performed by "heat baths",
which can be very unreliable. The first generation Playstation 3 was
well known to suffer from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free
solder into the mix, the problem is more likely to occur over time.
And you think there were never soldering faults with point to point
wiring?
I didn't say that. However, it is a better process than using a heath bath.
Is there any other way to assemble a PCB these days? Do you think military
computers etc are hand soldered?
Robotics. It wouldn't surprise me if some hand-soldering is done.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Have you ever worked on it? I have. The heat associated with valve
equipment and thermal stress meant joints very often failed. Components
too.
That still happens to-day (the first gen Playstation 3 is a good example
again). With heat stress, we could also be talking about a design
problem (the Marshall JTM-30 springs to mind). However, the problem is
with heat, not with PtP boards.
I'll give you an early 90s Acorn RPC which I'm typing this on against your
Playstation. Never had a motherboard repair of any sort - apart from a
replacement battery. And machine made. You simply can't quote some single
bit of cheap consumer electronics as being representative of them all.
I didn't say it is representative of them all. Your early '90s RPC is much
simpler. Less to go wrong. Same with early '90s cars.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And you surely weren't around in the days of valve TVs if you think them
more reliable than today - despite being crude and simple devices in
comparison.
The point is that if they went wrong, they were simple and cheap to repair.
You didn't have to buy an entire new set.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
Really? Wish I'd known that before fixing lots and lots of it.
What electronics have you fixed on modern cars?
You get the same failure point on car electronics as any thing else. Power
supplies and output devices.
So you haven't repaired any microchips, ICBs etc. Power supplies are
relatively simple and easy to repair.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was certainly a
lot more commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Because it was much needed to keep a car running. Modern cars can run
many times the distance without anything more than oil and filter
changes.
I think it depends on the manufacturer and service history. Ford
engines in the '80s had a bad reputation because people didn't bother to
get them serviced.
And you think any engine can run well for ever without servicing?
I think I pretty obviously said they can't.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
On the other hand, I'd rather have a Mercedes 190E
with low mileage than anything built to-day.
Are you really saying a Merc 190E has a better engine than the modern
equivalent?
The 190E was over-engineered with simpler electronics than cars of to-day. It
is certainly more reliable.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as
fitting a new clutch and often requires specialised tools.
Repairing an IC? Did you repair valves, back in the day? Transistors?
You don't need to repair valves. You replace them. Likewise,
transistors are easily replaced.
As are plenty of ICs.
Which proves the point that modern electronics tend to get junked because they
cannot easily be repaired.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Companies often just
replace bad components, which is an economic decision, but it
demonstrates that the time and effort involved is more expensive than
original fabrication.
Any repair may need a new technique. Many simply can't be bothered to
learn how, or invest in the tools/equipment needed.
Some repairs are simply beyond specialist skills. How many television
repair shops do you see these days? It's not because people have grown
lazy or not bothered to invest in tools or equipment.
The very fact that TVs are so much more reliable means there's not the
demand for repair shops.
I don't believe they are more reliable. People don't seem to keep their
televisions for all that long these days.
Joe
2019-10-11 13:29:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:58:38 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Incubus
Proper testing confirms whether circuits have been wired reliably.
I don't think it does. I once applied solder to one end of a resistor
to fix an oscilloscope. Careful examination before doing this showed
that no solder had ever reached this particular joint.

The oscilloscope had been working and regularly calibrated for *seven*
*years* before this fault appeared. For how long should 'proper testing'
be carried out?
--
Joe
Incubus
2019-10-11 13:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:58:38 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Incubus
Proper testing confirms whether circuits have been wired reliably.
I don't think it does. I once applied solder to one end of a resistor
to fix an oscilloscope. Careful examination before doing this showed
that no solder had ever reached this particular joint.
The oscilloscope had been working and regularly calibrated for *seven*
*years* before this fault appeared. For how long should 'proper testing'
be carried out?
If it had been working correctly for seven years then where was the fault?

It's standard practice to test circuits for mission-critical operations. It is
also used to diagnose faults that have developed after use. It's not failsafe
but ensures greater reliability that one can expect from consumer electronics.
ZakJames
2019-10-11 18:17:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Joe
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:58:38 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Incubus
Proper testing confirms whether circuits have been wired reliably.
I don't think it does. I once applied solder to one end of a resistor
to fix an oscilloscope. Careful examination before doing this showed
that no solder had ever reached this particular joint.
The oscilloscope had been working and regularly calibrated for *seven*
*years* before this fault appeared. For how long should 'proper testing'
be carried out?
If it had been working correctly for seven years then where was the fault?
That end of the resistor had not be soldered. Contact by friction alone.

There isnt any test that can find all of those faults.
Post by Incubus
It's standard practice to test circuits for mission-critical operations.
It is
also used to diagnose faults that have developed after use. It's not failsafe
but ensures greater reliability that one can expect from consumer electronics.
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-11 14:17:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I
assume all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use
that old way?
They are manufactured to an entirely different set of standards compared
to consumer electronics with much tighter tolerances and far stricter
testing. It's not an equal comparison.
I'd be very surprised if much of a machine made PCB has different
tolerances.
The individual components have be manufactured with stricter tolerances.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It may well use a more robust PCB. And testing doesn't help if
something is basically poorly designed.
Proper testing confirms whether circuits have been wired reliably.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
A good amount of soldering these days is performed by "heat baths",
which can be very unreliable. The first generation Playstation 3 was
well known to suffer from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free
solder into the mix, the problem is more likely to occur over time.
And you think there were never soldering faults with point to point
wiring?
I didn't say that. However, it is a better process than using a heath bath.
Is there any other way to assemble a PCB these days? Do you think military
computers etc are hand soldered?
Robotics. It wouldn't surprise me if some hand-soldering is done.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Have you ever worked on it? I have. The heat associated with valve
equipment and thermal stress meant joints very often failed. Components
too.
That still happens to-day (the first gen Playstation 3 is a good example
again). With heat stress, we could also be talking about a design
problem (the Marshall JTM-30 springs to mind). However, the problem is
with heat, not with PtP boards.
I'll give you an early 90s Acorn RPC which I'm typing this on against your
Playstation. Never had a motherboard repair of any sort - apart from a
replacement battery. And machine made. You simply can't quote some single
bit of cheap consumer electronics as being representative of them all.
I didn't say it is representative of them all. Your early '90s RPC is much
simpler. Less to go wrong. Same with early '90s cars.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And you surely weren't around in the days of valve TVs if you think them
more reliable than today - despite being crude and simple devices in
comparison.
The point is that if they went wrong, they were simple and cheap to repair.
You didn't have to buy an entire new set.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
Really? Wish I'd known that before fixing lots and lots of it.
What electronics have you fixed on modern cars?
You get the same failure point on car electronics as any thing else. Power
supplies and output devices.
So you haven't repaired any microchips, ICBs etc. Power supplies are
relatively simple and easy to repair.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was certainly a
lot more commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Because it was much needed to keep a car running. Modern cars can run
many times the distance without anything more than oil and filter
changes.
I think it depends on the manufacturer and service history. Ford
engines in the '80s had a bad reputation because people didn't bother to
get them serviced.
And you think any engine can run well for ever without servicing?
I think I pretty obviously said they can't.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
On the other hand, I'd rather have a Mercedes 190E
with low mileage than anything built to-day.
Are you really saying a Merc 190E has a better engine than the modern
equivalent?
The 190E was over-engineered with simpler electronics than cars of to-day. It
is certainly more reliable.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as
fitting a new clutch and often requires specialised tools.
Repairing an IC? Did you repair valves, back in the day? Transistors?
You don't need to repair valves. You replace them. Likewise,
transistors are easily replaced.
As are plenty of ICs.
Which proves the point that modern electronics tend to get junked because they
cannot easily be repaired.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Companies often just
replace bad components, which is an economic decision, but it
demonstrates that the time and effort involved is more expensive than
original fabrication.
Any repair may need a new technique. Many simply can't be bothered to
learn how, or invest in the tools/equipment needed.
Some repairs are simply beyond specialist skills. How many television
repair shops do you see these days? It's not because people have grown
lazy or not bothered to invest in tools or equipment.
The very fact that TVs are so much more reliable means there's not the
demand for repair shops.
I don't believe they are more reliable. People don't seem to keep their
televisions for all that long these days.
go and look at yourt council tip.

Gazillions of plasma/lcd TVS etc. Corse they dont do smart shit
All well under 10 years old

Most probably reparable
--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen
Incubus
2019-10-11 14:52:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I
assume all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use
that old way?
They are manufactured to an entirely different set of standards compared
to consumer electronics with much tighter tolerances and far stricter
testing. It's not an equal comparison.
I'd be very surprised if much of a machine made PCB has different
tolerances.
The individual components have be manufactured with stricter tolerances.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It may well use a more robust PCB. And testing doesn't help if
something is basically poorly designed.
Proper testing confirms whether circuits have been wired reliably.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
A good amount of soldering these days is performed by "heat baths",
which can be very unreliable. The first generation Playstation 3 was
well known to suffer from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free
solder into the mix, the problem is more likely to occur over time.
And you think there were never soldering faults with point to point
wiring?
I didn't say that. However, it is a better process than using a heath bath.
Is there any other way to assemble a PCB these days? Do you think military
computers etc are hand soldered?
Robotics. It wouldn't surprise me if some hand-soldering is done.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Have you ever worked on it? I have. The heat associated with valve
equipment and thermal stress meant joints very often failed. Components
too.
That still happens to-day (the first gen Playstation 3 is a good example
again). With heat stress, we could also be talking about a design
problem (the Marshall JTM-30 springs to mind). However, the problem is
with heat, not with PtP boards.
I'll give you an early 90s Acorn RPC which I'm typing this on against your
Playstation. Never had a motherboard repair of any sort - apart from a
replacement battery. And machine made. You simply can't quote some single
bit of cheap consumer electronics as being representative of them all.
I didn't say it is representative of them all. Your early '90s RPC is much
simpler. Less to go wrong. Same with early '90s cars.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And you surely weren't around in the days of valve TVs if you think them
more reliable than today - despite being crude and simple devices in
comparison.
The point is that if they went wrong, they were simple and cheap to repair.
You didn't have to buy an entire new set.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
Really? Wish I'd known that before fixing lots and lots of it.
What electronics have you fixed on modern cars?
You get the same failure point on car electronics as any thing else. Power
supplies and output devices.
So you haven't repaired any microchips, ICBs etc. Power supplies are
relatively simple and easy to repair.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was certainly a
lot more commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Because it was much needed to keep a car running. Modern cars can run
many times the distance without anything more than oil and filter
changes.
I think it depends on the manufacturer and service history. Ford
engines in the '80s had a bad reputation because people didn't bother to
get them serviced.
And you think any engine can run well for ever without servicing?
I think I pretty obviously said they can't.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
On the other hand, I'd rather have a Mercedes 190E
with low mileage than anything built to-day.
Are you really saying a Merc 190E has a better engine than the modern
equivalent?
The 190E was over-engineered with simpler electronics than cars of to-day. It
is certainly more reliable.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as
fitting a new clutch and often requires specialised tools.
Repairing an IC? Did you repair valves, back in the day? Transistors?
You don't need to repair valves. You replace them. Likewise,
transistors are easily replaced.
As are plenty of ICs.
Which proves the point that modern electronics tend to get junked because they
cannot easily be repaired.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Companies often just
replace bad components, which is an economic decision, but it
demonstrates that the time and effort involved is more expensive than
original fabrication.
Any repair may need a new technique. Many simply can't be bothered to
learn how, or invest in the tools/equipment needed.
Some repairs are simply beyond specialist skills. How many television
repair shops do you see these days? It's not because people have grown
lazy or not bothered to invest in tools or equipment.
The very fact that TVs are so much more reliable means there's not the
demand for repair shops.
I don't believe they are more reliable. People don't seem to keep their
televisions for all that long these days.
go and look at yourt council tip.
Gazillions of plasma/lcd TVS etc. Corse they dont do smart shit
All well under 10 years old
Most probably reparable
Indeed, I saw a staggering amount when I last took rubbish to my local tip.
Some may have been in perfect working order prior to being dumped, such is our
consumer culture, but once a fault occurs there is realistically nothing to do
but dump them.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-11 17:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
I'll give you an early 90s Acorn RPC which I'm typing this on against
your Playstation. Never had a motherboard repair of any sort - apart
from a replacement battery. And machine made. You simply can't quote
some single bit of cheap consumer electronics as being representative
of them all.
I didn't say it is representative of them all. Your early '90s RPC is
much simpler. Less to go wrong.
Simpler than a Playstation?
--
*I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-11 17:54:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying point to point wiring is
inherently more reliable than 'integrated circuit boards'? If so I
assume all safety conscious things like aircraft electronics still use
that old way?
They are manufactured to an entirely different set of standards compared
to consumer electronics with much tighter tolerances and far stricter
testing. It's not an equal comparison.
I'd be very surprised if much of a machine made PCB has different
tolerances.
The individual components have be manufactured with stricter tolerances.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It may well use a more robust PCB. And testing doesn't help if
something is basically poorly designed.
Proper testing confirms whether circuits have been wired reliably.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
A good amount of soldering these days is performed by "heat baths",
which can be very unreliable. The first generation Playstation 3 was
well known to suffer from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free
solder into the mix, the problem is more likely to occur over time.
And you think there were never soldering faults with point to point
wiring?
I didn't say that. However, it is a better process than using a heath bath.
Is there any other way to assemble a PCB these days? Do you think military
computers etc are hand soldered?
Robotics. It wouldn't surprise me if some hand-soldering is done.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Have you ever worked on it? I have. The heat associated with valve
equipment and thermal stress meant joints very often failed. Components
too.
That still happens to-day (the first gen Playstation 3 is a good example
again). With heat stress, we could also be talking about a design
problem (the Marshall JTM-30 springs to mind). However, the problem is
with heat, not with PtP boards.
I'll give you an early 90s Acorn RPC which I'm typing this on against your
Playstation. Never had a motherboard repair of any sort - apart from a
replacement battery. And machine made. You simply can't quote some single
bit of cheap consumer electronics as being representative of them all.
I didn't say it is representative of them all. Your early '90s RPC
is much simpler. Less to go wrong. Same with early '90s cars.
And yet current cars have far fewer faults. My Hyundai Getz had
no warranty claims and no faults at all in 13 years, bought new.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And you surely weren't around in the days of valve TVs if you think them
more reliable than today - despite being crude and simple devices in
comparison.
The point is that if they went wrong, they were simple and cheap to repair.
You didn't have to buy an entire new set.
You still don’t.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
Really? Wish I'd known that before fixing lots and lots of it.
What electronics have you fixed on modern cars?
You get the same failure point on car electronics as any thing else. Power
supplies and output devices.
So you haven't repaired any microchips, ICBs etc. Power supplies are
relatively simple and easy to repair.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was certainly a
lot more commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Because it was much needed to keep a car running. Modern cars can run
many times the distance without anything more than oil and filter
changes.
I think it depends on the manufacturer and service history. Ford
engines in the '80s had a bad reputation because people didn't bother to
get them serviced.
And you think any engine can run well for ever without servicing?
I think I pretty obviously said they can't.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
On the other hand, I'd rather have a Mercedes 190E
with low mileage than anything built to-day.
Are you really saying a Merc 190E has a better engine than the modern
equivalent?
The 190E was over-engineered with simpler electronics than cars of to-day.
It
is certainly more reliable.
That last is very arguable.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as
fitting a new clutch and often requires specialised tools.
Repairing an IC? Did you repair valves, back in the day? Transistors?
You don't need to repair valves. You replace them. Likewise,
transistors are easily replaced.
As are plenty of ICs.
Which proves the point that modern electronics tend to get junked because they
cannot easily be repaired.
That’s just plain wrong with mobile phones alone.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Companies often just
replace bad components, which is an economic decision, but it
demonstrates that the time and effort involved is more expensive than
original fabrication.
Any repair may need a new technique. Many simply can't be bothered to
learn how, or invest in the tools/equipment needed.
Some repairs are simply beyond specialist skills. How many television
repair shops do you see these days? It's not because people have grown
lazy or not bothered to invest in tools or equipment.
The very fact that TVs are so much more reliable means there's not the
demand for repair shops.
I don't believe they are more reliable.
They are anyway.

? People don't seem to keep their
Post by Incubus
televisions for all that long these days.
Because they keep getting more capability,
better pictures and are so cheap that its easy
to get a new one even of the old one still works.
AlexK
2019-10-10 18:49:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled technicians
soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and valve holders. they
were easily repaired and lasted years. They were also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
This isn't true. In those days, they were wired "point to point"
by hand. They weren't fabricated using integrated circuit boards.
This is inherently more reliable
That’s very arguable.
Post by Incubus
and people still pay extra for such products to-day where available.
For a different reason, not for the reliability.
Post by Incubus
When they did break down, they were easy to fix.
But did require fixing much more often due to the valves.
Post by Incubus
A good amount of soldering these days is performed
by "heat baths", which can be very unreliable.
In fact its very reliable now.
Post by Incubus
The first generation Playstation 3 was well known to suffer
from bad solder joins. When you add lead-free solder into
the mix, the problem is more likely to occur over time.
But still require much less fixing than the antique
point to point wired valve systems did.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB
which is HIGHLY skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled
by robots it is always simpler to buy a new one.
Doesn't mean it can't be repaired. I had a laptop repaired where
the fault was a dry solder joint between one of the processors
and the PCB. It was removed, cleaned and re-soldered. For a
lot less than even a used similar laptop would cost.
They probably just ran it under a heath bath and told you they soldered it...
Not possible to do it that way.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars.
It's a valid one.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
They are so complex they can't be fixed at home.
The electronics certainly can't.
That’s wrong too. Plenty do fix the main computer.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
As if everyone was born understanding carbs
and points ignition.
Many people learned. DIY car maintenance and repair was
certainly a lot more commonplace before the year 2000 or so.
Because that had to be done. It doesn’t anymore, just basic
oil and filter changing and spark plugs and brake pads etc now.
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Simply new skills that need to be learned.
Repairing ICs and replacing microchips isn't as easy to learn as fitting a new
clutch and often requires specialised tools. Companies often just replace bad
components, which is an economic decision, but it demonstrates that the time
and effort involved is more expensive than original fabrication.
But still costs the end user less than a new pcb assembly with stuff like
furnaces etc.
Peeler
2019-10-10 19:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:49:53 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
That’s very arguable.
What's NOT "arguable" for you, you abnormal cantankerous senile troll?
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
charles
2019-10-10 17:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled technicians
soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and valve holders. they
were easily repaired and lasted years. They were also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Doesn't mean it can't be repaired. I had a laptop repaired where the fault
was a dry solder joint between one of the processors and the PCB. It was
removed, cleaned and re-soldered. For a lot less than even a used similar
laptop would cost.
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars. They are so complex
they can't be fixed at home. As if everyone was born understanding carbs
and points ignition. Simply new skills that need to be learned.
In the past a socket set and a torgue wrench (which I still have)was
enought to do most things,; nowadays a lot of test equipmnet is needed,
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-10 18:12:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars. They are so
complex they can't be fixed at home. As if everyone was born
understanding carbs and points ignition. Simply new skills that need
to be learned.
In the past a socket set and a torgue wrench (which I still have)was
enought to do most things,; nowadays a lot of test equipmnet is needed,
But if you were a young man starting out again, you'd no doubt learn how
modern engine management works. In the same way as you learned how to
replace a clutch. Which is still possible these days anyway.
--
*A dog's not just for Christmas, it's alright on a Friday night too*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-10 18:50:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by charles
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars. They are so
complex they can't be fixed at home. As if everyone was born
understanding carbs and points ignition. Simply new skills that need
to be learned.
In the past a socket set and a torgue wrench (which I still have)was
enought to do most things,; nowadays a lot of test equipmnet is needed,
But if you were a young man starting out again, you'd no doubt learn how
modern engine management works.
https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/eobd-facile-car-diagnostic/id713921569

Other apps for Androids, etc., are available.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
In the same way as you learned how to
replace a clutch. Which is still possible these days anyway.
Rod Speed
2019-10-10 19:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
When I were a lad a valve radio was bult by hand by skilled technicians
soldering resistors and capactoars to tag boards and valve holders. they
were easily repaired and lasted years. They were also very expebsive
They only lasted years because they were expensive. Not because of
inherent reliability. Making repair economic.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Today everything is on a chip and a surface mount PCB which is HIGHLY
skilled stuff to repair by hand. Assembled by robots it is always
simpler to buy a new one.
Doesn't mean it can't be repaired. I had a laptop repaired where the fault
was a dry solder joint between one of the processors and the PCB. It was
removed, cleaned and re-soldered. For a lot less than even a used similar
laptop would cost.
It's the same argument you hear so often with cars. They are so complex
they can't be fixed at home. As if everyone was born understanding carbs
and points ignition. Simply new skills that need to be learned.
In the past a socket set and a torgue wrench (which I still have)was
enought to do most things,; nowadays a lot of test equipmnet is needed,
No it isnt with the best designed cars, just an OBD2 device and the same
socket set.
Peeler
2019-10-10 19:35:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 06:25:44 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by charles
In the past a socket set and a torgue wrench (which I still have)was
enought to do most things,; nowadays a lot of test equipmnet is needed,
No
LOL
--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <***@85.214.115.223>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-10 10:26:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
Is that how you ran your business? Create an unnecessary job just because
it was cheap? If not cheap, you could do without?
Very efficient way of running things.
Only time it might apply is with a domestic cleaner or gardener etc. Where
the householder may decide it better to DIY if the costs go up.
It is an extremely efficient way to do things. Much manufacturing has
gone abroad as a result of escalating labour costs. There is nothing
wrong with that, and certainly not inefficient.
Really? Why not simply subsidise the industry directly and cut out the
middle man?
--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-10 10:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
Is that how you ran your business? Create an unnecessary job just because
it was cheap? If not cheap, you could do without?
Very efficient way of running things.
Only time it might apply is with a domestic cleaner or gardener etc. Where
the householder may decide it better to DIY if the costs go up.
It is an extremely efficient way to do things. Much manufacturing has
gone abroad as a result of escalating labour costs. There is nothing
wrong with that, and certainly not inefficient.
Really? Why not simply subsidise the industry directly and cut out the
middle man?
How far would you take that and how far would you try to second-guess
the market (which is no more than the aggregate of consumer aspiration
and willingness to pay)?

Would we still be building hansom cabs in order to protect jobs?
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-10 14:56:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
It is an extremely efficient way to do things. Much manufacturing has
gone abroad as a result of escalating labour costs. There is nothing
wrong with that, and certainly not inefficient.
Really? Why not simply subsidise the industry directly and cut out the
middle man?
How far would you take that and how far would you try to second-guess
the market (which is no more than the aggregate of consumer aspiration
and willingness to pay)?
Would we still be building hansom cabs in order to protect jobs?
It sounds like you want to. By providing cheap labour to employers. That
we as taxpayers subsidise.

If providing plenty cheap labour is the answer to our manufacturing
industry, surely the easiest way is lots and lots of immigrants?
--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-10 16:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
It is an extremely efficient way to do things. Much manufacturing has
gone abroad as a result of escalating labour costs. There is nothing
wrong with that, and certainly not inefficient.
Really? Why not simply subsidise the industry directly and cut out the
middle man?
How far would you take that and how far would you try to second-guess
the market (which is no more than the aggregate of consumer aspiration
and willingness to pay)?
Would we still be building hansom cabs in order to protect jobs?
It sounds like you want to. By providing cheap labour to employers. That
we as taxpayers subsidise.
That's what you *call* a wriggle.

And you still didn't answer the question.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If providing plenty cheap labour is the answer to our manufacturing
industry, surely the easiest way is lots and lots of immigrants?
I don't say that cheap labour is the answer to anything. But we cannot
see increases in the size of the workforce such as we have experienced
in recent years without the market clearing price of labour falling.
This is not a difficult equation.
Pamela
2019-10-01 11:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job
stolen because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen
because of freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area
stolen because of freedom of movement etc.
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what you
will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't afford to
live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
There are some such returning expats posting to these boards. They're so
self-deluded that they advocate a hard Brexit.
Steve Walker
2019-10-01 21:25:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?
We had a referendum? Who won and who lost?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
Define decent living standards....
Does it include a >45 inch TV screen?
Mobile phone yearly upgrade, perhaps?
Car?
Dishwasher?
Tumble Dryer?
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job stolen
because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen because of
freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area stolen because of
freedom of movement etc.
As we have huge levels of net migration from the EU, you are far more
likely to be unable to find a job because someone from Eastern Europe
has taken it at a lower wage than you can live on; and far less chance
of buying a house, because the ever-increasing population has left us
short of housing, driving prices upwards.

SteveW
Ian Jackson
2019-09-30 14:35:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?
At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
Don't forget to listen to his nightly party-political LBC phone-in at
6pm.
--
Ian
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-09-30 13:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Maybe so, but I think it's an improper use of it for purposes that were
never foreseen when it was passed. It was never thought that an
opposition would turn down the chance of being elected.
You mean it *was* forecast that a Tory PM would pull every trick in the
book to thwart the rule of parliament?
--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-09-30 13:31:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
They are acting in the national interest by preventing the lunatic
fringe of the Tory party from crashing us out of the EU without a deal.
That at least is their intention. I don't trust Boris *OR* Corbyn.
Bit of a dilemma, isn't it? ;-)
--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Loading...