Re: Big Finish Downloads


"Will Tingle" <Will@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:eT$e$F$hm1BIFwBt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of typewriters. Agamemnon <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

"Will Tingle" <Will@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:b1i$mu5XJyBIFwTV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of typewriters. Agamemnon <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

"Will Tingle" <Will@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:VNB8Yaia6cBIFwQM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ah, so you believe in the magic money tree - that explains it:

TWADDLE! I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work.

The money has to come from somewhere.

Besides which, some jobs are so brain-rottingly simple that £5 can in no way be deemed as "fair", £5 an hour for flipping burgers is not "fair", its fucking fantastic!

POPPY***!

Someone sweeping the streets or emptying rubbish bins expends more energy than a chief executive sitting in his office or out on the golf course.

But how did he get there? - by being better than the competition - not

But bumming someone at prep school most probably.

may people can get to or keep these jobs.

That's because it's all based on nepotism.

A chief executive is no more skilled than either lower or middle manage men. He doesn't boss any more people around or make and greater number of decisions than they do. It's not like the company employing 20,000 people an the chief executive hiring and interviewing every single one of them and individually showing each one of then how they should perform their job better by example. No. The chief executive bosses around another 20 people and those 20 people boss around 20 people each and so on down the pyramid until you get to the factory floor boss who bosses 20 foremen who each boss 20 workers. Who is doing the most work? They are all doing the same amount of work. Whose job is more important? All of their jobs are equally important. Without the foreman and the 20 workers he bosses the company wouldn't be able to produce anything. Each person does a job best suited to his skills and abilities. All of the bosses are equally qualified a bossing so should be paid the same as the chief executive.


Clearly the person who should be paid more is the one who does the most work and that is the street sweeper or the bin man. Could the chief executive carry all of those bins

Carry? - we have wheelie bins. Under health and safety laws, you aren't allowed to carry more that (IIRC) 25kg at a time in the line of work, so the lifting is easy, and yes, virtually anybody could do it.

No disrespect to bin men, it's an important job, and someone needs to do it - but there are no shortage of viable applicants.

Not true. If we didn't have bin men then the streets would stink of rotting rubbish and everywhere would be full of disease. Therefore a bin man is as important as a doctor.


or sweep up all that rubbish? No. Each person has his skills and abilities and all skills and abilities should be rewarded with an equal amount of pay.

Wrong.


No, not worng.

The common skills and abilities are not worth as much as rare ones.

If everyone earned the same level of pay, what incentive would there be to go to (for instance) med school?

Well for as start there's the incentive of not having to go down a coal mine, or down a sewer or follow a dust cart around with smelly bins. Each person is doing a job best suited to their skills.


Except the socialist magic money tree doesn't exist; that extra wage has to come from somewhere....

The prices of the meals have to go up.

Well obviously.


The lower end staff STILL can't afford to eat there.

Then it is clear they are not being paid enough to live on and should be paid more.

Pay them more and (as you have said is "obvious") the meals go up too - they still wouldn't be able to afford to eat there - this is way "if we all got paid a lot, we'd all be better off" DOESN'T WORK!

Nope. If the meals go up then the restaurateur earns more money per meal and thus he is better off.

The reason he takes (not earns, there is a big difference) more per meal is to cover the increased wages, he is no better off.

WRONG! If he is getting 10 more customers every hour whereas before he was getting zero customers an hour except at Christmas, valentines day and mothers day which are the occasions where he makes 95% of the money needed to keep the business going then that is than enough to increase the wages of his 3 staff members by £3 to £4 per hour as he is making £6 to £8 from each meal times 10 per hour.


You are assuming that his only customers would be his own staff but they would probably get free meals from his establishment anyway.

very rare.

If the restaurateur pays his workers more then workers for other employers, who are his customers will want to be paid more and the more they get paid the more they will spend in his establishment. This means that he is better of and everyone is better off.

EVERYONE cannot BE better off - it doesn't work like that. there is a

Yes it does. And if not everyone then certainly the restaurateur is much better off.

finite amount of money, and if you print more it's worth less - this is why I refer to "the magic socialist money tree".

That is total and utter HOGWASH! Nobody is saying more money should be printed. The Bank of England isn't going to give bosses money for nothing to pay their employees.

What will happen is that the existing wealth will be redistributed more equally and the people in the middle, Middle England will see more of it.


ALL the money EVERYONE gets paid has to come from somewhere, so the bosses doing the paying have to recoup their money by charging more for the services / products they offer. This pushes everything up in price and NO ONE is better off.

This is how the bosses drove British industry into the ground under Thatcher and Heath, so there was nothing left to pass on to John Major. It is not for the bosses doing the paying to recoup anything by charging more for the services or products they offer. Those services and products are exactly the same as they were before and the bosses are doing no more work to produce them. Only cost of the final product made on the factory floor would increase, but it would only need to be increased by a small amount for the workers to be paid more than enough for them to afford to buy it. In fact the cost of the final product might even fall because now they are being paid more the workers will work harder and produce more. Has the US economy fallen apart because of the minimum wage which they have had for decades and decades. No.


Well, that's not strictly true, India is much better off, as they now get all of the call centre contract - minimum wage has made it economically unliveable to use UK call centres, meaning the people who would have been earning 3.50 answering are now on the dole, while money moves out of the British economy into India.

And who was manning these call centres when they were in the UK. Indian immigrants. They were the only people willing to work for £3.50 an hour. Now the immigration problem has been solved. The Indians stay in India unless they have useful skills to offer us and poverty in this country falls and everyone is happier.


Likewise, illegal immigrants, and Chinese manufacturing plants.

Back to china.


Lets suppose that his main customers are Polish builders. If there were no minimum wage then each builder would only spend £3 or £4 in his restaurant, or more likely go to a fast food joint. If the builders are paid a reasonable minimum wage then they have twice as much to spend and that is enough to but them a proper meal,

However the cost of building new houses rises, causing the cost of existing houses to rise, causing people to have bigger mortgages,

But that rise in cost is peanuts compared to the price of the land it is built on especially in London and in most cases can be made up through use of modern technology and techniques and industrialisation and greater efficiency. If the building cost increases then the land cost will fall to compensate or the extortionate profits made by the developers will fall to reasonable levels since less people will want to buy. An equilibrium will be reached and the wealth will be redistributed from the pockets of the developers into the pockets of the builders and the house buyers.

causing the workers at the restaurant to need a pay rise to cover the mortgage (and the increased housing maintenance costs), causing the food to be put up to cover the cost of the increased wages, causing the builders to still not be able to eat there.

No. House prices will fall and workers and house buyers will have more money left in their pockets to spend at the restaurant. Profiteering and slave labour is what destroyed British industry.


So he decides to call it a day: he'd be better off closing the restaurant and washing pots for someone else!

That thing used to happened long before the minimum wage was introduced.

But happens more as staff have to be paid higher wages for menial tasks.


No. It would happen less. The restaurateur would have richer customers and richer customers make him richer.

the richer customers get their money from their bosses, their bosses have to charge more for whatever they supply - EVERYTHING gets more expensive and no one is any better off.

Nope. The bosses would not charge more since they would not be earning more and would not be justified to call for a pay increase.


Many privately owned businesses employ many people.

Most don't.

wrong.

Most privately owned businesses are single traders.



Well people had enough of that and got themselves educated and got a proper jobs.

So, you think people should have to go away and get educated in order to earn a decent wage - I agree. no more £5-an-hour for pot washers then. good.

No. A pot washer should be paid £10 per hour. This will give him more to spend and make shopkeepers richer. Same goes for nurses. Pay them £20 per hour. As for chief executives, what do they do. Play golf all day. Do they do any more work than nurses, or even pot washers. NO! Certainly not. Pay them £5 per hour like they deserve. Who needs them anyway. It's the workers under them that keep the company going and they don't need the chief executives to make the company work.

You need someone at the top to orchestrate the business and keep it running - if promotion didn't come with an increase in pay, no-one would take the promotion, and (as such) companies would fall apart.

TWADDLE! The idea of promotion is a modern day nonsense. Back in the days when Britain was Great, a job meant a job for life and the position you entered a company was the position you left it because you would be employed according to your skills and abilities. A boss is a boss is a boss whether it be a chief executive or a factory floor manager. Some people have the skills needed for the factory floor and they should stay on the factory floor and some people have the skills for upper management but all of these positions are EQUAL and all should be paid the same amount. A university graduate is just as capable of being chief executive as he is of being middle manger. All a boss does is bosses other people and it makes no difference if these are other bosses or foremen or factory workers. A job should be a job for live and promotion would be rendered irrelevant by choosing the best person to do each job from the start. It should be thought of as being no different to moving to another company doing the same kind of job and all bosses should be paid the same amount, and thus they will all be happier.


Who needs restaurants anyway when you can buy a ready made meal from a supermarket for a fraction of the price. The restaurant business model was always going to end up being commercially unviable when people started setting up food factories and fast food joints and when British industry was driven into the ground by money grabbing executives who were rewarded for failure and who didn't pay their employees enough to dine at the aforementioned establishment so it could make a decent amount of money.

Except it isn't just restaurants is it? - many industries now have to pay more, and, as a result, the cost of living has gone up many times

And as a result the restaurateurs and the shop keepers become richer. Cushtey.

Except that everything has gone up in price so (although more money is moving around, much quicker) no-one can actually afford any more stuff - this is what I mean by "no-one is better off"

And that is a load of utter nonsense.Since the restaurant is getting more customers now everyone is being paid the minimum wage prices will actual fall.



since the introduction of minimum wage. as a result very few people are relatively better off, and many are relatively worse off.

HOGWASH! The prices of TVs, DVD players, Computers and everything else has fallen, well except CDs and DVDs.

Technology gets cheaper - this has always been the case (even before minimum wage), the cost of living however (silly things like rent, rates, light, heat, food & clothes) just keeps climbing.

And this no nothing to do with the minimum wage. Increases in rent, rates, light, heat, food & clothes are a result of the increasing price of oil and commodities which is a direct result in Americans illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.


Well if they would be earning more on the dole than from a stingy restaurant proprietor only paying them £2 and hour then they are better off out of a job. The only people who would not be better of would be migrant workers from other countries who are taking all the low paid job, since without a job they would have to go back home, and good riddance to them. So not only have you made people richer by introducing a higher minimum wage but you have put an end to immigration, and everyone is happier for it.

Then how come so many people (illegally) employ immigrants (for less than minimum wage)?
If he'd made a fortune, would he have kept it, or invested it in the community?

Well if he'd won a million in the lottery he'd have given £40,000 to the church.

That sound more like religious nut-jobbery than socialism...

Rubbish. It's supporting the Greek community. The church needs a new roof and new windows and new carports and restoration work, and it needs a community centre.


.