BigOl64 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Rubbish...everyone punished under Johseph Stalin was found guilty of the most heinous of crimes...your right wing hero hitler persecuted the weak and vulnerable like all right wing evil doers do...

Verge wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:


I don't particularly like the idea of "boot camps" because it seems like too much of an "army" thing. It would give the boys a distorted view of what it means to be masculine. They would think their life's purpose was being macho, muscular and aggressive. These people would be more likely to get into brawls at night and kill people with a king hit.

Mandatory employment in a factory or mandatory training to become a tradesperson is something I think would be more suitable. Pay them minimum wage and below market rates or on commission. They will make things cheaper and maybe help us compete with foreign imports. I think "boot camp" is a waste of time. As the name suggests, it's probably just people putting "boots" on, setting up tents, camping, exercise, marching and jogging around in the park. Just another outdoor education program.

I also don't understand why "youth unemployment" is such a problem when they can just send them back to school where they should be.

How about ongoing detention for being unemployed, absent from school and/or for being a truant?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:


I thought maybe I should make one final comment on the discussion here on "sustained bombing" of Britain.

When someone says that Britain underwent "five years" of "sustained, solid daily bombings," I assume that they are talking about a "sustained bombing campaign" like the "Battle of Britain" or "the Blitz."

If I then mention the "Battle of Britain" or "the Blitz," and then say, "Germany stopped bombing Britain in May 1941," I wouldn't then assume you'd think I meant they stopped for the entire remainder of the war.

I can see why some people thought I meant that they stopped bombing Britain for the entire remainder of the war, because I didn't say otherwise. However, I never said that.

I would have thought it was obvious that by saying, "Germany stopped bombing Britain in May 1941," I am refuting what Andrei said about five unbroken years of sustained bombing. It makes sense when it was around the same time that Germany started invading the Soviet Union and they committed 4,000 of their aircraft to the task.

Notice that Andrei did not say, five years of "bombing" from Germany, but "five years of sustained bombing." I had to point out that he was wrong, that there were huge lulls in "sustained bombing" in the 5-6 years of the war.

The use of V-2 rockets to attack Britain, even in a "sustained manner" is irrelevant because I was countering what Andrei said about five unbroken years of sustained bombing -- not whether Germany ever bombed Britain again.

If anyone wants to accuse me of being "ignorant," they should at least try to understand what I actually meant first and not put words in my mouth.

red baron wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:


How exactly is access to television a "luxury"? They are a dime a dozen and you cant even apply for a job without access to the internet nowadays.

SOB

The unemployed are entitled to have what they like Kat.

What I would ask is what do they do to deserve more money?

What do they actually DO for it? I work 10-11 hours a day for my wage. What are the unemployed doing for the cash we give them?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 11:44am:


They aren't getting any more money, if it makes you happy.

If people had to deserve something to get it, the human population would be much smaller than it is now.

Even a market-driven economy, the concept that you are fond of advocating, doesn't give people what they deserve. You're not going to tell me that someone who gets $20 million a year actually deserves all that money. It's not about what people deserve. It's about being practical.

We have a market-driven economy because it is a practical concept. It's where the economy regulates itself.

We have social security because it is a practical concept. If we give people the means to find a job, then people can find work and the economy will remain productive.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 11:44am:


I thought you had a salary. What is a person on a gross income in excess of $150k a year doing on a wage?

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 2:14pm:


On the contrary the market is always the best benchmark of what someone is worth.

If someone is paid $20m per year then the market has valued them at that.

In a listed entity, the remuneration committee determines the exec salary and it takes into account the market at the time.

Why when I was looking for work - the 4 roles I ended up looking at all paid within $5-10k of each other?
Because the market knew my worth, the market knew the value of the role to the organization.

In a market based supply/demand curve the market ALWAYS knows the value of the person.