Brexit Schmexit

[feral chile]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but why do fruit pickers deserve a *high* reward, as opposed to (just) a reward?

You're demanding that they have a high reward before even seeing if they're deserving of it ... and even if picker-A is deserving of a high reward, that doesn't justify a high reward for picker-B.

Higher reward is a consequence of higher effort, not just because you say so.

(and i'll point out: that's Marxist, not tory.)

 

survival isn't worth the effort?

Oh, you think by-default all humans are deserving of more than survival. I'm pointing out that without work there is not even survival.

 

What's socially acceptable about refusing to contribute?

I'm not saying they deserve a higher reward. You're saying they should do their duty as their reward.

[feral chile]

https://theconversation.com/the-real-reasons-why-british-workers-wont-pick-fruit-80152

This article discusses the problems and history around this area of employment.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I'm not saying they deserve a higher reward. You're saying they should do their duty as their reward.

No, I'm saying it's a duty to contribute.

If low-reward work is all a person is able to contribute, then low reward work is what they should do.

Arguments about whether the reward should be higher is something else.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

https://theconversation.com/the-real-reasons-why-british-workers-wont-pick-fruit-80152

This article discusses the problems and history around this area of employment.

"while some British workers engaged in seasonal labour up until the end of the 20th century, their desire to do so appears to have waned dramatically"

That's the root problem. They're thinking themselves too good for the work - while being happy for foreigners to do it.

It's the complete opposite of good socialist values.

 

[zahidf]

Davis wont resign and has backed down.

 

All mouth and no trousers

[zahidf]

oh, and this is what yvetee cooper has emailed around her constituencies

notice the lack of No Brexit/second referendum options

 

I think trying to act like any of the other more moderate leadership people would act differently to Corbyn is... misplaced

[pink_triangle]

22 minutes ago, zahidf said:

oh, and this is what yvetee cooper has emailed around her constituencies

notice the lack of No Brexit/second referendum options

 

I think trying to act like any of the other more moderate leadership people would act differently to Corbyn is... misplaced

Those 2 options arent possible with the current parliament. I think Cooper is giving realistic options.I also am guessing her constituents voted leave.

Of course Cooper would act differently to Corbyn. One has a history of being anti Europe, one has a history of being pro Europe. To think they would have acted the same is madness. I also am sure Cooper would have campaigned properly and maybe delayed a holiday if she had been leader! 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

oh, and this is what yvetee cooper has emailed around her constituencies

notice the lack of No Brexit/second referendum options

 

I think trying to act like any of the other more moderate leadership people would act differently to Corbyn is... misplaced

you seem to have missed the open-ended question that allows a whole range of going-much-further-than-corbyn-will-allow.

If, say, everyone voted for "close partnership on all issues", then that opens up question of how close and what the formal relationship might be, with one option being remaining in the EU. Which then raises the question of how that can be justified within a democratic context.

To say straight up "2nd referendum" pre-supposes the answer to the question she's asking. It would be premature to include it.

It goes waaaay further than Corbyn is prepared to allow.

(tho unfortunately, I reckon the wording of the last option is trying to lead people to it).

As for acting differently, I've said all the way thru that Labour are in a bind whatever policy they might have adopted - but the consequence of that is that it opens up possibilities rather than boxes Labour into one particular position.

Having said that, I'm happy to agree that Labour needed to help facilitate the brexit process going forwards at some points (otherwise they'd appear anti-democracy), but that doesn't get to mean that labour had to act in the way that it has done. For example, they might have refused to back a50 being triggered unless there was a plan; Corbyn might have allowed some leeway around the various brexit wants within (which he has to the hardest brexiters, if you care to notice!), and sold the fact of differences within Labour as being the same as differences in the country, which needed to be worked thru. He could have also shifted position, to not be going after the same cake-and-eat-it position as the tories.

There are other options for Corbyn than being a tory brexiter,

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

"while some British workers engaged in seasonal labour up until the end of the 20th century, their desire to do so appears to have waned dramatically"

That's the root problem. They're thinking themselves too good for the work - while being happy for foreigners to do it.

It's the complete opposite of good socialist values.

 

No, that's you implying anything is good enough for them.

You go do it then, or do you have something better to do?

I love the way you tell other people what their moral obligation is. The have nots at least. You're very quiet on the non contributors amongst the haves.

Why not send them out fruit picking?

 

 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, feral chile said:

No, that's you implying anything is good enough for them.

If it's a task that needs doing no one is too good for it.

 

Quote

You go do it then, or do you have something better to do?

I've done shitty jobs when necessary, rather than do nothing.

But i've also at points chosen to do nothing. What I haven't done is tried to justify it as OK (outside of one specific circumstance, which you've not mentioned, and which doesn't apply in this circumstance).

 

Quote

I love the way you tell other people what their moral obligation is.

if you don't earn your own keep on earth, who will do it for you, why should they, and do they have a right to say "not doing it anymore"?

You seem to love to say that others should work for your benefit but you shouldn't for theirs, but you never say why you think these other people should be your slave. Care to say?

 

Quote

The have nots at least. You're very quiet on the non contributors amongst the haves.

Does your dictionary have the word "everyone" missing? :rolleyes:

 

Quote

Why not send them out fruit picking?

Within society as it exists they're making their contribution, even if you personally don't value it.

The same is not true of someone who refuses to make a contribution - as proven by you saying they're not morally beholden to make a contribution.

Edited June 7, 2018 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If it's a task that needs doing no one is too good for it.

 

I've done shitty jobs when necessary, rather than do nothing.

But i've also at points chosen to do nothing. What I haven't done is tried to justify it as OK (outside of one specific circumstance, which you've not mentioned, and which doesn't apply in this circumstance).

 

if you don't earn your own keep on earth, who will do it for you, why should they, and do they have a right to say "not doing it anymore"?

You seem to love to say that others should work for your benefit but you shouldn't for theirs, but you never say why you think these other people should be your slave. Care to say?

 

Does your dictionary have the word "everyone" missing? :rolleyes:

 

Within society as it exists they're making their contribution, even if you personally don't value it.

The same is not true of someone who refuses to make a contribution - as proven by you saying they're not morally beholden to make a contribution.

I haven't mentioned anyone refusing to contribute.

Or decided on automatically freepassing the deserving rich.

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

"while some British workers engaged in seasonal labour up until the end of the 20th century, their desire to do so appears to have waned dramatically"

That's the root problem. They're thinking themselves too good for the work - while being happy for foreigners to do it.

It's the complete opposite of good socialist values.

 

The problem is that they've moved to cities.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I haven't mentioned anyone refusing to contribute.

You've said it's fine for people not to contribute if the rewards don't suit them - which is the same bollocks from 'the poor' as it is 'the rich'.

It's exactly the same "I'm too good to do what other people might be doing".

 

10 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Or decided on automatically freepassing the deserving rich.

How is it free-passing anyone by saying *EVERYONE* has to contribute to their existence? :rolleyes:

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The problem is that they've moved to cities.

utter bollocks. The rural population is greater than it ever was.

Tho in the past, anyway, it tended to be the city dwellers who went and did the more-seasonal farm work.

[feral chile]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You've said it's fine for people not to contribute if the rewards don't suit them - which is the same bollocks from 'the poor' as it is 'the rich'.

It's exactly the same "I'm too good to do what other people might be doing".

 

How is it free-passing anyone by saying *EVERYONE* has to contribute to their existence? :rolleyes:

You think we all work to contribute?

My grandfather thought all white collar workers were unproductive.

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

utter bollocks. The rural population is greater than it ever was.

Tho in the past, anyway, it tended to be the city dwellers who went and did the more-seasonal farm work.

bit of selective reading going on there. That article states that as one of the reasons.

Edited June 7, 2018 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, feral chile said:

You think we all work to contribute?

Ultimately, yes. To contribute to our own survival, no differently to how we'd have to in an animal state.

 

23 minutes ago, feral chile said:

My grandfather thought all white collar workers were unproductive.

And my grandfather didn't trust paper money, which is quite ironic as he worked in a bank.

Ultimately the only meaningful judgement on what is productive is the value others place on it - and just because grandpappy didn't it doesn't mean it was worthless or unproductive. If someone will pick up the tab, then there's that value in that work.

 

23 minutes ago, feral chile said:

bit of selective reading going on there. That article states that as one of the reasons.

eh? You whitewashing again? Nothing of that makes sense against what you said and then what I said.

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Ultimately, yes. To contribute to our own survival, no differently to how we'd have to in an animal state.

 

And my grandfather didn't trust paper money, which is quite ironic as he worked in a bank.

Ultimately the only meaningful judgement on what is productive is the value others place on it - and just because grandpappy didn't it doesn't mean it was worthless or unproductive. If someone will pick up the tab, then there's that value in that work.

 

eh? You whitewashing again? Nothing of that makes sense against what you said and then what I said.

So who is it exactly that you think isn't contributing?

The article you quoted said fruit picking had lost popularity and said there were now fewer rural people to do it. Plus housing issues etc.

It also mentioned slave labour.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, feral chile said:

So who is it exactly that you think isn't contributing?

those who choose to not contribute, the ones you talked about.

 

20 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The article you quoted said fruit picking had lost popularity

the purpose of work is not to be enjoyable. 

20 minutes ago, feral chile said:

and said there were now fewer rural people to do it.

Not correct.

Fewer rural people prepared to do it.

20 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Plus housing issues etc.

Accomodation is normally provided.

 

20 minutes ago, feral chile said:

It also mentioned slave labour.

squirrel :rolleyes:

 

[feral chile]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

those who choose to not contribute, the ones you talked about.

 

the purpose of work is not to be enjoyable. 

Not correct.

Fewer rural people prepared to do it.

Accomodation is normally provided.

 

squirrel :rolleyes:

 

And who is it that you think should pick the fruit? I already said I thought locals might do it, rather than people who had to temporarily move there. I don't think unemployed families could do it. That farmer link quoted £49 a week rent for a caravan. That could be a bargain for some, promise of work thrown in. But risky for others.

[gary1979666]

5 hours ago, feral chile said:

The surplus, from your argument, would surely be, anything above subsistence level?

People need incentives to work. Particularly in innovative areas like cancer research. So the researchers might well have altruistic motives but need the financial backing necessary to conduct the research. And the drug needs to be tested and manufactured.

The purchase price of the drug dropped tenfold the instant the patent expired. That means a profit, and motivations built on something other than contributions to society. Like greed.

So you have profit making companies paying more altruistic employees to contribute life saving drugs to society.

The researchers don't get the difference between cost and purchase price, they're one of the costs.

But that difference is what motivates the companies. Profit. A return on their investment.

And, a purchase price ten times more than what's still a profitable transaction, I'd say signifies  greed exploiting need.

 

 

Adding to what Neil said earlier; the companies who develop the drugs want to recover their cost.  Not just on Pill A costs, which they go on to sell at a premium - so all the researcher's time, equipment, materials, testing etc.  But also there will be a Pill B, C, D, E, ....which didn't go on to be viable. 

ONce a drug goes generic, a bog standard pharma producer can follow the recipe and produce it at a fraction of the cost, as has no costs of research or failed product development.

You are right, of course, there is a profit being made here - investors put money into these companies and want to see a return, otherwise, why not just put their cash in the mattress. But it's certainly not as one sided as you make out. 

[feral chile]

6 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Adding to what Neil said earlier; the companies who develop the drugs want to recover their cost.  Not just on Pill A costs, which they go on to sell at a premium - so all the researcher's time, equipment, materials, testing etc.  But also there will be a Pill B, C, D, E, ....which didn't go on to be viable. 

ONce a drug goes generic, a bog standard pharma producer can follow the recipe and produce it at a fraction of the cost, as has no costs of research or failed product development.

You are right, of course, there is a profit being made here - investors put money into these companies and want to see a return, otherwise, why not just put their cash in the mattress. But it's certainly not as one sided as you make out. 

I know risk is a huge factor. Because of how capitalism works.

It's the whole system I have a problem with.

The point I was making is the disconnect between effort and reward.

Though altruism and prestige would be rewards here. Nobody at the moment would laud fruit pickers. Or dream of saving lives through picking fruit.  If the food shortage predictions prove accurate, our values might change. Finding a cure for cancer may be yesterday's dream.

[feral chile]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

"while some British workers engaged in seasonal labour up until the end of the 20th century, their desire to do so appears to have waned dramatically"

That's the root problem. They're thinking themselves too good for the work - while being happy for foreigners to do it.

It's the complete opposite of good socialist values.

 

Quote

 

The entire working culture of the UK has transformed since British workers last filled seasonal farm work jobs to any significant extent. Rural communities have been transformed due to the “drift from the land” of locals, and people from cities moving to the country or buying second homes, pricing potential farm workers out of the local housing market.

As a result, physically able unemployed people are now less likely to live anywhere near the farms requiring workers. Transport systems in rural areas are limited, and basic, temporary housing is unlikely to attract people away from comfortable, permanent housing situated close to friends and family.

The current benefits system also deters the unemployed from engaging in any kind of seasonal work due to the inflexibility of signing on and off. Add this to the inconsistency of work availability itself, and there is little wonder why no compulsion exists to pick fruit.

 

From that article.

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, feral chile said:

And who is it that you think should pick the fruit?

Unemployed people?

I know, an outrageous suggestion.

 

42 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I already said I thought locals might do it, rather than people who had to temporarily move there.

but then gave them every excuse to not do it, which was my point.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, feral chile said:

From that article.

"The entire working culture of the UK has transformed"

Didn't you get that was my point?

For some it's transformed into a no-working-I'll-live-off-the-backs-of-others culture (just like any tory!), with some saying that's OK even while screaming about the evils of non-provision of the stuff that comes from work, with even some dullards trying to suggest that such a no-work culture is a socialist ideal.

There's fuck all socialist in believing yourself too good for particular jobs, there's fuck all that's socialist in thinking certain work is only good for foreigners, and there's fuck all that's socialist in wanting immigration to continue so that forrins can do the work that you wouldn't.

Just because the entire UK working culture has transformed, there's no need to lie to ourselves about the self-serving snobbery and exploitation that's at its new heart - and not just in the hearts of those voting tory.

Edited June 7, 2018 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

"The entire working culture of the UK has transformed"

Didn't you get that was my point?

For some it's transformed into a no-working-I'll-live-off-the-backs-of-others culture (just like any tory!), with some saying that's OK even while screaming about the evils of non-provision of the stuff that comes from work, with even some dullards trying to suggest that such a no-work culture is a socialist ideal.

There's fuck all socialist in believing yourself too good for particular jobs, there's fuck all that's socialist in thinking certain work is only good for foreigners, and there's fuck all that's socialist in wanting immigration to continue so that forrins can do the work that you wouldn't.

Just because the entire UK working culture has transformed, there's no need to lie to ourselves about the self-serving snobbery and exploitation that's at its new heart - and not just in the hearts of those voting tory.

People tend to move in and out of benefits. It's a safety net. Often the jobs are not where the unemployed people are.

No doubt if this becomes an emergency, more organised attempts will be made to get people to the jobs, which will entail placing more value on the jobs. Which automatically places more value on the workers.

This would mean changing public perception of these jobs as exploitative.