hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 587 of 614 FirstFirst ... 87487537577584585586587588589590597 ... LastLast
Results 11,721 to 11,740 of 12269

Thread: (UK EURO THREAD) UK POLITICS MK2

  1. #11721
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,961
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    And it also brings up the cost to society because such children will most likely require far greater expenditure on the part of the State.
    This is the real framing of the issue in neoliberal policy making, everything else is used as a moral smokescreen. The idea that you can quantitatively measure everyone's contribution to society and this determines moral worth is ultimately what will shape the decision making process.

    And that's why I refuse to engage with the issue on anything beyond an individual, personal level.
    No it is a genuine issue. Bring a child into the world who will require millions in medical and care costs, while never being able to directly contribute back is an issue in a society with limited resources. Every modern society has ever increasing demands being placed on its medical systems due to aging and the ability to treat a ever-expanding range of medical conditions.

    You can put more resources into the hospitals and disabled care by that addition has to come from somewhere - taxes, other programs, borrowing.

    It's not like a person who has an accident and winds up disabled. In the case of a child with a genetic abnormality that is detected in utero then it is an issue not just for mother.

    Currently we allow the mother to choose. Activists want to take that away, either forcing or preventing such abortions.

    I am not saying that the above is right. But as the Government expands its reach into every aspect of peoples' lives the Government is going to start having a say if it is paying the bills.
    Not important.

    You could make similar arguments for other personal choices that balloon healthcare spending.

    It's any country's responsibility to cover these people, no questions asked. If you buy into this healthcare-costs-are-a-choice framing, then there's all kinds of coercive and intrusive measures that could be theoretically adopted to cut costs.

    There's already insurance plans in the US that dole out Fitbits and similar devices to "encourage" employees to exercise more.
    You do realise that even Government funded healthcare systems make financial decisions on patient treatment all the time. And I am all for preventative measures to keep people from developing medical conditions.

    What we are talking about is cross-subsidies in a society, after all the whole intergenerational argument against boomers comes down to a group being subsidized by everyone else. It is a legitimate area for discussion.

  2. #11722
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    The trouble there is treating (and designing) the government as some sort of benevolent mega corporation treating citizens as fungible units of labour.
    It doesn't matter how the Government views its citizens - as fungible units of labour or individually distinct citizens with inalienable rights - it still has limited resources that it must allocate across all citizens or labour units. It can do that fairly or unfairly.

    The question is does any individual have the right to impose a burden on the Government that will force it to shift the allocation of resources away from other citizens to that individual citizen.

    It is a utilitarian argument more than a Neoliberal one. A socialist society would face the same questions.

    In this case I think the status quo was working - a mother who had the tests got to decide (an many don't have the tests which is another issue) whether to give birth to a disabled child, and the Government provided some support. But as soon as some parents demand far more support it opened up the issue as the Royal Commission will accept submissions and some of those are coming from groups who want to insert themselves into an already fraught situation.

    There are also activists pushing against the provision of cochlear implants for deaf children as it threatens the deaf community.
    When discussing having a baby with my ex we talked about screening, choices if an abnormality was detected etc. Neither of us wanted a child with Down's Syndrome (or any sort of severe disability) and she had to go for some extra testing after one of the scans. IIRC the chance of her carrying a Down's child was on the order of 1/200 and the chance of a complication from the test was 1/1000 (or some similar order of magnitude difference).

    There seems to be a big subsector of the 'Pro Choice' movement who are ok with abortion unless you choose to abort a child with a disability or terminal illness.
    It isn't big, its just noisy.

  3. #11723

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    There's a difference between saying "the particular subject of out-group hatred is manufactured" and "out-group hatred is entirely manufactured".

    Bias, up to an including hatred, against out-groups is a normal part of the human condition. Deliberately focussing that hatred on a particular group for political gain is the outcome of human intent.

    I do agree that blaming Immigrants for taking jobs / keeping wages low is a manufactured target. In the same way Britishness is a manufactured construct that makes people think BoJo is one of them and on their side.

    I don't agree with dismissing it as non-existent or as easy to overcome for an individual on whom that process of indoctrination has acted.

    Tl;dr the human tendency to default to us/them dichotomies is normal, which us/them dichotomies form is manufactured.
    I disagree that identifying immigrants as a target for 'in-out' is overly manufactured. I quoted you but you're not the only one making this claim. If anything is manufactured, it is the pressure to be very inclusive to immigrants.

    Top 5 Corporations in US
    Walmart
    Exxon Mobil
    Apple
    Berkshire Hathaway
    Amazon

    All corporations above either are latent or actively push positivity towards immigration, excepting only maybe WalMart.

    Top 5 Richest people in the US
    Jeff Bezos
    Bill Gates
    Warren Buffett
    Mark Zuckerberg
    Larry Ellison

    Four out of five actively push positivity toward immigration, with Larry Ellison being the exception.

    Top 5 Richest Cities in US
    NYC
    LA
    Chicago
    SF
    DC

    All cities have mayors and councils that are positive toward immigration

    Top 5 Universities in US
    Harvard
    Yale
    Princeton
    Columbia
    MIT

    All actively push for positivity toward immigration.

    I don't agree with what Keckers says. Capital overwhelmingly sides with immigration. Immigration is profitable for corporations and national economies! I'd argue the conflict with the immigrants comes from the individual level and is most pronounced among the poor. You are acting like it is manufactured, but that implies the pressure is coming from rich powerful institutions downwards to the individual level. I do not agree, I think it is more of a grass-roots upwards pressure and some politicians act on this grass-roots level to form national movements -- it is not the other way around.

  4. #11724
    Totally Not Larkonnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2012
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    At what stage in a pregnancy are these conditions detectable?
    A lot of genetic conditions aren't detectable before birth. A lot of serious abnormalities are obviously picked up at the 12 and 20 week scans. There are a lot of markers for the likes of Down's Syndrome that can be picked up during routine ultrasound but they generally need to be confirmed via an invasive test which carries it's own risk to the fetus and the mother.


  5. #11725
    Totally Not Larkonnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2012
    Posts
    1,001
    On the subject of 'Eugenics'...

    If you were doing IVF and you had 12 embryos and you're only allowed to implant 4. Would you go for a random choice or the four after screening who had a lesser propensity for mental illness?


  6. #11726
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    At what stage in a pregnancy are these conditions detectable?
    A lot of genetic conditions aren't detectable before birth. A lot of serious abnormalities are obviously picked up at the 12 and 20 week scans. There are a lot of markers for the likes of Down's Syndrome that can be picked up during routine ultrasound but they generally need to be confirmed via an invasive test which carries it's own risk to the fetus and the mother.
    Was going to try and say that if one is in favour of abortion then why does it matter what the reason is behind it, especially if you don’t ascribe moral/ethical value to something you don’t consider human.

    (I am for abortion, just trying to frame this neutrally)

  7. #11727
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    And it also brings up the cost to society because such children will most likely require far greater expenditure on the part of the State.
    This is the real framing of the issue in neoliberal policy making, everything else is used as a moral smokescreen. The idea that you can quantitatively measure everyone's contribution to society and this determines moral worth is ultimately what will shape the decision making process.

    And that's why I refuse to engage with the issue on anything beyond an individual, personal level.
    No it is a genuine issue. Bring a child into the world who will require millions in medical and care costs, while never being able to directly contribute back is an issue in a society with limited resources. Every modern society has ever increasing demands being placed on its medical systems due to aging and the ability to treat a ever-expanding range of medical conditions.

    You can put more resources into the hospitals and disabled care by that addition has to come from somewhere - taxes, other programs, borrowing.

    It's not like a person who has an accident and winds up disabled. In the case of a child with a genetic abnormality that is detected in utero then it is an issue not just for mother.

    Currently we allow the mother to choose. Activists want to take that away, either forcing or preventing such abortions.

    I am not saying that the above is right. But as the Government expands its reach into every aspect of peoples' lives the Government is going to start having a say if it is paying the bills.
    Not important.

    You could make similar arguments for other personal choices that balloon healthcare spending.

    It's any country's responsibility to cover these people, no questions asked. If you buy into this healthcare-costs-are-a-choice framing, then there's all kinds of coercive and intrusive measures that could be theoretically adopted to cut costs.

    There's already insurance plans in the US that dole out Fitbits and similar devices to "encourage" employees to exercise more.
    You do realise that even Government funded healthcare systems make financial decisions on patient treatment all the time. And I am all for preventative measures to keep people from developing medical conditions.

    What we are talking about is cross-subsidies in a society, after all the whole intergenerational argument against boomers comes down to a group being subsidized by everyone else. It is a legitimate area for discussion.
    Well I'm making a normative statement on what the priorities should be. You're just describing the world as it is, and saying that's good enough. I don't use what starved healthcare systems are currently doing under right or center-right governments as a guide.

    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post

    I don't agree with what Keckers says. Capital overwhelmingly sides with immigration. Immigration is profitable for corporations and national economies! I'd argue the conflict with the immigrants comes from the individual level and is most pronounced among the poor. You are acting like it is manufactured, but that implies the pressure is coming from rich powerful institutions downwards to the individual level. I do not agree, I think it is more of a grass-roots upwards pressure and some politicians act on this grass-roots level to form national movements -- it is not the other way around.
    Not really. It sides with a certain kind of immigration. The kind that is easily exploitable, place-based and restricted.

    That's why liberal and faux-progressive corporate rhetoric on immigration is just a compliment to right-wing politics.

    "Hey dumbass they make all your food and clothing for cheap and work 10x harder than you" kind of skips the critical stage where we acknowledge them as humans rather than nifty little work-units who give us cheap avocados. It's also classic neoliberal mindset to pit two struggling groups of people against each other in a cage match.

  8. #11728
    Totally Not Larkonnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2012
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post

    Not really. It sides with a certain kind of immigration. The kind that is easily exploitable, place-based and restricted.

    That's why liberal and faux-progressive corporate rhetoric on immigration is just a compliment to right-wing politics.

    "Hey dumbass they make all your food and clothing for cheap and work 10x harder than you" kind of skips the critical stage where we acknowledge them as humans rather than nifty little work-units who give us cheap avocados. It's also classic neoliberal mindset to pit two struggling groups of people against each other in a cage match.


    Maybe Pret could pay English people a decent wage?
    Last edited by Totally Not Larkonnis; February 19 2020 at 05:03:44 PM.


  9. #11729
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    At what stage in a pregnancy are these conditions detectable?
    A lot of genetic conditions aren't detectable before birth. A lot of serious abnormalities are obviously picked up at the 12 and 20 week scans. There are a lot of markers for the likes of Down's Syndrome that can be picked up during routine ultrasound but they generally need to be confirmed via an invasive test which carries it's own risk to the fetus and the mother.
    Was going to try and say that if one is in favour of abortion then why does it matter what the reason is behind it, especially if you donít ascribe moral/ethical value to something you donít consider human.

    (I am for abortion, just trying to frame this neutrally)
    I agree, as long as it is the mother's choice to have an abortion then the reasons shouldn't matter.

    But many groups disagree. One example is abortion (mostly but not always female fetuses) for sex selection. Some people who are otherwise pro-choice have issues with this. And of course pro-life groups seize on this as a wedge they can use to place more limitations on abortions.

    IVF is another matter as most of the work on the embryos occurs outside of the mother's body prior to implantation, and IVF embryos are viewed as property (in Oz at least).

  10. #11730
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    The trouble there is treating (and designing) the government as some sort of benevolent mega corporation treating citizens as fungible units of labour.
    It doesn't matter how the Government views its citizens - as fungible units of labour or individually distinct citizens with inalienable rights - it still has limited resources that it must allocate across all citizens or labour units. It can do that fairly or unfairly.

    The question is does any individual have the right to impose a burden on the Government that will force it to shift the allocation of resources away from other citizens to that individual citizen.
    what right does a government have to take resources away from its citizen in the first place ?

    this is literately a step removed from the taxation-is-theft type argument max, the point of the social safety net is to ensure a reasonable standard of living regardless of circumstances or choices made. once you throw that principle out the window in a frenzy of means testing you get entirely predictable outcomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    It is a utilitarian argument more than a Neoliberal one. A socialist society would face the same questions.
    blind utalitarianism can, and often do produce morally horrific outcomes. that's the crux of Nozick's utility monster and the attendant arguments. starving 20 million people to death to keep the proverbial utility monster happy is certainly a utilitarian thing to do, but it is not a morally defensible one.

    utalitarianism has it's place, but it's modern-day application, as exemplified by the diarrhoea of pure ideology you just put up is outright corrosive.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Does like all of Scandinavia have scans for genetic abnormalities which has resulted in pretty much everyone who detects one to decide to have an abortion and try again? By choice?

    Sent from my Potato using my fingers
    they're offered, but the choice is left entirely to the parents discretion, there is some discussion of flat out destroying the records post-test in order to remove even the possibility of future repercussions, but i doubt it will lead anywhere.
    but it has led to active selection against things like down syndrome.

    in my view, it's a complicated issue, on one hand you have the parents understandable desire for a "normal" (let's leave that entirely undefined, it's quite the rabbithole) child coupled with the fact that, to be blunt, a fetus is not a person, on the other hand there's a enormous slippery slope towards explicit designer babies and the endless ways that can and probably will be used and abused, here be sci-fi tropes. it's not as clear-cut as "okay, selecting against genetic issues like downs is okay, but designer babies are not!" either because prenatally correcting something like myopia is right about the least offensive thing i can imagine and falls clear-cut on the side "designer babies" side of the equation.

    nor do i think just having "doing x is okay, but y is not!" is going to achieve much of anything beyond making our existing class hierarchies extend into the genetic sphere of existence, groups of people are invariably going to be priced out and left behind. couple that with the fact that a narrowing of the gene-pool is, from a evolutionary standpoint, a bad idea in the first place...
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  11. #11731
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post

    Not really. It sides with a certain kind of immigration. The kind that is easily exploitable, place-based and restricted.

    That's why liberal and faux-progressive corporate rhetoric on immigration is just a compliment to right-wing politics.

    "Hey dumbass they make all your food and clothing for cheap and work 10x harder than you" kind of skips the critical stage where we acknowledge them as humans rather than nifty little work-units who give us cheap avocados. It's also classic neoliberal mindset to pit two struggling groups of people against each other in a cage match.


    Maybe Pret could pay English people a decent wage?
    Looks like you missed the point completely to rabble rabble about England for the English

    It should pay everyone a decent wage, especially immigrants.

  12. #11732
    Totally Not Larkonnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2012
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post

    Not really. It sides with a certain kind of immigration. The kind that is easily exploitable, place-based and restricted.

    That's why liberal and faux-progressive corporate rhetoric on immigration is just a compliment to right-wing politics.

    "Hey dumbass they make all your food and clothing for cheap and work 10x harder than you" kind of skips the critical stage where we acknowledge them as humans rather than nifty little work-units who give us cheap avocados. It's also classic neoliberal mindset to pit two struggling groups of people against each other in a cage match.


    Maybe Pret could pay English people a decent wage?
    Looks like you missed the point completely to rabble rabble about England for the English

    It should pay everyone a decent wage, especially immigrants.
    Why should immigrants be especially deserving of a decent wage?

    We should be looking to train our own Doctors, Nurses and Engineers etc. Those people who don't have the ability to do those jobs should be incentivised to get off the dole and get cleaning and picking fruit. The UK should not be poaching professionals or labour from the global south unless absolutely required.


  13. #11733

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post

    I don't agree with what Keckers says. Capital overwhelmingly sides with immigration. Immigration is profitable for corporations and national economies! I'd argue the conflict with the immigrants comes from the individual level and is most pronounced among the poor. You are acting like it is manufactured, but that implies the pressure is coming from rich powerful institutions downwards to the individual level. I do not agree, I think it is more of a grass-roots upwards pressure and some politicians act on this grass-roots level to form national movements -- it is not the other way around.
    Not really. It sides with a certain kind of immigration. The kind that is easily exploitable, place-based and restricted.

    That's why liberal and faux-progressive corporate rhetoric on immigration is just a compliment to right-wing politics.

    "Hey dumbass they make all your food and clothing for cheap and work 10x harder than you" kind of skips the critical stage where we acknowledge them as humans rather than nifty little work-units who give us cheap avocados. It's also classic neoliberal mindset to pit two struggling groups of people against each other in a cage match.
    A certain kind of immigration ... that is nearly all immigration? Powerful people rarely emigrate from their countries. What kinds of immigration are you thinking of?

  14. #11734
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    The trouble there is treating (and designing) the government as some sort of benevolent mega corporation treating citizens as fungible units of labour.
    It doesn't matter how the Government views its citizens - as fungible units of labour or individually distinct citizens with inalienable rights - it still has limited resources that it must allocate across all citizens or labour units. It can do that fairly or unfairly.

    The question is does any individual have the right to impose a burden on the Government that will force it to shift the allocation of resources away from other citizens to that individual citizen.
    what right does a government have to take resources away from its citizen in the first place ?

    this is literately a step removed from the taxation-is-theft type argument max, the point of the social safety net is to ensure a reasonable standard of living regardless of circumstances or choices made. once you throw that principle out the window in a frenzy of means testing you get entirely predictable outcomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    It is a utilitarian argument more than a Neoliberal one. A socialist society would face the same questions.
    blind utalitarianism can, and often do produce morally horrific outcomes. that's the crux of Nozick's utility monster and the attendant arguments. starving 20 million people to death to keep the proverbial utility monster happy is certainly a utilitarian thing to do, but it is not a morally defensible one.

    utalitarianism has it's place, but it's modern-day application, as exemplified by the diarrhoea of pure ideology you just put up is outright corrosive.
    I have never utter the words "Taxation is theft" and have advocated for the taxing of multinational corporations and the elimination of tax havens and the various dodges available for the rich. More tax revenue would obviously allow Governments to spend more.

    What I am commenting on is a specific event that has come up during a royal commission into the treatment of the disabled in Australia. The specific case was a individual who chose to have a child with multiple disabilities who wants the Government to dramatically increase its support for her child above what is normal.

    Our Government with bipartisan support has introduced a massive and complex support scheme called the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) which is providing roughly 14-16 billion a year in support to people with disabilities, so in Australia at least we have increased not cut support. Of course the scheme has all kinds of problems which is par for a new Government organization of that size.

    The particulars are obviously going to vary from nation to nation. This was an Australian example that may not apply elsewhere.

  15. #11735
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post

    I don't agree with what Keckers says. Capital overwhelmingly sides with immigration. Immigration is profitable for corporations and national economies! I'd argue the conflict with the immigrants comes from the individual level and is most pronounced among the poor. You are acting like it is manufactured, but that implies the pressure is coming from rich powerful institutions downwards to the individual level. I do not agree, I think it is more of a grass-roots upwards pressure and some politicians act on this grass-roots level to form national movements -- it is not the other way around.
    Not really. It sides with a certain kind of immigration. The kind that is easily exploitable, place-based and restricted.

    That's why liberal and faux-progressive corporate rhetoric on immigration is just a compliment to right-wing politics.

    "Hey dumbass they make all your food and clothing for cheap and work 10x harder than you" kind of skips the critical stage where we acknowledge them as humans rather than nifty little work-units who give us cheap avocados. It's also classic neoliberal mindset to pit two struggling groups of people against each other in a cage match.
    A certain kind of immigration ... that is nearly all immigration? Powerful people rarely emigrate from their countries. What kinds of immigration are you thinking of?
    yeah don't care about whatever this is

    The concern is for rights and protections, and those are currently denied by a patchwork of undocumented/guest/visa immigration. Corporations are supportive of immigration in this format because they have all the power. To stay in the country, visa workers must do everything possible to please their employer. To live under the radar, undocumented workers will accept any terrible conditions or bullshit.

    Large-scale amnesty has been done before and it should be done again. The visa system should be completely changed to be less restrictive so immigrants don't need to be so scared of losing their job.
    Last edited by mewninn; February 19 2020 at 05:46:05 PM.

  16. #11736
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    I have never utter the words "Taxation is theft" and have advocated for the taxing of multinational corporations and the elimination of tax havens and the various dodges available for the rich. More tax revenue would obviously allow Governments to spend more.
    and i am not saying you have, or you did, but that your stated reasoning aligns quite closely to that specific viewpoint, i do think we agree on most of the fundamentals here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    What I am commenting on is a specific event that has come up during a royal commission into the treatment of the disabled in Australia. The specific case was a individual who chose to have a child with multiple disabilities who wants the Government to dramatically increase its support for her child above what is normal.

    Our Government with bipartisan support has introduced a massive and complex support scheme called the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) which is providing roughly 14-16 billion a year in support to people with disabilities, so in Australia at least we have increased not cut support. Of course the scheme has all kinds of problems which is par for a new Government organization of that size.

    The particulars are obviously going to vary from nation to nation. This was an Australian example that may not apply elsewhere.
    i do not know enough to have an opinion on the specific case either way, but that was not what it took issue with, it was the implication that the citizen's right to expect help from the collective or government was negotiable subject to the assessment made by that same entity. rather than defining a set of universal rights and make it the obligation of the collective/government to ensure every citizen have these rights.

    the UK's abomination of a "job centre" system is emblematic of the former viewpoint and it's consequences w.r.t. the vulnerable members of society, the citizen exists at the mercy of the state if they are unable to provide for themselves within the economic system, and if the state decides they do not meet whatever criteria the state sets well then they're on their own.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  17. #11737
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    7,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Those people who don't have the ability to do those jobs should be incentivised to get off the dole and get cleaning and picking fruit.

    Except both industries are short term, with variable working patterns and uncertain demand - not a lot of demand for hotel cleaners in the North of Scotland in the middle of winter, for example. Nor is there much demand for fruit picking in November.

    Jobs perfectly suited to casual migrants who want to earn a bit of extra money. Not jobs suited to natives who need a steady paycheque to pay the mortgage.
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

  18. #11738

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post

    I don't agree with what Keckers says. Capital overwhelmingly sides with immigration. Immigration is profitable for corporations and national economies! I'd argue the conflict with the immigrants comes from the individual level and is most pronounced among the poor. You are acting like it is manufactured, but that implies the pressure is coming from rich powerful institutions downwards to the individual level. I do not agree, I think it is more of a grass-roots upwards pressure and some politicians act on this grass-roots level to form national movements -- it is not the other way around.
    Not really. It sides with a certain kind of immigration. The kind that is easily exploitable, place-based and restricted.

    That's why liberal and faux-progressive corporate rhetoric on immigration is just a compliment to right-wing politics.

    "Hey dumbass they make all your food and clothing for cheap and work 10x harder than you" kind of skips the critical stage where we acknowledge them as humans rather than nifty little work-units who give us cheap avocados. It's also classic neoliberal mindset to pit two struggling groups of people against each other in a cage match.
    A certain kind of immigration ... that is nearly all immigration? Powerful people rarely emigrate from their countries. What kinds of immigration are you thinking of?
    yeah don't care about whatever this is

    The concern is for rights and protections, and those are currently denied by a patchwork of undocumented/guest/visa immigration. Corporations are supportive of immigration in this format because they have all the power. To stay in the country, visa workers must do everything possible to please their employer. To live under the radar, undocumented workers will accept any terrible conditions or bullshit.

    Large-scale amnesty has been done before and it should be done again. The visa system should be completely changed to be less restrictive so immigrants don't need to be so scared of losing their job.
    Yeah, we're really talking about where the source of tension with immigrants are coming from. I'm disputing the notion by several posters on FHC that it's a downward pressure, and I gave examples of different forces (rich people, rich cities, rich companies, rich universities). I wasn't talking about what you'd like the immigration system to legally be.

  19. #11739

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Those people who don't have the ability to do those jobs should be incentivised to get off the dole and get cleaning and picking fruit.

    Except both industries are short term, with variable working patterns and uncertain demand - not a lot of demand for hotel cleaners in the North of Scotland in the middle of winter, for example. Nor is there much demand for fruit picking in November.

    Jobs perfectly suited to casual migrants who want to earn a bit of extra money. Not jobs suited to natives who need a steady paycheque to pay the mortgage.
    Except it would, perhaps, be so, if it were easy to get on and off social support at will, and at short notice. One of the reasons the unemployed shy away from temporary work like that is because it takes 3 to 6 months to get back into the system! Let's face it, that's outrageous (and no doubt intentional/by design by the Tories).
    I agree completely with Barth. We have pervasive underemployment as evidenced by the gig economy. Seasonal employment would be beneficial to those people, if only it wasn't a huge struggle to get on and off benefits. With gigs, it's easy to underreport and get away with the extra income without losing benefits.

  20. #11740

    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    2,714
    This whole immigration policy is built by people who are simply incapable of remotely thinking any deeper than a shallow puddle or any longer term than when the next tea break is, no wonder Lark likes it.

    With these changes, we're going to see an almost immediate contraction in care staff, NHS staff and tradespeople. The contraction in available social care is going to place further strain on the NHS, wiping out the benefits of the additional investment the government is touting.

    Our government seems to think we can tap the economically inactive. Great idea, let's get the quadriplegics picking fruit and the full-time mothers bringing their young children to the building sites, what can possibly go wrong? As for the "let's train more of our own" mentality, they needed to be doing that five years ago so the newly qualified doctors and nurses are ready, but if anything, they've removed incentives to train to be a doctor or nurse, so availability of "native" staff has suffered.

    Finally, we've got the elephant in the room in that the UK has a low birth rate, which means our population will begin to contract, leading to an even more unbalanced population pyramid, so our tax intake is going to suffer, leading to further squeezes on things like the NHS.

    Overall, it's almost an even worse policy than no deal Brexit. It's unbelievably retarded. If only the opposition wasn't such a useless bag of wank.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •