No Fault Evictions

[Jacob]

It’s very easy to use a Belize or Musk as an example of rich but they are in the 0.001% not the 5% that are targeted by tax hikes.

You mean the 5% who have loadsa dosh and can afford to pay higher taxes and help social progress and civilisation?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/24/despite-what-jeremy-hunt-thinks-high-income-salary

 

[John Brown]

It’s very easy to use a Belize or Musk as an example of rich but they are in the 0.001% not the 5% that are targeted by tax hikes.

Forgive my ignorance, as I don't know who Belize is, but I wasn't meaning to use them as an example of rich, just trying to demonstrate that the graph of hard work versus reward is nothing like a straight line. Added to which, why should it be that someone who works with their hands should be paid a fraction of what a "quant" working in the city does? There's very little correlation between hard work and high earnings, as some occupations are deemed more worthy than others.
In my opinion.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Will anyone ever go to prison for Grenfell? Or Post Office/Horizon? Or the contaminated blood scandal? (To name just the ones that immediately spring to mind) No one was ever found guilty for Hillsborough (apart from a club official for a minor H&S breach). These public inquiries are all very well, but where's the justice?

Prosecutions, if they happen at all, will be few and far between. In the case of Grenfall:

• the roots of the problem go back a couple of decades,
• involve two political parties and several responsible ministers
• others implicated- contractors, architects, fire brigade, manufacturers, building regs etc
• all key players will argue the fault lies elsewhere

The bigger argument may be who should pay for rectification and/or personal suffering.

For publicly owned buildings prime rectification responsibility should fall to government - probably the local authority. In principle the LA should seek to recover what it can from those culpable.

For privately owned buildings it is the building owner who should take prime responsibility, pursing others for a contribution. Whether the government should step in given the obvious difficulties this presents may be an uncertain precedent - a moral hazard.

There will be other building or material failures in the future. Allocating responsibility will be time consuming and uncertain - reliance on those originally involved is unreliable. Solution - a levy on all construction creating a fund from which justified but unfunded claims can be paid.

The way public enquiries are commissioned and run need fundamental review - currently:

• they take far too long to reach a conclusion
• prosecution of the culpable is compromised by the passing of time
• the cost of an extended enquiry is immense

Justice delayed in justice denied. Recommendations arising are delayed and frequently rendered irrelevant through the passing of time.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

That was communism and very much their own version.
Arguably an improvement on the imperialist slave state which preceded it, in a few ways at least, for some of the time.
Ended December 25, 1991. The new regime degenerated into a dictatorship and so-called "free market" gangster economy, influenced by neo-liberalism from USA and UK.
Russia was never remotely socialist in the democratic UK way e.g. as exemplified by the Attlee government.

The socialist utopia which you imagine does not, and has not, ever existed. There are no examples to show what humanity can do for and with each other - at least none of which I am aware.

A belief that such a utopia could exist if humanity made the right choices is entirely decent, although to my mind naïve.

Pragmatists tend to respond to observable realities rather than ideals, however worthy:

 

[ey_tony]

Moral or social values, such as those espoused by capitalists.

You don't need to be a socialist to have moral and social values....whatever gave you the idea that only socialists have those values?
Absolute nonsense.
Socialists don't have a monopoly of social values, if they had then they wouldn't be punishing success with punitive taxation.
Just like the nonsense spouted by religious people who portray the myth that only those who believe in their imaginary gods are able to live a good and wholesome life!

Comparing the two ideologies of religion with socialism, all socialists are arguably guilty of breaking the 10th Commandment!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Working class tends to mean people who work for wages generally so low that they do not accumulate wealth.

So it means what you want it to mean.

 

[Chris152]

The socialist utopia which you imagine does not, and has not, ever existed. There are no examples to show what humanity can do for and with each other - at least none of which I am aware.

A belief that such a utopia could exist if humanity made the right choices is entirely decent, although to my mind naïve.

Pragmatists tend to respond to observable realities rather than ideals, however worthy:
View attachment 187816

Who's arguing for a 'socialist utopia'? Nobody in this thread as far as I can see.* Some are arguing that socialism is an important force in a decent society. Jacob doesn't need my defence in this, but he's repeated that many, many times and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's thoroughly pragmatic.

*There seems to be a willful misrepresentation of this through the thread by many, as socialism is pushed to the extreme in order to attack it.

 

[Chris152]

All talk of meritocracy is fine, except that it doesn't really mean what you think it does, if anything. The "cracy" part means power, while the "merit" part is highly subjective. I've no doubt that most people would agree that those who work hard should be rewarded, but maybe it could be a more linear relationship, rather than the massively exponential one that seems to exist. As I asked a while back, does Jeff Bezoz work 2,000 harder than your average Joe? Somebody responded that the opening was there, and anyone could have started Amazon, but obviously not everyone could, or who'd be the customer base.
I'm not after any of your money, by the way, but I do think the current system is totally skewed in favour of the haves, to the detriment of the have nots.

Monbiot puts it rather well, I think:

If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves – that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive – are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren’t responsible. Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.

 

[Scruples]

Working class tends to mean people who work for wages generally so low that they do not accumulate wealth.
It used to mean unskilled or semi skilled but the boundaries become blurred as the nature of work changes. Definitions become loose descriptions, not always useful.
The book to read is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_English_Working_Class
Also "Blood in the Machine" which talks of the consequences of industrialisation/automation from the early days of the industrial revolution through to current topic of Artificial Intelligence, with the associated inevitability of redundancy and unemployment. It's a much easier read than the above! https://www.newscientist.com/articl...he-machine-review-going-back-to-the-luddites/

Hmm...I was working class, but I don't fit your definition, even loosely. Mine was a meritorious career. Started as an apprentice ended up as a software designer/IT manager and retired with enough put away in savings and 3 private pensions to keep me and my family financially secure. I am not alone in that career path; it happens to a lot of people.
Tradesmen, these days, do very well and can, on their own merit, build a nestegg to carry them through retirement and more.

It comes down to what people want, Jacob. Some, like me, want to do well, work hard and move up in life and others just want a wage and little responsibility. This is where meritocracy can work well. It boils down to wanting something badly enough you're prepared to work for it, or to take what life hands out and enjoy the pressure-free existence, albeit on a lower income.

Those, who have enjoyed favoured upbringing and better education still have to prove themselves worthy of high-powered jobs in governemts; the competiton is high and the careers tend to be short, but worrthwhile. Others,, with wealth but with less educational success, start companies and leave the management to run them. They tent to have enough savvy to hire good managers and even better financial advisors. Those without the savvy, usually become another statistic in the failed company lists.

 

[Jacob]

Hmm...I was working class, but I don't fit your definition, even loosely.

Well you did at one point. It's a shifting target. So what?

.... It boils down to wanting something badly enough you're prepared to work for it, or to take what life hands out and enjoy the pressure-free existence, albeit on a lower income.

Do you seriously think this is a decision which people freely make? There are millions of low paid workers putting in long hours on tedious jobs, probably working harder and under greater pressure than you.
It's a total delusion that poverty is a life style choice.
Odd how so many successful, property-owning, tax-resenting, right-wingers, seem to have the same sense of self importance and contempt for those less successful.
Simultaneously self-congratulatory but self-pitying about having to contribute to society.
One thing overlooked is that it's a revolving door - many people are moving in and out of changing circumstances - it could be you next.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Forgive my ignorance, as I don't know who Belize is, but I wasn't meaning to use them as an example of rich, just trying to demonstrate that the graph of hard work versus reward is nothing like a straight line. Added to which, why should it be that someone who works with their hands should be paid a fraction of what a "quant" working in the city does? There's very little correlation between hard work and high earnings, as some occupations are deemed more worthy than others.
In my opinion.

Autocorrect Bezoz

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Manualcorrect Bezos.

 

[John Brown]

Monbiot puts it rather well, I think:

If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves – that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive – are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren’t responsible. Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.

Agreed. Monbiot expresses it much better than I could.

 

[John Brown]

You don't need to be a socialist to have moral and social values....whatever gave you the idea that only socialists have those values?
Absolute nonsense.

Firstly, I didn't say that, and secondly, I think most of what you say is absolute nonsense.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Forgive my ignorance, as I don't know who Belize is, but I wasn't meaning to use them as an example of rich, just trying to demonstrate that the graph of hard work versus reward is nothing like a straight line. Added to which, why should it be that someone who works with their hands should be paid a fraction of what a "quant" working in the city does? There's very little correlation between hard work and high earnings, as some occupations are deemed more worthy than others.
In my opinion.

It’s a factor of how much revenue workers generate that determines the reward they get. Some one working all day weaving baskets will earn less than some one working all day trading equities because of the simple fact the basket weavers products will bring in £100’s in profits vs the trader bringing in £Ms in profit. I know the view of many is the basket weaver is a more ‘worthy’ worker than a merchant banker but the reality is that reward is related to the value created. If no one wanted next day delivery of pretty much anything then Bezoz would probably be an Uber driver.
This is also the problem with unions. They try to protect jobs that don’t generate revenue at the expense of the job in the long run.
If no one wants baskets don’t expect to make a living making baskets.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Manualcorrect Bezos.

Dyslexia rules KO.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Dyslexics lure, KO.

 

[Jacob]

It’s a factor of how much revenue workers generate that determines the reward they get. Some one working all day weaving baskets will earn less than some one working all day trading equities because of the simple fact the basket weavers products will bring in £100’s in profits vs the trader bringing in £Ms in profit. I know the view of many is the basket weaver is a more ‘worthy’ worker than a merchant banker but the reality is that reward is related to the value created. If no one wanted next day delivery of pretty much anything then Bezoz would probably be an Uber driver.

You think everybody should be merchant bankers?
If they were, do you think they could manage without "basket makers", delivery drivers etc.

This is also the problem with unions. They try to protect jobs that don’t generate revenue at the expense of the job in the long run.

What, they should just relax and allow the re-introduction of slavery? Are low wages too high in your opinion?

If no one wants baskets don’t expect to make a living making baskets.

No one wants to pay rents but they don't have the choice.

 

[ey_tony]

Firstly, I didn't say that, and secondly, I think most of what you say is absolute nonsense.

Of course you would!

 

[woodieallen]

..... Somebody responded that the opening was there, and anyone could have started Amazon, but obviously not everyone could, or who'd be the customer base.
.....

But the fact is that there was an opening, Bezoz spotted it and the rest, as they say, is history. There will be other openings.