mistermack

I've just seen a repeat of a satire show, done just before the invasion. Boris Johnson said there would be "significant consequences" and Liz Truss (next PM) said there would be a "severe cost". How right they were. They didn't say that the cost would be for us, not Putin though. I also read elsewhere that Olaf Scholz went to see Zelenskyy just weeks before, and asked him to abandon the intention of joining NATO to avoid invasion. Zelenskyy turned him down flat. Does anybody still think he's a wise and gracious leader, who's guiding his country down the best available path? Putin's ok. He's got sky-high prices for his exports, and his Ruble is doing really well. And his European enemies are in deep economic woe, and it's not even winter. The US is doing great, it's energy rich so little to worry about and much to celebrate. Ukraine on the other hand is doing rather badly. You get what you vote for. That's 'democracy' Ukraine style.

My position is that the employer has LESS power than the normal buyer/seller situation that pervades all normal walks of life. I think I've already made that clear. If you want to put that aside, your argument is contrived.

Start a thread on monopolies, if you want to go into that.

"You're not a deluded person, IMO, which means you are more likely being disingenuous here… unless, of course, you can explain your thinking since I obviously may be misunderstanding it?" If you want to ignore the normal, worldwide, thousands of years old normal state of affairs, where the buyer can choose what he spends his money on, and whether he wants to pay the asking price, if you want to ignore all that, then you can make a very contrived case for saying that the employer has more power. You might say it gives me, the employer, the right to tell you, the employee, what to do at work. That's unequal. But it's stating the bleedin obvious, it's just normal reality. Ignore reality by all means, and make your case. I don't agree with it. In the real world, money gives people power, in nearly all walks of life. The power to buy things.That is the accepted norm. If you want to change that, abolish money.

What planet are you from? On this planet, when you spend your money, you are entitled to choose what you spend it on. But if you sell something, it's up to you to make the quality and price attractive. That is almost a law of nature, it's so fundamental. Employers buy your time, along with your skills. You sell your time, along with your talent. If you think sellers should have the right to force a sale price on you, you're going against the normal way the world works.

You're questions rarely make any sense.

Personally, I think that fusion energy HAS to be pursued, even if it takes a hundred years to achieve economical tech. There's a limit to solar and wind, and gaps in the continuity of supply that we have to plug with fossil fuel. But whether CO2 does eventually cause climate disaster or not, fossil fuels will get harder and harder to find, and more and more expensive. We do owe children who are yet to be born something, and if we have grossly overpopulated the planet, we could at least provide them with plentiful cheap power to alleviate some of the damage.

In many jobs, it's a recipe for argument and jealosy. But what you seem to constantly ignore is that if you feel undervalued you are free find a better paying job. That's the nature of a market.

Thank you. Much appreciated. And you really ARE suited. You're welcome. 😊

Like what? Useful in what way? When I need an eye operation, I don't go to a philosopher who bangs on about wisdom, I go to someone who has the facts at his fingertips. Confucius he say "how does an eye work? Fucked if I know! "

As others have pointed out, this isn't just your take on the issue, or a perspective you've adopted; it's flat out wrong. I've known employers who think like you, who resent paid vacations and sick leave because they've fooled themselves into thinking the employee is taking advantage of them. Self-important cry babies with resources who resent the folks who work for them, boo-hoo all the way to the bank. You apparently have no scruples about arguing that black is white. Unless you are talking about people working from their sick beds. And you have no idea what I resent. I already made it clear I was just replying to John Cuthber's false claim about the balance of inequality of the employer/employee relationship, not my own particular preferences. You're just wasting your time kicking a straw man, by replying to posts out of context.

In a way, it's looking like fusion energy WILL save the planet from a climate disaster. Because while cheap fusion energy is always thirty years in the future, climate disaster is always eighty years in the future.

What rubbish. Where do you get that stuff, or is it just invented? Stalin did a bit of damage in his time. It never hurt him. I don't know why people bang on about Plato and Socrates so much. They may have been very bright, but they didn't have the weapons that modern people have, ie, facts. If they were about today, they would be worth listening to. But they were working with their eyes shut, their ears plugged, and their hands tied behind their backs compared to people today. That's why Darwin and Richard Dawkins are worth my attention, whereas Socrates and Plato are just oddities, to be read for fun. You won't learn anything useful, but it might pass the time.

You can call it whatever you like. It's still money paid by the employer, while the employee is doing no work. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't happen, I'm just saying that the employer/employee relationship is NOT unequal in favour of employers. If it was so easy employing people and 'living off' their work, we'd all do it. What I would agree IS easy, is investing money, and living off people's work. That's where the exploitation happens. But, if you have a better alternative than a capitalist system, then I'm all for it.

I'd like to know how Socrates justified his belief in a soul. But suppose it was just different times. Gods and souls didn't get questioned as much as they should have. It seems illogical now, for him to do all of that thinking about his soul, without first trying to establish for a fact whether he had one or not.

Swansont and John Cuthber, if you check back, you'll find that my post that you are taking issue with, was a response to John Cuthber's claim that the employer/employee relationship is fundamentally unequal, in favour of the employer. I simply pointed out several reasons why that is not so. You seem to be taking my post in isolation, ignoring the reply context. I fully stand by my remarks in that context, I think they are sound as an answer to a false claim. In any case, the relationship varies industry by industry and job by job. That's the nature of a market. If your skills are in demand and vital to a highly profitable enterprise, YOU have the whip hand. As with premiership footballers. In other cases, the employer will be in a stronger postition. But it's up to you, as an employee, to achieve skills through work and talent. If you don't, you can't expect the Union to get you the same money as people who grafted and studied to get where they are. In any case, as I said much earlier, how is it right that an employer who is facing people who WON'T do the work they are employed to do, can't sack them? Or even bring in temps to do the work? That is fundamentally wrong and truly IS unequal.

Didn't he die by forced poisoning? Maybe someone decided to use the scientific method to test his hypothesis.

I'm actually surprised that practical jokers haven't performed more and better bigfoot japes. The stuff that does exist is pretty dated and tame. If they can fake a moon landing, you would think faking bigfoot would be a doddle. 😊

Bigfoot bones. What happens to them? Nobody's ever found a bigfoot bone. Nowhere on earth. Ever. Nor bigfoot hair. Nor bigfoot shit. Don't they shit? Or perhaps they are a bit fastidious. People go hunting every day with dogs. Don't the dogs EVER tree a bigfoot? Don't bigfeet ever die in a forest fire, and get found later, like other animals? In the era when everyone carrys a mobile phone, the bigfeet never get snapped or videod. Maybe they have mobiles too.

Occams razor will very quickly find that there were millions of instances of humans doing practical jokes last year. Some are even done by farmers, trampling corn in circles with their big feet.

Oh right, so it's a bit like murder then? It's now illegal so it never happens now. Just try and get a job as a fireman. You'll eventually find after a lot of waiting and trying that you need to "know someone".

That's how the union bosses see it these days. A fight. Meanwhile, in Germany, they get on with the job and make stuff. Mostly without fighting. Britain got rich by fighting foreigners, not each other. Maybe the pendulum has swung back too far. I still say the market is the best judge of a jobs worth. Private employers will pay to get staff, but only if they can make money. The unions are only getting militant where they have a captive defenceless cash cow, like the tax payer, or the train traveller. People who have no choice but to pay. You don't see the same militancy in private firms, because they know that the customers can go elsewhere, and they will end up out of a job. Negotiation by strike has had it's day. I will welcome any laws that are brought in to curb it.

I don't find your responses particularly informed or useful. Others have posted cogent posts, but yours are becoming rude, and certainly not worth reading. Byeeee.

You're talking about Arthur Scargill aren't you ! But the truth is, the asshole took on the government and lost. And where did it get him, or the miners? Scargill ended up as leader of the scabs, walking back into work while others were still on strike, like King Scab. Now there are a bunch of new assholes, intent on the same battle.

It's incredibly clever, especially played from memory. But I'm afraid emotionally it left me a bit cold. Here are two of my all time instrumental favourites, that really stir me up inside too :